So says the multimillionaire, channeling his wife's tone-deaf 2014 "dead broke" remark. The former president has reportedly earned nine figures in speaking fees alone since leaving office, millions of which just happened to flow in from entities with active business before Hillary Clinton's State Department. Indeed, both Bill personally and the family "slush fund" took in money hand-over-fist while she held the levers of American foreign policy; plenty of people were willing to dig deep, it seems. And wouldn't you know it, favorable policy outcomes followed, in many cases. But hey, the Clintons were just trying to make ends meet:
I'll say this for Bill: At least he's actually fielding questions from the media about this (or anything, for that matter), unlike the Clinton spouse who is currently seeking the presidency. He says he and the Clinton Foundation have refused donations in the past, but declined to elaborate. If taking gobs of cash from foreigners (successfully) pressuring the US government to approve the sale of a large percentage of American uranium capacity to the Kremlin wasn't problematic enough to reject, one wonders where the Clintons were willing to draw the line. The 42nd president insists that none of this lucrative hustle and bustle at the intersection of money and power amounted to "knowingly inappropriate" behavior. Americans shouldn't take his word for it: The Clinton Foundation exploited various tentacles to take in vast sums from unvetted foreign donors and governments, in violation of transparency agreements and commitments. After getting caught, their excuses fell flat. They failed to reports tens of millions in foreign government donations on their tax returns, "accidentally" reporting that income as zero. They "mistakenly" listed paid speeches (taxable) as charitable contributions (tax-free). They lied about a meeting at their home regarding the shady Russian/Kazakh uranium deal. And, of course, Hillary essentially broke every rule in existence by setting up a private, under-secure email server as Secretary of State, on which she conducted all of her official business. When Congressional investigators started asking too many questions, she directed her lawyers to cull those emails without any oversight, then wipe the server. It appears as though many Americans aren't especially inclined to take the Clintons at their word:
Americans appear to be suspicious of Hillary Rodham Clinton's honesty, and even many Democrats are only lukewarm about her presidential candidacy, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. Is she strong and decisive? Yes, say a majority of people. But inspiring and likable? Only a minority think so. Clinton's struggles to explain her email practices while in government, along with questions about the Clinton Foundation and Republican criticism of her openness, wealth and trustworthiness seem to have struck a nerve in the public's perception of the dominant Democratic figure in the 2016 campaign. In the survey, 61 percent said "honest" describes her only slightly well or not at all. Nearly four in 10 Democrats, and more than six in 10 independents agreed that "honest" was not the best word for her.
In any case, you'll be pleased to learn that about this:
Taxpayers have subsidized the Clinton Foundation to the tune of $7 million http://t.co/cNISoOLoFm
— Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) May 1, 2015Hey, a couple's gotta eat.