Thanks to Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash, we already have a collection of damning evidence suggesting that Hillary Clinton used her position at the State Department to trade policy favors for money. Sometimes that money flowed into the family charity – the Clinton Foundation. Sometimes, though, it went to husband Bill Clinton in the form of exorbitant speaking fees.
The Washington Free Beacon launched an investigation into these fees, and they found that the Clintons regularly disguised the source of their outrageous speaking payments. In October of 2009, for instance, Bill Clinton received $290,000 for a speaking engagement with the Lady Taverners, a cricket charity based in London. The Free Beacon found, however, that the charity didn’t pay him. Nor did the marketing firm Hillary Clinton claimed as the source of the payment in federal filings. Instead, the check came from a British businessman named Robert Whitton – a name found nowhere in the Clinton family’s public financial disclosure documents.
Whitton just happened to need approval on a project from UNESCO, an agency funded heavily by the State Department. It’s not clear if his hidden payment helped him untangle the web of red tape he was facing, but it’s another one of those situations where the Clintons are blatantly engaged in a cover-up. The Free Beacon investigation uncovered dozens of these scenarios where the Clintons used a front group to cover for the true source of Bill’s speaking fees. Now why in the world…?
Well, there are two explanations. The innocent one is that Hillary and Bill made this a practice because they didn’t want to get accused of taking money from Wall Street or this special interest or that one – a strategy that clearly did not work.
The other one is that they did not want anyone to connect the dots between Bill’s speeches and Hillary’s work at the State Department, dots that appear to be growing more numerous by the day. If someone can ever link these together with hard evidence…
…we’ll get to see James Comey explain why it didn’t violate the law.
Regardless, Trump would do well to bring these troubling allegations to the forefront of his campaign. We saw in the primaries how vulnerable Hillary is already when it comes to her speaking engagements; the stunning six-figure fees alone should give Democrats and independents pause to consider why a company might pay that much for a one-hour speech.
And to consider what else they might want when it’s over.