Archive for the ‘Clinton character’ category

Hillary Clinton Really Didn’t Want to Apologize for Her Email Use

October 21, 2016

Hillary Clinton Really Didn’t Want to Apologize for Her Email Use, Washington Free Beacon, October 21, 2016

Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., makes a campaign stop at Hemisfair Park, at the Arch, in San Antonio,Texas, Friday, Feb. 29, 2008. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton,  (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Hillary Clinton’s campaign struggled to get the candidate to apologize for using a private email server as secretary of state, recently hacked emails reveal.

Clinton’s team tried for weeks to convince her before she finally sat down with ABC News anchor David Muir to say “I’m sorry.” Campaign chairman John Podesta described the apology as very painful for Clinton.

On September 8, 2015, the night the interview aired, Podesta emailed Neera Tanden, a Clinton adviser and the president of the Center for American Progress.

“She ate her spinach,” Podesta said. “Shouldn’t have been this hard, but thanks for weighing in.”

“I was physically sick on the prep call this morning feeling her pain (of course, I was inflicting most of it.)” Podesta said. “I have to say Mandy [Grunwald] was pretty stand up on pushing her too.”

Podesta added that he wished viewers could only see the end of the interview, where Hillary talked about the movie A League of Their Own.

“The ending of this is just so great,” he said. “Can we ever imagine a strategy to just get the last two minutes out without people having to watch 10 minutes of email answers first?”

Clinton said it was a mistake to have a private email server, while still claiming it was “allowed.” The State Department’s inspector general said using a private server was not allowed because of “significant security risks.”

“I do think I could have and should have done a better job answering questions earlier. I really didn’t perhaps appreciate the need to do that,” Clinton told Muir.

“What I had done was allowed, it was above board. But in retrospect, as I look back at it now, even though it was allowed, I should have used two accounts. One for personal, one for work-related emails. That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility.”

Weeks before the interview, Clinton’s team wrestled with how to get their candidate to apologize because the scandal was causing a “character problem.”

“I know this email thing isn’t on the level,” Tanden wrote to Podesta on August 22. “I’m fully aware of that. But her inability to just do a national interview and communicate genuine feelings of remorse and regret is now, I fear, becoming a character problem (more so than honesty).”

“People hate her arrogant, like her down,” Tanden said. “It’s a sexist context, but I think it’s the truth. I see no downside in her actually just saying, look, I’m sorry. I think it will take so much air out of this.”

Tanden said it is not in Clinton’s nature to be transparent.

“She always sees herself bending to ‘their’ will when she hands over information, etc.,” she said. “But the way she has to bend here is in the remorse. Not the ‘if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn’t do it.’ A real feeling of – this decision I made created a mess and I’m sorry I did that.”

Podesta agreed, and said he and Jen Palmieri, Clinton’s communications director, were “in the same place.”

“Trying to figure out how to get [Hillary] there and best way to execute,” he said.

The emails were hacked from Podesta’s account and posted by Wikileaks. The U.S. director of national intelligence and the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security have accused “Russia’s senior-most officials” of hacking and leaking emails posted to Wikileaks and other sites in order to influence the 2016 election.

A deep dive into the WikiLeaks revelations

October 18, 2016

A deep dive into the WikiLeaks revelations, Fox News via YouTube, October 17, 2016

Newt Gingrich Full Explosive Interview with Martha Raddatz (10/16/2016)

October 16, 2016

Newt Gingrich Full Explosive Interview with Martha Raddatz (10/16/2016) via YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4Hdv6s8A-Y

Democrats’ organized-crime ring will do anything to maintain power and stay out of prison

October 2, 2016

Democrats’ organized-crime ring will do anything to maintain power and stay out of prison, Washington Times, L. Todd Wood, October 1, 2016

(Reason number 2,587 not to elect Hillary. — DM)

hillandkerrySecretary of State John Kerry speaks with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton during the groundbreaking ceremony for the U.S. Diplomacy Center, Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2014, at the State Department in Washington.

