Buck Has a Field Day Speculating Why Clinton Foundation Donations Plummeted

November 21, 2016

Writer

According to the New York Post, donations to the Clinton Foundation fell by 37 percent in 2014, before Hillary announced her candidacy. They went from $172 million to $108 million. Now why would donations dramatically drop just as Hillary Clinton left the nonprofit to pursue her running for president of the United States.

"Why would the money for the foundation start to go down at that point in time, unless, well, they were concerned that it would look bad. Remember, they said they were going to stop, at a certain point, taking foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation. Which, why stop, if it was always okay? You can't have it both ways," Buck Sexton said, filling in for Glenn Monday on the radio program.

In addition to donations going down, revenues from speeches also dropped from $3.6 million to $357,500.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

BUCK: Buck Sexton in for Glenn today. You can follow me on Facebook at Facebook.com/BuckSexton. Also, go to TheBlaze.com/Buck-Sexton.

Donations to the Clinton Foundation, let's talk about that for a second, just because it will be kind of fun. A lot of us were thinking during the whole election that it was so, so obvious. It was so obvious that the Clinton Foundation was the front of a charity. But, you know, that was the front of the house. But the rest of it was really a giant slush fund for the Clinton brand, to pay Clinton cronies, as a means of creating a sort of giant side business of these Clinton speeches that are all tied into the foundation donors.

The New York Post here has the donations to the Clinton Foundation fell by 37 percent in 2014, before Hillary announced, from 108 million, down from 172 million. So that happened as Hillary Clinton left the nonprofit in 2015 and then went on with her candidacy, which, as we know, did not work. But also revenue the Clintons brought in from speeches went from 357,500 down from 3.6 million.

So there were some drop-offs. But now people would say, "Well, Buck, look, see, she was running for office, and they didn't want there to be conflicts of interest."

Well, why would the money for the foundation start to go down at that point in time, unless, well, they were concerned that it would look bad -- remember, they said they were going to stop -- at a certain point, they were going to stop taking foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation. Which, why stop, if it was always okay? You can't have it both ways.

The real -- the rubber meets the road on this one, you'll have something to talk about when we see -- what would it be? Fiscal 2016 looks like for the Clinton Foundation and for speeches given by the Clintons. Because if all of a sudden Bill is like giving you like 50 percent -- you know, it's like you can get two-for-one, fly me out to wherever. I mean, Pyongyang, I'm here for you.

If it's a two-for-one situation with Bill Clinton speeches and Hillary speeches, if they drop 50 percent in value or even more, won't we all know then -- we already know, but won't that be proof to anybody who is of reasonable sound mind on these issues, won't that be proof that this was all a giant scam, all along? Won't we then know that you don't leave the presidency as Bill Clinton did and then all of a sudden your speeches get dramatically more valuable as your wife becomes Secretary of State just 'cause. Just 'cause.

Quite a coincidence, isn't it? That people were so much more interested and showed that interest with wads of cash. Quite a coincidence that they were able to amass a fortune through giving speeches of over $100 million, some estimate $150 million. That's a lot of money. That's a lot of money without offering a product.

And if all of a sudden, those speeches are much -- they're not going to be zero -- there will still be corporations that will pay -- but you'll see, I think, I'll make a prediction here, it will fall in line with what other former heads of state make, which is still a crazy amount of money for some of these places. But you're not going to get $800,000 a speech, as Bill did.

I mean, it was a really good speech.

You're going to get more like 100 or 150, which to you and me, it's like, this is amazing. I'd give a speech or two a year and call it a day, spend the rest of the time on the beach.

But that would show, wouldn't it? That would prove what we alleged all along. We will see now -- the market will speak in a sense. Because what the market was rewarding before was not how brilliant Hillary and Bill Clinton were, it was rewarding this scheme that they had created, which was really just a giant highway, an avenue of access to the most powerful corridors of government, via the Clinton Foundation as the alibi for all this cash flowing through. It muddied the waters. It made it more difficult. It made it seem like what was going on here was creating a better world for all of us, when in reality, it was creating a vast empire of patronage and of self-enrichment for Hillary, Bill Clinton, and the whole Clinton -- the whole Clinton family.

I don't want to lose sight of that, because I think given this election -- given that so many of us were wrong about who was going to win and where all of this was going, I think it's fair for you and for me to look at what happens with the Clinton Foundation and say, "At least we saw that for what it was." Because I would be willing to he make quite a a bet that you will see a market drop-off in vast donations to the Clinton Foundation, from certain individuals. There will still be money coming in. There will still be some charity. I get it. But it will drop real fast.

