Hillary Clinton was recently interviewed by Diane Sawyer on ABC News. When asked about her and Bill’s financial affairs, she claimed they were “dead broke and in debt” when they left the White House in A.D. 2001. She claims that they had “mortgages to pay off,” had to pay for Chelsea’s college education, and “it wasn’t easy”.
That’s interesting because Bill Clinton earned $400,000 a year as President. He and his family received free room and board, free travel, free use of the presidential limousine, free use of Air Force One, free vacations, probably some sort of clothing allowance and maybe even a free medical and dental plan. So far as I can see, the only expenses they might’ve had to pay for out of their own pockets were the cost of feeding their dog “Buddy” and maybe the cost of Bill’s cigars. But other than that, everyday life in the White House was presumably free and clear for the President, his wife and daughter.
If I had a job that paid $3.2 million and virtually all of my expenses for 8 years, I’d leave that job with at least $2 million in my bank account. Nevertheless, making ends meet “wasn’t easy” for the poor, impoverished Clintons. After eight years in the White House and a pre-tax gross income of $3.2 million, Hillary claims she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House.
What did they spend their money on over those eight years? I know that Bill is rumored to have had a substantial appetite for cocaine, but it’s hard to believe that he snorted up $200,000 in coke each year for eight consecutive years. Besides, the DEA should’ve been able to provide Bill with more free coke than Al Pacino had when he played “Scarface”.
I’m not saying the Ms. Clinton is lying, but I am saying that if a man and wife can earn over $3 million in eight years, with their room and board all paid for, and still wind up “dead broke,” they are obviously terrible at managing their money. Do you think that anyone who is so inept at managing their personal finances should be allowed to occupy the office of President and manage the nation’s finances?
What follows is a short video clip of Ms. Clinton famously explaining how they were “dead broke”. Watch her face closely. She’s clearly squirming. Is she lying?
If she is lying about her finances, why?
Is she afraid that if she admits that she and Bill are now multi-millionaires, that she’ll loose the support of the welfare recipients in the Democrat Party? Maybe. Diane Sawyer suggested that Ms. Clinton was concerned that her substantial wealth would put her on the wrong side of the “income inequality” debate. Maybe so, I don’t think that’s Hilary’s fundamental fear.
After all her years in or near the political arena, after her training as a lawyer, Ms. Clinton (like her husband) should be a consummate liar. And yet, when asked about her finances, her facade seemed to collapse and she appeared to be lying as obviously as an eighth-grade girl coming home four hours late from a date. (I can almost hear a young Hilary saying “Ahh did not have sex with that boy!”)
Why lie about her finances? Why not just smile and say, “Yes, Bill and I have been very fortunate since we left the White House”–and move on with the interview? Why lie about being “dead broke”?
I don’t know.
But I suspect that there may be far more to the tale of Bill and Hillary’s finances than currently meets the eye. I suspect that if someone were to conduct a thorough investigation of the Clinton’s wealth, we might learn that the Clintons have millions of dollars, maybe tens of millions of dollars, that can’t be explained as the product of lawful income.
I suspect that Hilary is lying about her finances because she knows that her accounts contain evidence of some sort of nefarious activities. I think she’s lying about her finances because she knows that if her true financial condition and the sources of all her and Bill’s wealth were revealed, she’d at least lose her shot at the presidency and might even wind up facing criminal prosecution.