Oh, Really?

From tonight's debate, Mrs. Clinton: "If you’ve got something to say, say it directly. You will not find that I have ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation I have received."

That's funny, because I was just reading this article about weapons deals to countries that donated to you:
Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region's fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At a press conference in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally....

Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.
The evidence strongly suggests that you traded access to American weapons for large cash donations. I'd be surprised if a little investigation didn't turn up very similar acts of corruption with donors here at home, too.


Ymar Sakar said...

The Left was always more into the military industrial complex than the accusations of Democrats against their enemies could cover up. In fact, accusing their enemies of what they themselves were doing, was quite a neat tactic and diversion. The Left had access to the military industrial complex for profit and greed. Patriots had access to the military industrial complex to protect human lives and families. Quite a difference there.

Texan99 said...

You almost seem to be suggesting that she's lying through her teeth.

Anonymous said...

We don't have to decide that she's lying, because the appearance of impropriety is so compelling.

We have laws against taking and giving bribes in this country, and in other countries, as well. US companies are famous for being unable to pay bribes overseas. And yet, the Clintons have established this huge pot of money for foreign contributions, with large payments to members of the family, while a member of the family was in high public office.

Nobody in the whole rest of the world is going to see anything but bribery, here, regardless of what she says.


Texan99 said...

But also, she has a very long and well-established record of lying through her teeth. Even without proof in this instance, it's my go-to assumption.

Grim said...

Did you see the footage of Sanders supporters chanting "She's a liar!" when she was speaking at a Democratic Party event earlier this month?

Then we get this head-scratching commentary from the press, "Why don't people like her? Maybe it's because she shouts so much." Maybe, but maybe it's that she lies so much.

Ymar Sakar said...

When they kept chanting "Bush lied, people died", what they were really thinking of is "when we get in power, you won't even be able to count the number of people who died due to the lies".

MikeD said...

My wife was particularly incensed at that bit. "We don't need to point to a vote you changed because of a donation, they wouldn't be donating to you unless they expected you to already support them."

Personally, I think he can't do it because he fundamentally doesn't understand economics, but Senator Sanders should be able to easily call her out on this by simply saying, "No one gives someone else money without expecting something in return. That's true for people who put a dollar in a vending machine, and it's true for Wall Street capitalists. So unless you're claiming that they just are giving you money out of compassion and charity, they expect something for their money. And I'll note they've been giving you money for years now."

But again, to him, money is something that rich people create out of thin air using greed and exploiting poor people. So I doubt he'd be able to form that thought in the first place.

Grim said...

I'm not sure it's true that no one gives someone else money while expecting nothing in return for it, but I'm sure that it is true that no one gives you $675,000 in return for a speech alone. Especially not a bank with such a famous head for money as Goldman Sachs.