Hillary’s Many Scandals vs. Manfort’s Russia Connection

Over the past week, the liberal mainstream media have been in a feeding frenzy trying to strip all of the meat from the bones of Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s former campaign manager. Manafort has been linked to allegedly receiving just over $12 million in payments from members of the former pro-Russian Ukraine government. The liberal mainstream media has already tried, convicted and hung Manafort on the proverbial cross before any concrete proof has been given that he did anything wrong. Just yesterday, Manafort resigned from the Trump campaign over the allegations.

However, the same liberal mainstream media has repeatedly ignored all of the concrete proof that the Clinton Foundation received tens of millions of dollars from foreign governments and organizations due to favors and connections with then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In May 2015, the International Business Times reported:

take our poll - story continues below

What is your top alternative to Facebook? - FIXED

  • What is your top alternative to Facebook?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Constitution updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Liberal Students Throw Tantrum when Biologist says Men and Women are Different          

“Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States’ oil-rich ally in the Middle East.”

“Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region’s fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.”

“But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At a press conference in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been ‘a top priority’ for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the ‘U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.’”

“These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing — the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 — contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.”

“The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.”

Remember a couple years ago when the Clintons’ claimed to be broke? At the time they were so broke, Bill Clinton was receiving $191,300 a year pension for serving as president. While serving as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was making $199,700 a year for a combined base income of $391,000 a year, and that’s not accounting for any other income they were making through the Clinton Foundation.

How many years would you have to work to earn that much money? Considering that average family income in America is around $52,000 a year, it would take them 7.5 years to earn the base income the Clinton’s were receiving.

Additionally, in May 2015, CNN reported:

“The Clinton Foundation confirmed Thursday that it received as much as $26.4 million in previously unreported payments from foreign governments and corporations for speeches given by the Clintons.”

“…since 2002, Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton gave 97 speeches benefiting the foundation, earning anywhere from $10,000 to $1 million dollars in fees.”

“Former President Clinton was the biggest earner for speeches, giving three that brought in anywhere from $500,000 to $1 million.”

“Both he and his wife gave a smattering of speeches to foreign companies and other organizations for anywhere from $250,000 to $500,000. Bill Clinton spoke to Thailand’s Ministry of Energy, China Real Estate Development Group, Ltd, and Qatar First Investment Bank; Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs, Citibank and JP Morgan Chase, among others.”

“According to foundation officials, the income — at least $12 million and as much as more than twice that — was not disclosed publicly because it was considered and tallied for tax purposes as revenue, rather than donations.”

“In April, the head of a Canadian charity that donates to the foundation acknowledged that it didn’t disclose any of the 1,100 largely foreign donors that ultimately contributed $2.35 million to the broader organization through the Canadian group.”

Also in May 2015, Fox News reported:

“Traveling abroad on official business as secretary of state, Clinton often visited Boeing facilities and made a pitch for the host country to buy Boeing jets. During one visit to Shanghai in May 2010, she boasted that ‘more than half the commercial jetliners operating in China are made by Boeing.’”

“A sales plug in Russia in 2009, though, may have proved especially fruitful. While touring a Boeing plant, Secretary of State Clinton said, ‘We’re delighted that a new Russian airline, Rossiya, is actively considering acquisition of Boeing aircraft, and this is a shameless pitch.’”

“In 2010, Boeing landed the Russian deal, worth $3.7 billion. And two months later, the company donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation.”

“This chain of events is raising new questions for Clinton, and Boeing, as the former secretary of state launches her 2016 presidential campaign. The Boeing deal only adds to a growing list of business deals involving Clinton Foundation donors now coming under scrutiny.”

Talk about ethics violations! These are just a few examples of how Hillary Clinton took unethical advantage of her position as Secretary of State. It was often up to HER State Department to approve a Bill Clinton speaking engagement in a number of foreign countries. There is strong evidence that in some of those instances, approval was granted after the foreign country, business or person hosting the speaking event for Bill Clinton made or promised to make a donation to the Clinton Foundation.

What Hillary did as Secretary of State is far more egregious and unethical than what Manafort is alleged to have done, yet the extremely biased media ignores all of Hillary’s proven crimes and pounces on a conservative like Manafort for allegedly doing far less. The mainstream media operates with a stark set of extreme biases when reporting the real news. They will hide the crimes of their favorite liberal while they concentrate on a possible mistake by a conservative. The mainstream liberal wants to be ruled by a lying, stealing, unethical and unscrupulous self-centered woman rather than by a man who tends to ruffle feathers by speaking the obvious truth on so many issues.


Dave Jolly

R.L. David Jolly holds a B.S. in Wildlife Biology and an M.S. in Biology – Population Genetics. He has worked in a number of fields, giving him a broad perspective on life, business, economics and politics. He is a very conservative Christian, husband, father and grandfather who cares deeply for his Savior, family and the future of our troubled nation.

Please leave your comments below

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.