How can voters accept anything Hillary or her family foundation says — when so many of their past promises and protestations of purity have proven false?
Above all else, the promise to disclose donations to the Clinton Foundation that could pose conflicts of interest with her work as secretary of state.
During her 2009 confirmation hearings, the foundation submitted a “memorandum of understanding” that even its subsidiary charities would regularly report donations that might pose conflicts of interest with her job running the State Department. That helped grease the skids for the Senate’s 94-2 vote to confirm her.
But the Boston Globe reported this week that the Boston-based Clinton Health Access Initiative, which accounts for about 60 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s total charitable balance sheet, did no such thing.
It never submitted any information on foreign donations during Clinton’s time at State.
This, on top of the news that another “daughter” foundation, the Canada-based Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, also failed to disclose donors — who gave some $33 million during Hillary’s time at State.
The partnership claimed that Canadian privacy laws require it to keep donors’ names secret. Canadian tax experts and officials dispute that; anyway, it’s no excuse for breaking the promise: They could’ve refused donations they couldn’t disclose.
Bottom line: The Clintons blatantly reneged on their promise of sunlight — and plainly didn’t even try to comply.
Again: In the wake of all this transparent nondisclosure, why believe anything coming from Team Clinton?