Clinton's For-Profit “Bill U”

“Greed... is good.” – Michael Douglas as corporate raider Gordon Gekko in “Wall Street” (1987)

“A lot of these private-education guys, they’re looking to get into events [a State Department dinner] like this one. 'The discussion itself is irrelevant. . . . It gets you very high-level contacts, and it gets you to the right people.'” – Sam Pitroda, a higher-education expert representing a policy commission from India

Laureate International Universities paid Bill Clinton an obscene $17.6 million as their front man consultant and “honorary chancellor.” Despite a largely undefined (and perhaps non-existent?) role, Mr. Clinton's lucrative five year contract ended conveniently two weeks before the wife launched her latest campaign for U.S. president. Back in 2009, Hillary Clinton wrote “... Bill likes [founder, businessman Doug Becker] a lot.” Well, turns out Mr. Clinton has 17.6 million reasons for that.

Per their tax returns, Laureate runs 80 educational institutions the world over. Notably, four of its six U.S. colleges are on a U.S. Education Department watch list for fiscal monkey business. Specifically, debt-ridden students complained Laureate's flagship U.S. school, Walden University, is essentially a slow-roll online diploma mill delivering substandard programs and degrees. Naturally, this murkiness was of no concern to Bill Clinton. (One assumes all payments to him have cleared.) Yet, how does this latest example of Clintonian sleaziness not fall under the umbrella of payment for high-level access? In other words, the pay-to-play basis of the $2 billion dollar sham that is the “charitable” Clinton Family Foundation?

Even the sycophantic Washington Post acknowledged that the Clintons “mixed” their public and private dealings. They reported:

“[Doug] Becker, for example, donated to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and last year donated $2,700 to her current effort. Laureate has given between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to the charity’s website … Laureate portrayed its association with the Clintons as a symbol of its legitimacy rather than the result of a business deal.”

Only to the crooked does the word 'legitimacy' and the surname Clinton harmoniously coexist. Likewise, faceless—and blind—ethics officials in wifey's then State Department saw no conflict of interest. (Barack Obama laughably granted oversight to Mrs. Clinton on such matters.) “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer noted an increase in USAID funding of $55 million to the International Youth Federation—a sister organization run by selfsame Laureate founder Doug Becker—while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State. Why does not a single Democrat in government publicly acknowledge a problem with any of this?

At least some House Republicans see clear wrongdoing. Last July, sixty-four requested investigations by the Internal Revenue Service, FBI and Federal Trade Commission into “possible” corruption between Laureate and the Clintons. However, given closed-eyed dupes like FBI Director James Comey—and the current administration still at the helm—there's no chance another investigation will happen.

Interestingly, The Post further reported that Laureate was bought out in 2007 by George Soros (and partners) for $3.8 billion. What these “journalists” left out about trouble-making billionaire Soros is his domestic funding of the anarchist Black Lives Matter death cult. What a corrupt click, these incestuous and moneyed progressives. With paid-off politicians, is it any wonder why America is in chaos—with a mountainous 19.5T debt? That's not a problem for the uber-rich Clintons: currently worth $238 million. Moreover, besides wrongdoing in common, Barack Obama aims to be the first ex-president billionaire. Mr. Clinton may beat him to that pot o' gold.

Roger Stone of “Daily Caller” in his exposé called “Trump U Is Nothing Compared To Laureate Education” put the matter plainly:

“New York State law requires specific approvals for an entity to hold itself out as being a university. In this case CGI [Clinton Global Initiate](a fraud) created CGI University (a fraud) in league with Laureate, a fraud. Laureate is a highly leveraged failing investment whose principal beneficiaries are Wall Street fat cats and billionaires, and [at the center is] William Jefferson Clinton.”

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Hillary's Nuclear-sized Crookedness

“A major Clinton Foundation donor who gave at least $250,000 to the organization was granted a spot on [the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB)] … despite having no experience for the role” briefly reports Washington Times's Douglas Ernst (Inside Politics blurb section, page two). Like Server-gate—just with nukes and America's foreign posture—Hillary intentionally shares State Department secrets with an unqualified benefactor. If this pay to play isn't worth a full, front page exposé, what is?

