You gotta hand it to ‘em. When it comes to audacity, brazenness, chutzpa, or whatever you choose to call it, the Clinton Family has it in spades. If we could only transplant some of their brass ballage into the RINO leadership in Congress, the country would be far better off.
The Family has to rank up there with the biggest, most successful crime families of all time. The Five New York Families (Bonanno, Colombo, Gambino, Genovese and Lucchese) have nothing on the Clintons. And, as if to show that our new, improved organized crime model honors diversity, the Clintons aren’t even Italian, much less Sicilian.
As a family of attorneys, the Clintons have identified the single most important thing that a criminal enterprise must do to stay in business – eliminate any evidence that connects them to their evil deeds. Any paper documents, emails, or people that connect them to a crime must be eliminated, either by hiding the evidence or by destroying it.
The Family has a long record of “disappearing” evidence (including people). You may remember the Rose Law Firm billing records that conveniently disappeared for two years during an investigation of Hillary’s part in the Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan scandal and the failed Whitewater investment. When the records magically appeared (two years later) the billing records proved that Hillary had lied about her connection to Madison Guaranty, but the investigation had been closed by then. She suffered no consequences.
Remember the missing “Travelgate” documents that weren’t available while an investigation was underway, but conveniently surfaced after the case was closed? By the time the evidence appeared, there was no stomach to reopen the case, the couple escaped again.
And most recently, it was revealed that Hillary’s emails during her entire four-year term as Secretary of State were stored on a secret server at her home – not on the State Department’s internal system, as expected. The outrageous impertinence of operating a personal email network and using it for official United States government diplomatic correspondence is over the top – yet, it’s beginning to look like Hillary will get away with it as well.
Ostensibly, to respond to the State Department’s request for her records, she sent printed versions of 30,490 emails to the State Department. But those were 30,490 hand-picked emails (certainly devoid of any evidence of impropriety), and she quickly deleted the remaining 31,830 emails on her server before anyone had a chance to analyze them. What was on them? Hillary says they included Chelsea’s wedding and yoga exercises. Could there have been any incriminating evidence related to Benghazi, to Huma Abedin’s special employment arrangement, or to the Clinton Foundation’s activities? Now, we’ll never know. The subject already appears to have exhausted its shelf life. The media is no longer interested and email-gate is fast becoming “old” news.
Without evidence, neither Bill nor Hillary will ever be brought to justice for any of their many alleged illegal activities.
And now we’re onto a new scandal du jour: the Clinton Foundation and the likelihood that there were quid pro quos sent the way of individuals and governments who contributed substantial sums to the Foundation. Hillary’s patronage value was at its peak while she was Secretary of State (when she was most influential), and that’s (coincidentally) when numerous high-dollar “contributions” flowed into the Foundation and six-figure speaking fees were paid to Bill for speeches.
Coincidence? I think not.
In fact, the old pay to play, funds for favors, quid pro quo activities are the subject of a new book, Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer. Though the book isn’t due to be released until May 5th, it’s already generating articles in the New York Times and Washington Post, as well as coverage on Fox News.
During their previous scandals, the Family has been able to count on the blind cooperation by the legacy media. They’ve been quick to downplay Clinton scandals, barely reporting on them and taking a pro-Clinton position when they did. That appears to be on the wane.
Uncharacteristically, the most recent exposés into the Clinton Foundation misdeeds have been led by the New York Times and the Washington Post; two outlets that previously have been supportive of the Clintons. Apparently, the allegations contained in Mr. Schweizer’s book are well documented and show a pattern of arrogance and disdain for an appearance of impropriety and have led to the media doing their own investigations to vet the evidence. If the allegations hold up, one can only say that the book exposed the Clinton’s unforced errors that may lead to Hillary’s campaign for the presidency to self-destruct.
The following quote comes from The National Journal (by: S. V. Dáte), who describes very simply what the Clintons could have done to prevent the two latest scandals:
The Clinton Foundation could have chosen to follow its 2008 “memorandum of understanding” with the Obama Transition Team to the letter. Former President Bill Clinton could have foregone taking speaking fees from clients with business before the State Department. Hillary Clinton could have conducted her official duties using official equipment and official email accounts – and then let career service professionals decide which emails were public business and which were not.
Those things would seem to be simple, ordinary activities for a Secretary of State and her ex-president husband. All would have been seen as standard operating procedure and if the Clintons would have acted accordingly, there would be two fewer scandals for Hillary to worry about.
But they didn’t perform as they should have; both Clintons chose to circumvent the usual rules and regulations. Instead, they chose to act as if the normal rules didn’t apply to them and as a result, their activities now prompt uncomfortable questions.
Why didn’t they just follow the rules? That’s a question for Hillary – and one that she’s unlikely to answer honestly. It would have been easier and simpler, but not as profitable.
If the legacy media continues to investigate and report on Hillary’s doings and, at the same time, back away from blind support of her, her candidacy is doomed. She is already on shaky ground.
Many voters don’t like Hillary acting as if she has a “right” to the presidency and they don’t feel comfortable with the multitude of scandals that surround the Clinton family. These reasons, among others, are the reason that in one recent poll, Hillary’s favorable rating was 41% while her unfavorable rating was 53%.
If the latest Clinton Foundation scandals continue to bring more questions to light, La Costa Lotta (Hillary included) may be sinking – along with her presidential hopes.
Those gray fins breaking the water’s surface do appear to be circling – do they smell blood in the water?