While Hillary Clinton was doing her best to paint Donald Trump as a man who would be dangerous for the American economy on Tuesday, the billionaire responded with a series of press releases designed to show the country why he calls her “crooked.”
Trump, drawing on information revealed by the blockbuster book Clinton Cash last summer, accused Clinton of “laundering” money through the State Department and funneling it into a for-profit university called Laureate Education. The private institution – which has been sued for fraud in the past – paid Bill Clinton $16.5 million while he served as honorary chancellor.
While Clinton was Secretary of State, that agency awarded Laureate more than $55 million in grants through the International Youth Foundation – a non-profit that happens to be run by Laureate Education Chairman Douglas Becker.
“This is yet another example of how Clinton treated the State Department as her own personal hedge fund and sold out the American public to fund her own lavish lifestyle,” Trump said. “Laureate made money by racking up student debt on vulnerable students.”
The Clinton campaign responded by pointing out that the State Department had funded Laureate grants during the Bush administration, though they conveniently left out the extraordinary increase in annual funding that began once she took office.
Of course, the larger story is not Laureate Education but rather a pattern of shady, quid-pro-quo activities that look terribly suspicious but lack any solid proof. Hillary Clinton consistently offered unusual State Department favors to foreign companies and governments and consistently took Clinton Foundation donations from those very same companies and governments. True, there’s no smoking gun…but there’s a hell of a lot of smoke.
And that’s the way it always is with the Clintons. They are either the unluckiest couple in American political history…or the luckiest. And since it’s already been proven that they have lied about a number of things, no one but a fool would give them the benefit of the doubt on the rest of it.
Obama’s presidency was marred by a commitment to extreme-left ideology, but Clinton’s will be tainted with the stench of fraud, deceit, and personal enrichment. Which is worse?
As interesting as it may be to contemplate that question theoretically, we’re not terribly eager to find out for sure.