Peter Schweizer's book “Clinton Cash” demonstrated the well established Clinton pattern of (foreign) donors funneling hundreds of million of dollars to their “charitable organization,” the Clinton Foundation, in exchange for Hillary's governmental favors as Mr. Obama's then Secretary of State. The present unearthed duplicity involves Rajiv K. Fernando. As founder and former CEO of Chicago's Chopper Trading, he had no background in intelligence matters. That was obviously no problem for Mrs. Clinton. When Mr. Fernando's check cleared back in 2011, he magically become a shaper of U.S. nuclear weapons policy. A Hillary “adviser” with top secret government clearance to access and influence (perhaps even share?) classified foreign policy details.

Naturally, the State Department tried to cover up the blatant political cronyism that has defined the “honest and transparent” Obama Administration. Only a Freedom of Information lawsuit by Citizens United has finally brought a spotlight's hot glow to this wrongdoing. Fortunately, at the time, embarrassment of exposure prompted Mr. Fernando's sudden resignation only days after his announced appointment. (The State Department was unable to articulate a legitimate reason for him to remain. Perhaps that's because he didn't belong there in the first place.)

What has become of Rajiv K. Fernando? Per ABC News, his current donations to the Clinton Foundation have increased to $1 to $5 million. Therefore, rest assured, he's still a mover and shaker in 2016. Specifically, he's a Democrat superdelegate: same as Hillary's hubby Bill. One somehow doubts either man will cast his upcoming presidential convention vote for socialist Bernie Sanders.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Hillary breaks silence, offers platitude cake

To quote she who would be president in 2016—and has been skirting press questions for almost a month with a wink and a smile—Hillary Clinton was finally shamed into answering a few of the press' questions by Fox News reporter Ed Henry.  Her imperious, smirking response: “Yeah, maybe when I finish talking to the people here.  How’s that?  I might, I’ll have to ponder it.”  Then, pretending to write on a notepad, she added, “I’ll put it on my list for due consideration.”  In this, Mrs. Clinton finally deigned—under her own terms—to break her self-imposed silence.  This attitude parallels Server-gate (modern day Nixonian document shredding): her destruction of 33,000 emails—half of those created on her private server as Secretary of State—that she now infers is government property.  Indeed, for she who wants to sit in the big chair in the Oval Office, how can the American people objectively get a complete picture of her performance in that previous role with 50 percent of the picture forever obscured? 

Continuing to ignore the shrieking, chest-pounding 300 pound gorilla in the corner, Mrs. Clinton steadfastly refuses to finally address her own dismal record of veracity considering the still unanswered questions regarding Benghazi, the before mentioned Server-gate, and the most recent in a long list of Clintonian scandals, the multi-faceted Charity-gate.  Regarding the latter, she offered vague platitudes: “I am so proud of the foundation.  I'm proud of the work that it has done and is doing… I'll let the American people make their own judgments.”  Shadowed in this Clintonian malfeasance is the fact of 1,100 foreign donors mysteriously not reported by the Clinton Foundation; her and Bill's supposed family charity.  That little nugget comes literally right on the heels of Peter Schweizer's exposé of the Hillary Clinton-Bill Clinton fiscal shell game, "Clinton Cash," of bartering favorable U.S. government treatment through the State Department she headed (her role) to the mostly foreign donors who gave exorbitant, six-figure speaking fees to Bill (his role) or otherwise donated large sums of money to the charity á la George Stephanopoulos.

For any clarity at all, one must look to the Hillary speech the fourth estate has dubbed 'Bonds of Trust' for any indication of where she stands: "From Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable." Yet, while she hypocritically pontificates upon broken trust between the black community and the police she completely ignores her own severe lack of honesty and forthrightness when it comes to explaining her own behavior and actions to the American people.

