Is it just a huge international money-laundering scheme?
It sure looks like it.
[Update a while later]
Hillary’s cynical song of self:
You know already that if Mrs. Clinton runs for president as an Elizabeth Warren-style populist she won’t mean a word of it, any more than she would mean it if she ran as a ’90s-style New Democrat or a ’70s-style social reformer. The real Hillary, we are asked to believe, is large and contains multitudes.
In other words, she’s singing a Song of Herself. She will say, do, and be pretty much anything to get elected. And the rest of us are supposed to fall in line because we prefer our politics to be transactional not principled, our politicians to be opportunists not idealists, and our national creed to be “do what you gotta do” not “upon this rock.” This is what might be called the Clinton Bargain: You can always count on their self-interest trumping other considerations, so you never have to fear that they can’t be bought.
The only question is who is doing the buying.
If you’re not a subscriber, do a Google search for “Hillary’s Song Of Self” and it should give you a readable link.
Is it just me, or does the whole Clinton/Giustra connection sound like a storyline from a James Bond movie?
Eh, it’d be something to establish the villain’s bona fides in the first fifteen minutes. We’d see him getting public accolades for saving orphans while behind the scenes, it’s funding his global crime syndicate. I think they actually did something like that with the druglord one. To achieve James Bond levels of criminality, Clinton would need to be using the proceeds of that money laundering to go to war with the UK or even rob the Bank of England.
Steal from the Bank of England?
Doesn’t that sound like Dr. Evil holding the world hostage for “One meel-yun doh-lars!” and then Number Two whispers in his ear that this sum is very modest in today’s money?
I figure the Clinton Foundation is not much different than Kissinger Associates, that being a protection and influence racket, and if Hillary wasn’t so hellbent on becoming President then the Foundation could have made billions more and avoided this exposure.
I’m sure Baghdad Jim–as slavishly as he defended Obama and Lois Lerner– will be checking in with the Hive’s latest talking-points defending the Clintons (even if the Hive ends up abandoning Hillary to let a more electable statist bear its standard in the hustings). But really the Clintons’ usual sleaziness doesn’t bother me as much as “liberal” politicians most common form of corruption: bribing the electorate with taxpayers’ money. (“You vote for me, Paul, and I’ll take money from Peter and give you X, Y, and Z”–or as Mencken put it, “promising to turn A loose in B’s cornfield.”