Funding for the Clinton Foundation Has Dried Up Along with Its Influence, Indicating that Hillary Was Selling Access to Power

Youtube
image_pdfimage_print
The Clinton Foundation collected massive donations from around the world and it was one of the largest charities ever, yet three years later, its revenue stream has collapsed. Peter Schweizer, author of Clinton Cash, says that the funding for the Clinton Foundation has dried up because Hillary lost the election and the Clintons no longer have influence to sell, which is the primary evidence for what the Clinton Foundation was really all about. The Clinton Foundation’s own internal review revealed that high-dollar donors had high expectations of quid pro quo political favors.

On Wednesday’s broadcast of Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” Government Accountability Institute president Peter Schweizer said the Clinton Foundation was experiencing a sharp drop in donations for the third year following Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the 2016 presidential election.

Schweizer said, “This the past year, the Clinton Foundation literally raised 10% of what it did in 2009, the first year that Hillary was secretary of state, and the international numbers were even worse. They had all this money flowing in when Hillary was the chief diplomat of the United States. Curiously in light of the testimony, the number one country for giving money to the Clinton Foundation was not Great Britain. It was not France. It was not Japan, it was Ukraine. All that money has now dried up, literally. The Clinton Foundation has had a hard time raising money because they don’t have the influence to sell. They don’t have power access to sell, and that, I think, is the primary evidence for what the Clinton enterprise was all about.”

He added, “One of the most interesting things that came out of the Podesta’s emails a few years ago, was an internal review that The Clinton Foundation data, actually at Chelsea’s behest they hired Simpson Thacher the law firm to sort of look at The Clinton Foundation. And what they found is, high dollar donators had expectations of what? They had expectations of quid pro quos. That is the word of Simpson Thacher in their internal review. So you are quite right, with all the discussions in Washington and the impeachment hearings, it’s remarkable to me that there is no interest in The Clinton Foundation. Just consider the testimony of Gordon Sondland and this whole issue of a meeting in the White House between the Ukrainian president and Donald Trump, which some have alleged was linked to them announcing these investigations. That’s a classic example of access. The Clinton’s did that every day when she was secretary of state.”


Read full article here…

Related Post

Visit our Classified ads.

Check out our Classified ads at the bottom of this page.

Recent stories & commentary

Classifieds

For classified advertising rates and terms, click here. The appearance of ads on this site does not signify endorsement by the publisher. We do not attempt to verify the accuracy of statements made therein or vouch for the integrity of advertisers. However, we will investigate complaints from readers and remove any message we find to be misleading or that promotes anything fraudulent, illegal, or unethical.

1
Leave a Reply

avatar
1 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
0 Comment authors
Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
trackback
Funding for the Clinton Foundation Has Dried Up Along with Its Influence, Indicating that Hillary Was Selling Access to Power | WeAreChangeTV.US

[…] hours ago Peter Schweitzer This post was originally published on this […]