Vail Daily letter: Lost credibility
When you have a secretary of state with a personal multi-billion dollar “cookie jar” under the pseudonym of a “foundation,” you have a classic conflict of interest and an avaricious temptation. Personally, where this so-named “foundation” enjoys a tax exempt IRS status with the trustee thereof being a nationally recognized liberal that also enjoys a “most favored taxpayer” status with the IRS, that in of itself, you have the makings of official corruption and self-dealing. And we now learn that “charitable” (favor) donations have not been reported to the IRS, nor the names of the donors. We learn that IRS amendments must be made for omissions and non-disclosures. We also learn that a small portion of the funds are for charitable purposes, the remainder instead go toward supporting an extravagant lifestyle for both of the Clintons. Is the Clinton Foundation a tax dodge, a straw organization to divert attention from Hillary’s nefarious transactions with donors, or is it a facade to impersonalize Hillary from riches that are bestowed upon her by those seeking political favors?
At the very least, is there a sense of impropriety when Hillary, as secretary of state, approves the divestiture of 20 percent of the US uranium production (a strategic asset of the United States), and in turn, allows the conveyance of that same asset to Russia who, in turn, nefariously supplies that commodity to Iran (a terrorist nation), all the while when she (the Clinton Foundation) receives millions of dollars in donations from the “broker” of the transaction? Does this “sense of impropriety” become something else, like influence peddling and cover-up, when this same secretary of state effectually eliminates (erases) any trace of the negotiations thereof from her email server?
Now, any governmental record of the secretary of state during this time period would have been archived and retrievable from Ms. Clinton’s email personal server, since she had no dedicated governmental URL or official protocol in that medium (in violation of State Department rules). The emails on the server and the server itself would be governmental records and property. This being said and presumed a reasonable construction, would the “influence peddling” foment into something worse, like violation of State Department rules, or willful destruction of governmental records (evidence), or obstruction of justice, or theft of governmental assets (server) — felonies? As the Madam Secretary unilaterally maintains that the records she erased or destroyed on her personal/official Blackberry were only incidental and personal communiques (not of a governmental nature), then why not preserve the same to validate or corroborate her veracity and “word”? Do we naively take her “word” for it in view of her past scandals? The motive for destruction of governmental records and evidence of wrong-doing was to eliminate any independent review of the context and time log of negotiations between State, Russia and intermediaries. Those destroyed emails were the “details” of her influence peddling to her personal benefit as controller of the Clinton Foundation, and the devil was in those details. It is interesting that the current secretary of state (John Kerry) does not mention the sale of uranium assets to Iran via this Russian trade when he is purporting to sanction Iran on that very same commodity. The credibility of the State Department has gone south with the White House and Clinton Foundation.
Support Local Journalism
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User