Some are raising their eyebrows and questioning the integrity of Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, on the heels of the release of financial documents which tend to suggest that she fudged on numbers in a deceitful effort to not only mislead the government but constituents as well.
At issue?
When Mrs. Clinton represented earnings Bill hauled in for services rendered to billionaire buddy Ron Burkle, she cited shocking, low-ball figures.
For example, according to an LA TIMES report (04/05/08), Mrs. Clinton alleged on a Federal Ethics Form that as a Senior Advisor for Yucaipa Cos, Bill was racking in "over" $1,000.00.
But, an examination of financial records released this past week, revealed that the earnings amounted to a staggering 2.6 million dollars for "services" performed between the years 2003-2006.
That is a far cry from a thousand bucks, wouldn't you say?
Without doubt, Mrs. Clinton's calculations on the ethics form were "way off".
Obviously, the paltry sum put forward, was a "smokescreen" designed to conceal the extent of Bill's business ties with Mr. Burkle - and ultimately - prevent any red flags from being raised.
If that wasn't bad enough, another controversy arose when it was disclosed that the former president was reimbursed $800,000.00 from InfoUSA (a consumer data marketing company headed up by another pal, Vinod Gupta) for "sharing his thoughts" on the domestic and global economy and world affairs.
Heh, Mr. Gupta, you can pick my brains any old day for those kind of bucks!
In addition to the astronomical fees aforementioned, stockholders were particularly irked when they learned that the Clintons billed InfoUSA an outlandish sum of $900,000.00 for travel expenses, as well.
The expression "high on the hog" is taken to new levels here.
I wonder, don't the Clinton's have any shame?
Is there no end to the lengths Hillary and Bill will go to prostitute themselves?
Is it just greed, or do they just hate paying their own way?
I wonder how these revelations fall on the heads of voters in the lower income brackets, who - until these disclosures - were inclined to cast a ballot Clinton’s way in the upcoming tail-end of the elections.
What would her response be to their outrage, I wonder.
Let them eat cake?
