Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.
Seriously, if foreign countries and entities want Hillary Clinton to be the next U.S. President shouldn’t that be the final nail in the coffin of the chronic liar and serial perjurer? Hillary is bringing an entire new meaning to the phrase, “Know your Enemies.”
It makes perfect sense when one considers the knowledge level of those voting in United States Elections.
Remember, Johnny Chung: contributor and colleague; many visits to Clinton White House and Oval Office with mainland Chinese associates; several illegal campaign contributions, money laundering, tax fraud, and bank fraud guilty pleas (“Democrat Fund-Raiser Pleads Guilty” March 17, 1998).
Chung, has told federal investigators that the chief of China’s military intelligence funneled $300,000 through him to back President Clinton’s 1996 campaign
Among the many, many reasons why Americans hate and distrust the mainstream media, we’ve got the amazing spectacle of a major story directly impacting a likely presidential candidate — Hillary Clinton — completely blacked out in favor of obsessive coverage for llamas on the loose.
To mix animal metaphors, many liberal-media critics smell a rat every time the airwaves are filled with obsession over a frivolous story. NewsBusters clocked six minutes on the story of llamas running loose in Arizona, but only 32 seconds of coverage on one of the major networks (CBS) for the incredible tale of Hillary Clinton’s foundation raking in foreign and corporate cash both during and after her tenure as Secretary of State.
This is the same media that squeezed a solid week of shrieking, hysterical news coverage out of Rudy Giuliani, who isn’t even running for anything, expressing doubts about the depth of Barack Obama’s love for America. Even the casual news consumer realized the intensity of this coverage had little to do with its news-worthiness.
It was, in part, a cynical attempt to use Giuliani’s remarks as a hydraulic piston to hammer the Republicans who probably are running for president, beginning with — but by no means limited to — Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, but mostly it was a sustained wail of anguish and outrage from media elites, who identify so strongly with their beloved Barack Obama that they took Giuliani’s s remarks as a personal slight against them.
There’s no question about the depth of Hillary Clinton’s love for money. As the Clinton Foundation story gets deeper, it’s increasingly difficult for the mainstream press to justify ignoring it. They’ll be even more reluctant to ask her about it, the way hordes of them followed Walker around and interrogated him about what he thinks Barack Obama is thinking. Hillary Clinton doesn’t get asked about anything.
The media allows her to remain invisible for as long as she likes, and since her public appearances tend to become gaffe avalanches, she stays invisible quite a bit. It would be a certain sign that the media favoritism her nascent candidacy depends on was evaporating if they actually asked her about the Clinton Foundation stories.
The story we’ve been hearing so little about from the press came in two stages. First, the Wall Street Journal dished on the Clinton Foundation quietly dropping its “self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign governments” and collecting a rapidly increasing amount of foreign money. Second, the Washington Post discovered that “self-imposed ban” wasn’t exactly imposed with rigorous discipline to begin with:
The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.
Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.
The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.
The new disclosures, provided in response to questions from The Washington Post, make clear that the 2008 agreement did not prohibit foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government from giving money to the charity closely linked to the secretary of state.
In one instance, foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government.
The money was given to assist with earthquake relief in Haiti, the foundation said. At the time, Algeria, which has sought a closer relationship with Washington, was spending heavily to lobby the State Department on human rights issues.
See entire fiasco below.