But the speeches -- I want to know when the next Bill Clinton $800,000 30-minute engagement is. I want to see when that happens. I think they may even decide they're not giving speeches for money period, because it would be so obvious that once they start giving these speeches, the price drops dramatically. They were really running a huge scam, selling the Secretary of State's office. What a surprise.

Featured Image: Clinton Foundation Vice Chair Chelsea Clinton speaks during the Plenary Session: Girl, Uninterrupted: Increasing Opportunity During Adolescence at the Clinton Global Initiative September, 20, 2016 in New York. (Photo Credit: BRYAN R. SMITH/AFP/Getty Images)

What happens if Trump wins from prison?

Rob Kim / Contributor | Getty Images

If Donald Trump is sentenced to prison time, it will be the first time in American history that a former president and active presidential candidate is thrown behind bars. Nobody knows for sure what exactly will happen.

With the election only a few months away, the left is working overtime to come up with any means of beating Trump, including tying him up in court or even throwing him in jail. Glenn recently had former U.S. DoJ Assistant Attorney General and Center for Renewing America senior fellow Jeff Clark on his show to discuss the recent resurrection of the classified documents case against Trump and what that could mean for the upcoming election. Clark explains that despite the immunity ruling from the Supreme Court this summer, he thinks there is a decent chance of a prison sentence.

What would that even look like if it happened? This is a completely unprecedented series of events and virtually every step is filled with potential unknowns. Would the Secret Service protect him in prison? What if he won from his jail cell? How would the American people respond? While no one can be certain for sure, here's what Glenn and Jeff Clark speculate might happen:

Jail time

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Can they even put a former president in prison? Jeff Clark seemed to think they can, and he brought up that New York County District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, had been talking with the New York jail system about making accommodations for Trump and the Secret Service assigned to protect him. Clark said he believes that if they sentence him before the election, Trump could be made to serve out his sentence until his inauguration, assuming he wins. After his inauguration, Clark said Trump's imprisonment would have to be suspended or canceled, as his constitutional duty as president would preempt the conviction by New York State.

House arrest

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

Another possibility is that Trump could be placed under house arrest instead of imprisoned. This would make more sense from a security standpoint—it would be easier to protect Trump in his own home versus in prison. But, this would deny the Left the satisfaction of actually locking Trump behind bars, so it seems less likely. Either in prison or under house arrest, the effect is the same, Trump would be kept off the campaign trail during the most crucial leg of the election. It doesn't matter which way you spin it—this seems like election interference. Glenn even floated the idea of campaigning on behalf of Trump to help combat the injustice.

Public outrage

Jon Cherry / Stringer | Getty Images

It is clear to many Americans that this whole charade is little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to keep Trump out of office by any means necessary. If this attempt at lawfare succeeds, and Trump is thrown in jail, the American people likely will not have it. Any doubt that America has become a Banana Republic will be put to rest. How will anyone trust in any sort of official proceedings or elections ever again? One can only imagine what the reaction will be. If the past is any indication, it's unlikely to be peaceful.

POLL: What topics do YOU want Trump and Harris to debate?

Montinique Monroe / Stringer, Win McNamee / Staff | Getty Images

Does Kamala Harris stand a chance against Donald Trump in a debate?

Next week, during the second presidential debate, we will find out. The debate is scheduled for September 10th and will be hosted by ABC anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis. This will be the second presidential debate, but the first for VP Kamala Harris, and will feature the same rules as the first debate. The rules are: no notes, no chairs, no live audience, and the debater's microphone will only be turned on when it is his or her turn to speak.

This will be the first time Trump and Harris clash face-to-face, and the outcome could have a massive effect on the outcome of the election. Trump has been preparing by ramping up his campaign schedule. He plans to hold multiple rallies and speak at several events across the next several days. He wants to be prepared to face any question that might come his way, and meeting and interacting with both voters and the press seems to be Trump's preferred preparation approach.

With the multitude of issues plaguing our nation, there are a lot of potential topics that could be brought up. From the economy to the ongoing "lawfare" being waged against the former president, what topics do YOU want Harris and Trump to debate?

The economy (and why the Biden-Harris administration hasn't fixed it yet)

The Southern Border crisis (and Kamala's performance as border czar)

Climate change (and how Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement)

The "lawfare" being waged against Trump (and what Trump would do if he were thrown in prison)

Voting and election security (and how to deal with the possibility that illegal immigrants are voting)

3 ways the Constitution foils progressive authoritarianism

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor, Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Pool / Pool | Getty Images

This is why it is important to understand our history.

