Seriously?! Clinton Foundation suddenly finds $26 million in undisclosed donations

Just when you think it couldn’t get worse, it does. No, this isn’t about Benghazi or secret, private e-mails being used to conduct government business - although those are pretty bad too. No, the latest scandal plaguing Hillary Clinton involves her personal charity, the Clinton Foundation. Turns out the Clinton Foundation failed to disclose about $26 million. There’s no way that money came from any sketchy sources, right? Buck Sexton has the story and reaction.

Below is a rough transcript of this segment:

Up to $26 million. That's a lot of money, isn't it? That's pretty much in any context except for government spending. They can spend $26 million for toilet seats on the Pentagon. $26 million is generally speaking a lot of money. That's the kind of number you would think, well, could they really fail to disclose -- could someone just lose $26 million in the couch cushions. I mean, maybe some Saudi royals. But for normal folks. Could 26 million just sort of get lost in the shuffle? No. But for the Clintons apparently -- or the Clinton Foundation, about 26 million bucks, that sort of gets -- no one knows where it is. That's the latest on the information that we're getting about the Clinton Foundation. What they're telling us here that they may have failed to disclose, I don't know, you know, call it a couple of handfuls of cash. I'll go about with 20 to 25 million, maybe 26. Just whoopsie. Never said anything about it. Of course, this is not an isolated incident. They've had to readjust their tax returns. How many charities do you know of, by the way, that say, well, we'll just have to redo our tax returns for a while. How many charities do you know of where that's actually happened recently?

How many charities do you know where there's so many people who seem really intent really serious about making sure that nobody knows that they're giving to the charity? I know there are anonymous donations to some charities. But usually when corporations and major international entities of some kind or another give money to feed the children, promote women's education, stop the spread of malaria, whatever, usually they're really excited about people knowing about this or at least know the PR value of such that they want individuals to know about this. They want people to know that they had given this money. With the Clinton Foundation though, it always like, well, we don't want people to really know about this. We don't people to actually have to go down a list and see all the names.

There's a bunch of things in the latest revelation that I find interesting and a bunch of things that are worthy of a few minutes of our time. There's not much that's new in dealing with Clintons. In the sense, if there's such a thing as corruption, then the Clintons are corrupt. But, somehow, we won't hear very much from the Clintonistas about that. Right? They'll just try to talk about everything else, which is understandable to some degree.

But there's one thing I came across here in this piece in the Washington Post. Who is paying Chelsea Clinton for speeches, by the way? This doesn't not necessarily get thrown in and lumped in with the rest of this. But what are you paying Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of the Clintons, who, I don't know, could be a lovely human being, don't know, but I don't think she really should be giving speeches to major corporations or individuals or organizations, about what exactly? I mean, if it's about how to be successful and get ahead. Well, I suppose the best advice she could give, be really, really lucky and be born really rich and powerful. But they're paying her. Which also feels like another means of buying Clinton influence. Right?

That's what that's about. $600,000 for what was apparently ten minutes of work at MSNBC. That also has to be on the same side as a lot of these other Clinton arrangements. These sort of special Clinton details. Right?

That's something else that should be added in there. But if we'll be fair about this, there's nothing that can really compare to Mr. Bill because he really loves to give speeches. He just wants to hold the world close into his chest. Close into his bosom. I mean, he said bosom, didn't he? Get a little close in there, a little snuggle. It will cost you like half a million dollars. But a Clinton snuggle is the best kind of snuggle. It's getting creepy, I know. But the point is that people pay this guy way too much money for a speech. It's not just for the speech. It's for the access and the influence that comes with writing the check. We all know that, and more of this has come out.

The Clinton Foundation is starting to look like the charity equivalent of Slimer from Ghostbusters. Just trying to get as much money and bring in as much cash as it possibly can. With Slimer, it's hotdogs. With the Clinton Foundation, it's just donations. That's what's going on here. They cannot get enough. $26 million, they've said, over the last year or two?

