Two Hillary Clinton scandals merge into one and threaten take her career down in the process.
For the first time in his almost seven years as President of the United States, Barack Obama will not be seen at the annual Clinton Global Initiative summit. The event, which is timed to coincide with United Nations week in New York City, is a must-attend for the international elite. The president’s planned absence is conspicuous, and it has been covered in the Beltway press as yet another navel-gazing opportunity to engage in self-gratifying 2016 speculation. With Vice President Joe Biden weighing his options, Politico reported, the president is torn by his “divided loyalties” toward his second and his former secretary of state. Facing an agonizing Solomon’s choice, Obama simply opted to keep his powder dry and to decline to show any favoritism by appearing at the Clinton Foundation-sponsored event. It’s a tortured effort to avoid the simpler explanation for Obama’s absence. Knowing what we all now know about the Foundation and with an Imelda Marcos-sized collection of shoes precariously positioned to drop at any moment, perhaps the president simply didn’t want to be seen in such ignoble company?
It is easy to forget the disturbing revelations about the Clinton Foundation that were exposed around the same time that the House select committee investigating the Benghazi attacks discovered the extent of Hillary Clinton’s grossly negligent email practices. Considering the deleterious effect that scandal has had on Clinton’s standing in the polls, it is grimly ironic that the overshadowing of one scandal with another has redounded to the former secretary’s benefit. The appearance of corruption at the Clinton Foundation is the controversy most likely to drive a stake through the heart of Hillary Clinton’s political career.
What we know about this charity today is that it wasn’t much of a charity at all. Of course, CGI and the Foundation have done good work, but so have thousands of other charitable institutions that spend less than 60 percent of revenues merely servicing administrative costs, providing salaries, and securing lavish travel accommodations. What’s more, most of those charities are not flagrantly skirting the law.