Thursday, October 27, 2016

An Explanation of How Clinton, Inc. Raked in Cash Through Cronyism

A really good explanation from Rush of the Corruption from these Dirtbags

RUSH: The WikiLeaks dump today has something incredible in it and one of the things I like to try to do each and every day is take the complex and make it understandable.  Sometimes it's challenging to do because in order to take something complex and make it understandable, the people to whom you're speaking have to have at least a quasi-foundation of understanding of the subject matter.  And I think in this case most every one of you do. 
The specific leak to which I'm referring is a series of emails that show the absolute connection between the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Foundation and Bill and Hillary Clinton getting personally rich from their foundations.  The email dump today is largely focused on a man named Doug Band, who is a former Clinton advisor.  He might still be an adviser, I don't know.  He had a company called Teneo.  And he was once in legal trouble for commingling, if you will, going back and forth between his company and the Clinton foundations and sharing donors and siphoning donations off for personal usage.
And at one point he got so frustrated (imitating Band), "Hey, if you're coming after me, why aren't you going after Bill Clinton?  He did the same thing."  And he called the operation Bill Clinton Inc.  It is a term that I used all the way back in 2008, and Obama used it in 2008 when he was campaigning against Hillary.  And what Bill Clinton, Inc. means, Incorporated, Bill Clinton, Inc., what it means is that the Clintons found a way to get personally rich on the creation of their foundation and some of the satellites, one of them being the Clinton Global Initiative. 
The email dump from WikiLeaks today documents it in ways that if you don't have a foundational understanding, it's gonna sound like it's in the weeds.  I have to tell you, in thinking about whether to do this and dig into it, it's a real question I have because the objective here is to keep you listening.  But, if this is not done right, if I get off too deep in the weeds, it's not gonna make any sense to you and you're gonna lose interest in it because you won't be able to keep up and it will be my fault. 
So I'm still thinking how I want to share this data with you.  It prints out to six pages and I'm not gonna sit here and read six pages.  I mean, by the time I get to page two you would have forgotten what I told you on page one, so I've gotta find a way.  But don't worry.  This is my job, man.  It is what I do, is make the complex understandable.  And I'm gonna find a way to do it because it confirms what everybody suspected all along. 
In fact, there's even an email within the Clinton campaign, the Hillary campaign, they're emailing back and forth about the challenges their campaign faces, and it is a woman -- I forget her name -- it doesn't matter who it is.  Six questions she is asking her members of the campaign team, and question number six in her memo/email: "What's the difference in Bill Clinton, what he did, and Bill Cosby?" 
That's something they thought they were going to have to deal with as all of these women came forward, and all of the news about Clinton abusing women and philandering around, cheating on Hillary. They thought -- this is some months ago -- that they might have to deal with somebody asking, "Hey, how's he any different than Bill Cosby?" 
So they were ramping up and preparing to answer those kinds of questions.  But, of course, the questions never came because the Drive-By Media is in bed with these people.  They're having strategy-session dinners at Podesta's house.  I think 35 members of the media named in this document dump.  Now, about this document dump, folks, I've been seriously asking myself: Where does this come from?  Who did hack into these servers?  Now, the Democrat Party wants us to believe that it's the Russians. 
And the Democrat Party from the White House on down is blaming the Russians, and Obama is leading that charge blaming the Russians, and other ranking Obama administration officials are blaming it on the Russians.  What if the Russians have nothing to do with this?  Do you realize how risky and dangerous it is if the Russians have nothing to do with this, for our president and his administration trying to tell the world that they did it? What if they didn't?  And they're just... They're casually playing around with it.
They're angering and provoking a potential nuclear enemy here for their own selfish little political purposes.  But what if Julian Assange didn't get any of this from the Russians?  Well, then where did it come from?  It had to come... Somebody who did this hack, whoever did it -- because there aren't any hacks of Republican servers. RNC, Trump, you name it. There isn't an equivalent or corresponding hack of the Republicans.  So whoever is doing this has a grudge against somebody, the Democrats at large or Hillary or Bill. 
Maybe it's Podesta.  It's his email account, his Gmail account that's been hacked here, and as a result everybody that emailed with him has been "Hoovered," if you will, sucked up in this act.  So who could have done it?  Who out there has a revenge motive against the Democrats?  Who have the Democrats mistreated, maligned, impugned, in such a way who have the skills and the talents to be able to effect this, 'cause this is an incredible hack, folks. This... The voluminous... The latest news from whoever it is... You know what?
