SHOULD HILLARY CLINTON BE DISQUALIFIED FROM SEEKING THE PRESIDENCY?
by Joseph DeMaio, ©2015
(May 28, 2015) — By now – unless you have been living under a rock or watching nothing but NBC and MSNBC… roughly equivalent activities – you are aware that William (“it-depends-on-what-‘is’-is”) Clinton and his spouse, Hillary (“what-difference-now-does-it-make?”) Clinton have funneled millions of dollars from foreign governments to the “Clinton Foundation,” an entity they call, with a straight face no less, their “charity.” You also know, subject to that same “rock” caveat above, that much of that money flowed into the foundation’s coffers in the dead of night, without disclosure, while Hillary Rodham Clinton posed as U.S. Secretary of State.
Since her main “accomplishment” while in her position at the State Department was apparently feathering her own nest along with whatever other nest her husband was parking his boots beneath with this money, instead of responding to the cries for help from Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, the term “posed” seems fitting. These people – both of them – give new meaning to the term “corrupt.”
And listening to the Clintons and their sycophants in the media, you are admonished to believe that there was nothing – repeat, nothing – even faintly resembling a “link” or “quid pro quo” between those “donations” to the foundation from foreign governments and actions taken by the State Department with respect to contracts, reviews and approvals or various “activities” being pursued by those governments and their nationals. How could you possibly believe otherwise?
That uranium deal with the Russians? Pay no attention… it is a “distraction.” The hiring of Sidney Blumenthal by the foundation – at $10,000 per month – to “fact-find” and “advise” the Secretary of State on the situation in Libya? Peanuts. The use of a private computer and e-mail system, the deletion of thousands of e-mails otherwise constituting what the law and judges call “evidence” and the degaussing of the server’s hard drive in an attempt to make sure none of them – including any that might have involved foreign governments – could be retrieved? None of your business. Move on… nothing to see here.
As the details continue to see the light of day, and despite her desperate attempts to keep the curtains drawn, we now know that tens of millions of dollars’ worth of arms sales – sales far exceeding those authorized by the prior Bush administrations – were authorized and approved on HRC’s watch to myriad foreign nations which, in turn, had made millions of dollars in “donations” to the Clinton Foundation.
Many (but not all) of those countries have less than exemplary track records in the area of human rights and democratic practices. But hey, as one oleaginous barterer said to the other, “You grease my palm, and I will grease yours.” As noted in the linked article above, “under federal law, foreign governments seeking State Department clearance to buy American-made arms are barred from making campaign contributions — a prohibition aimed at preventing foreign interests from using cash to influence national security policy. But nothing prevents them from contributing to a philanthropic foundation controlled by policymakers.” (Emphasis added).
As P&E readers are well aware, lying at the core of the Founders’ concerns regarding inclusion of the “natural born Citizen” restriction in the Constitution was the desire to preclude and prevent, as far as possible, the potential for the insinuation and infiltration of “foreign influence” into the office of the president.
As noted in Federalist 68, Alexander Hamilton cautioned that “[n]othing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?” (Emphasis added). John Jay’s July 25, 1787 letter to George Washington articulates the same concern regarding the potential for the admission of foreign influence into the office of the “Command in Chief of the [A]merican army,” i.e., the president.
So, against this backdrop, is it just me… or does anyone else detect a similarity between the Founders’ eligibility concerns regarding “foreign influence” in the office of the president and present-day questions surrounding Hillary Rodham Clinton’s and the Clinton Foundation’s “you-grease-my-palm” approach to foreign governments and foreigners seeking approvals, favor and influence?
Even if HRC qualified as a “natural born Citizen” – unlike the present occupant of the Oval Office – her actions with regard to foreign donations to her “charity” would have raised in the Founders’ minds precisely the same species of concerns as to “foreign influence” in the office of the chief executive. And for the same reasons, she should be disqualified and deemed ineligible, not as a matter of constitutional law, but as a matter of plain common sense. Again, rocket science, this is not.
On the other hand, as her husband might argue, it would depend on what the meaning of “ineligible”….. is.
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.