NYT and WSJ agree: something has to change
NYT and WSJ agree: something has to change

The Clinton Foundation’s fragile reputation was shattered this summer with the release of Clinton Cash – a documentary that exposed the deep corruption and play-for-play schemes taking place within the so-called "charity.” 

On top of the FBI's decision to reopen the Clinton email probe, the rumors surrounding the Clinton Foundation have become a serious headache for the Hillary’s presidential campaign. Last week, the FBI announced that the investigation into the Foundation and its alleged criminal activity has taken a “very high priority.” 

Questions about the Foundation’s wealthy foreign donors threaten to damage Clinton’s reputation with voters at a critical time, and even the liberal New York Times argues that the public deserves to know the truth. 

“The increasing scrutiny of the Foundation has raised several points that need to be addressed by Mrs. Clinton and the former president,” reports the Times’ lead editorial. “These relate most importantly to the flow of multimillions in donations from foreigners and others to the foundation, how Mrs. Clinton dealt with potential conflicts as Secretary of State and how she intends to guard against such conflicts should she win the White House.” 

The Wall Street Journal slammed the charity as a “vast fundraising operation to promote Bill’s post-Presidential career and Hillary’s pre-Presidential one,” and argues that Bill and Hillary “think they can write their own rules and get away with it.” 

The Obama Administration recognized the potential trouble when Hillary became Secretary of State, and Hillary agreed that the Foundation would accept no donations from foreign governments during her tenure. Hillary did not keep this promise.

Hillary also agreed to disclose all Foundation donations during her time in the State Department – a pledge she broke when the Foundation failed to report a $2.35 million donation linked to the controversial uranium deal she made with Russia.

The Foundation must now restate its tax returns to make up for the foreign donations it didn’t disclose. 

In March, we learned that the Foundation had been accepting more and more foreign donations from controversial donors like the United Arab Emirates – even though Hillary was already running a de facto presidential campaign. 

The Clintons’ typical defense mechanism – “to deny, stonewall, assail, and change the subject” – is now in effect, and “Hillary has already tried to deflect the fundraising fury by coming out in favor of rewriting the First Amendment to limit campaign contributions,” reports the WSJ. 

Editor's note: Hillary has a lot of favors to repay.


Audience Index: 0