CounterJihad · @CounterjihadUS
The history of the Clintons’ taking foreign money suggests it is plausible, and there is reason to believe that the Saudis have already gotten quite a bit for their money.
A report from Jordan’s Petra News Agency quoted Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman claiming that the Saudi government was funding fully one-fifth of Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President.
After a Washington DC based think tank translated and captured the report, Petra deleted the emails and stopped responding to requests for comments on the article.
Saudi-owned Al Arabiya news is now claiming that Petra was hacked, and the comments were false. Foreign influence of US elections by financing candidates is illegal. If the report was accurate, Zero Hedge estimates that the amount of royal Saudi money in Hillary’s coffers would be more than forty million dollars.
Was the article legitimate? Prince Salman is on a visit to the United States right now. Aside from that one comment, the rest of the article is quite standard diplomatic fare. Salman’s other reported remarks were on the special relationship Saudi Arabia shares with the United States, and of the king’s enthusiastic support for Hillary Clinton as a female candidate for President.
They are not damaging remarks, in other words, but exactly the sort of ordinary things diplomats say right before a trip to visit a foreign country. That gives credibility to the idea that this may have been a legitimate news story that accidentally revealed a major crime.
There are two more reasons to take the article seriously.
The first is that the Clinton campaign, and Democrats in general, have a long history of accepting illegal foreign money. The Hill reported that in 1997 illegal donations from China funded an early Clinton advertising blast against the Dole campaign. Senator Fred Thompson’s hearings the next year exposed a vast network of foreign donors who had contributed to Bill Clinton’s re-election.
By 2008 Clinton was overtaken by Barack Obama in manipulating the system to allow foreign donations. The Obama campaign disabled credit card safety mechanisms on its online donation sites that would have identified foreign accounts. They continued the practice in the 2012 re-election campaign against Mitt Romney, who observed the practice of demanding the security information. The campaign was eventually fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for their misbehavior, but only after it was too late.
In preparation for the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton’s foundation has received vast sums of money from foreign powers. A lot of this money was definitely Saudi, so if her campaign has developed a mechanism for passing money from the foundation to the campaign the claim is extremely plausible.
The second reason that the claim is plausible is that there is strong prima facie evidence that Clinton provided quid pro quo. Saudi Arabia was one of several Middle Eastern governments who obtained greatly increased access to US military weaponry under the Clinton State Department. Their large-scale donations to her foundation show every sign of having been persuasive in her decisions to permit them to buy advanced weapons of war.
Likewise, former Homeland Security agent Phil Haney has revealed that Clinton’s State Department personally stepped in and forced his agency to cease investigations into radical mosques, including the one linked to the weekend’s terrorist shooting in Orlando. In fact, according to Haney, the Clinton State Department not only stopped the investigations but required Homeland Security to destroy its records of the investigation so far.
For these reasons, there is every reason to take seriously the Petra report that Saudi Arabia is enthusiastic about electing her — and funding her campaign to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. Indeed it is without doubt she has taken very large amounts of Saudi money. The only question is how much of it has made its way into her campaign for President.