As American banks go hat in hand to foreign financial institutions and governments, begging for capital to help them get out of the mess into which their subprime loans have landed them, the question arises as to whether the United States should permit nations like China, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) and the banks they control to acquire part ownership of our leading banks.Could Hillary have a hidden motive to favor such foreign financial control of our banking and finance? She has stated
that she would not 'stand in the way' of such investments, but said that they needed to be vetted and called for more disclosure and 'transparency'.[emphasis mine] Please note the bolded portion you just read. This is important because Hillary Clinton has not been willing to disclose her financial dealings and therefore is anything but transparent. Hillary will not release her tax returns as so many candidates have done in the past, and as Bill did when he ran for President.
Should the Saudi monarchy be permitted to purchase an important equity position in some of America’s leading banks? How can Hillary be objective when the very same monarchy donated $10 million to the Clinton Library and Foundation? [emphasis mine]Dick Morris has known the Clintons for a long time. He was a chief political adviser to Bill Clinton while he was President. He is, to put it mildly, not a supporter of Hillary. As such his judgment may be biased, but his facts are not in question.
Should the U.A.E. be allowed in? How can Hillary decide fairly when Bill — and therefore herself — have been getting a reported $10 million per year from a fund that administers the investments of the Emir of Dubai, the largest component state in the U.A.E.?The money links to the Clintons by these foreign countries is reason to question Hillary's objectivity on this matter. Foreign donations to a political campaign are not permitted by law, and for good reason.
But these nations have used the porous ethics of the Clinton family to acquire positions of massive influence by making contributions, not to her campaign, but to her personal bank account — either through Bill or through the Library and Foundation, which the Clintons directly control.The extant to which Hillary and the Clinton family is financially obligated to Foreign Interests should be public domain information so that the voters can accurately judge the suitability of her candidacy for President. Yet the Clintons refuse to allow their tax returns to be made public. Since Hillary called for "these investments to be fully veted and transparant", why shouldn't Hillary make her Financial Dealings and Tax Returns available?