There's never enough for them. There's one entity that donated -- or, paid a speaking fee of $250,000 to $500,000. I also love the ranges. Because they don't know how much they got paid. Anyway, was the energy minister of Thailand. Okay. If your wife is Secretary of State, you can have a foreign government entity pay you up to half a million dollars to show up and be like, hey, I like energy. Not as much as I like ladies, but I like energy.

I mean, half a million dollars for this. You must be joking. You can't be taking this seriously. But people seem to be taking this seriously for whatever reason. Or believe it. They want to believe it. The Clintons have become Santa Claus for Democrats. It's just too painful to think that this is not what they've been told it is. Half a million dollars -- up to half a million dollars from energy ministry in the Thailand.

South Korean energy and chemicals conglomerate Hanwha paid 500,000 to a million dollars for a speech by Clinton. Wow. Well done, South Korean energy conglomerate. I wonder if Hillary will be more favorably disposed towards something that may benefit you in the trade or foreign relations sector in the future. I'm guessing they're putting a yes up there on that one.

A China real estate development corporation paid the foundation from 250 to $500,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton.

Qatar First Investment Bank paid for a speech of around the same cost at around the same time.

The Telmex Foundation, founded by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim provided between 250 and $500,000 for a speech by Hillary Clinton. Hmm.

Massive telecommunications conglomerate in Mexico owned by Carlos Slim and also, I believe, was a major owner of the New York Times, they're going to give money to Hillary. This is a really smart business proposition for people all around the world. Right?

If you're a major conglomerate, international corporation, 250K to buy off the Secretary of State. And it might even just be insurance. There might not be a specific quid pro quo. But, by the way, that's not the standard for corruption. Go talk to Senator Menendez. Go talk to indicted, convicted, and facing prison time Virginia governor Bob McDonnell about quid pro quo corruption, meaning you have to get something in exchange for something in order for it to be real, criminal corruption. That's not the standard.

The standard is looking unseemly. As I said, the Clintons are the global Slimer of looking unseemly when it comes to corruption. More money. More money. Shovel it in all the time. They raise $102 billion. They give out an average of 10 percent to actual charities. They're middlemen. They say, I want to help the starving children of the world. So you say, okay, here's a bunch of food. So they eat most of it and throw an apple core at the people that need it and we're supposed to applaud them and say, oh, well done, Clintons, you're fabulous. This is preposterous. It's a giant slush fund. It's a branding exercise. It's a means for them to fund their lifestyle.

Do you think the Clintons have paid for very much in the way of travel since starting this foundation. They get to fly all over the world in private jets. Do you think they pay for their meals? Or do you think the foundation picks that up? Do you think they can hire whoever they want, whatever cronies they want and pay them with money that they've been able to gather with tax protection, of course. Right?

This is money that people get a tax exemption for. So they can just pay off their buddies. Their giant jobs program. They're almost like a government in exile. They get to fly all over the world and talk about how wonderful they are and raise all this money.

Oh, she made $25 million since January of 2014. Bill Clinton has been paid more than 104 million from 2001 to 2012. Despite all this, Hillary is just a cuddly grandma who wants to sit with you at the dinner table and be your friend. She cares about how hard it is for you to pay your bills. She is a private jet progressive my friend, she doesn't care about you and your bills. She doesn't even know how bills get paid really. I'm sure she could figure it out with a check. But this whole online bill pay thing, that's probably skipped past her because she hasn't had to pay her own bills in a few decades. She certainly hasn't had to pump her own gas. But now she's a populist. Now she's a fighter for the middle class. The richest 1 percent are getting way too much of the benefit. They're terrible. Except for me, I'm awesome. This is the promise she makes you. This is what she tells you.

