by Thomas Lifson
The public, and even the liberal media, are catching on that Hillary Clinton ran a sophisticated shakedown operation as secretary of state, a pay-to-play racket with deniability.
--why should voters be denied access to Secretary Clinton’s record?
Cough up cash – often millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, combined with a speaking engagement or two that wire funds directly into a Clinton community property bank account – and you get a meeting, or get seated on a podium with Bubba or Hill (or for the cheapskates, Chelsea?), or some other access to a decision-maker.
Unfortunately, the deniability gets much more difficult once outsiders like the AP discover that the discretionary visits with unofficial guests by the secretary of state are mostly donors to the Clinton Foundation. So now the State Department is stonewalling releasing the second half of Hillary’s schedule while secretary of state until after the election. This is a public record that should be accessible, and it is now almost four years old. So who or what on that schedule is so embarrassing? And why should voters be denied access to Secretary Clinton’s record?
It is striking enough that normally placid John King of CNN was driven to use extreme (for him) language:
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.