Why Weren't The Clintons Boosting the "Foundation" in 2017?

I believe that I wrote a while back about the extent to which the donations from around the world to the Clinton Foundation nose-dived after the 2016 elections, when it became fairly obvious that the Clintons would no longer wield power, what with Hillary losing the election and all.  I also pointed out that the precipitous drop was prima facie evidence that the "Foundation" was only of value as a means to purchase favor with the Clintons, and that with them out of power, there was no reason to give money there.

I pointed out that defenders of the Clinton Foundation always struggled to define any good that it had done with the hundreds of millions it raised ("Well, it does a lot of AIDS work, and ... and ..."), presumably because a lot of that money went to pay for Bill's lavish trips abroad and other non-charitable duties.

And that is the point of today's piece.

Let us assume for the record that the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation is, in fact, doing outstanding work for some wonderful and badly-needed charitable causes.  Let's assume that.  We'll also stipulate that, given that their names are on it, Bill, Hillary and Chelsea really care about the success of the "Foundation" at getting anything done in the world.

Now let's assume that you or I were in the shoes of Hillary Clinton.  You are out of power now, and the only thing you have left is the "Foundation"; all the rest has been yanked from you since, you know, you lost the election.  That's it, only your eponymous charity.

Well, I know what I would do.  I would turn to my foundation and focus on it -- or I would retire and get the heck out of town.  Moreover -- and this is the point -- if after the election loss, the contributions to that foundation were drying up massively and my name is all over it, I'd be scrambling to save its existence.

I'd be doing that for two reasons if I were Hillary.  First, if it is such a force for good, I certainly want to be able to maintain its funding, so it can continue to do what it had allegedly been doing all those years, when I actually had power and could sell influence to Russian oligarchs who wanted our uranium.  If losing the "Foundation" caused little AIDS-riddled children to die all over the place, I'd be all over that, begging donors to give those millions all over again.

Secondly, and I did write this in the previous piece, if I don't get the donations back up to near the previous levels, it points out, in bold 18-point type, that the "Foundation" was only a means to peddle influence.  If the donations dry up when I'm no longer in power, that shows that power was being sold.  So to prevent anyone thinking that, we need to show that donors were being purely altruistic -- by continuing to donate.

So -- you would think that Hillary Clinton would have spent 2017 pounding the pavement for donations to the Foundation, right?  Because she be wanting to continuing the "good works" of her foundation, if there indeed were any.

But Hillary has been doing everything but that.  She walked in the woods, wrote a book, spent months on the road selling her book, created lots of excuses for losing.  I can't say that I have been in tune with everything she has said the past year, but I've heard a lot -- and nowhere, not once, did I hear that she had been lifting a finger to raise donations to her foundation back to pre-election levels.

No one seems to be mentioning that.

If the Clinton Foundation were indeed a thoroughly charitable organization and not a corrupt RICO device to peddle influence, then why, oh why, is not Hillary Clinton's focus not on running around reinstating the donations that went far away when she lost the election?

You know and I know.  The Clinton "Foundation" was pretty much only a device to sell access, to implement corrupt schemes like UraniumOne, and personally enrich the organization's namesakes.  No more influence to sell, no more power to peddle, and no more donations from those currying favor with the no-longer-influential Clintons.

Someone should have told Hillary those AIDS kids were more important than her book.

Copyright 2018 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.