The latest news from whoever it is, the hacker claims he has -- she, whoever -- the 33,000 emails Hillary deleted.  The hacker claims to have them.  Well, I'll guarantee you the hacker's reading these things, and I've noticed a pattern, folks.  Look, I'm just openly speculating with you here.  I have noticed a pattern.  Whenever the Democrats release something along the lines of an October Surprise about Trump, it isn't long before there's another dump of hacked emails from Podesta. It's almost like whoever's doing this is following along our campaign.
And whenever the Democrats unload on Trump, the hacker releases another trove of anti-Democrat stuff, as though and as if the hacker is attempting to limit the damage to Trump by taking the focus off of whatever the Democrats are ladling out about Trump and with dumping another trove of Podesta emails.  Now, that's just something I have sensed.  I've not done a sit-down study and actually charted it.  It just seems that way to me.  I could be all wet about this.  But my point here is, I think this is not the Russians.  This is more personal. 
There's something about this. I mean, do you realize how deep this hack is, and it's only of Democrats?  And in a normal... Let me tell you something, folks.  In a normal campaign season, this stuff gets Hillary Clinton out of the race.  Everything that has been uncovered here, the Clintons are gone.  Everything that's been uncovered here, the Democrats would not want to even stick their necks out to try to support.
But because Trump is the nominee and because the elites just think Trump is the absolute worst thing to ever come down the pike, everybody remains united around the Clintons, but this is... This makes Richard Nixon and what he even thought about doing look like a kindergarten Halloween party.  This is major, major stuff that's being revealed here that these people have engaged in!  Just the financial aspects of this alone, the finagling, the commingling of money, the selling of influence to Mrs. Clinton is secretary of state.
Foreign countries, foreign donors, the mechanisms by which that are detailed by which Bill Clinton... One of the ways it works is that they'll go out, they'll seek a donation -- the Clinton Foundation -- say from Coca-Cola or from the Rockefeller Foundation, Rockefeller Trust or whatever.  I mean, they're hitting on everybody, the Clintons are, and their aides, their employees at the foundation.  And one of the things that often is included is say, "In addition to your donation, we would like you to hire Bill Clinton as a consultant for $3.9 million a year to advise you on strategic whatever."
They hit up various corporations, and the corporations have done it according to these emails.  Corporations are paying Bill Clinton three and a half, $3.9 million a year to "consult," after also donating to the foundation.  What do they think they're getting for this?  I mean, do they really like Bill Clinton so much that they want to give him $3.9 million after donating another number of millions to his foundation?  For what?  This is way beyond the appearance of impropriety.  It's just being covered up and masked by the Drive-By Media who think it's a bigger story that somebody took a blowtorch to Trump's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. 
I mean, this stuff in these leaks is devastating. And then the more we learn about the email scandal and the cronyism that went on between Obama and the FBI and granting Hillary's assistants status as "lawyers" after granting them immunity -- Cheryl Mills I'm talking about -- and then agreeing to destroy her laptop after supposedly procuring all the evidence they needed from it? I mean, they're willfully destroying evidence here.  They're immunizing the potentially guilty and getting nothing for it. 
I mean, the scandals here go beyond the average, ordinary American's ability to absorb it all. They are so dramatic, they're so constant and so frequent.  But since none of it has really been reported. There isn't any foundation of understanding on the part of the mass population for it.  To them, it's just the same old, tired allegations these mean Republicans make about the Clintons and so forth. But, I mean, it's devastating what's being learned.
And this information is coming to us from Democrat sources.  It's from their emails.  It's from their communications back and forth on how this foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative, the Hillary campaign, how it's all run and operates, how it shakes people down.  So it all adds up to nobody knows, and I want to get back to that. We'll take a break here and get back to nobody knows and the shift in polls that represents this overnight change of fortune in the way it's being reported.  It's amazing.  
RUSH: I was just looking at the TV monitors here, and Fox News had a reporter up in Chappaqua, the headquarters of Clinton Inc.  I noticed the leaves were turning the colors of fall, and it just struck me, I haven't seen that in I don't know how many years.  It doesn't happen here where we live.  I mean, as far as the greenery is concerned, it's summer year round.  It was raining up there and so forth.  I remember how I used to feel when fall came, started getting darker sooner, temperatures got a little chillier.  It was a nice psychological change.  We have to imagine that here or else go to it.  It just struck me. 