When the end came for Russian President Boris Yeltsen, as the Russian economy was crumbling and there was no support left for his leadership in the Duma, one of his main concerns was protecting himself and his family from prosecution for corruption. That is why he appointed Vladimir Putin, an extremely loyal subordinate whom he could trust with his secrets, someone who would not immediately contact prosecutors and hound his family even after he died.  Someone who would not go after the money secreted away in the Caymans.  Someone who would let sleeping dogs lie. 

This is exactly the situation we have with the current political environment in the United States as the 2016 election season nears its conclusion. 

The party in power has shown itself to be nothing more than a massive organized-crime syndicate that has used the levers of power to persecute the political opposition and line its pocketbooks and bank accounts with the taxpayers’ money.  From John Kerry sending millions to his daughter’s non-profit, to Hillary Clinton shaking down the State Department’s clients for money, to public employee unions spiking their pensions, the corruption is complete across all levels of the Democratic Party and their hold on the executive branch.

But I think this rabbit hole goes much deeper.  We are now into corruption that damages the national security of the United States in an existential way.

Every day there is a new “secret” deal revealed where the Obama administration betrayed America with its desire to give the world’s real Islamic State, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the nuclear bomb, along with hundreds of billions in dollars, secretly flown to Tehran in the dead of night.

Hillary Clinton sold 20 percent of America’s uranium to the Russians for money.

The appeasement and downright enabling of the Islamic jihadist agenda by this administration will be written about in the history books.  I suspect, when the cover is taken off the rabbit hole, we will be astounded with what has actually been given away, leaked, stolen and ripped off by Obama and his minions.

This is why they are so scared of Trump.  This is why they are fighting tooth and nail.  This is why they don’t want to give up power and let the American people find out what has really gone on.  This is why the federal Department of Homeland Security is pushing the states to let it “advise and assist” in the electoral process.

I hope President Trump will prosecute the illegality he finds when he takes office.  To not do so would be a travesty of justice and set the precedent for the end of the Republic.

Of course, Obama may pardon all the main offenders but the crime syndicate is huge.  He can’t pardon everyone.  We at least have to find out what happened even if the key players don’t go to jail.

Hillary cannot be allowed into the White House.  This time she will take much more than the furniture.

Eric Trump questions Clintons’ enormous wealth: ‘What product were they selling?’

September 2, 2016

Eric Trump questions Clintons’ enormous wealth: ‘What product were they selling?’ Washington TimesS.A. Miller, September 2, 2016

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s son Eric Trump questioned Friday how Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton became enormously wealthy running a charity, which has become the focus of the campaign’s allegation of pay-to-play corruption while she was secretary of state.

“The question I always ask is, what product were they selling? If we make a buck, we sold a bottle of wine or an apartment, or we sold a hotel room. What product were they selling to make $150 million,” Mr. Trump said on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends.”

Host Ainsley Earhardt suggested: “Favors? The government?”

“Of course,” responded Mr. Trump, who works on the campaign for his billionaire businessman father.

“This is the leadership we have in this country. Somebody sets up a foundation. They pocket hundreds of millions of dollars. They say they come out of the White House ‘dead broke.’ Now they are worth $150 million,” he said.

Mrs. Clinton famously claimed that they were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001.

Mr. Trump was citing a high estimation of the Clinton’s wealth. Other estimates peg their net worth at a combined $111 million, with Mr. Clinton worth approximately $80 million and Mrs. Clinton worth just over $30 million.

“It’s just so so sad,” Mr. Trump said. “People in this country work so hard and sometimes they are not able to achieve because of the policies that these politicians put in place and look what they do.”

The Clinton Foundation has become a focus of questions about potential conflicts of interest while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state. The charity accepted donations from foreign entities with interests in State Department policy.

The lines between Mrs. Clinton’s agency staff and the work of the Clinton Foundation also were sometimes blurred.

Some of Clintons’ wealth came from generous speaking fees paid to Mr. Clinton by foreign entities while his wife was secretary of state. His usual fee of $150,000 climbed higher while his wife was in office, including a $500,000 fee paid by a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin and a $550,000 fee paid by a Chinese business group for a speech in Shanghai.

