Former Clinton administration press secretary Mike McCurry is quietly waging a campaign to quash coverage on a new tell-all book that exposes Bill and Hillary Clinton’s massive political empire.
This is what a global political empire looks like.
The Washington Examiner reports that Bill Clinton earned $48 million—from speeches and consulting deals—during his wife’s tenure as Secretary of State. A number of those speeches were funded by powerful business and political entities with a clear interest in influencing U.S. policy, yet the State Department did not object to any of them, despite policies intended to prevent ”potential or actual conflicts of interest.”
For example, the Examiner investigation found that Clinton made more than $2 million for a total of eight speeches in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. Much of the funding for the speeches came from wealthy investors with close ties to the governments in those countries.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t know exactly how wealthy she is, apparently. In an interview with Fusion’s Jorge Ramos, here’s what the elderly public speaker said when asked if she knew her net worth: “Uh, you know, within a range, yeah. I mean, we have two very nice houses, which we’re very proud, and not selling any time soon.”
Clinton eventually conceded that her net worth was in the “millions.” She has earned at least $12 million since quitting her job as Secretary of State. Financing the purchase of those two houses was one of the reasons the Clintons “struggled” to make ends meet after leaving the White House, according to Hillary.
Hillary Clinton is finally toeing the Democratic Party line with respect to the immigration crisis on the southern border. In an interview with Fusion’s Jorge Ramos on Thursday, Clinton sided with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), who opposes any changes to a 2008 anti-trafficking law that would make it easier to process—and, if necessary, deport—the tens of thousands of unaccompanied migrant children who have crossed the border in recent months.
“No, I don’t agree that we should change the law,” Clinton said. “That’s why I’m advocating an appropriate procedure, well-funded by the Congress, which they are resisting doing, so that we can make individual decisions.”
In fact, Congress has tried to take action. One proposal from Senator John Cornyn (R., Texas) and Representative Henry Cuellar (D., Texas) has attracted bipartisan support, but Reid and other Democrats oppose it because it would make changes to the 2008 law. And apparently, Clinton shares this position. The American people, on the other hand, overwhelmingly favor reforms to the 2008 law in order to address the border crisis and facilitate the deportation process.
Polling analysts at the Washington Post have determined that elderly millionaire Hillary Clinton is viewed less favorably than Darth Vader, and would likely lose a hypothetical 2016 matchup against the prominent Sith Lord.
On July 29, 2013, CNN announced a planned documentary on the life of Hillary Clinton. Charles Ferguson, the Academy Award–winning di- rector, was going to direct the piece. Ferguson was a left-wing filmmaker likely to be sympathetic to the former First Family. Almost simultaneously, NBC announced a four-hour miniseries called Hillary with Diane Lane in the title role.
Both efforts led to a furious reaction from the Clinton camp. Some might say overreaction. (Ironically, Republicans also threw a fit, assuming that any portrayal of Mrs. Clinton in the “lamestream media” would be biased in her favor.)