Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough went on an epic rant over the treatment of Hillary Clinton compared to other politicians Tuesday morning. Author Peter Schweizer was on the program to discuss his new book Clinton Cash, which outlines examples of foreign donors receiving favorable treatment after they made donations to the Clinton Foundation during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Mika Brzenzski asked Schweizer whether his motivations for the book were political, since the book’s release comes so close to Clinton’s campaign announcement.
“I began this investigation last year because you have an unprecedented situation that the Obama administration recognized,” Schweizer said.
Scarborough then went on a rant about double standards applied to the Clintons versus other politicos…
“I worked with guys in Congress that went golfing, like, one or two times in Ireland, and then six months later, put a bill on the floor of the House and they went to jail—and we’re sitting here going, wait a second, maybe he just got paid three times the amount,” Scarborough said.
“Maybe Belarus or telecom companies or maybe this, come on. We’re not naive babes in the woods. I know you’re playing this game of tough journalism, and that’s awesome. But Mika, Bob McDonnell—what Bob McDonnell did pales in comparison to what’s in this book. What Bob Menendez did pales in comparison to what’s in this book. The Clintons have made $150 million over the past decade because of contacts during public service. I will now sit back and let you ask the tough questions. I’m just curious, though, why are the Clintons held to a standard that Bob McDonnell’s not held to, that Bob Menendez is not held to, that all of these congressmen that get thrown into jail for going on a—going to a Redskins game or going on a golf trip, compare to $150 million?”
After the rant, Brzezinski continued to question Schweizer’s political motives. She said the Justice Department was behind the prosecution of McDonnell and Menendez and isn’t a political author like Schweizer.
Scarborough defended Schweizer’s credibility with his previous book on congressional insider trading.
“When Peter Schweizer was talking about Congress insider trading we had him on the set, great job, way to go, you’re great, you’ve called this out. 60 Minutes had him on there, great job,” Scarborough said. “It’s the Clintons and suddenly, oh, my God, let’s bow down before Bill and Hillary because if we ask the same questions of them that we ask of every other politician, then oh, my God, we have crossed a line.”
Let’s face it folks – The Clinton’s corruption is worse than prostitution. With prostitution it endangers only the individual. But corruption endangers the morals of the entire country. Of which this nation now, has little or none left.
The Willis Report from last night on Fox, with more on the Clinton Slush Fund Foundation, coupled with a wrap-around editorial from Thomas Lifson in today’s American Thinker…
Not only did the Clinton Foundation conceal the names of 1100 big foreign donors to an affiliate, it has lied about doing so. First, the concealment, via Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger of the Washington Post:
A charity affiliated with the Clinton Foundation failed to reveal the identities of its 1,100 donors, creating a broad exception to the foundation’s promise to disclose funding sources as part of an ethics agreement with the Obama administration.
The number of undisclosed contributors to the charity, the Canada-based Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, signals a larger zone of secrecy around foundation donors than was previously known.
Details of the organization’s fundraising were disclosed this week by a spokeswoman for the Canadian group’s founder, mining magnate Frank Giustra.
Giustra is the billionaire who greased the skids for approval of the sale of American uranium mines to the Russians.
Now, for the Clintion Foundation lie. Helderman and Hamburger:
a foundation official this week defended the arrangement with the Giustra group, noting in a blog post that Canadian law prevents charities in that country from disclosing their donors without the donors’ permission.
The Canadian partnership has in recent days begun to reach out to its 28 largest donors, each of whom gave donations equivalent to at least $250,000 in U.S. dollars, to seek permission to release their names, said a person familiar with the foundation, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.
Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist exposes the lie:
The Clinton foundation claims that it couldn’t be totally transparent about who was doing business with this Giustra Partnership because of Canadian law barring them from listing individual donors. And in this CNN story, a Giustra spokesman claims that they didn’t brief the Clinton Foundation on donations to the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership:
Giuistra’s spokesperson would not detail the group’s donors, but said that no one from the Clinton Foundation was briefed on donations to The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada) because that would have broken Canadian law.
But @morgenr found a few instances of the Clintons publishing this information on Canadian web sites (snip)
According to an expert on Canadian charitable organization law, however, the Clinton Foundation claim that public disclosures are barred by federal law rests on shaky ground. Adam Aptowitzer, an attorney with Drache Aptowitzer LLP, told The Federalist that Canadian federal law does not have a blanket prohibition on public disclosure of the names of charity donors.
“Federal law prohibits disclosure related to commercial activity: things like selling, renting, or bartering of a list. Fundraising is not a covered activity under PIPEDA, the federal privacy law,” Aptowitzer said. Federal privacy laws in Canada prohibit the disclosure of personal information in the course of commercial activity.