But, anyway, the reason they had a reporter at Chappaqua is because of the latest WikiLeaks document dump of John Podesta and the Clinton campaign and specifically the thing I was referring to in the previous hour about the company run by Doug Band, a Bill Clinton adviser describing how crony whatever you want to call it, capitalism, socialism, how it works, how the Clintons, in setting up their foundation and then with inside that foundation the Clinton Global Initiative and a couple of other offshoots, how they have gotten personally rich.  And these emails detail it.  But it's in the weeds.  It gets really complicated.  It's not something easy to understand like the House bank scandal was easy to explain. 
The House bank scandal was easy.  Members of the House could go to a bank and write checks for money they didn't have.  You can't do that; they could.  It didn't matter what their salaries were.  If they needed 10 grand, go write a check.  The House bank gave them the money.  And whatever they owed just kept piling up and they were able at some the point to pay it back out of campaign funds.  You can't do that.  That was easily understandable. 
What the Clintons are doing here was shell -- you know, lot of people don't even know what a shell corporation is.  If you had to explain to somebody in one sentence what a shell corporation is, could you do it?  What is a shell corporation?  Snerdley said it hides the true identity of the owners of the company.  A shell corporation hides money.  That's all it does.  And in addition it hides the owner of the money.  A shell corporation exists to hide money and to keep it away from other people.  That's all it is. 
A shell corporation is not an actually functioning enterprise.  Well, I don't think there are a whole lot of people who really know what a shell corporation is. A lot of people think they know what it is.  But when you start getting into such terminology, you can lose people if it's not simple. 
If you can't create in someone's mind a direct path to the corruption or to the special favors or to the "what's wrong about this" then you'll lose 'em and they'll end up thinking that you've got nothing and that you're just a partisan trying to find something that you really don't have. So explaining this to people is a challenge.  I'm still working this because what I have here prints out six pages.  
RUSH:  Now I've got all kinds of people telling me, "No, no, no, no. You've got a shell corporation wrong." No, I do not!  A shell corporation is a stand-in for someone's money.  That's all it is.  Now, you can try to dress it up and you can try to make it sexier and all that by adding to what people do with shell corporations, but a shell corporation... If you have some money that you want to hide, you create a shell corporation and put it in there.  A shell corporation is a stand-in.  A lot of people think a shell corporation is like an umbrella.
"It's a giant corporation where a bunch of tiny other little corporations live that you lose track of."  That's not what it is.  You could make one that way, but, by definition, the simplest way to understand it is a stand-in for somebody else's money, yours or somebody else's.  It doesn't have to have any activity.  It has to have a tax return, but it doesn't have to have any employees.  They don't.  There's no activity in a shell corp.  There no products being made or sold or any of that. 
The problem here with Clinton Inc., folks, is that it was always about -- from the get-go -- personal enrichment.  Now, the Clintons had a different public purpose for it.  The stated public purpose was the reviving, if you will, of Bill Clinton's reputation and image following Monica Lewinsky.  Remember that happened in the second term. So he leaves office in disgrace, in real disgrace.  I mean, in Democrat circles he was a hero. He had won two terms and he had kept the Republicans away.  But look what he had to do. 
He had to sign welfare reform.  The left hated him for that.  He had been shown to have lied.  He had been found in contempt and he'd committed perjury, grand jury testimony.  Not about the affair, but about asking people to lie for him.  That's what he was convicted for. He lost his law license for period of time.  So he had to resurrect his image, and that's what the Clinton Global Initiative was. The Clinton Family Foundation houses the Clinton Global Initiative, and the public purpose was to revitalize and rebuild the Clinton name
Therefore it did all this charitable work and flying all over the world after disasters and supposedly helping out.  What it really was, was what the Clintons had been about since the late 1980s, and that's getting rich! I've been through this I don't know how many times.  As Democrats, they were surrounded by wealth. Surrounded by it! They didn't have a dime themselves.  And in the eighties, they're like every other liberal.  They think people who got rich got rich by cutting corners and cheating people and doing schemes and crazy deals. So here comes Whitewater and a number of other things.  It was about getting rich, which they have done, and everything about it is to cover that up.
And, look, I'll reiterate something.  It may sound harsh to say.  Folks, it's literally true.  The purpose of the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative is to get rich while making it look like that is an ancillary concern.  The Clintons even let the cat out of the bag now and then.  When the subject of tax cuts for the rich come up, the Clintons will always chime in (Bill impression), "Hey, you know what?  Heh.  I don't need that tax cut.  I'm in a different tax bracket now, and I have enough money. I don't need that tax cut! I don't need tax cuts. These rich people, we don't need 'em." 
