The Clinton Foundation has long been in the headlines. Indeed one of the reasons Hillary Clinton is not president today is because of the revelations in Peter Schweizer’s book, Clinton Cash, which came out in 2015 and broke Ms. Clinton’s stride right out of the gate. But according to a report from The Hill it looks like there is new interest at the FBI.
The Clinton Foundation was pretty “in your face.” Bill Clinton, under the Foundation umbrella, jetted around the world playing private diplomat. He flitted here and there as bankers and other moneyed groups vied for a picture and nodded and clapped during well worn speeches. But Bill Clinton was not the prize. His wife was.
Hillary was the heir apparent to the White House. She would in all likelihood waltz right into the presidency, champion of the establishment and all the ‘proper’ voter constituencies at the same time. Never before had the presidency looked so in the bag. This was an opportunity for political entrepreneurship, crony capitalism.
Access to a future president was worth quite a lot and the Clintons took full advantage of the situation. Bill acted as the conduit while Hillary headed up the State Department and padded her resume.
The standard response from the Clinton Foundation lawyers to accusations of wrongdoing has always been dismissive, which one would expect. But was the Foundation given breaks by law enforcement over the years? Did people look the other way when ethical if not legal violations occurred? Were the Clintons considered above the law? And was that the reason why The Clinton Foundation was never really pulled apart.
Or is there really no there there. We’ll bet, given our coverage of The Clinton Foundation over the years that there IS a there there. But it may be too late to discover as the Dems come to take over the House and the Speaker’s gavel.
“It is a very good roadmap for investigation,” said retired FBI supervisory agent Jeffrey Danik, a prior practicing certified public accountant who helped the bureau make some of its most complex financial fraud and terrorism cases during a 29-year career.
“When you have the organization’s own lawyers using words like ‘quid pro quo,’ ‘conflicts of interest’ and ‘whistleblower protections,’ you have enough to get permission to start interviewing and asking questions,” he said.