Ethereal
08-25-2016, 08:23 PM
Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation? (https://theintercept.com/2016/08/25/why-did-the-saudi-regime-and-other-gulf-tyrannies-donate-millions-to-the-clinton-foundation/)
Glenn Greenwald
Aug. 25 2016, 9:42 a.m.
AS THE NUMEROUS and obvious ethical conflicts surrounding the Clinton Foundation receive more media scrutiny, the tactic of Clinton-loyal journalists is to highlight the charitable work done by the foundation, and then insinuate — or even outright state — that anyone raising these questions is opposed to its charity. James Carville announced that those who criticize the foundation are “going to hell.” Other Clinton loyalists insinuated that Clinton Foundation critics are indifferent to the lives of HIV-positive babies or are anti-gay bigots.
That the Clinton Foundation has done some good work is beyond dispute. But that fact has exactly nothing to do with the profound ethical problems and corruption threats raised by the way its funds have been raised. Hillary Clinton was America’s chief diplomat, and tyrannical regimes such as the Saudis and Qataris jointly donated tens of millions of dollars to an organization run by her family and operated in its name, one whose works has been a prominent feature of her public persona. That extremely valuable opportunity to curry favor with the Clintons, and to secure access to them, continues as she runs for president.
The claim that this is all just about trying to help people in need should not even pass a laugh test, let alone rational scrutiny. To see how true that is, just look at who some of the biggest donors are. Although it did not give while she was secretary of state, the Saudi regime by itself has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with donations coming as late as 2014, as she prepared her presidential run. A group called “Friends of Saudi Arabia,” co-founded “by a Saudi Prince,” gave an additional amount between $1 million and $5 million. The Clinton Foundation says that between $1 million and $5 million was also donated by “the State of Qatar,” the United Arab Emirates, and the government of Brunei. “The State of Kuwait” has donated between $5 million and $10 million.
Theoretically, one could say that these regimes — among the most repressive and regressive in the world — are donating because they deeply believe in the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation and want to help those in need. Is there a single person on the planet who actually believes this? Is Clinton loyalty really so strong that people are going to argue with a straight face that the reason the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Emirates regimes donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation is because those regimes simply want to help the foundation achieve its magnanimous goals?
...
Clinton apologists expect people to believe two equally absurd propositions.
One, that gulf state tyrannies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, and Brunei donated money to the Clinton Foundation, not because they were looking for favors, but because these regressive regimes were motivated by genuine humanitarian impulses. That is laughable on its face and doesn't even deserve a serious response.
The second proposition, somewhat less laughable, is that, yes, these regressive tyrants were expecting favors, but Clinton never followed through on it, and no one can prove that there was any quid pro quo.
As the author of this article notes, that is the exact same argument that opponents of campaign finance reform have been using for years, i.e., you cannot prove that massive donations to politicians and government officials are having an undue influence on their behavior.
In other words, what most Democrats used to consider a dishonest and absurd argument is now being used as their main defense of Clinton, proving yet again how utterly unprincipled and opportunistic these people are underneath it all.
So while Clinton apologists make laughable arguments and contradict themselves, reasonable people look at this situation and rightly conclude that "The Clinton Foundation" is nothing more than a bribery racket being run by the monumentally corrupt Clinton family.
Glenn Greenwald
Aug. 25 2016, 9:42 a.m.
AS THE NUMEROUS and obvious ethical conflicts surrounding the Clinton Foundation receive more media scrutiny, the tactic of Clinton-loyal journalists is to highlight the charitable work done by the foundation, and then insinuate — or even outright state — that anyone raising these questions is opposed to its charity. James Carville announced that those who criticize the foundation are “going to hell.” Other Clinton loyalists insinuated that Clinton Foundation critics are indifferent to the lives of HIV-positive babies or are anti-gay bigots.
That the Clinton Foundation has done some good work is beyond dispute. But that fact has exactly nothing to do with the profound ethical problems and corruption threats raised by the way its funds have been raised. Hillary Clinton was America’s chief diplomat, and tyrannical regimes such as the Saudis and Qataris jointly donated tens of millions of dollars to an organization run by her family and operated in its name, one whose works has been a prominent feature of her public persona. That extremely valuable opportunity to curry favor with the Clintons, and to secure access to them, continues as she runs for president.
The claim that this is all just about trying to help people in need should not even pass a laugh test, let alone rational scrutiny. To see how true that is, just look at who some of the biggest donors are. Although it did not give while she was secretary of state, the Saudi regime by itself has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with donations coming as late as 2014, as she prepared her presidential run. A group called “Friends of Saudi Arabia,” co-founded “by a Saudi Prince,” gave an additional amount between $1 million and $5 million. The Clinton Foundation says that between $1 million and $5 million was also donated by “the State of Qatar,” the United Arab Emirates, and the government of Brunei. “The State of Kuwait” has donated between $5 million and $10 million.
Theoretically, one could say that these regimes — among the most repressive and regressive in the world — are donating because they deeply believe in the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation and want to help those in need. Is there a single person on the planet who actually believes this? Is Clinton loyalty really so strong that people are going to argue with a straight face that the reason the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Emirates regimes donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation is because those regimes simply want to help the foundation achieve its magnanimous goals?
...
Clinton apologists expect people to believe two equally absurd propositions.
One, that gulf state tyrannies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, and Brunei donated money to the Clinton Foundation, not because they were looking for favors, but because these regressive regimes were motivated by genuine humanitarian impulses. That is laughable on its face and doesn't even deserve a serious response.
The second proposition, somewhat less laughable, is that, yes, these regressive tyrants were expecting favors, but Clinton never followed through on it, and no one can prove that there was any quid pro quo.
As the author of this article notes, that is the exact same argument that opponents of campaign finance reform have been using for years, i.e., you cannot prove that massive donations to politicians and government officials are having an undue influence on their behavior.
In other words, what most Democrats used to consider a dishonest and absurd argument is now being used as their main defense of Clinton, proving yet again how utterly unprincipled and opportunistic these people are underneath it all.
So while Clinton apologists make laughable arguments and contradict themselves, reasonable people look at this situation and rightly conclude that "The Clinton Foundation" is nothing more than a bribery racket being run by the monumentally corrupt Clinton family.