They can't wait. They just can't wait to tell you how rich they are.  My parents always told me, "Don't ever talk about money. Don't brag about it. You don't do it. It just not good manners. It's not. It just not cool."  And these people are just the exact opposite.  They let everybody know.  It's because it's been the reason they have done what they do, and they've gotten away with masking that with all of the so-called good works and compassion.  But it's all about getting rich.  Now, there's ideological objectives they have, too, don't misunderstand. 
I'm not saying they don't care about their liberal agenda; they do.  But I'm talking about post-office, after they leave office and those foundation, it's about getting rich.  And they've done it! (chuckling) You can't deny they have done it.  How do you get rich as a result of people donating money to your foundation?  Do you realize that by law you can't touch that money? So how does it happen?  If you set up a foundation, you can put money in it, but then you lose control of it.  You don't have to deduct that money from your taxes. 
You get a deduction, but you can't go get it after you have put it in your foundation.  Other people donating to your foundation, you can't go get it and use it. But the Clintons have become really, really rich doing this.  How did it happen?  Well, that's what these emails detail.  They spell it out how they've done it.  They shake people down!  It's the same way Jesse Jackson has done it.  Corporate shakedowns, folks, and they've created circumstances where it just is easier to do business with Clinton than not. 
He's a former president, the Democrat Party loves him, the Democrat Party runs Washington. So cronyism says, "I gotta be in bed with the Democrats.  If I have to pay Bill Clinton $3 million to 'consult' and that's gonna get me protection or whatever I want from the Democrats for my business, fine. I'll do it."  In fact, I think cronyism may be as damaging to what's going on in our country today as other aspects of ideology are, because cronyism is resulting in the people who play in it not caring a whit about what happens to the country. 
That is the real damage that's being done with cronyism.  Now, let me give you an example of cronyism, if you don't know what it is.  I don't mean... You know what it is.  I want to give you an example of how it happens at the government level.  I would love to have the opportunity to tell stories like this or explain things like this to Millennials.  Let's say you have a company that is a massively large retail operation, and it's run by a family in a southern state that have always been conservative and Republican. 
One of the things that this massive corporation has done has been to stay away from hiring union employees, which has made it an enemy of the Democrat Party and of labor unions.  And as such, the Democrat Party and everywhere that it holds power -- cities, counties, at the federal government -- makes it really, really hard on this gigantic business because they're not unionized.  So they pass special laws saying where they can and cannot build stores, for example.
They make massive efforts to punish this company because it's not run the way Democrats think it should be run.  Keep in mind during all this, Democrats hold the levers of power and are able, through the regulatory agencies, to exact damage and inflict pain on this company and any other that doesn't play ball.  Well, this company doesn't like this. This company doesn't like being targeted. They don't like the negative news every day about how this company doesn't care about the little guy.
This company, all it's done is make prices so low that average Americans can afford to buy more than ever before. But the Democrats don't like that, either, because the Democrats want government to be seen as the big provider, not some Republican-run company.  If there's gonna be any enterprise out there that average American consumers love and are loyal to, it's gonna be the Democrat Party, not a company run by a bunch of Republicans.  So the Democrats and their various offices of power start making it very, very difficult for this company to do business. 
All the while, this company has competitors sprout up.  Big box retailers and others decide they want to get in on the action, but they start playing ball with the Democrats.  So the laws that are passed to penalize our original company are not applied to their competitors, because of cronyism.  The CEOs and the management team of the competing companies get in bed with the Democrat president or the Democrat borough president or the Democrat Chamber of Commerce president or the Democrat county executive, whatever.
Special zoning arrangements are made and tax exemptions are offered that are not offered to our original big company.  Therefore, market competition forces are forever altered because the government has swooped in and made it much more difficult for our original company to conduct business as it wants, because it's in bed and helping the competitors.  Well, the original company decides it doesn't want to play this way, so it decides it has to get in bed with the Democrat-run government as well. 
So they start doing things slowly but surely to indicate that they're going to start relaxing some of their business practices the Democrats don't like.  In exchange, they're given permission to open a store where they were previously denied it.  Little things happen at first.  Then, the management team at our original company finally figures it out and realizes that if they're going to really get back to their era of dominance, they, too, are gonna have to get in bed with the Democrats -- in this case Barack Obama. 
