When Hillary Clinton was nominated to be secretary of state by president Obama, she signed an agreement that dealt with the activities of the Clinton Foundation, among other things. The simplest obligation undertaken by the foundation in that agreement was that it would disclose the names of all its contributors. We've known for a while that the Clintons violated that agreement; the tens of millions of "contributions" that were received from people involved in the Uranium One deal under which Russia bought 50% of America's uranium production was only found by the author of Clinton Cash when he researched Canadian tax filings; the foundation website had no record of the "gift". Today, we know that this practice of hiding donations was not just an error; it was the standard operating practice by the Clinton Foundation. Bloomberg is reporting that the Clinton Foundation had 1100 contributions totaling a huge amount that were not reported.
The amazing thing about this latest revelation is the claim that Canadian law prohibited disclosure of these donations. You see, the Clinton Foundation set up a Canadian subsidiary charity which took in all sorts of questionable contributions and then failed to disclose them. Now, the claim is that Canada's laws bar such disclosure. Bloomberg destroys that claim in just a few paragraphs. They interview government officials, prominent attorneys and others in Canada who all say that there is no such prohibition of disclosure in Canada. The law being cited by the Clinton spokesperson only bars a Canadian charity from selling its donor lists to other fundraisers.
This mess raises two basic questions:
1. Why did the Clintons set up a Canadian subsidiary in the first place? There was no need to move part of the Clinton Foundation's activities. After all, adding another level of administration to the foundation would just impose costs that would eat up cash that could otherwise go to help those in need. So what was the need to have this Canadian subsidiary? The simplest answer is that the Clintons wanted a mechanism to accept big donations from foreign sources that they could keep hidden from view in the USA. This Canadian subsidiary of the Foundation is the rough equivalent of an individual setting up bank accounts in the Cayman Islands; you know, a way to hide the cash from the authorities.
2. Why would the Clinton Foundation raise such an obviously incorrect explanation for its failure to disclose these donations? On nearly every issue regarding Hillary that has come up to date, the Clintons have just stonewalled. Hillary won't speak to the media. Hillary won't even take questions from voters. The only response has been the silly one that this is a rightwing conspiracy and that there is no evidence of wrongdoing. So why are the Clintons telling the world on this point that they are just following Canadian law (even though that's wrong?) The answer is that the Clintons realize just how explosive the discovery of this latest bit of wrongdoing is. Failing to disclose over a thousand donors as required by the agreement with the White House can't be blamed on a rightwing conspiracy; after all, the requirement for disclosure was set up by president Obama. Hillary has to have some excuse she can offer to Obama in the hope that Obama won't take some sort of action against her. She knows that one thing that Obama hates is being made to look foolish, and this latest stuff does just that. Think about it: the president has his secretary of state agree that all contributions are to be made public and then that agreement is avoided by the foundation setting up a subsidiary in Canada and using it to hide contributions. It's the kind of thing that could easily infuriate Obama. The Clintons have to try to come up with an excuse for the president; they have chosen this phony claim about Canadian law.
So will Obama accept this lame excuse? Most likely, he will not want to upset the Democrat's 2016 plans, but one never knows. Just imagine Obama telling the media in the next few days that he learned about the Clinton Foundation's failure to disclose its donors from the news reports and his is "mad as hell" about it. As a result, Obama announces that the Department of Justice will undertake a full investigation of the charges against the foundation. Stranger things have happened.
The amazing thing about this latest revelation is the claim that Canadian law prohibited disclosure of these donations. You see, the Clinton Foundation set up a Canadian subsidiary charity which took in all sorts of questionable contributions and then failed to disclose them. Now, the claim is that Canada's laws bar such disclosure. Bloomberg destroys that claim in just a few paragraphs. They interview government officials, prominent attorneys and others in Canada who all say that there is no such prohibition of disclosure in Canada. The law being cited by the Clinton spokesperson only bars a Canadian charity from selling its donor lists to other fundraisers.
This mess raises two basic questions:
1. Why did the Clintons set up a Canadian subsidiary in the first place? There was no need to move part of the Clinton Foundation's activities. After all, adding another level of administration to the foundation would just impose costs that would eat up cash that could otherwise go to help those in need. So what was the need to have this Canadian subsidiary? The simplest answer is that the Clintons wanted a mechanism to accept big donations from foreign sources that they could keep hidden from view in the USA. This Canadian subsidiary of the Foundation is the rough equivalent of an individual setting up bank accounts in the Cayman Islands; you know, a way to hide the cash from the authorities.
2. Why would the Clinton Foundation raise such an obviously incorrect explanation for its failure to disclose these donations? On nearly every issue regarding Hillary that has come up to date, the Clintons have just stonewalled. Hillary won't speak to the media. Hillary won't even take questions from voters. The only response has been the silly one that this is a rightwing conspiracy and that there is no evidence of wrongdoing. So why are the Clintons telling the world on this point that they are just following Canadian law (even though that's wrong?) The answer is that the Clintons realize just how explosive the discovery of this latest bit of wrongdoing is. Failing to disclose over a thousand donors as required by the agreement with the White House can't be blamed on a rightwing conspiracy; after all, the requirement for disclosure was set up by president Obama. Hillary has to have some excuse she can offer to Obama in the hope that Obama won't take some sort of action against her. She knows that one thing that Obama hates is being made to look foolish, and this latest stuff does just that. Think about it: the president has his secretary of state agree that all contributions are to be made public and then that agreement is avoided by the foundation setting up a subsidiary in Canada and using it to hide contributions. It's the kind of thing that could easily infuriate Obama. The Clintons have to try to come up with an excuse for the president; they have chosen this phony claim about Canadian law.
So will Obama accept this lame excuse? Most likely, he will not want to upset the Democrat's 2016 plans, but one never knows. Just imagine Obama telling the media in the next few days that he learned about the Clinton Foundation's failure to disclose its donors from the news reports and his is "mad as hell" about it. As a result, Obama announces that the Department of Justice will undertake a full investigation of the charges against the foundation. Stranger things have happened.
No comments:
Post a Comment