Before either Hillary or Bernie began running, I wrote an article about all of her various scandals, concluding that “The chances are significant that during the primaries these controversies will re-emerge and cause her to lose.” So far, I've been dead wrong.
There are so many scandals involving the Clintons that we've practically lost count. In the Democratic Party debates, they are not even mentioned. Yet even the minor ones can be meaningful, because they reflect on character, and that's really a major concern or should be.
There are so many scandals involving the Clintons that we've practically lost count. In the Democratic Party debates, they are not even mentioned.
Does anyone even remember the White House furniture scandal? It was reported on ABC News and the New York Times, so it was real. The long and the short of it was that the Clintons left the White House and were accused of improperly taking $190,000 in china, furniture, rugs, and other items that belonged to the people of the United States. In the end, and without much discussion, the Clintons paid $86,000 in cash to the government and returned $28,000 in property to end the problem.
In the grand scheme of things, that may not sound like much. But think about it. $86,000 in cash and $28,000 in goods may be pocket change to the Clintons, but the return of these items without much discussion is a tacit admission that the allegations are true. What other Presidents were accused of such low-life actions? What was the point of doing such things, anyway? Did the Clintons expect responsible government officials to say nothing? Did they think they were entitled to take this property? (They are both attorneys and must have known that the property was not theirs.)
Now put these really simple facts in the context of all the many other allegations. Where there's smoke, there's fire. And where someone engages in something like taking at least $114,000 in government property, doesn't that at least raise red flags about their honesty and truthfulness?
Was the White House travel staff fired so that Clinton cronies could be hired in their place? This is the so-called “Travelgate” scandal. Did Hillary really engage in the alleged improprieties of Whitewater? “In March 1994, it was revealed Hillary – with no previous experience – had made massive profits from cattle futures trading between 1978 and 1979, when Bill Clinton's salary as Arkansas attorney general had been modest. She reportedly made $99,537 in profit on a $1,000 investment (a 9,987 percent profit) in just nine months because of a highly placed connection at Tyson Foods, which was the largest employer in Arkansas and a big Clinton donor.” Again, the latter is a relatively small amount of money, but if true it amounts to a payoff of the most blatant kind.
And these sorts of things buttress the much larger potential scandals surrounding the Clinton Foundation and the millions of dollars that has gone into it from foreign sources. Not to mention all the millions of dollars paid to the Clintons from giving speeches. (On her own, Hillary has earned $21.7 million from 92 speeches given since 2013. That works out to more than $225,000 per speech. Bill has gotten $26.6 million for 94 speeches. And this doesn't even count money paid to the Clinton Foundation for speeches that they made.)
Does anyone doubt that there is skulduggery going on here? The obvious assumption is that in return for “speech” money, those paying can expect payback. Yet there is little discussion of this in the media. There is no outcry from among Democratic politicians that Hillary Clinton is too dishonest to be elected President. And that seems to prove that they are all in on the racket.
Now consider what is likely to happen if the Republicans nominate (for example) Mario Rubio. He isn't pristine, but his personal defects are far, far less than the swirl of scandal surrounding the Clintons. If the race becomes Rubio vs. Clinton, aren't these scandals going to become very important? Isn't that something the Democratic Party should consider? Or is the party so corrupt that it sees none of this as being important?
My own feeling on this should be pretty obvious. I would want Bernie Sanders or even Martin O'Malley as the candidate rather than Hillary Clinton. She has clearly sold herself down the river multiple times and is prepared to do it again and again. She is interested only in herself and her family, not in the country and its people. Something needs to change, and she is not going to be the one who will do it.
Michael T. Hertz