After she left the State Department in 2013, Mrs. Clinton started collecting $200,000 speaking fees, mostly from trade groups and Wall Street banks, according to an analysis by the Associated Press.

Financial disclosures showed that the post-State Department speeches earned Mrs. Clinton nearly $22 million.

As secretary of state, she earned $186,600 a year. In her prior role as a U.S. senator from New York, her annual salary started as $145,100 in 2001 and rose to $169,300 in her final year in 2008.

Will the Clinton Foundation Mark the Fall of Our Republic?

August 29, 2016

Will the Clinton Foundation Mark the Fall of Our Republic?, PJ MediaRoger L Simon, August 28, 2016

bill_hillary_clinton_roman_empire_banner_8-28-16-1.sized-770x415xc

No matter how extreme the future revelations of Julian Assange and others turn out to be, the truth about the Clinton Foundation is already clear. Whatever its original intentions, this supposed charity became a medium to leverage Hillary Clinton’s position as secretary of State for personal enrichment and global control by the Clintons and their allies.  We also now know—as the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel made clear in her recent oped—why Hillary decided to hide all her emails on her “infamous server.”

To my knowledge, nothing like this has ever been done in the history of the United States government. It calls to mind, if anything, the United Nations’ scandalous Oil-for-Food program in which millions were siphoned off from a plan to feed Iraq’s children during the war.

It could even be worse, because of the national security implications. The Clinton Foundation and the State Department were commingled to such an extent we may never know the truth, certainly not before the election since that same State Department has refused to release Hillary’s official schedule before then.

This means, quite simply, that the United States of America has abandoned the rule of law. Maybe we did a while ago. In any case, we are now a banana republic—a rich and powerful one, at least temporarily, but still a banana republic.

The election of Hillary Clinton—our own Evita—will make the situation yet more grave. Consider something so basic as how you raise your children in a country where the president is most probably an indictable criminal and most certainly a serial liar of almost inexhaustible proportions. What do you tell them? What do their teachers tell them? A far cry from George Washington, isn’t it? What does this say about our basic morality and how does that affect all aspects of our culture? The fish, as they say, rots from the top.

Equally importantly, what does our government do as further actionable information emerges as it inevitably will? The Department of Justice, as we have seen, is already corrupt, unable to indict those in power, indeed colluding with them aboard airplanes. The same personnel will undoubtedly be in place. Can we rely on congressional oversight for justice and/or a potential impeachment? What if the Democrats control the Senate?

In the far less serious Watergate era, Republicans like Howard Baker stood up against Nixon. Democrats, however, cling to power the way they accuse Republicans of clinging to their guns and religion and will no doubt avert their eyes, pretending, with their friends in the media, that nothing out of the norm is happening. But plenty is and will. Look to Sweden for the future of America.   And with expanded entitlements and immigration, Syrian and otherwise, don’t look for a Republican revival in 2020. Those days will be long over.

“A republic, if you can keep it,” Benjamin Franklin reportedly said when emerging from the Constitutional Convention of 1787.  Yes, it may be apocryphal, but so are many important statements that are true in concept.

2016 is about to mark the year we lost that republic. It could well be an historical date like 1066, 1215 and 1776. Think about that one.

Which leads us to Donald Trump (as usual).

He is, like it or not, the last man standing to prevent this. He and all of us. And that includes you, NeverTrumpers. There is nothing, repeat NOTHING, that Trump has ever done that comes remotely within the proverbial spitting distance (even from a dragon) of the malfeasances of the Clinton Foundation. The big difference between Trump and Clinton is this: What distresses us about Donald is what he says. What distresses us about Hillary is what she does. Anyone with an IQ in the also proverbial triple digits knows which is worse.

It’s time for the NeverTrumpers to abandon what’s left of their crusade for the sake of the country.

