'Foreign donors sponsor Clinton to influence her if she wins presidency'

'Foreign donors sponsor Clinton to influence her if she wins presidency'
Foreign governments are donating money to Hillary Clinton’ Foundation to influence her and her policy if she is the next president of the US, Cenk Uygur, political commentator and founder of the Young Turks Network, told RT’s In The Now.

RT:Republicans are chiding Hillary Clinton over the donations made by foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and other countries are among those donors. What are the implications of this for voters?

Cenk Uygur: Well, it’s a rare circumstance when the Republicans are totally right. I have no beef for the foundation, I’m sure it does wonderful work. But the idea that you would take $10 to $25 million from a foreign government and not be influenced by them is preposterous. Even if you think Hillary Clinton is a saint and she will not be influenced by that money at all, well good for her. But it at least gives the appearance of corruption and certainly Saudi Arabia and other countries are giving it not because they care about human rights. If Saudi Arabia cared about human rights they would have a lot of other ways to show it. They are doing it to influence Hillary Clinton who might be the next president of the US and that’s patently obvious.

RT:Canada’s foreign affairs department, which is promoting the Keystone XL pipeline, has donated money to the Clinton Foundation. Are these governments able to lobby within the US?

CU: If I’m Hillary Clinton by the way on the issue of Saudi Arabia. We remember that the point of the Clinton initiative is to push for rights for everybody, to get healthcare and all these wonderful things throughout the world…I’d say to Saudi Arabia “Keep your $25 million, let women drive.” But that’s probably a deal she is not going to make. Ok, on Canada. It’s not Canada that’s giving the money it’s a government agency specifically in charge of the Keystone XL pipeline. Now why do you think they gave $480,000 to a person who has an excellent chance to be the next president? To get it approved. Of course! Why else would they do it? Anyone who thinks otherwise is being ridiculous.

RT:This is small change though compared to the amount of money Clinton will get from American donations and businesses inside the country, no?

CU: That’s the insane situation we have in America now where you can openly and legally bribe politicians. So that’s why they probably think “What’s the big deal here?” I mean “we get bribes all the time in the form of campaign donations, independent expenditure. The Supreme Court says people can give us unlimited money… So sure I’ll take unlimited money from these foreign countries as well.” So yes, Hillary Clinton will raise if she runs, if she is successful, over a billion dollars easily and all the people giving her millions upon millions of dollars they are not doing that for their health, they are doing that for the policy outcomes they like if she wins.

RT:Isn’t it crazy that we are talking about a Bush and a Clinton in the White House again?

CU: Well, it’s for reasons that people might not quite understand. It’s not just that they are dynasties so they have a big name and so they are more likely to win and they have a lot of political connections. All that is true, but what your name gets you more than anything else is donors because the Clinton family and the Bush family have delivered for donors in this country for decades. So they are buying a non-property. If you are a businessman you want to take as little risk as possible. Investing in a Clinton or a Bush name is very little risk. You know what you are going to get, you are going to get policies that are in favor of the corporations in America, the donors, the rich, the wealthy, the elite. So that’s why the frontrunners at this point - because money is pouring into them and they have the most amount of money.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.