On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton was challenged by the press about the Clinton family’s acceptance of more than $900,000 in free private travel from Infousa, a company linked to scamming the elderly.
Her reply? She said that she had complied with all Senate ethics rules and reimbursed the company for the amount of a first class air ticket — usually about 1 percent of the cost of the luxurious private jet travel. According to Hillary, “Those were the rules. You’ll have to ask someone else if it’s good policy.”
In other words, get lost.
Is there anyone out there who would say it's good policy for a U.S. senator and presidential candidate to accept apparently tax-free gifts of almost a million dollars from a corporation — especially a corporation involved in providing lists of vulnerable elderly people to scam artists?
And it’s not like the Clintons couldn’t afford to buy an air ticket — the family income since 2001 has been more than $63 million! So why do they have to freeload from rich friends?
Well, evidently Hillary doesn’t think that she should be the one to consider whether it makes ethical sense to have rich pals pay for a U.S. senator’s family vacations.
That’s up to “someone else…”
But, Hillary has decided it is up to her — and not someone else — to determine whether corporate policies that allow huge payments and perks to CEOs make good policy. And her answer is a resounding, "NO" … unless, it seems, if she’s benefiting from the perks.
When Senator Clinton condemns corporate greed and attacks over-the-top CEO compensation, she’s not talking about her close friends in the business world. No, to her, they’re different. In the Clintons' case, it’s OK to use corporate assets to fly her and her husband to jet-set vacation spots all over the world, including a $146,000 plane ride to Acapulco for a Clinton family holiday in January of 2002.
It’s the other corporations and CEOs out there that she’s targeting. They’re the greedy ones that have to be regulated.
Last week, we revealed that former president Bill Clinton was on the payroll of Infousa, the Nebraska company that supplied lists of vulnerable elderly people to con artists who then defrauded the unsuspecting victims. Internal e-mails suggest that employees of Infousa were aware that some of their clients were under investigation for these revolting predatory practices.