Scarborough to Hillary spox: “Go back to middle school”

August 25, 2016

Scarborough to Hillary spox: “Go back to middle school”, Hot Air, Ed Morrissey, August 25, 2016

Over the last few days, Hillary Clinton apologists have taken to the airwaves and Internet to declare any criticism of the Clinton Foundation as an attack on charity itself. James Carville launched these talking points, suggesting that critics would find themselves damned to Hell if the foundation shut down or curtailed its activities. Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough punctured Carville’s trial balloon earlier this week with barely-disguised disgust.

After watching a clip of Hillary Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon trot out the same argument on Andrea Mitchell’s show yesterday, Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski didn’t even bother with the disguise, calling the argument “pathetic” (via The Hill):

(Video at the link. — DM)

‘Pathetic’ – @JoeNBC on Clinton campaign’s defensive play in foundation donor controversy

“That is so pathetic, you all are not really that pathetic, are you?” the “Morning Joe” host shot back.

“You’re going to actually say that if Bill Clinton doesn’t have the opportunity to shake down billionaires, that AIDS will not be cured?” he asked.

Scarborough went on to mock Fallon’s defense, saying that President Obama is “Moses and has the ability to stop the tides from rising in our time.”

“And Bill Clinton, shaking down billionaires in Kazakhstan, while doing deals on the side and getting down $550,000 for a one-hour speech — that’s our only path forward to curing AIDS,” he said.

“You’re not really that pathetic, are you? Because if that’s the best line of attack you have, you need to go back to middle school and start all over again.”

Yes … yes, they really are that pathetic. And they’re not alone, either. The internet is filling up with the argument that a shutdown or scale-back of Clinton Foundation operations will suddenly leave the world’s downtrodden with no other path to salvation, and that its critics literally just want little children to die. That’s an argument based on nothing more than pathos and partisan hackery, making it both literally and figuratively pathetic.

Here are two inconvenient facts for those trotting out this argument:

  • There are a number of charitable organizations that work on the same issues as the Clinton Foundation, including AIDS and poverty. Those existed before the Clintons started their foundation, and they will operate after its closure.
  • Most of these organizations had pass-through grant rates far above the 15% level of the Clinton Foundation during the years that Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State, not to mention the 6.4% pass-through grant rate in 2013.

The Federalist’s Sean Davis exposed the low pass-through rates 18 months ago, and their defenders have yet to catch up to them:

Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012,2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.” Official IRS forms do not list cigar or dry-cleaning expenses as a specific line item. The Clinton Foundation may well be saving lives, but it seems odd that the costs of so many life-saving activities would be classified by the organization itself as just random, miscellaneous expenses.

In the absence of the Clinton Foundation, those millions of dollars would simply flow to other charities — if indeed that was the purpose of those funds. If the purpose of those funds was to curry favor with the Clintons and influence government actions to benefit themselves, as seems to be the case, then those dollars weren’t really saving lives at all anyway. Based on the financials, the Clinton Foundation took the axiom Charity begins at home literally — which is why the Sunlight Foundation’s Bill Allison called it a “slush fund” for the Clintons, and why Charity Navigator watch-listed the foundation for years as “problematic” and still won’t provide a rating for it.

Hillary’s defenders want to save lives, all right — mainly the political lives of the Clintons.

To Die for Chappaqua

August 24, 2016

To Die for Chappaqua, American ThinkerFrank Johnson, August 24, 2016

(Please see also, The Trickle-Down Erosion of Honesty in Obama’s White House. We ain’t seen nothing yet. — DM)

Suppose the Army is making an assault up-country.  There is Route A, which the general has chosen, using his best judgment, to get to the objective.  But now he has a visitor.  It turns out that Route A runs right through the operations of Mr. Oligarch.  Route B is almost as good, and Mr. Oligarch has always wanted one of the potholders made by the general’s wife.  In fact, he is so enthralled by the potholder that $12 million is not too high a price to pay for it!

The general thinks about it, Route B is likely to lead to, say, only 500 more casualties in a force of 40,000 – say, 100 deaths and 400 woundings and maimings.  Acceptable losses (except to the soldiers and their families experiencing them).  The potholder is on the way!

**********************

A few days back, Drudge had a link to some pictures of the Clintons’ estate in Chappaqua, New York to show the 10-foot-high wall they had built around it (ironic, since Democrats know that walls don’t work).

