In recent weeks, the Clinton campaign machine has had a great deal of difficulty hiding their exuberance at Hillary’s chances to defeat Donald Trump. But in the last seven-days, it is obvious they are hearing footsteps getting closer. The polls now indicate Clinton has only a narrow lead or, in some national polls, she is slightly behind.
Hillary should read her history about American presidential elections in recent times. One in particular ranks second to Harry Truman’s stunning victory over Thomas Dewey in 1948. That would be the underdog landslide victory of Ronald Reagan over incumbent President Jimmy Carter.
From Reagan’s announcement of his plans in 1979 to run a third time in 1980, the former two-term governor of California was castigated daily in the mainstream media as a reckless cowboy, Grade B actor, stupid and a warmonger. Until the very last week of the campaign, virtually all national polls showed President Jimmy Carter with a narrow lead, or even larger. Sound familiar? Reagan’s first two campaigns were 1968 & 1976.
Its impossible to imagine that Clinton’s handlers aren’t aware of her soft underbelly with the daily news about her email probes, the Clinton Foundation corruption, lying, etc. Are the polls, like those basically declared Reagan dead by Labor Day, 1980, once again missing the strong undercurrent of anger in this country?
In part one of this two part column, many of the problems that may cripple Hillary’s candidacy were covered (August 27th). What remains to be discussed are the other issues that may spell an astonishing underdog victory even more spectacular than Harry Truman’s.
Hillary Clinton counting chickens Huma Abedin, Hillary’s closest adviser during her tenure as Secretary of State and the presidential campaign/Clinton Foundation, has handled Hillary’s private affairs for years. The Washington Post clearly documented that in late 2012, Abedin held four different positions, an arrangement allowed by a special government designation she held permitting outside employment.
Abedin worked at the State Department, was employed by the private consulting firm Teneo, was being paid out of Clinton’s personal funds, and was contracted to the Clinton Foundation. The conflict of interest was stunning, yet ignored by investigative reporters from the major newspapers and political websites.
Huma’s convoluted employment situation has been pursued by Republican congressmen, mainly Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (Iowa). Furthermore, the latest delivery of emails released by the conservative group Judicial Watch, has only intensified the spotlight on Abedin. It can be easily construed that she was the connection between Clinton and foundation donors. There is too much factual evidence to say otherwise.
Take for instance the example of one released email from a Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to Abedin requesting if she could get the Clinton State Department (Hillary) to intervene and secure a private meeting. There are many more examples of Clinton Foundation contributors gaining private access to Clinton and many others in Washington handled personally by Abedin.
- Saudi Arabia is among a host of nations that contributed to the Clinton Foundation in the millions. Is this hypocrisy by the presidential candidate who urges women to empower themselves? Republicans have been slamming Clinton for putting women’s rights at the center of her campaign despite her family foundation taking millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, a country that systematically oppresses women.
They are not alone. The Saudi donations account for a fraction of the millions of dollars in foreign money that flowed into the Clinton Foundation. Other countries that have raised eyebrows on human rights grounds include the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Qatar, Oman and Brunei.
- Then there is the Foundation’s questionable and controversial links with the company Uranium One. It was taken over by Russia in a lucrative deal, which had to be approved by a number of U.S. government agencies including the State Department. The New York Times, a far-left newspaper, published a lengthy article in April, 2015 that revealed an undisclosed flow of some $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation from a family foundation linked to the chairman of Uranium One.
A Clinton talking head, spokesman Brian Fallon, tersely rejected any perception that Clinton had weighed in to help a foundation donor. He emphasized that numerous United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had to sign off on that deal. As always is the case with the Clintons’ above-the-law attitude, Fallon added that no one has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of State to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.
That of course is a lie.
Americans are familiar with the Clintons’ worming out of one controversy after another with their expertise in the use of vague denial and innuendo. Has the time arrived where this constant drip, drip national exposure becoming an overload for high-information voters in this election? Is there a major undercurrent in the millions of angry voters who will walk through hell to vote for a Ronald Reagan-type situation?
There is no question that any parallels to Reagan are ludicrous for the Republican real estate mogul. But the real anger in the country suggests Trump has arrived at the right place and time in American presidential election history.
