WASHINGTON, February 26, 2015 – When it was revealed that the giant sucking sound heard across America were foreign financial contributions barreling through the global pipeline leading to Bill and Hillary Clinton, the Wall Street Journal did a little snooping.
To their amazement, they discovered the organization that bears the name of a disgraced, impeached former president and his Benghazi-soiled former Secretary of State wife – is a magnate to foreign entities seeking influence. Among them are Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and China, to name but a few.
An irate Ron Fournier at the National Journal said, “This is sleazy because of the clear conflicts of interest. What do these foreign countries expect in exchange for their donations? What pressure would [Hillary] Clinton face as president to return financial favors?”
The Clinton-sleaze apologist in this case (joining the long line of political hacks stretching beyond the horizon) is Robert Harrison, chief executive officer at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). On the foundation’s website, Harrison says that by focusing on the Clinton’s slush fund, the Journal “missed the positive impact that members of CGI are having on millions of people worldwide…”
Several paragraphs later, Harrison describes what the Clinton Global Initiative is all about. “No one has all the answers, but we can bring together people who can find them.”
It sounds as though the Clinton’s are running an escort service. A very expensive escort service.
Topping the list of foundation initiatives is – what else – “Climate Change.” The big idea is to plant “Trees of Hope” in Malawi, Africa. “Through our Trees of Hope program, 2,000 Malawian farmers have already planted more than 2 million trees sequestering more than 200,000 tons of CO2,” said CGI.
Malawi planters are given “carbon credits” based on the number of CO2-eating trees they plant and care for, which the Clinton Global Initiative says the planter can sell “on the carbon market.”
According to INTERPOL, “Unlike traditional commodities, which at some time during the course of their market exchange must be physically delivered to someone, carbon credits do not represent a physical commodity but instead have been described as a legal fiction that is poorly understood by many sellers, buyers and traders. This lack of understanding makes carbon trading particularly vulnerable to fraud and other illegal activity.”
It’s a good thing, then, that the Federal Exchange Commission takes a hands-off approach to carbon trades – since there is nothing to put their hands on.
INTERPOL goes on to say that the carbon market can facilitate “financial crimes such as securities fraud, tax evasion and money laundering.”
Michael Comer and Timothy Stephens, authors of Bribery and Corruption: How to be an Impeccable and Profitable Corporate Citizen, note, “The way that carbon credits are valued by their holders creates massive hidden financial reserves that can be misused to pay bribes with minimal chances of detection. There is no such thing as a Suspicious Activity Report in carbon trading and virtually no enforcement.”
I seem to recall a 1997 Washington Post story, in which “President Clinton said… that he and Vice President Gore ‘believed we were acting within the letter of the law’ when raising funds for the 1996 [presidential] campaign.”
Ted Sioneng, a former California businessman, contributed $400,000 to Clinton and the Democratic Party while working “on behalf of the Chinese government,” said a Senate Government Affairs Committee report.
And the Indonesia-based Lippo Group’s Mochtar Riady was a longtime friend of Clinton from his days as Arkansas governor. The Senate report revealed that Riady also “had a long-term relationship with a Chinese intelligence agency.”
A short two years later, a special House committee headed by Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA) found that “American aerospace companies damaged U.S. national security when they provided Chinese space engineers with technical rocketry data that could have assisted Beijing’s ballistic missile program,” said the Post. “The committee’s findings appeared to include detailed criticism of the Clinton administration’s policy of loosening high-tech export restrictions as a way to promote trade.”
Did Chinese contributions to Bill Clinton facilitate a technology transfer that helped a hostile foreign power more accurately target American cities for nuclear annihilation?
We’ll never know.
Just in passing, in 2004 the Accoona Corporation (an Internet search engine) donated $500,000 in company stock to the Clinton foundation, which the foundation sold two years later for a tidy $200,000 profit.
“In 2007, Accoona filed a prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission reporting more than $60 million in losses during three years. In the same prospectus, it listed the China Daily Information Corp., a subsidiary of China Daily, the official English-language newspaper of the Chinese government, as an official partner and 6.9 percent owner of the company,” the Washington Times reported.
Having made good on its contribution to the Clintons, the Accoona Corp. mysteriously ceased to exist in 2008.
If presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is ever confronted about her family’s shady connection to communist Chinese spies and their bagmen (and that’s a mighty big if), I guess she can always say, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”