Tags

, ,

During the presidential election the Clinton campaign and Clinton Foundation repeatedly denied there was any ‘pay to play’ in donations from wealthy foreigners and foreign governments.

Clinton’s loss will now provide proof one way or the other. If there was no pay to play, no purchasing access, no legalized bribery, then donations from these wealthy foreign concerns will not drop off. After all, poverty, disease and natural disasters did not diminish on November 9.

If the wealthy and powerful were making contributions to the Clinton Foundation solely to do good, donations should remain static or increase.

There are an enormous number of charities. Why would the Clintons in 2001 need to begin their own foundation to help others? Couldn’t they have worked with an existing foundation managed by others, which would have largely or completely eliminated the appearance of conflicts of interest? Hillary would never have even considered it for the same reason she chose to not use an official email address. Control is what matters, but control isn’t required to help others.

The Clintons still have political power, but not nearly as much as they had just two months ago. If they were selling access no amount of leaked DNC emails will be as damning as a drop in donations over the next year. The greater the drop, the more obvious it will be what was being provided.

Now, time will tell.