Is There Any Clinton Defender Who’s Not Dishonest Or Corrupt?

Roger Stone Political Consultant
Font Size:

The Clintonistas’ defense in the burgeoning Clinton Foundation scandal reminds me of the man who, when tried for the murder of his parents, argued that he should be found not guilty because he was a orphan. There is, not a shred of evidence that shows Hillary’s policies or actions were effected by the millions going into the Foundations’s coffers or Bill’s pocket, we are told. Shred is the appropriate word. In fact the gusher of money flowing into the Clinton Foundation offers the first plausible explanation for the illegal erasure thousands of her “personal” e-mails. Hillary left no trail.

Strangely enough those mounting this defense of the Clinton’s include Newsmax publisher Chris Ruddy who coughed up a million dollars to the Clintons. First Ruddy unleashed a brickbat at Fox News for their extensive coverage of the Clinton’s latest follies. “A Fox News special that aired this past Friday detailed many of the allegations from the still-unreleased book. Fox said the book showed the “tangled” and “blurred” relationships between the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons’ private or political activities. After watching the Fox program, it became clear to me the only thing “tangled” and “blurred” are the numerous unsubstantiated, unconnected, and baseless allegations being made about them,” wrote Ruddy.

Indeed, overwhelming circumstantial evidence show a pattern of at least 11 cases where issues at State enured to the benefit of the Clinton Foundation. The smoking gun Mr. Ruddy points out is missing, has been erased. Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post summed this up, pointing out the conviction of Virgina Governor McDonnell absent any proof of the quid-pro-quo for which he was convicted:

“As for the Clintons — who are not (yet) in a court of law — the lack of a quid pro quo is an especially poor defense. Hillary destroyed thousands of e-mails about her “private” dealings. Destruction of evidence — not to mention leaving foreign donations off the foundation’s tax returns (recall that McDonnell left the “loans” off bank documents) — tends to underscore that the couple was hiding something and that the evidence in those e-mails or the entities listed on the tax returns would have been incriminating. In the case of the e-mails there is a legal concept known as “spoliation of evidence.” In short, if a court finds that a party has destroyed evidence, it is permissible to assume that it would have proven guilt. (“[C]ourts have long employed the adverse inference jury instruction or ‘spoliation inference,’ to sanction spoliation of evidence. Under this inference, the jury is instructed that it may assume that the lost evidence, if available, would have been unfavorable to the spoliator.”

Nor is “pay-to-play” a Hillary Clinton’s only problem. Clinton agreed to rules laid down by the White House meant to govern her relations with the Foundation and then violated them. Money from Algeria was never vetted, the Clintons never disclosed some of the subsponsors of Hillary’s speeches, and failed to include four of Bill’s highly profitable speeches in their disclosure form.

Ruddy finds himself in odd company. The Clinton Foundation  accepted donations from a firm that was violating nuclear trade sanctions against Iran. Interpipe, a Cyprus-incorporated company owned by Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, sold oil pipelines to Iran in 2011 and 2012 in violation of U.S. sanctions but was not sanctioned for these sales while Clinton was Secretary of State. Between 2009 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation received at least $8.6 million from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation. Pinchuk also pledged more than $20 million more.

Also controversial are contributions that involve Uranium One, a Canadian uranium mining company that was taken over by the Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency. The Uranium One takeover gave Russia control of one-fifth of U.S. uranium production and advanced Russian President Vladimir Putin’s goal of controlling most of the global uranium supply chain.

Because uranium is considered a U.S. strategic asset with implications for national security, this deal had to be approved by a several U.S. government agencies, including the State Department. The Uranium One chairman used his family foundation to make $2.35 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation,while the Russians were gradually assuming control of Uranium One from 2009 to 2013. In 2005, the Clinton Foundation received a $31 million donation from the Uranium One chairman’s foundation and a pledge for an additional $100 million donation after Bill Clinton helped the company acquire uranium mines in Kazakhstan. The Clintons greased the skids for Putin to seize control of 20 percent of American uranium. Treason, anyone?

Then of course there is the money from Saudi Arabia, Hamas backing Qatar, Oman and the UAE, all nations that oppress women. “Women’s advocate” Hillary has no trouble with this tainted money. Hillary hits the Republican Senate on twitter for slow action on a sex trafficking bill but gladly takes money from convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who was sex trafficking children to an A-list of powerful men. Yes indeed, Ruddy is in strange company.

That Ruddy should now be backing the Clintons is a wonder. Ruddy wrote the definitive book on the death of Vince Foster and reached the inescapable conclusion that poor Foster’s body was moved after his death, most likely on the orders of Hillary who did want his office to become a crime scene making the Clinton’s personal files handled by Foster available to the Feds. Ruddy knows how evil the Clintons are. Ruddy tries to tell us he donates big bucks to the Clinton’s due to their “good works,” ignoring the fact that about 15 percent of the Foundation’s funds go to charitable works while the rest goes to luxury travel for the Clintons, the salaries and benefits for a huge staff of Clinton political operatives, and Foundation “expenses.” In 2013 the Foundation spent $9 million for charitable works and $8.5 million for luxury travel. The Foundation took in $148 million that year.

The Clinton Foundation is a slush fund for grifters. But rest assured, the Foundation has announced its intention to file amendments correcting their disclosures and conduct an audit. The audit we’re told will be done by PricewaterhouseCoopers out of their Little Rock Office. Yet Clinton Foundation reports show us PwC gave $1 million to the Clinton Foundation, a stunning ethical breach that raises questions about their ability to conduct an honest audit. Is there anything about the Clinton Foundation on the level?