The FBI has already smoothed over the WikiLeaks release for Mrs. Clinton, and the issue might seem to be closed, but there is much more.  The essence of WikiLeaks releases seems to be the Clinton Foundation’s influence peddling for cash.  The Clintons were paid incredible speaking fees by international businesses while Secretary of State Hillary was known to be a candidate for President.  The same corporations additionally paid multi-million dollar contributions to the Foundation to support its good works, whatever those works are.  The contributors included Saudi Arabia and Qatar–foreign states not always on the US side.  I would ask, is there even a significant charitable result from this foundation, or is it only a front for a business selling influence inside our government, as it appears to do?  This is not a simple question and would take an investigation beyond the scope of this article, but it should be undertaken by the appropriate parties.
The Financial Times goes on:  “But the WikiLeaks organisation has been releasing daily batches of emails pilfered from the account of John Podesta, the chairman of the Clinton campaign and a former White House chief of staff, that reveal the sometimes fractious inner workings of the former secretary of state’s campaign.

Ft continues: “The emails reveal the overlap between the Clintons’ charitable foundation, Mrs Clinton’s work as secretary of state and her husband’s for-profit speechmaking. At the centre of the latest controversy is Doug Band, president of the consultancy Teneo Holdings, who filled multiple roles as an aide to the former president. Republicans have accused Mr Band of acting as the ringleader of a ‘pay-for-play’ operation that solicited foundation donations from companies that were also pressed to hire the ex-president for paid speeches.”

 The FT story also raises the subject of Bill Clinton’s womanizing in office that led to his impeachment trial.  This story even compares Clinton to serial rapist and former TV star Bill Cosby, who is probably on his way to prison.  The Financial Times:  “A January 12 email from Ron Klain, a former aide to vice-president Joe Biden, to Mr Podesta …also contains several questions about ‘WJC issues’, a reference to former President William Jefferson Clinton and ‘his conduct’ …’How is what Bill Clinton did different from what Bill Cosby did?’…in an allusion to the entertainer accused by dozens of women of drugging and raping.”

In a separate FT story:  “Clinton camp hired lawyers to vet consultant ties to ex-president”, the FT author details some of the Clintons’ powerful friends and how they bought influence in Washington by hiring Bill and Hillary to make $150,000 speeches which were probably taxable, while contributing millions on the side to the tax exempt Clinton Charity.  We who are voting Tuesday have The Financial Times to thank for this expose.  Details are quoted with appreciation.

Financial Times:  “In the 12-page letter Mr Band acknowledges ‘the unorthodox nature of our roles’. But he says in addition to its support for the foundation’s fundraising efforts, Teneo has ‘dedicated ourselves to helping the President secure and engage in for-profit activities’ such as speech making and advisory work.”.
Financial Times:  “The memo shows how on one occasion Mr Band and Teneo cofounder Declan Kelly arranged for Mr Liveris of Dow to play golf with the former president — and followed up by asking Dow to donate $500,000 to the Clinton Global Initiative and a $150,000 donation for Mr Clinton to attend a Dow dinner at Davos. In the 12-page letter Mr Band acknowledges ‘the unorthodox nature of our roles’. But he says in addition to its support for the foundation’s fundraising efforts, Teneo has ‘dedicated ourselves to helping the President secure and engage in for-profit activities’ such as speech making and advisory work.”
Financial Times:  “Mr Band says Teneo secured all the former president’s current business positions, pointing out ‘since 2001 President Clinton’s business arrangements have yielded more than $30m for him personally with $66m to be paid out over the next nine years should he choose to continue with the current engagements.'”
Whtt Editor returns to suggest:
We hope those who appreciates this sort of disclosures will show their appreciation to WikiLeaks and to The Financial Times of London.  Is it possible the next President could be indicted and impeached for influence peddling even before she takes office?  Recall that a grinning President Bill Clinton was impeached, but was not convicted, for using the White House as a sex playpen and lying about it. He narrowly escaped conviction by partisan votes from his party members, but financial issues like this reach a new low.  –CEC