Gail Smith
My father always said me, “no solo hay que ser honesto, sino que hay que parecerlo,” not only do you have to be honest; you have to appear to be honest.
It looks that at the very least the appearance of impropriety continues to loom over the Clintons. In the continuing saga over the concurrences of favors received and donations made, the latest is frankly quite worrisome.
It has been widely reported that individuals who donated generously to the Clinton Foundation brokered intricate deals for bids for uranium mines, some in the U.S. that end up in the hands of Putin and the Russian government. Granting the bids for mines located in the U.S., required approval by the U.S. government, as the sale entailed a critical resource for the U.S.
Hillary Clinton was secretary of state when the U.S. government sanctioned the deal. She was not the only cabinet member comprising the executive committee that approved the deal, but the fact that Bill Clinton had been involved in advocating in favor of one of the individuals, Frank Giustra a Canadian mining executive, and involved in the deals, makes conflict of interest evident.
In fact, as reported, Bill Clinton traveled with Giustra to Kazakhstan, as sort of a personal vouch that helped give Giustra, the credibility with the president of Kazakhstan that Giustra needed to get a stake in three Kazakh uranium mines. A few days after the visit, Giustra’s company was granted the deal. Giustra has donated more than $31 million to the Clinton Foundation.
When China wanted to acquire a 51 percent stake in a small Nevada gold mine the deal was not approved because of concerns that other minerals, such as uranium, would fall under control of the Chinese. Yet the deal that puts a substantial amount of the U.S. production of uranium in the hands of Russia was not questioned. Today Russia owns global uranium production. How will this impact our national security?
The same month the U.S. government approved the Russian deal; Bill Clinton was invited to speak at a conference in Moscow and paid $500,000. Coincidence?
I can go on and on about the overlapping of speeches, donations and favorable outcomes for donors reported but the irrefutable fact is that the appearance of improper behavior is too obvious to ignore.
The biggest concern is how all these donations can help turn a blind eye to improprieties. Saudi Arabia has made donations to the foundation to the tune of $10-$25 million while the country has an abysmal record in regards to the rights of women. This past week Hillary spoke at the Women in the World Summit and stated, “women’s rights are human rights” and she has stated repeatedly that the advancement of women and girls around the world is her life’s work. As hard as one can try, it’s difficult to reconcile these two actions.
Hillary’s campaign has come out swinging calling all the allegations, efforts by right-winged conspiracy mongers. But the truth of the matter is that media, ones that are not exactly known as bastions of conservatism, are the ones that have dissected all the facts surrounding these donations.
The other rebuttal is that there “is not a shred of evidence” that supports a quid pro quo. I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t say there is or isn’t, but what I know is that the number of correlations and ties between money flowing into the foundation and benefits received by those donors raises questions. Perhaps the federal prosecutors that have assiduously investigated Senator Robert Menendez for much less should take a look.
The Clintons have for years used their positions to peddle influence and donations without any scrutiny. Lets not forget the infamous Lincoln room sleepovers and intimate coffees. This is the way they operate, and we’re all fools if we think this is going to stop.