The never-ending story of Hillary Clinton’s emails and what they reveal about the connections between big donors to the Clinton Foundation and access to the Secretary of State – and the ever-evolving excuses and rationalizations from Hillary and the media – have made this story difficult for the public to keep up with or comprehend. That’s exactly what Hillary and her palace guards are hoping for. So let’s take Hillary’s own advice, from her nomination acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention: let’s take just one example and “follow the money.”
Fortunately, Philadelphia Daily News columnist Will Bunch already pulled one example out of the tangled ball of intrigue and laid it out for us: While the Obama Administration (which Hillary’s State Department supposedly represented overseas) was calling on citizens of oppressive Middle Eastern nations to rise up against their governments in an “Arab Spring,” one of those nations, the kingdom of Bahrain, donated up to $100,000 to a Clinton Foundation program, and the deputy supreme commander of its armed forces, Crown Prince Salman, gave a staggering $32 million more.
In 2009, the head of the Clinton Foundation, Doug Band, emailed Hillary’s top aid, Huma Abedin, requesting a meeting with Clinton for Prince Salman, calling him a “good friend of ours.” The meeting was arranged. Then, over the next two years, Hillary’s State Department approved $630 million in direct commercial arms sales to Bahrain, a 187% increase over 2006-2008 levels. Bahrain used those weapons to violently suppress its own citizens who had been encouraged by Obama to launch a democratic uprising.
As Bunch notes, the media can look at that story and then do twists and backflips worthy of an Olympic medal to try to avoid calling it a “quid pro quo” and to accept Hillary’s spokesman’s claim that she “never took action as Secretary of State because of donations to the Clinton Foundation.” Um, news flash: Even if you can ignore all the bullets and tear gas, just accepting the meeting because the Prince was “a good friend of ours” was taking action because of a donation.
Bunch asks, if the news media can look at this and not call it “corruption,” then what meaning does that word even have anymore? So we can now add “corruption” to “is” on the list of words that had to be redefined in order to let the Clintons off the hook for their own misdeeds.