It is interesting dynamic when a politician with her own severe trustworthiness deficit lectures the rest of us on trust: "We must urgently begin to rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among Americans.  Between police and citizens, yes, but also across society, restoring trust in our politics, our press, our markets, between and among neighbors, and even people with whom we disagree politically."  So desperate is she to distract—and point the finger away from her own lack of character—that she, in essence, panders to the violent street mob and further galvanizes a volatile situation by demonizing the cops á la Obama.  Her and Obama's Saul Alinsky-style political smoke screens have a direct correlation to the tear gas in the street: this is what happens when those charged with safeguarding the country use the bully pulpit to foment anti-American sentiment and tear society apart along racial lines.

Apparently Mrs. Clinton, who like her husband before her, is inartfully combining the Clintonian mantra of "say anything to get elected" with the Obama brand of destructive, divisive Democratic politics of "never letting a crisis go to waste" for personal and political gain.  Through her Orwellian words, she claims the intention to unite, but in actually she desires the opposite: to polarize and divide.  She knows all too well that an unhappy populace votes Democrat.  Remember her and Bill's single greatest character flaw from which all their lies, greed and hubris stem: their obsessive self-serving power-seeking.

Her blasé, disingenuous Marie Antoinette 'let-them-eat-cake' persona demonstrates that she—who seeks to lead the rest of us—owes nothing.  In this, her silence bellows stentorian that she is unfit to be the next president of the United States.

Re. Saul Alinsky: In 1969, Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College titled "There Is Only the Fight . . . ": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. The subject was famed radical community organizer Saul Alinsky.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

In Hillary’s Orwellian circle of trust

To quote she who would be president in 2016, in a speech the press has dubbed 'Bonds of Trust:' "From Ferguson to Staten Island to Baltimore, the patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable." Yet, while she hypocritically pontificates upon broken trust between the black community and the police she completely ignores her own severe lack of honesty and forthrightness when it comes to explaining her own behavior and actions to the American people.

Ignoring the shrieking, chest-pounding 300 pound gorilla in the corner, Mrs. Clinton refuses to finally address her own dismal record of veracity considering the still unanswered questions regarding Benghazi, Server-gate (modern day Nixonian document shredding) and the most recent in a long list of Clintonian scandals, the multi-faceted Charity-gate.  This week's latest revelation of Clintonian malfeasance includes 1,100 foreign donors who were mysteriously not reported by the Clinton Foundation; her and Bill's supposed family charity.  That little nugget comes literally right on the heels of Peter Schweizer's expose of the Hillary Clinton-Bill Clinton fiscal shell game, "Clinton Cash," of bartering favorable U.S. government treatment through the State Department she headed (her role) to the mostly foreign donors who gave exorbitant, six-figure speaking fees to Bill (his role) or otherwise donated large sums of money to the charity.

It is interesting dynamic when a politician with her own severe trustworthiness deficit lectures the rest of us on trust: "We must urgently begin to rebuild the bonds of trust and respect among Americans. Between police and citizens, yes, but also across society, restoring trust in our politics, our press, our markets, between and among neighbors, and even people with whom we disagree politically."  So desperate is she to distract—and point the finger away from her own lack of character—that she, in essence, panders to the violent street mob and further galvanizes a volatile situation by demonizing the cops a la Obama.  Her and Obama's Saul Alinsky-style political smoke screens have a direct correlation to the tear gas in the street: this is what happens when those charged with safeguarding the country use the bully pulpit to foment anti-American sentiment and tear society apart along racial lines.

Apparently Mrs. Clinton, who like her husband before her, is inartfully combining the Clintonian mantra of "say anything to get elected" with the Obama brand of destructive, divisive Democratic politics of "never letting a crisis go to waste" for personal and political gain.  Through her Orwellian words, she claims the intention to unite, but in actually she desires the opposite: to polarize and divide.  She knows all too well that an unhappy populace votes Democrat.  Remember her and Bill's single greatest character flaw from which all their lies, greed and hubris stem: their obsessive self-serving power-seeking.

The first one strapped with the body cameras she now advocates should be Mrs. Clinton herself.  So the rest of us can monitor her.  A lie detector should closely follow.  If she can't pass that test then she has no business being the next president of the United States.

Re. Saul Alinsky: In 1969, Hillary Rodham wrote a 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College titled "There Is Only the Fight . . . ": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. The subject was famed radical community organizer Saul Alinsky.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976