By Hanna Grissel
Yet again, another scandal has risen involving Hillary Clinton. For some of us this comes as no surprise and acts to further polarize an already suspicious, somewhat obligated Democratic constituency. While for others a playing down and denying evidence has presented itself once again as the best protection. This decision by Clinton loyalists is understandably a way to preserve their own belief; Clinton will save our country from a neo-fascist regime, as well as a mode to preserve the validity of already pockmarked campaign.
The evidence in the case of a conflict of interest speaks for itself. The Clinton Foundation has accepted as much as $156 million from just 85 donors, consisting of individuals and private companies. These 85 were a large portion of the 154 private interests that were able to speak with her in some way. Subsequently, the private donors were all awarded meetings with her while she was serving as Secretary of State. On top of this, there is absolutely ample evidence that she gave favors to some of the said donors, one of which happens to be Goldman Sachs.
Glenn Greenwald with the Intercept spoke on another conflict of interest: “Although it did not give while she was Secretary of State, the Saudi regime by itself has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with donations coming as late as 2014, as she prepared her presidential run. A group called “Friends of Saudi Arabia,” “cofounded by a Saudi prince, gave an additional amount between $1 million and $5 million.” It’s important to note that Saudi Arabia has paired with the United Sates recently in the war against Yemen a genocidal destruction causing damage over the last five months that is said to amount to the destruction in Syria over the last five years.
Should we just assume that a tyrannical, colonizing, and overall repressive regime is concerned with human rights and other charity across the world? The problem here is that loyalists and media outlets concerned with the fear built up regarding Trump are doing everything in their power to dismiss claims and play down the scandal.
As the Observer reported, “Despite these ongoing scandals, Clinton’s close yet questionable ties to media outlets such as Google, CNN, PBS, and the New York Times have seemed to pay off.” They went to note that these media outlets donated money to the Clinton Foundation and have played down or repressed information on the Clinton scandals thus far. From this evidence alone, we see a tie between them, one that seems awfully friendly.
I need say that I agree with the notion we must save our country from a fascist tyrant, but we also need to be honest with ourselves to whom we are handing the baton. By denying evidence of corruption we allow this corruption to continue. Only by holding Clinton accountable for questionable politics will there be a chance that we see positive change.
Even with the play-down afoot, the Associated Press noted, “On Monday, Bill Clinton said in a statement that if his wife were to win, he would step down from the foundation’s board and stop all fundraising for it. The foundation would also accept donations only from U.S. citizens and what it described as independent philanthropies, while no longer taking gifts from foreign groups, U.S. companies or corporate charities.”
This statement seems evident of some accountability, coming from honest and evidence-based journalism. In reality, the persistent push for transparency will only result in more trustworthy politicians, so why deny the evidence if you have nothing to lose? This is an important time in the Clinton campaign, and honestly, I think a bit of honesty would go a long way in Hillary Clinton’s hope to sway apprehensive voters.