The current “Pay to Play” scandal involving special access to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for those who contributed to the Clinton Foundation goes beyond perception into a very real realm.
One example is the case of Stephen Schwarzman, Blackstone Group chairman. Schwarzman’s firm is a major Clinton Foundation donor. After Clinton hosted a September 2009 breakfast meeting at the New York Stock Exchange, it appears Mr. Schwarzman blew in Clinton’s ear and the very next day the State Department was working on a visa issue at Schwarzman’s request.
This example is just one of many as the Associated Press sought and received access to a review of State Department calendars. The initial release of these calendars reveals 85 of 154 people with private interests either met or had phone conversations with Clinton and these 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Let’s bring this down to an everyday hypothetical level.
What if a local City Council person had a personal charitable foundation that they had access to that would facilitate trips and open doors for that councilperson? What if it was well known that local citizens would have special access to the councilperson if contributions were made to his or her personal charitable foundation? Now you “might” be able to get access without contributing to the foundation but you “would” get access with a contribution.
Sounds farfetched? Sounds ridiculous? But that kind of “Pay to Play” is exactly what occurred with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her tenure. Those who paid got access. Those who did not had to stand in line.
It is said by some of Hillary Clinton’s supporters that there has never been a person more prepared and more qualified to become President of the United States. President Obama, who was certainly lacking in preparedness made that assertion during the Democrat National convention.
It can be said with great certainty that at no time during the past 95 years has there been a candidate for the Presidency that has been more enveloped with scandals. She has faced one scandal after another:
• Unsecured emails
• Dismissing claims that her husband had a history of rape and pressuring women for sex
• Her association with drug dealer Jorge Cabrera who gave the Clintons a personal check of $20,000 just a few short months before he was arrested in a drug bust in Miami
• Lying about coming under fire during her first official visit to Bosnia
• The $190,000 worth of items missing from the White House when they vacated the White House to the incoming Bushes
• The Whitewater scandal
• The Cattle Futures scandal where she made a tidy profit of $100,00 trading on the cattle futures market while she was in cahoots with a personal friend at the time who worked for Tyson Foods, Inc.
• The 2016 DNC Scandal where thousands of leaked emails revealed an active Democrat effort to sabotage Clinton’s rival, Bernie Sanders
• The “Pay to Play” Clinton Foundation Scandal
If the number of scandals one had racked up over a lifetime in the political limelight is a test of one’s qualification and preparedness to assume the highest office of the land, Hillary Clinton wins hands down.
If the number of scandals one had racked up over a lifetime in the political limelight is a test of one’s “lack” of qualification and preparedness to assume the highest office of the land, Hillary Clinton must be rejected in November.