Over the weekend, the New York Times published a controversial article claiming the Constitution is a danger to the country and a threat to democracy. To those who have taken a high school American government class or have followed Glenn for a while, this claim might seem incongruent with reality. That's because Jennifer Szalai, the author the piece, isn't thinking of the Constitution as it was intended to be—a restraint on government to protect individual rights—but instead as a roadblock that is hindering the installation of a progressive oligarchy.

Glenn recently covered this unbelievable article during his show and revealed the telling critiques Szalai made of our founding document. She called it an "anti-democratic" document and argued it is flawed because Donald Trump used it to become president (sort of like how every other president achieved their office). From here, Szalai went off the deep end and made some suggestions to "fix" the Constitution, including breaking California and other blue states away from the union to create a coastal progressive utopia.

Here are three of the "flaws" Szalai pointed out in the Constitution that interfere with the Left's authoritarian dreams:

1. The Electoral College

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

The New York Times article brought up the fact that in 2016 President Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, and thus won the election. This, as Szalai pointed out, is not democratic. Strictly speaking, she is right. But as Glenn has pointed out time and time again, America is not a democracy! The Founding Fathers did not want the president to be decided by a simple majority of 51 percent of the population. The Electoral College is designed to provide minority groups with a voice, giving them a say in the presidential election. Without the Electoral College, a simple majority would dominate elections and America would fall under the tyranny of the masses.

2. The Supreme Court

OLIVIER DOULIERY / Contributor | Getty Images

President Biden and other progressives have thrown around the idea of reforming the Supreme Court simply because it has made a few rulings they disagree with. Glenn points out that when a country decides to start monkeying around with their high courts, it is usually a sign they are becoming a banana republic. Szalai complained that Trump was allowed to appoint three justices. Two of them were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population, and they overturned Roe v. Wade. All of this is Constitutional by Szalai's admission, and because she disagreed with it, she argued the whole document should be scrapped.

3. Republicanism

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

To clarify, were not talking about the Republican Party Republicanism, but instead the form of government made up of a collection of elected representatives who govern on the behalf of their constituents. This seems to be a repeat sticking point for liberals, who insist conservatives and Donald Trump are out to destroy "democracy" (a system of government that never existed in America). This mix-up explains Szalai's nonsensical interpretation of how the Constitution functions. She criticized the Constitution as "anti-democratic" and a threat to American democracy. If the Constitution is the nation's framework, and if it is "anti-democratic" then how is it a threat to American democracy? This paradox is easily avoided with the understanding that America isn't a democracy, and it never has been.

Kamala Harris' first interview as nominee: Three SHOCKING policy flips

Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

On Thursday, Kamala Harris gave her first interview since Joe Biden stepped down from the race, and it quickly becameclear why she waited so long.

Harris struggled to keep her story straight as CNN's Dana Bash questioned her about recent comments she had made that contradicted her previous policy statements. She kept on repeating that her "values haven't changed," but it is difficult to see how that can be true alongside her radical shift in policy. Either her values have changed or she is lying about her change in policy to win votes. You decide which seems more likely.

During the interview, Harris doubled down on her policy flip on fracking, the border, and even her use of the race card. Here are her top three flip-flops from the interview:

Fracking

Citizens of the Planet / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2019, during the 2020 presidential election, Harris pledged her full support behind a federal ban on fracking during a town hall event. But, during the DNC and again in this recent interview, Harris insisted that she is now opposed to the idea. The idea of banning fracking has been floated for a while now due to environmental concerns surrounding the controversial oil drilling method. Bans on fracking are opposed by many conservatives as it would greatly limit the production of oil in America, thus driving up gas prices across the nation. It seems Harris took this stance to win over moderates and to keep gas prices down, but who knows how she will behave once in office?

Border

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

In her 2020 presidential bid, Harris was all for decriminalizing the border, but now she is singing a different tune. Harris claimed she is determined to secure the border—as if like she had always been a stalwart defender of the southern states. Despite this policy reversal, Harris claimed her values have not changed, which is hard to reconcile. The interviewer even offered Kamala a graceful out by suggesting she had learned more about the situation during her VP tenure, but Kamala insisted she had not changed.

Race

Tasos Katopodis / Stringer | Getty Images

When asked to respond to Trump's comments regarding the sudden emergence of Kamala's black ancestry Kamala simply answered "Same old tired playbook, next question" instead of jumping on the opportunity to play the race card as one might expect. While skipping the critical race theory lecture was refreshing, it came as a shock coming from the candidate representing the "everything is racist" party. Was this just a way to deflect the question back on Trump, or have the Democrats decided the race card isn't working anymore?

Glenn's Show Prep