Did the Clinton Foundation, for all its good works, serve as a giant slush fund?
That question has surged to the forefront of the campaign in the wake of another Wikileaks dump, and one of the biggest accusers turns out to be Chelsea Clinton.
The Chelsea criticism is a bombshell, one that exploded with enough force that it propelled the lead story in both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal and an above-the-fold piece in the Washington Post.
This is stolen material, as Hillary Clinton’s campaign regularly reminds us, but it echoes what the foundation’s harshest critics have long argued: that there was an amorphous line at best between fundraising for charitable projects and lucrative income for Bill Clinton and those around him.
Now we have the former president’s daughter, whose name is on the foundation, accusing his aides of “hustling” business to win clients at foundation events. We have Chelsea insisting that these aides were taking “significant sums of money from my parents personally.”
And we have longtime Hillary loyalist Huma Abedin concerned about the former secretary of State promising to attend a foundation event in Morocco at the request of its king, who had just promised a $12-million donation to the foundation. “She created this mess and she knows it,” Abedin wrote.