As Congress was debating the TARP bailout in 2008, a colleague of mine taped a sign above his desk which defined moral hazard: "The lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences." Indeed, the Wikipedia page on "moral hazard" could simply redirect to "Bill and Hillary Clinton." Except they have probably bought or threatened all the editors.
The Clintons have spent 30 years perfecting bribery and intimidation into a transcendent art that is invisible yet universally acknowledged. It's not just that they are insulated from the results of their malfeasance; the Clintons now own a controlling interest in every moral and legal enforcement mechanism in American society-- Big Media, social media, the courts, and perhaps the FBI. Media priorities being in the state they are, Trump's Gorilla Mindset is well known, especially when it comes to women. Conservatives retort "Bill is worse!" They're right, but as usual, they have no idea why.
Few appreciate the degree to which Bill and Hillary Clinton are owned by foreign powers. They are the synthesis of "too big to fail" and universal suffrage democracy.
The Podesta emails showed that on official State Department visits, Huma Abedin granted foreign businessmen access to Clinton based on their Clinton Global Initiative donor status. Although it would take volumes to document the known instances of Clinton corruption, perhaps the most alarming is their relationship with the Saudi government, which apparently aided the September 11 plot.
As far back as 2009, Hillary Clinton complained that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar were not preventing money from flowing to Muslim terrorist groups:
In a December 2009 State Department cable published by Wikileaks, Clinton complained of “an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.” She declared that “Qatar's overall level of CT cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region.” She said the Kuwaiti government was “less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks.” She noted that “UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups.”
Nevertheless, all of these countries donated to the Clinton Foundation and received increased weapons export authorizations from the Clinton's State Department. This included helicopters and fighter jets.
Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.
The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.
In 2012, Qatari officials requested a five-minute meeting with Bill Clinton, so that they could present a one million dollar birthday check to the Foundation.
Two years later, Hillary Clinton admitted in an email to John Podesta that these same governments are covertly funding ISIS. "While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region," she wrote.
But none of this prevented Hillary from taking their money. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman recently boasted that his government had contributed a fifth of the campaign's money, an apparent violation of federal election law which has not been prosecuted.
Is anyone shocked that her insane pro-Sunni policy goals for Syria align with those of her Saudi / Sunni billionaire backers?