The Burkle partnership carries ample potential for conflicts—real and perceived—whether or not Hillary Clinton is ever president. For one thing, she lent her campaign $11.4 million this year, and because the Clintons’ finances are commingled, it would be difficult to discern whether money from Burkle-related ventures (or other potentially controversial sources of income) made its way into Clinton campaign coffers. Burkle’s other investors include an entity connected to Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, the ruler of Dubai, whose regime has been cited for human-rights violations by the State Department. (Two years ago, Senator Clinton nevertheless opposed a Dubai-based company’s efforts to acquire control over the management of six United States ports.)So let me get the alleged impropriety straight: Ron Burkle is bad because he came to a party with a good-looking 20-year-old girl, and an investor in one of Burkle's businesses is also "connected to" the ruler of Dubai, which is a bad place. Bill Clinton has worked as an advisor to Burkle in his post-presidency; we don't know exactly what Clinton said to Burkle in his advisory capacity, which means something shady must be going on, because Burkle is a bad guy (see above). Hillary and Bill's finances are commingled, so it's technically possible that some of the money Hillary lent her campaign came from Bill's dealings with Burkle, which were shady because there's no evidence that they weren't shady. Therefore, Bill is evil and Hillary's campaign is quite possibly corrupt.
Makes sense.
Posts
