Are the Words Clinton and “Sleazy” Synonyms?

It's not very nice to call someone “sleazy”, which is a word defined as a person being dishonest, corrupt, and disreputable, especially a former President and a Secretary of State, but as the the old expression goes, “if the shoe fits wear it”. When I make a statement like that, I know I will be accused or referred to as being a member of the “vast right-wing conspiracy”, but what the hell, I say that the Clinton's are a “sleazy” duo.

The Clinton's have been on the public stage for over 30 years, starting their sleazy careers in Arkansas and continuing up until today. This “Teflon Duo” has had to answer for one scandal after another, but as “luck” would have it, they have slithered through most all of them with only a glitch here and there (I guess you could deduce that it's not what you know, but who you know that has guided them in their charmed life).

Actually, the first glitch occurred during the Watergate brouhaha in 1973. Hillary landed a job right out of college, on that Watergate committee as a legal assistant, which was headed up by Chief Counsel, Jerome Zeifman, a Democrat. As she worked for the committee, she was abruptly fired by Zeifman for lying and being unethical. It seems that that firing was the forerunner for her career in politics and government service up until today, as she is now being investigated by the FBI, which might presage the end of her political career if the FBI recommends that the Justice Department indict her. Stay tuned.

The Clinton scandals have, as stated before, been going on ever since their Arkansas days, when she supposedly turned a $1,000 investment into a windfall profit of $100,000 as her husband, Bill, was then the Arkansas Attorney General. It was later reported that a crony of Bill's did the transaction for Hillary as a favor. This was the first of many “quid pro quo”s” the Clinton's have been accused of over the years.

All during their time in Arkansas and into Bill Clinton's two terms as president, Bill's philandering and abuse of women continued on a regular basis. It has been quite obvious that all during this time, Hillary was her husbands enabler as she headed up an “attack” group called to counteract “bimbo eruptions”, which was setup to attempt to intimidate and to keep quiet the gaggle of Bill Clinton's abused women accusers.

Since they left the White House in 2001, the sleaze continued on uninterrupted. As they left the White House, they were accused of taking approximately $200,000 worth of furnishings and gifts from the White House. They shamefully had to return $120,000 of the loot.

The Clinton's claimed that, when they left the White House, they were broke, but they were able to buy a million plus dollar house in Chappaqua, N.Y. and a townhouse in Wash. D.C. (also worth millions, so I guess they weren't really as broke as they claimed?) After they left Wash. D.C. , they started a tax-free “philanthropic” foundation called the “Clinton Foundation” (a/k/a the Clinton Global Initiative), which over the years has become a billion dollar enterprise with donations mainly coming from foreign countries and foreign individuals. Some people have referred to this foundation as a Clinton “slush fund” which, according to reputable sources, contributes or doles out only about 15% of its funds to legitimate charitable causes, while the rest of the tax-free money has gone to Clinton cronies for large salaries, lavish travel, and a stockpile of future workers for Hillary's campaign for president, and a personal piggy bank for the Clinton's, but by some “act of miracles”, the foundation has gotten away from a government audit and they also have been late in filing their tax returns. Do you think they might be hiding something?

While Hillary was Secretary of State, her husband Bill was traveling around the world collecting huge speaking fees and getting big donations to the Clinton Foundation, while some of those foreign countries and foreign “oligarchs” had dealings with Hillary's State Department. Did these countries and foreign individuals give the Clinton's these monies out of the goodness of their hearts, or was there an expectation of something of value in return, such as a quid pro quo? The answer is obviously a resounding “yes”.

The list could go on and on, but I think you get the gist of what I laid out, and I think you could say that the actions of the Clinton's were “sleazy” at best and criminal at worst.

It would be a disaster for our country if we put these two “grifters” back in the White House.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann