Corrupt beyond question 2

 Tom Fitton at Front Page Magazine lists just some of the ‘reprehensible acts’ (we’d say vile, immoral acts) of Hillary Clinton over the last 15 years, and goes on to say:

With specific relevance to her new job as Secretary of State, there are also the serious conflicts of interest involving Bill Clinton, who has become something of an international sensation since leaving the White House, brokering international business deals and reaping huge fees for foreign speaking engagements.  Even the liberal CNN reported that Bill Clinton’s “complicated global business interests could present future conflicts of interest that result in unneeded headaches for the incoming commander-in-chief.”

The question is what promises will Bill Clinton make to his international business associates with respect to U.S. State Department Policy that his wife will have to keep? 

Hillary Clinton is ethically challenged. Her husband is ethically challenged. Has any other Secretary of State nominee been the subject of a grand jury criminal investigation? From their days in the White House to the present day, they have consistently abused their public office for personal and political gain. Hillary and Bill (not to mention their siblings) are scandals waiting to happen. She has neither the temperament nor ethics to be in such a sensitive office.

I believe Obama made a deal with the devil to avoid a floor flight at the convention. It may have served him politically, but the public shouldn’t suffer the consequences. If the Senate is serious about ethics in government, Hillary’s nomination would be rejected. In putting forward Hillary, Obama now owns the Clinton scandals. Her nomination is another weak personnel decision that will harm his presidency.

Will the Obama administration exercise due diligence and keep a watchful eye on the Clintons?  My guess is that if Obama is willing to hire Hillary given her dismal record, he’ll be willing to turn a blind eye to her likely corrupt behavior at the State Department. 

The vetting of Hillary seems to have been run by John Podesta (her husband’s former Chief of Staff) and Cheryl Mills (the ethically-challenged lawyer who served as Clinton White House lawyer).  Surprise, surprise.  She passed.

Will the names of those at home and abroad who gave the Clinton machine millions over the years be released? 

Posted under Commentary by Jillian Becker on Monday, December 1, 2008

Tagged with , , , , , ,

This post has 2 comments.

Permalink
  • Jillian Becker

    Good grief! Did she really issue such an edict? I didn’t think much could surprise me about HRC, but this does! Yet I believe you of course.

  • roger in florida

    Ms Becker, for all the reasons you point out in this and the previous post, this nomination of HRC by BO is incomprehensible from any rational point of view. Spengler (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB26Aa01.html )wrote an article some months ago in which he claimed that the key to understanding BO is to examine his relationships with women, particularly of course his Mother and his wife. Is it possible that she (HRC) has completely overpowered him mentally? Can you imagine how she is going to interact with Joe Biden? Samantha Power? and what about all the payoffs, particularly from Middle Easterners, that she and Bill have taken? I recall reading her edict about how White House staff (and other underlings) were to react if they met HRC as she went about her business; they were to stand aside with bowed head, eyes down, and not under any circumstances to make eye contact! This promises to be interesting!