The pictures of the impressive estate opened up a question.  Where did the money for it come from?  We know that both Hillary and Bill have not been gainfully employed in the private sector.  It is not an oil estate, or an automobile estate, or a software estate, or a finance estate.  So what is it?  A government estate!  Government is what the Clintons had to sell, and they have sold it.

This is a new phenomenon for America.  We have heretofore been characterized by the probity of our government institutions.  It is a subject of note when officials are caught selling their office, and they end up in prison for doing so.  The Clintons have found a way around the law by having Hillary on the inside and Bill as bag man on the outside, hauling in the loot under the guise of fees for speeches.

While the numbers are not hard, the press seems comfortable with the Clinton personal fortune being $200 million, so let’s use that figure.  If it is off, Hillary can give us the precise number.  We are talking personal money here.  No confusion with the foundation(s).  These are Hillary’s and Bill’s personal funds.  Hillary and Bill have made a personal fortune of $200 million since leaving the White House, or, to put it differently, during Hillary’s tenure first as senator and then as secretary of state.

If the Clintons’ customers are not buying oil, or automobiles, or software, what are they buying?  Influence.  Influence over the policies, the actions, of the United States.  Foreign oligarchs have paid Hillary as secretary of state to have the United States do things it would not otherwise do.

That is the point of paying her as secretary of state through her husband.  And that is the point of paying her in anticipation of her becoming president and, later, upon the actuality of her being president.  If the Clintons were able to sell Hillary’s Senate seat and her office as secretary of state for $200 million, what is the presidency worth?  One billion dollars sounds about right, at least as a start.  We have to see how things go.

What is Hillary selling?  She is selling you, dear reader – your family, your children, your countrymen, the country itself.

Lincoln tried to capture what it means to be an American in his First Inaugural:

The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Hillary sees the country in a different way. Rather than “the mystic chords of memory” as the spirit of the country, Hillary sees the mystic chords of money – for herself.  One manifestation of this is the estate at Chappaqua, bought with money gathered from selling out the country.  Enriching herself from high government office is her spiritual foundation.

How will the hearings for the next secretary of state go? “Mr./Ms. Nominee, Secretary Clinton cleared about $100 million (the other $100 million came at other times) during her tenure as secretary of state. How much loot do you expect to get from your tenure?  And from whom do you expect to get paid?  Just so we know.”

Treating the country as a private fief is third-worldism.  It is why third-world countries never advance.  Their wealth is drained off by their political leadership.  If Hillaryism should become the custom of our government, the country as we know it will be destroyed.

Selling out her office is not going to be seen as the privilege of Hillary alone.  What about the secretary of defense?  What about the attorney general?  What about the rest of the cabinet?  And what about under-secretaries, deputy secretaries, and so on down the line?  What about, at the local level, the police and the fire departments?  What about having to pay them personally to do their jobs?

Want to see the future if government officials join Hillaryism?  Brazil.  They can’t even keep the swimming pools clean.  Nothing works.

What about the military, which carries out our foreign policy?

As we ponder the profaning of the nation and of the mission of the nation, one question we must consider is this: are our soldiers going to be willing to die for Chappaqua?

To die for Chappaqua.  That is the value proposition Hillary is offering the soldiers at the sharp end of the spear.  To die so that she can own her Chappaqua estate.

What about military leadership?  Will they go the Chappaqua route?  A theater commander or a ground commander has an enormous amount of responsibility.  Shouldn’t he be rewarded for the burdens he bears?

Suppose the Army is making an assault up-country.  There is Route A, which the general has chosen, using his best judgment, to get to the objective.  But now he has a visitor.  It turns out that Route A runs right through the operations of Mr. Oligarch.  Route B is almost as good, and Mr. Oligarch has always wanted one of the potholders made by the general’s wife.  In fact, he is so enthralled by the potholder that $12 million is not too high a price to pay for it!

The general thinks about it, Route B is likely to lead to, say, only 500 more casualties in a force of 40,000 – say, 100 deaths and 400 woundings and maimings.  Acceptable losses (except to the soldiers and their families experiencing them).  The potholder is on the way!

