Thursday, September 24, 2015

Is it Fair to Call the Clinton's “Grifters”?

The definition of a “grifter” is a person(s) who make money dishonestly, a swindler, a double-dealer. Do the Clinton's qualify for that designation? You make the call.

Ever since the Clinton's got involved in politics back in the 1980's, it seems that one scandal after another has followed them from Arkansas to the White House and beyond, to this very day. What a mess! It seems there is a new shady revelation about both Bill and Hillary, practically every other week. There seems to be no bottom as to what might be revealed week after week, and month after month. These shameful revelations have seemed to have finally caught up to them after all these many years. The F.B.I. is finally investigating them. The F.B.I. only investigates possible crimes.

A recent Quinnipiac Poll asked over 1,500 people to say in one word what comes into their mind when a name is mentioned. The top three words mentioned when Hillary Clinton's name was mentioned was; #1 – LIAR, #2 -DISHONEST, #3 – UNTRUSTWORTHY. It's amazing that a person with that many negatives would be the front-runner for the Democrat nomination for president.

The sleaze that always seem follow them goes all the way back to Arkansas. Cattle future payouts, Whitewater land deals, Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit (Bill had to pay Paula Jones over $800,000 in damages to settle that lawsuit). When the Clinton's graduated to the White House, those disreputable practices continued. From the failed secret health care proposal that received zero votes in Congress, the Waco tragedy, the travel office “putsch” within the White House, and, of course, the infamous blue dress episode with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office, which partly led to his having articles of impeachment brought against him and his being disbarred from the practice of law.

After leaving the White House, the lies and deceit continued as they were found to have taken property from the White House which did not belong to them (they had to return property worth approx. $120,000), and subsequently they claimed that they were “broke”, but they were able to buy a couple of million dollar residences (how broke could they be?). They also setup a supposedly philanthropic foundation called the Clinton Global Initiative, which since, some have said, turned out to be a personal Clinton “slush fund” for their personal benefit and for their cronies to prepare for Hillary eventually running for president.

Since their first claim of being “broke” till the present time, they have accumulated over $150 million in income and assets plus access to more millions in the Clinton Foundation. During this period of time, Bill used his title as “Ex-President”, and Hillary using the position of U.S. Senator from N.Y. and then Secretary of State from 2009-20013, they have become wealthy beyond belief. Speaking fees from countries and influential characters from around the world, that generated from $200,000 to $800,000 per speech, was the going price. Many of these paid speeches were for countries with dubious human rights records and unsavory characters and dictatorial despots, many who miraculously gained a financial or political windfall after paying for the speech and donation to the Clinton Foundation. Would you chalk that up to just a coincidence? If you believe that, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Now that Hillary has decided to run for president, her shady past has surfaced, especially from the time she was Secretary of State. In order to avoid scrutiny as Secretary of State (what else could be deduced?), she decided to bypass the rules of people in positions of authority in the government, and decided to use her own personal e-mail and server that was located in her home in Chappaqua, N.Y. , instead of a government issued e-mail and server. After she left the position of Secretary of State, she did not turn over her e-mail records and instead had more than half of the messages deleted after those records were subpoenaed by a Congressional committee, all actions contrary to the rules of proper government practices. It seems that rules don't apply to them.

It has also come out in the open, that during her stint as Secretary of State, Bill asked to get permission to give speeches to both the Republic of the Congo and to No. Korea, two brutal, oppressive countries notorious for being poor and brutally repressive. The Congo was going to give Bill $650,000, but this speech and the No. Korea speech were turned down, but others were approved to other “bad actors” in other countries that had dealings with the United States. Could there have been a “quid pro quo” in the waiting? Is the Pope Catholic?

So the answer to the headline question is “YES”, the Clinton's are “grifters” and should not be given a second chance at polluting the White House again. Wake up America, we have been hoodwinked for the past 7 years , and we must return our country to be #1 again in the eyes of the world, both politically and morally.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Bookmark and Share


Jim Landis said...

There is an old saying that "character is developed out of a lifetime of choices". Well, the choices made by the Clinton's, over the years, have finally been shown to be self-serving, and an innate desire for power and influence to further their greedy ambitions. The Clinton's seem to have taken a page out of the Koran by using the tactic of "taqiyya" which states that it's O.K. to lie to further the cause, in the Clinton's case, for greed and power. Let's hope we don't have to fumigate the White House again by electing another Clinton to reside there.

Unknown said...

I have nothing to add, because everything they do always leaves me
speechless. New words have to be invented to describe their antics,