Clinton Foundation Again Under Scrutiny

It’s a tired subject, but past allegations surfaced this week of more Clinton Foundation wrongdoing. Specifically, “resources” being used for Chelsea Clinton’s wedding, which Bill Clinton was – once again – quick to deny. The claims were brought this time by a conservative news host in the wake of the Donald Trump “shithole nation” controversy, the Clinton family’s reaction to the comment via Twitter.
Former President Clinton linked to a 2016 Washington Post article that allegedly debunked the claim. The article was published after the allegations had previously been brought to the public’s attention as a result of a Wikileaks-released email between two high-ranking Hilary Clinton staff members while she was Secretary of State.
However, these allegations needs to be investigated further, because this article, as so much of our media coverage today, fixates on only a snippet of what is actually said, and uses the words in a narrower context to divert the audience’s attention. It’s a textbook redirect.
The Post article, when hypothesizing the “resources” mentioned in the email written by Clinton staffer Doug Bland, only uses that term in reference to the wedding. The [updated] article’s main point is that since Bland never explicitly mentioned finances or money, there is no evidence they were funneling cash.
However, if one looks beyond the Post’s fixation on celebrity weddings, in the email, Bland goes on to state that Chelsea used those “resources for her wedding and life for a decade, taxes on money from her parents…”
The example the Post gives as a “resource” that could have been used at the wedding is Foundation employees volunteering.
Please, with as extravagant an event as the Post itself admitted the wedding was, it’s difficult for me to imagine they would put the fine details in the hands of Clinton Foundation volunteers. I also can’t envision a scenario in which Chelsea used volunteers [to pay for] “taxes on money from her parents,” or in her “life for a decade”…See my point?
The only other validations the article offers to categorize this allegation as unsubstantiated, are:

  • The allegations were only reported initially by the New York Post.
  • All individuals involved including the wedding planner claim, in the words of a spokesperson for the former president, “the Clintons happily and proudly paid for the wedding.”

While this very well may be true, note he doesn’t mention what the wedding was paid for with. The wedding planner, who’s website was linked to in the article, seemingly found these allegations preposterous. However, it seems to me that a link to your business website in a Washington Post would be incentive enough to plead the fifth.
Until Bland, the person who actually typed the emailing clarifying if he did or did not, in fact, explicitly mean financing, there is more visual evidence to support this allegation is accurate, and can be added to the long dirty-laundry list of “confirmed but publicly denied” Clinton-administration wrongdoings.
Also worth noting is the recent decision by Donald Trump to reopen the Justice Department’s investigation into the Clinton foundation. Specifically under investigation is an alleged bribe in the form of a $150 million donation from Russian uranium company Uranium One, in exchange for a 2010 Obama Administration deal that provided the company control of around 20% of the uranium production in the United States.
I’ve been doing this long enough to know that this finding resurfacing will go unnoticed by most of the general public. Those who do come across it will almost surely not be presented fully with both sides of the argument, if both are even presented at all. Therefore most people will likely choose to accept the mainstream narrative.
And so you, after reading this, another subjective account, can choose to accept it or not. But one thing you must find ironic, is how these so-called “humanitarians” have been charged again and again with violations in countries across the globe, but it’s Trump who’s a racist for referring the very same countries as “shitholes.”
The role the administrations of the last twenty-five years had on creating these shitholes the world over is a subject for another day. All I’m trying to say here is that if foundation funds were being used as they were designated to be used, not financing New York elite weddings, there’s less of a chance President Chump would have used this adjective how and when he did.