You know, Bob McDonnell should have just said, 2007 -- remember this is the disgraced, indicted -- they wanted almost a decade in prison for this guy. It was like $150,000 in gifts. I mean, the Clintons, for them, that's like a fancy meal with all their cronies and the people who are buying them off. 150K -- nothing. That's the bar bill for Bill after a few fun nights out there in Davos. It's expensive, man. Those cocktails. The ladies in Davos. They know how to party.

So what Bob McDonnell should have done was that his wife was a world class artist or something. Then all the people who happened to get influence -- wanted to buy influence with Governor McDonnell. If you wanted to be corrupt Clinton style and get away with it. Usually this would be overpayment fraud and you would be investigated. But, I mean, the Clintons would get away with this. Because they've been overpaid for speeches very obviously. Bill Clinton got paid more for speeches the further away from the presidency he got because his wife was Secretary of State. It's very obvious. There's an increase in his speaking fees. That doesn't happen. He's not more relevant the further away from the presidency he gets. And, by the way, this whole notion of cashing in, how much have you seen W. walking around passing the hat? No. You don't have to cash in. The presidency should be the height of your service, of your career, of your life. There shouldn't be some afterwards. Let's make this a giant ATM machine. Let's let it ride. Let's have fun. No, that's not how this is supposed to go. Public service is not supposed to be a springboard to vast riches. But Governor McDonnell, he should have said his wife was a world class artist. Anybody who wanted to get some influence with the governor could have just paid, you know, 100, 200, let's call it a half a mil for whatever parent she throws together in the backyard. What? She's an amazing artist. It's the free market, man. People are allowed to buy her paintings. How is that different of Bill -- do you think the speech is worth a million dollars? Of course, you don't. It's ridiculous.

But this is the problem. The Clintons are so corrupt, that they overwhelm us with how slimy and gross they are. As I said, just like when we're dealing with Slime, we're all standing in the hallway saying, leave us alone. You're so gross.

Glenn Beck can't help but wonder, "What is wrong with us?" in light of the Left's latest move — canceling six Dr. Seuss books due to "hurtful and wrong" illustrations — that takes America one step closer to complete insanity. And now, school districts are jumping on board after President Joe Biden seems to have dropped Dr. Seuss from the White House's annual "Read Across America Day" proclamation.

On the radio program Tuesday, Glenn argued that deleting books is the perfect example of fascism, and asked when we as a country will finally realize it.

"They are banning Dr. Seuss books. How much more do you need to see before all of America wakes up? ... This is fascism!" Glenn said. "We don't destroy books. What is wrong with us, America?"

Watch the video below to hear more from Glenn:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Former Democratic presidential candidate and Hawaii representative Tulsi Gabbard and Glenn Beck don't agree much on policy, but they're in lockstep on principles.

On "The Glenn Beck Podcast" this week, Tulsi spoke with Glenn about one of her last acts in Congress, introducing the "Protect Women's Sports Act," which she says would "strengthen, clarify, and uphold the intent of Title IX to provide a level playing field for girls and women in sports." But since then, the Biden administration has gone in the opposite direction, and has supported allowing biological men to compete in women's sports.

Watch the video clip below to hear why Tulsi took a stand for female athletes:


Watch the full interview with Tulsi Gabbard here.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Later this week, former President Trump will attend CPAC and give his first major policy appearance since leaving office. Sources close to the President reveal he will focus on "the future of the Republican Party and the conservative movement."

The future of the GOP is a question that demands real discussion before elections in 2022 and 2024. Right now, I can see three possible answers for how you act:

  1. Those in power and senior positions will ignore the reasons behind Donald Trump winning in 2016. They will be vindicated in their minds because they outlasted him, as they view DC as a job for life. These leaders will go back to business as usual and seek forgiveness from the left, hoping for unity and acceptance in the future.
  2. The second outcome is another section of the party that is understandably very angry over the left's Presidents treatment. They still support and believe in Trump. They think it's time to take off the gloves and treat Biden/the left exactly how they treated Trump.
  3. The few policy positions offered in public will be centered solely around opposing the left. They will also make the case how the left suck, are dangerous, and how you need them in power. The next four years are merely a countdown for Trump to run again and right the wrong of 2020.
  4. The third outcome is very similar to the second, but with one key difference. While they appreciate everything Trump accomplished while in office, they feel it's time to unite behind another candidate.
Question

Which of these three positions will work best for the American people? Which helps built a political base for elections in both 2022 and 2024?

