The Associated Press found Hillary Clinton “met or spoke by phone with nearly 100 corporate executives and long-time Clinton political and charity donors during her four years at the State Department.” The AP says they “found no evidence of legal or ethical conflicts in Clinton’s meetings,” but it’s not likely that she or her staff would write “trade influence for donations” in her appointment book.
Instead, you merely have to look at the donors and the decisions that flowed out of her office, and wonder how likely it is that they’re purely coincidental. Under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the U.S. State Department authorized arms deals to Clinton Foundation donors, authorized Russia’s purchase of 20 percent of the U.S. uranium supply, gave six of eight prestigious awards to Clinton Foundation donors, and saluted Nigeria’s human rights record while Bill Clinton collected $700,000 speaking fees from a Nigerian entrepreneur tied to his country’s government.
Going back to 2013, journalists investigating the Clinton Foundation diagnosed “an undertow of transactionalism in the glittering annual dinners, the fixation on celebrity, and a certain contingent of donors whose charitable contributions and business interests occupy an uncomfortable proximity.” But it’s unthinkable that that same culture of transactionalism would extend to Hillary’s office in the State Department, right? For about four years, Hillary Clinton’s top aide, Huma Abedin, was given a “special government employee” designation meaning she was employed by the U.S. State Department, the Clinton Foundation and the Teneo consulting firm simultaneously? Could you imagine a clearer conflict of interest?