This isn’t today, thank goodness.  But it is the Hillary future for America.  That estate in Chappaqua.  What are our military leaders – chopped liver?  Don’t they deserve estates?

For soldiers, belief in the mission is critical.  If it should become standard practice for the leadership in Washington to sell our policy for payoffs, then belief in the mission will collapse.  A soldier commanded to take the hill will wonder whether that mission is for the nation or for Chappaqua.  This is why third-world militaries are so weak.

Should belief in the mission ever be lost, it will be virtually impossible to get it back.  This danger – wiping out the Republic – is what Hillary’s actions mean.  It is why the future of the country is at stake in this election.

Nobody in Washington seems upset by the Clintons’ selling out the country to foreigners to create their personal fortune.  Nobody of either party has spoken out about it.  But let’s not leave it only on them.  What about us, the public?  If we let ourselves be sold out, we are going to get more of it.  It is going to become chronic, ubiquitous.  The United States is a great nation.  There is much here to sell.

What is each piece, each policy worth?  Markets are so complex these days that one cannot be precise.  But each amount, each transaction ultimately turns out to be equal to thirty pieces of silver.

 

Morning Joe Tears Apart Clintons Over AP Pay-for-Play Report: ‘What Were They Thinking?’

August 24, 2016

Morning Joe Tears Apart Clintons Over AP Pay-for-Play Report: ‘What Were They Thinking?’ Washington Free Beacon, August 24, 2016

(What’s the big deal? Nearly everybody on her side already knows she’s corrupt and will vote for her anyway, so what difference does it make now?)

The panel on MSNBC’s Morning Joe tore apart Bill and Hillary Clinton on Wednesday for over half of Hillary’s meetings with people from non-governmental organizations while she was secretary of state being donors to the Clinton Foundation.

The Associated Press reported Tuesday that of the 154 people from private interests who Clinton met at the State Department, 85 either individually or represented organizations that donated significant sums of money to the Clinton Foundation, leading to “pay-for-play” accusations.

“The numbers are staggering. I don’t know what else to say, how else to put it. I want to be careful with what I say here, but I don’t think I can–it’s just so crass,” host Joe Scarborough said. “I saw the numbers. I saw the AP report, and I just sat there and I’m like, ‘Are you kidding me?’”

“If she were running against a more credible opponent, this would perhaps be almost a death knell because rather than get to corruption at first, it gets to judgment,” columnist Mike Barnicle said. “What were they thinking? Both Clintons. What were they thinking while she was secretary of state to continue this, and it does show it was about access to a certain extent, to a large extent.”

“They knew, obviously, that she was going to be running for president at some point. What were they thinking?” Barnicle asked.

“It gets to what we were talking about, Maureen Dowd before the show, what she’s written about for years, just this sort of feeling that Clintonism includes an ideology and a mindset that the rules don’t apply to them,” MSNBC contributor Nicolle Wallace said.

“For the Associated Press to write in a news story, this term, that it was ‘an extraordinary proportion,’ shows you just how out of skew this was,” Scarborough said. “It really was breathtaking when I read this story.”

“Hillary Clinton knew she was going to run for president the minute she lost in 2008. So, she had some ample time to prepare and to position herself to run,” NBC’s Willie Geist said. “That presumably would have included not having a private server put into her home to open herself up to that and not taking these donations to the Clinton Foundation.”

“And having half of everybody that gets in to see you that’s not in government, like having to give to the Clinton Foundation first,” Scarborough said. “And I said it yesterday to James Carville, it’s also giving speeches to state universities that you represented, that you represented as a senator for $250,000.”

“There is a lot of poor judgment here,” the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein said. “If you go through the list, there’s a lot of poor judgment.”

Trump on Clinton Foundation: Shut it down, give money back

August 22, 2016

Trump on Clinton Foundation: Shut it down, give money back, Fox News via YouTube, August 22, 2016

(The interview is wide-ranging and touches on far more than the Clinton Foundation. — DM)