4 ms·
There are all the obvious corruption problems with post-Presidential activities, and obviously it's a huge source of corrupting influence. The Clintons became o
by mikeyouse 8y ago
There are all the obvious corruption problems with post-Presidential activities, and obviously it's a huge source of corrupting influence. The Clintons became obscenely wealthy -- but that had nothing to do with their Foundation (speaking as an expert in nonprofit finance).
My only animosity is toward public corruption. The Bushes visiting Kennebunkport was obviously different because other people couldn't pay to access the president at Kennebunkport. The Saudis bought 500 rooms at a hotel that the President personally owns immediately after the inauguration. That's completely different in scale, kind, and timing in terms of the 'normal' corruption and I'm flabbergasted that it doesn't register as such.
Phrased another way:
What's the method to illicitly influence the Bushes at Kennebunkport? How about the method to influence the Obamas after they've left office? You could absolutely make a case about influencing the Clintons since Hillary obviously wanted to run for President. The story to illicitly influence the current President is very straightforward and keeps happening in the open. Regardless of what happened in the past, shouldn't we try to stop it when it's happening now?