Reports that the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has been raking in donations from foreign governments and billionaires have raised serious ethical concerns with respect to Hillary’s forthcoming White House run. The foundation has defended the practice of accepting foreign donations, which had been put on hold during Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State at the request of the Obama administration.
Despite a European-brokered “ceasefire,” the war in eastern Ukraine rages on. Russian separatists continue their assault on the city of Debaltseve, forcing the Ukrainian army to withdraw its troops. And yet, the U.S. State Department continues to hold out hope that the ceasefire will work. “We don’t consider it dead,” said spokeswoman Jen Psaki. “We still need time for the agreement to work through.”
But that’s not even the most outrageous aspect of the Obama administration’s position on Ukraine. This is:
Hillary Clinton does not care what liberals think. And who can blame her? Since quitting her job at the State Department, she has shown far less interest in promoting the causes liberals care about than she has in getting as rich as humanly possible.
Clinton has hobnobbed with Wall Street executives, given paid speeches hosted by foreign banks accused of fraud, charged public universities $300,000 to hear her speak, lifted her foundation’s ban on accepting donations from sketchy foreign governments—all things liberals would find outrageously offensive if done by Mitt Romney or the Koch brothers.
Add this to the list of things that would elicit a nuclear reaction among liberals if a conservative did it. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has been raking in donations from foreign governments ahead of her presumed presidential run, raising some serious ethical concerns:
Banks evaluated as having a high “systemic risk” to the U.S. financial system have contributed millions to Hillary Clinton over the course of her political career. A recent study by the Treasury Department’s Office of Financial Research assessed the institutions that, due to their size, complexity and interconnectedness, posed the greatest financial risk. As it turns out, four of the six riskiest banks are big donors to Hillary Clinton:
Hillary Clinton is still nowhere to be found, and in her absence some are beginning to question her inevitability. Others, including VOX DOT COM fashion editor Matthew Yglesias, are starting to worry that Clinton may waltz to the Democratic nomination without any serious opposition. That would be a big problem, Yglesias writes, because it would leave Clinton “dangerously unprepared” for the general election against whoever emerges from a deep field of GOP contenders:
Hillary Clinton has co-authored a New York Times op-ed with former GOP Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, and in doing so has given us a preview of what her poll-tested, K Street approved presidency would be like.
President Obama made a BuzzFeed video (actually a promotion for Obamacare) that has been viewed more than 22 million times. Many have pointed out that the video itself is very silly and unbecoming of a sitting president, who makes himself look like an idiot by playing around with a “selfie” stick.
Democrats will hold their 2016 convention in Philadelphia, the only city in America worse than Cleveland, site of the GOP convention. Presumably, that is where Hillary Clinton will finally announce her candidacy for the White House. But is the once-great city ready to accommodate her?
Yesterday some British idiot asked Gov. Scott Walker (R., Wis.) if he was “comfortable with the idea of evolution.” Walker punted, and his political opponents and other scientific geniuses mocked accordingly. It’s a question designed to make Republicans look stupid, or perhaps more accurately, to make Democrats (and Brits) feel intellectually smug and superior. Still, GOP candidates should come up with a serviceable answer to it, because they’re going to be asked over and over again, because journalism.