Guess Which Liberal Violated Ethics?

Democrats have no ethics, and the Clintons are America’s slimiest Democrats. That’s saying a lot when you consider the competition.

Most Democrats are afraid of the Clintons, because people who have crossed them have found themselves conveniently dead. Fear of death is the main reason Democrat scoundrels of the highest order haven’t challenged Hillary Clinton. And that is how she has gotten as far in politics as she has, as it certainly was not due to competence or high moral character.

Deleting 30,000 emails does pose a bit of an ethics dilemma for most politicians. However Clinton’s ethics issues started long before the email issue. Rep. Jason Chaffetz suggested this when he pressed the Office of Government Ethics recently for an explanation of its decision to exempt Clinton from laws compelling public officials to disclose all forms of income.

“Earlier this year, press reports indicated that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her husband failed to disclose millions of dollars in paid speeches over the past thirteen years under the belief they did not have a duty to report that because the speeches were delivered on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, and not in the Secretary’s or the President’s personal capacity,” Chaffetz wrote.

According to Chaffetz, the Clintons were paid for “at least five speeches” whereby Clinton routed her speaking fee to The Clinton Foundation between 2014 and 2015. She did not list that income on her disclosure form as the law typically requires.

At LEAST five; and we all know there were more.

Hillary Clinton in her own words bragged about “donating her speaking fees to charity,” but didn’t say it was her OWN charity.

In addressing this “technicality,” the ethics office’s spokesman, Vincent Salamone had issued a statement in May arguing public officials did not need to disclose payments if they are made directly to an organization, as was the case with the Clinton Foundation speaking fees. However, Walter Shaub, director of the Office of Government Ethics, struggled to explain the statute behind Salamone’s assertion during a hearing Dec. 16, simply arguing it was a “very long, very detailed” rule.
Pressed later in the hearing to cite the exact statute, Shaub pointed to a rule that actually outlined requirements for officials to report income paid to a charity.
That’s because this is very simple: INCOME IS INCOME, no matter where it ultimately ends up. Put another way, if you or I did what Hilary “Dead Broke” Clinton did, we’d pay serious fine or possibly be jailed.
This type of scandal is not unusual for the Clintons. As we reported, The Clinton Foundation is simply a money laundering scheme.

Chaffetz asked the ethics office to hand over all documents related to its discussions with the Clinton Foundation and both Clintons about speech fee disclosures made since Dec. 2008, when Clinton struck a deal with the White House just before becoming secretary of state. Supposedly that deal imposed stricter reporting requirements on Bill Clinton and the family’s foundation given Hillary Clinton’s impending position as the nation’s chief diplomat, but you can see just how seriously the Teflon couple took the requirements.

Back to top button