‘Critical Cash’ may undermine Clinton campaign


As the primaries for the 2016 presidential election are months away, candidates have already started announcing their plans to run. Quite a few conservative candidates, like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina, have come forward, but so far the other side of the aisle has been relatively silent. I wondered why this was happening and decided to look at what the media was saying.

From reading and watching all over the mainstream, and even from articles here on campus, it appears that Hillary Clinton is the de facto Democratic presidential nominee. This raises some questions: How can people know the outcomes of an election before they even begin? Can they read minds? Does the media truly understand the will of the American people?

Just last week, President of the Government Accountability Institute, Peter Schweizer, released a book on the Clinton Foundation, a supposedly non-profit charity organization run by the Clintons.

Called, ‘Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,’ it brings forth the revelations, warts-and-all, that the Clinton’s have been pocketing money through outside means and making political decisions related to it, as the title implies.

With the release of the book, it turns out that a huge variety of people were involved in donations, ranging from all across the globe, and rather corrupt deals transpired during Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.

In 2009, her husband Bill joined a non-profit education company Laureate, which received $9 million in grant money from the State Department the same year. The money received gradually increased each year, finally reaching $25.5 million in 2012. The amounts of money Bill was paid by the group have still not been released.

While Hillary was visiting a Boeing plant in 2009, representatives of a new Russian airline, Rossiya, expressed their interest in buying planes from Boeing. The airline secured a $3.7 billion deal with Boeing in 2010, to which Boeing then donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation two months after the deal. Boeing continued making contributions, including paying Bill for a $250,000 speech in 2012. This seems to be the norm, as Bill gets paid about that same amount or more for many of his speeches.

Even members from the mainstream television media have been involved, particularly ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, who has, respectfully, admitted to donating $75,000 to the Foundation and is stepping down from monitoring ABC’s own GOP debate scheduled for next year.

Perhaps the most damning story coming out of this though is the Clintons’ involvement with the United States uranium supply. Back in late 2005, Bill and mining mogul Frank Giustra met with Kazahk President Nazarbayev, which resulted in Giustra’s company getting a big mining deal. Giustra soon after donated $31 million to the Foundation and pledged $100 million more, along with half of all future profits. The company, Uranium One, grew fast and soon began obtaining uranium sites on US soil.

In mid-2010, a subsidiary of ROSATOM, a state-owned nuclear conglomerate in Russia, attempted to buy a majority stake in the company, a deal that needed to be reviewed under an government committee (CFIUS) that Hillary was a member of. Within five months, quicker than usual, the deal was approved. This transferred 20 percent of all US uranium, half of the then current output, into the hands of the Russian government.

The chairman of Uranium One at the time then donated $2.35 million to the Foundation, a donation that turns out to have been undisclosed to the Obama Administration. The Clintons made nearly $150 million throughout the deal.

The response from Clinton’s campaign team about this book has been spotty at best, but it seems that they think these revelations are unimportant or will not affect the campaign. This is a book that has debuted at #2 on the New York Times Bestsellers List, clearly indicating that people are interested in enlightening themselves on what the Clintons are really up to.

The media response has been somewhat silent, but several news outlets, like the New York Times, Washington Post and ABC News have investigated and confirmed the accuracy of this book before it was even released. As these stories spread, it may play a major factor in Hilary’s candidacy.

For media pundits, outside of Fox News, not much has been said. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough reacted to it with disdain, but since he is the token conservative there, it was probably expected. Alan Colmes, who left Fox’s Hannity and Colmes on political differences, said in discussion that he “would like to see full disclosure and transparency” and that “the FBI might want to look into this.”

At this point, such questioning of the Clintons and their behavior cannot be classified as “some vast right-wing conspiracy,” a term a lot of political pundits throw around when Democrats or progressives have been caught red handed. Trust in both the Congress and the President are so low now that at this point a candidate cannot have a background like Clinton’s and expect to win the presidency.

Further bringing Clinton down is also the fact that, even after her announcement of running, she has gone longer than a month with no in-depth interviews and has not been speaking out personally to defend herself.

Hopefully, the Democratic Party will pick a better candidate in the long run, one that falls more in line with what the party represents and wants to achieve. Recently, Senator Bernie Sanders has thrown his hat into the ring, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley is close to announcing his campaign, and others are pushing for Senator Elizabeth Warren to run.

This will certainly give the Democrats a larger candidacy pool, just like back in the 2008 election and not pigeonhole them to one candidate with one ideology. It would also behoove GOP politicians and Fox News to stop propping up Jeb Bush, before he has even officially announced his plans to run. These kind of political dynasties, like the Bushes and Clintons, need to come to an end.

Personally, considering everything surrounding her past and current events, I will not be voting for Clinton, even if she manages to get through the primaries. I would rather vote for candidates that tell the truth, who are ready and willing to defend their beliefs and their past actions, and who talk about the issues that currently concern the majority of Americans, all the while presenting their plan to improve the United States, domestically and abroad, together with Congress.

I understand that many people still believe that she will be the presidential nominee (even more so, president); but honestly, if Hillary was going to be the presidential nominee, it should have been seven years ago. Not now.



Leave a Reply