If you seek to help save America, it is critical to do some soul searching. Whether you love or hate him, Donald Trump got 75 million votes and made advancements in key demographics. What did he do well that you can develop further? In what areas was he poor, and how can you improve?

I want to raise six principled points everyone on the right should be forced to consider in the run-up to 2024.

1 - Understanding American Exceptionalism

FACT: America is an exceptional nation. If you read enough of world history, you will find ample evidence that America acted in ways that made it unique and significantly different from other countries in the past and modern times. These reasons must be understood and promoted through the culture and body politic.

One of those reasons is the layout of your Declaration of Independence. If you look around politics today, you will see people on all political sides telling you what they hate, why the other side is the enemy, and how they must be defeated.

In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson also made that case against the English when he listed 27 grievances against the King. So how is the layout key? It took Jefferson 357 words to get to those grievances. Your Declaration is your mission statement: it tells everyone in the world what America aspires to be. It states the belief that all were created equal, all had certain rights that come directly from God, and that it is the government's job to protect rights -- not give people rights.

The left is successfully painting everyone on the right to be a terrorist who enjoyed the Capitol Hill riots. If you ever want to win another election, it will be critical to explain what you stand for to the American people.

After all, ask yourself which makes you the most passionate to vote - removing someone from office or voting for a vision and change you believe in?

2 - The Constitution

Is there a better place to start this vision than the Constitution? Yes, it is mostly ignored today by those in power and is only referenced by politicians and media when it fits a narrative.

The Constitution is a beautiful and complex document but is primarily based on a straightforward principle. The government should be extremely limited in its power, but it should be as close to the people as possible where there is a clear need for government. Who can argue with this principle?

Who wants someone they have never met, dictating how they live their life?

This is why the Constitution grants the President no real power, and gives Congress 18 clauses of power, listed under Article 1, Section 8. Any and every power not mentioned there belongs at the state level.

3 - Finances

The power structure in DC has changed many times over the last twenty years, with both parties having the opportunity to rule the different federal branches. There have been two periods where one party controlled all the power in DC:

  • 2008-2010: Obama / Dem
  • 2016-2018: Trump / GOP

Despite these changes, your government continually grows, you continue to spend money you don't have, and in ten out of the last thirteen years, you have added over $1,000,000,000,000 to your national debt, which now sits just under $28 trillion. Does this seem sustainable to you? Of course not, but sadly your finances only get worse.

America has revenue of over $3.2 trillion every year, yet DC has not passed a budget since 2008. Can you imagine any business running that way? Do you think Apple, Amazon, or Disney have a budget? It is time to get America on a path to financial sustainability, work towards a balanced budget, and explain to the American people how you will achieve it.

4 - Taxes

Do you remember discussing taxes during the Tea Party?

We used to make the simple moral case to the American people: any money you earn is yours, you should use it to plan your life, and the government has no right to take it from you. This was so successful around 2012 that Herman Cain ran for President with one primary policy: the 9-9-9 plan.

If America is to return to prosperity after Covid, lower taxes and a simpler tax code must be a central theme.

5 - Cutting Government

Look at the size of the US government in 2021. Are you happy? Can you name the numerous departments? Is it now the freedom-loving Americans' position that agencies like Education, Energy, EPA, and Commerce are constitutional bodies of government and are well-run?

How about the IRS, which targeted Tea-Party groups under President Obama? Do they deserve support, or is it time to start sharing a vision of the departments that should be abolished?

