OPINION:
It is obvious based on Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash and other revelations about the Clinton family philanthropy that it is a vehicle to enhance the reputation of the principals and their personal bank account as well. What has been overlooked in the revelations is not only the inappropriate foreign government contributions—which are possibly illegal and probably immoral—but the compromises of the national security of the United States.
While Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State, the government of Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Australia, Norway, Algeria and the Dominican Republic lavished millions of dollars on the Clinton Foundation. When news of this matter was publically released, Ms. Clinton admitted she should have sought approval from the State Department. It is instructive that she didn’t make the admission until the story broke.
Foreign donors are not the only source of fundraising for the foundation. In 2008, the foundation received between $1 million and $5 million from Issam Fares, the formal deputy prime minister of Lebanon. Mr. Fares is a supporter of Hezbollah and President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Hezbollah is on the State Department list of terrorist organizations and Assad is the president best known for his use of poisonous gas.
Another contributor to the Clinton Foundation is Gilbert Chagoury, a notorious businessman who is also known to be a key supporter of Hezbollah. He is joined in giving to the Clinton Foundation by several terrorist sympathizers including, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al Nahyan, erstwhile president of the United Arab Emirates (1971-2004). In 1999, his family created the Zayed Center for Coordinated and Follow Up, which is a haven for anti-Israel sentiment, Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites.
As evidence accumulates about Ms. Clinton’s cavalier approach to state secrets and her use of her own server for departmental business—in clear violation of state department regulations—there is the belief that nations such as Russia and China may have hacked her easily accessible emails. This belief is in the realm of speculation, but nonetheless plausible based on her reckless approach to national security.
One of the employees at the Clinton Foundation who led the Cairo office of the Clinton Climate Initiative, Gehad el-Haddad, worked for the Muslim Brotherhood. He later was employed by former president Mohamed Morsi and was arrested for inciting violence.
These facts are the tip of a proverbial iceberg that suggests a fundamental moral lapse and unconcern about the nation’s essential security questions. Suppose Ms. Clinton were elected president of the United States. Would the associations, email message trail, former employees, international ties, etc. compromise her foreign policy decisions? Of course, no one can answer this question, but it is natural for suspicions to arise.
The morally myopic behavior of Ms. Clinton raises many questions about her ability to be president of the country. Truth telling is one issue, but by no means the only one. Her assessment of intimates suggests the only value she puts a premium on is loyalty—perhaps fealty would be a better word—since many of those, who maintained employment at the Clinton Foundation have unsavory associations.
President Obama has discussed resetting the agenda with Russia. But a President Clinton would have her agenda reset by the Russians if they possess damaging knowledge about her actions as Secretary of State. It is one thing to be an appeaser unable to stand up for American interests, but quite another matter to have all decisions constrained by the fear of exposure.
Recent history has indicated American presidents do not resemble St. Francis but rarely have Americans been subjected to a candidate so morally obtuse and so reckless in the performance of her public service.
Herbert London is the President of the London Center for Policy Research.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.