In a move that has shocked liberals everywhere, the FBI is opening an investigation into the Clinton Foundation. The news has shocked zero conservatives.
The split between liberals and conservatives on this issue is remarkable- and notable for how illuminating it is of that darned liberal hypocrisy we here at Republic Standard keep banging on about. We all know that if Donald Trump accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign nationals while in office from citizens of states who sponsor terrorism, commit genocide and many other crimes- we would expect an investigation. We would demand a congressional inquiry. In fact, Donald Trump is investigated without any money trail or evidence at all.
So why the scrambling for damage control from the left? For liberals, the shock is that Hillary Clinton could have done something criminal at all.
For conservatives, the shock is that it has taken over a year for the FBI to officially investigate Hillary Clinton even after Peter Schweizer released the devastating book and movie Clinton Cash. Even after an extended public outcry.
Many liberals are pushing to use Michael Wolff's fictional retelling of the White House as the catalyst to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump. It is thus remarkable that liberals ignore the massive correlational evidence against Hillary Clinton. Via the Clinton Foundation, Clinton took money from these noble countries:
- Saudi Arabia
- The United Arab Emirates
All of these countries secured weapons deals while Hillary Clinton served in or influenced the state department. It is important to note that the United States has a long history of financing Middle Eastern governments weapons programs. We are, for better or worse, a major player in the Middle East as an arms dealer. It was Hillary Clinton's job to secure the best terms for America and American companies. Is anybody else seeing some conflict of interest here?
How can someone who owned and ran a charitable organization funded by America's business partners negotiate favorable deals for America? Governments and corporations love bribery and graft when influencing public officials. Why do they love it? It is cheap. Peter Schweizer, in his book Clinton Cash, estimated that Saudi Arabia donated 10 to 25 million USD to Clinton and her "foundation." While you will need to read this book yourself for the gory details, The New York Times corroborated that Clinton accepted money from the Saudis.
In 2016, the New York Times reported that the Saudis spent 8 billion dollars US-made weapons. I know of very few investments, save for Bitcoin, where you could invest $10 million and get a payoff in the billions of dollars. So the Clintons, to some extent, likely negotiated in bad faith. To them, millions are attractive. I know I'd like millions. However, I'd also like to think I would not sell out my country for billions of dollars if my cut was only in the low millions.
Further, arms sales to corrupt and violent countries that may support terrorism should be purely strategic. The only reason arms deals with dangerous players are acceptable is to leverage that power over human rights, the pursuit of certain terrorists, or other major geopolitical goals that favor America and Americans. Personally speaking, I'm not in favor of arms sales to Middle Eastern countries at all. These sales should always favor America and have a clear strategic advantage, if and when they do take place. This leads us to the logical question:
How can you have a strategic advantage when you owe the other side a favor?
The simple fact that Clinton, as Secretary of State, advocated for, negotiated, or at the very least permitted major arms sales to go forward is insane. While it would have been more embarrassing than her meat truck toss into a van or her stained clothing, Clinton had no choice but to recuse herself from any and all financial deals with nations that donated to her foundation.
This is not a partisan issue. If Donald Trump took $10 million from a foreign power for a charitable foundation while serving in the government, I would want him to recuse himself publicly from all proceedings relating to these deals. Hillary Clinton did not recuse herself, and so here we are.
It is still possible the FBI will refuse to charge Clinton. If she and Huma Abedin have avoided jail up to this point, I do not see the FBI, with its compromised leadership, having the guts to challenge Hillary now. They know that sooner or later Americans will elect a Democrat president, and he will clean house of any agents who acted against Saint Hillary.
It's wonderful that FBI is doing its job but don't expect them to act with any more cojones than during the initial investigation of Hillary Clinton using a fundraiser to illegally raise money for her alleged rapist husband. Over a decade ago one of her flunkies got charged, but due to the FBI's reluctance to charge her as well, the grand jury refused to prosecute.
Will liberals ever hold their politicians to realistic -or even basic- standards of morality, decency, and legality? It is doubtful given the historical precedent. They are far more concerned with the civilization-shattering crimes of drinking a dozen cokes, eating two scoops of ice cream, drinking water with both hands, or being a 70-year-old man who hesitates for a moment when descending stairs. Liberals won't worry about Americans losing hundreds of billions of their hard-earned tax dollars thanks to Hillary's acceptance of donations to a charity that is infamous for paying out almost no money.
Do your best to fight the culture war my friends, but don't expect any liberals you know to wake up unless vigorously shaken!