This principle used to be a big part of the Conservative platform. It played a massive role in 2012 when Rick Perry ran for President. His campaign was destroyed in 45 short seconds when he could not remember the three agencies he would abolish.

Maybe it's time to refresh this debate but change the parameters. How about we discuss the agencies that should be kept?

6 - Bill of Rights

Today, the Bill of Rights is under constant attack. The far-left/woke mob hates free speech, and they seek to cancel anyone with an opposing view. However, the attacks on the Bill of Rights don't always come from the left.

America has a second amendment that guarantees you the right to bear arms. The last time the GOP held both houses of Congress and the Presidency, they banned bump stocks - but who really NEEDS a bump stock?

As the years have passed, some have admitted they are open to red flag laws. Is this still the case?

While the second amendment may be under attack, it is clear the fourth amendment is dead. Regardless of which party holds power in DC, the NSA is given continuous ability to spy on Americans. The simple, principled case from Rand Paul of "get a warrant" always falls on deaf ears.

The Bill of Rights should be a unifying document for most Americans, as the principles are self-evident and a significant part of any freedom platform going forward.

Conclusion

America will face significant challenges over the coming years. As the government continues to grow, the far left get more hostile, and central planners seek a great reset. If you share my concern, then now is the time to forget our tribes and ignore the debate on who should be President in 2024.

It's time to work hard to build a platform by raising a banner of bold colors, not pale pastels. We must share a clear vision to the American people of a bright future where they are free, prosperous, and can pursue their happiness.

When the platform is built and successful, people can identify the best candidate to run in 2024.

"First, you win the argument, and then you win the election." — Margaret Thatcher

Jonathon Dunne is a keynote speaker, weekly podcast host on Blaze Media, and published author on major platforms such as The Blaze, Glenn Beck, Libertarian Republic, Western Journalism, and Constitution. Since 2012, he has reached millions with his message of American exceptionalism.

You can find him on social media – Facebook, Twitter, MeWe

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is under fire for questioning President Joe Biden's nominee for an assistant health secretary position, Dr. Rachel Levine, about her alleged support for giving children puberty blockers and sex-change surgeries.

During a confirmation hearing Thursday, Paul pointedly asked Levine, who is a transgender woman, about her support for allowing children to change their sex, and whether she believes children are capable of making such life-altering decisions.

Levine evaded the question, answering instead with a vague statement about the complexities of transgender medicine, which she would again reiterate for Paul's subsequent questions.

Watch a video clip of the confirmation hearing here.

Predictably, Paul has been labeled "transphobic" and accused of trying to derail Levine with "transphobic misinformation" by the leftist media.

On the Glenn Beck Radio Program Friday, Paul said his questioning Levine had nothing to do with who she is or the fact that she is a transgender adult, but was about the question of gender changes for children.

"The interesting thing is, none of it was directed towards her personally or who she is. It was directed towards the question of whether children can consent. And this is an intellectual question. It's not an inflammatory question. It's a question of serious consequences," he explained. "Most people would argue that children can't really make an informed consent. You know, we have laws against a man having sex with a 12-year-old, even if the 12-year-old says 'yes', because we don't think a 12-year-old is capable of consenting. They just aren't old enough to make the decision."

Paul went on to add, "I guess the danger is, you have to have some chutzpah. You have to have some guts, some courage to stand up because it is a culture out there where ... everybody is saying I made transphobic comments yesterday. All I did was ask whether a minor could consent to this kind of dramatic surgery. Nothing I ever said was hateful. I said nothing hateful about these people. I said nothing hateful about adults who choose to do this. But the culture is out there is so strong that so many in office are afraid to speak out. And it's getting worse.

"There's a handful of us that will speak out in the Senate. There's a handful in the House, and we just have to grow our ranks. But we have to resist or it just will roll over us. And we'll live in this terrible cancel culture world where nobody speaks out, and everybody is afraid to say anything."

Watch the video below to catch more of the conversation:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.