And the way that would happen would be this: The Democrats routinely argue and cry and wallow about the minimum wage.  They're always demanding that it be increased.  There's a constant debate on whether or not the minimum wage should go up.  The minimum wage does not help anybody, and anybody that runs a business knows it.  Any small business, large business knows that the minimum wage does the exact opposite of what it promises. 
It causes people to lose their jobs.  It prevents people from being hired in starter positions where they can learn the concepts of showing up for work, doing work, getting paid for doing work, climbing a ladder of success.  The minimum wage freezes a whole lot of people out from that opportunity because it limits the number of people that could be hired, because it's an artificial price on labor that's not resulting from market forces. 
But our big company decides to throw all that out.  It knows the minimum wage is no good, it knows the minimum wage is harmful, but it's gotta deal with now an enemy government, it's gotta deal with its competitors who are in bed with government. So what this company decides to do is come out, and against everything it believes, support an increase in the minimum wage.  And, as such, gets into bed in a crony relationship with the Democrat president, in this case, Barack Obama, and our giant, big box giant retailer of southern Republicans all of a sudden become the biggest proponents of the minimum wage you've ever seen! 
And people are scratching their heads, they're going, "How did this happen?"  Here's how it happened.  It happened because the people at our original company figured out that their competitors may not be able to afford a minimum wage.  Our big company, our original company can; they've got a lot of money; they were the first; they're eminently successful.  So they make a business decision to support the minimum wage increase. It may cost them some money, but their competitors can't keep up. 
So without having to innovate, without having to be any better than their competitors, without having to offer anything different, they just get in bed with the current Democrat Party, support the increase in the minimum wage, and for as much as it can be, it's fine with them, because their competitors can't afford it and will have to reduce the size of their operations. 
Now, all that I've described here has not happened because of what's happening in the market.  It hasn't happened because customers prefer this company or that store.  It's because everybody's in bed with the government, and the government's picking winners and losers based on whatever it decides can do best to advance its agenda.  Meanwhile, a great bunch of people end up being corrupted, forget their ideological and political leanings. And what's good for the country, bad for the country becomes a secondary concern because you don't want to have the government be your enemy. 
No matter how much money you have, they've got more 'cause they can print it.  And so that's cronyism.  And that's just one example of it.  How about General Electric?  General Electric doesn't need to be getting government subsidies for anything!  It ends up getting government subsidies to develop this or that, jet engine or whatever.  Why?  'Cause their competitors are not getting the subsidy. 
So getting in bed with a Democrat-run government actually is how they harm their competitors. Not by out-competing them, not by out-producing them, not by out-innovativing them, but simply getting in bed with government and getting favors from government that their competitors are not getting.  And this is crony, I call it socialism, not capitalism.  This is a bare-essence description of it.  It used to be that people thought Big Business, small business, CEOs, conservative, Republican, they don't want the government involved in their business.  The more limited government is, the better.  The less government intrusion, the better.  The less regulation, the better. 
Not true anymore.  Big Business, Big Bank, Big Retail, Big Wall Street is in bed with the government.  And the government happens to be the Democrats.  What's good for the country is way down the list when decisions are made.  What's good for the politicians in the Democrat Party and what's good for the people that work, the executives at the company that's in bed, that's the primary concern.  And that's where we are. 
Meanwhile, 75% of the American people believe Big Business is a bunch of Republican, heartless, mean-spirited extremist racist pigs!  When 75% of Big Business is literally propping up and paying for the Democrat Party and the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative.  And all of this is cronyism. 
Liberalism often has nothing to do with these relationships.  The CEO of a big bank might be a big liberal and Obama might be a big liberal and it might be a nice adjunct to why they're in business, but it's not the reason.  It may be one of the compatibilities that makes it easier.  But it's the cronyism, it's getting a relationship with the people that print money when your competitors don't and can't. 
This is classic, and the Clintons have learned to exploit this for personal gain.  Not only do people donate to the Clinton Foundation, but they'll also pay Bill Clinton $4 million a year as a consultant or Hillary $20 million, in two years, to make speeches while also donating to the foundation. 
So everybody gets to look like they're focused and devoted to charitable work, when hardly any of that is going on.  What's really happening is moneyed people are paying the Clintons to get rich.  They're buying influence from the Clintons who hope to someday be back in the White House to pay off on that influence.  And that's where we are.  And that's what these email dumps are essentially demonstrating has happened.  

No comments:

Post a Comment