This whole notion that Mrs. Fat Cankles keeps throwing out there that she is the most “transparent” politician that has ever lived makes me want to vomit.
The Associated Press published a lengthy story Wednesday detailing their findings from a review of Hillary Clinton’s schedules as Secretary of State.
The story does not contain a smoking gun, at least in the way you’d think. But what it does show is three stereotypes that have been consistent with Clinton storylines for decades:
1) Neither the State Department Nor the Clinton Campaign Are Big on Transparency
Considering that Clinton was a public servant, you would figure it would be easy for the AP to get her schedules, right?
The newswire had to sue to access even a limited share of her schedules, as they detailed in their story:
AP has sought for years a complete set of Clinton’s detailed schedules covering her time in office, which she could have voluntarily released but did not. The AP sued the State Department in federal court to obtain the schedules it has received so far.
2) The Clinton Foundation Is So Successful That It Can’t Help But Create Conflicts of Interest
A common defense of the Clinton Foundation is that it takes money from rich donors — some of whom are bad people or belong to bad governments and businesses — and gives it to poor people around the world.
That is not wrong.
Democrats like Robby Mook and James Carville say shutting down the Clinton Foundation would cost lives. They’re talking about the millions of dollars that go to poor people in Africa and Asia, for projects the Clintons genuinely seem to care about.
It’s possible that the Clintons are not using the foundation for leverage, building power networks, or have other insidious intentions. However, even if it is perfectly innocent and appointments aren’t being doled out to donors, what you have is pretty simple.
3) Hillary Does Not Publicly Hand Out Favors to Clinton Foundation Donors, But They Are the Ones Getting Meetings
The AP review found that, of the 154 meetings they found between Clinton and non-government figures, 85 involved Clinton Foundation donors.
The AP featured three of those 85 prominently in its reporting, including:
[A]n internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton’s help with a visa problem; and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm’s corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa.
You can read the details of those three donors here. As I wrote above, no obvious bombshells.
The story is yet another case of the Clinton fund: Limited transparency, conflicts of interest, and powerful, connected people getting more access, even when it connects to a good cause. Maybe that’s politics as usual, maybe that’s something that needs to change.