The Soft Corruption of Clinton, Inc. — And How It Could Cost Democrats the Presidency

[think]

The Soft Corruption of Clinton, Inc. — And How It Could Cost Democrats the Presidency

Miles Mogulescu / Entertainment attorney, producer, writer and political activist - 05/05/2015 01:43 pm ET | Updated May 05, 2015

No one has even come close in recent years to enriching themselves on the scale of the Clintons while they or a spouse continued to serve in public office. The ability of any other ex-politician, when a former president, or congressman, Republican or Democrat, to accumulate such large amount of money in such a short period of time is unmatched.

— Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Business Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, Peter Schweitzer, May, 2015

~Snip~

If you’re someone who wants to lessen the dominance of concentrated wealth over our political system, end the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington, significantly reduce income inequality and avoid foolish wars, do not be deceived that Hillary Clinton is your ally.

Moreover, if the Democrats anoint Hillary as their nominee, there is a significant danger that public disgust at her soft corruption, and lack of trust in the veracity of her campaign pledges, could lead to a Republican becoming the next President.

For their entire political careers, the Clintons have been servants of the oligarchy. Since President Clinton left office, they have parlayed the presidency and State Department into tens of millions of dollars in personal wealth, paid for by the oligarchy, which has in turn transformed them from mere servants to full-fledged members of the oligarchy. They have transformed the presidency and the State Department into the biggest revolving door of all between Washington and Wall Street.

~Snip~


It’s not illegal bribes (so-called “quid pro quo” corruption) that are at the heart of the corruption of American politics by concentrated wealth — there may be no smoking gun where it can be proven that the Clintons took a campaign contribution, a foundation donation, or a six-figure speaking fee in exchange for an explicit promise at the time to take a specific government action on behalf of the donor. (Although, to be fair, something pretty close to a quid pro quo bribe in the web of Clinton, Inc. fundraising could well be disclosed in the course of the campaign, which could sink her candidacy and guarantee a Republican President. )...

Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-soft-corruption-of-clinton-inc_b_7215108.html

[HooptieWagon]

1. 'Soft corruption' is being kind.

More like Clintons have been for sale to highest bidders for nearly 40 years now. It's an 'in your face' level of pay for play corruption, the likes of which we've never seen in our lifetimes.

[polichick]

2. I wouldn't soften the charge with the word "soft" - it is what it is, straight up corruption.

[Octafish]

3. The Edge of Corruption

Never crossing the line. Never moving away from it. Always face-to-face with it.

[think]

4. Great description. Thank you /nt

[questionseverything]

5. the ubs story seems like the definition of quid pro quo to me

seems like most 5th graders would understand it

what makes it seem like the edge of corruption is the constant propaganda we hear on the msm coupled with the justice departments refusal to prosecute the last admins

if torturers and the bankers/wallstreet peops that defrauded the American people are not "criminals" then certainly a well known x first lady and x pres are not going to be prosecuted for taking money from the same bunch