We’ve been treated to tidbits, in dribs and drabs, about how the Clintons have gone about amassing considerable amounts of money for their foundation for some time now.

How they go about raising money or who they take money from, under what circumstances, wouldn’t be an issue, were it not for the fact that one of those Clintons is running for president. We’ve been finding out all kinds of little things that are  just a hair away from improper since the disclosure that Hillary Clinton had agreed to abide by a set of rules of conduct put forth by the Obama administration just prior to starting her job as Secretary of State. Great!

But since then, just about every other week, we’ve come to find that not even a modicum of propriety was ever maintained. One would think that a candidate for the highest office would use every caution imaginable, erring on the safe side, to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, in anticipation of the big campaign, But noooo…

We recently learned about cash flowing to Bill Clinton for a speech given in Moscow, and a relationship with a Russian nuclear mining company through a group of Canadian mining leaders who have long-standing ties with Bill Clinton.  This took place while Secretary of State Clinton was managing the negotiations of a uranium deal involving some of the same players. Illegal? Probably not. The Clintons are masters at wiggling through very tight legal and ethical spaces. What they are not masters of, however, is doing it gracefully. When answering questions about their dealings, the tone is vehement, entitled.

Another day brings another Clinton Foundation money story. This one is from the Huffington Post:

Banks Behind Hillary Clinton’s Canadian Speeches Really Want The Keystone Pipeline

Paul Blumenthal
Ryan Grimm

WASHINGTON — Two Canadian banks tightly connected to promoting the controversial Keystone XL pipeline in the United States either fully or partially paid for eight speeches made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the period not long before she announced her campaign for president. Those speeches put more than $1.6 million in the Democratic candidate’s pocket.

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and TD Bank were both primary sponsors of paid Clinton speeches in 2014 and early 2015, although only the former appears on

Clinton reported that another five speeches she gave across Canada were paid for by tinePublic Inc., a promotional company known for hosting speeches by world leaders and celebrities. Another speech was reported as paid for by the think tank Canada 2020, while yet another speech was reportedly funded by the Vancouver Board of Trade. But a review of invitations, press releases and media reports for those seven other speeches reveals that they, too, were either sponsored by or directly involved the two banks.

---

 Read the rest of this article on HuffPo

---

Does every opportunity to earn some cash for the foundation have to be grabbed? I would think not when there is a presidential run to think about and, based on prior experience, propriety is something the public still insists on.

Then, in spite of what Clinton-friendly pundits say at every turn, there is still the matter of the email server. I have yet to hear a good explanation as to why and whether it was advisable for Mrs. Clinton to run State Department business privately. No one in private industry does this. Most people do not commingle their business and private emails because everyone knows that according to case law, business email is not private.

Then, after constantly being told by the pundits that Hillary Email is really nothing, we find out, thanks to those emails, that the person the Obama administration insisted not be hired by Hillary as an adviser at State was working for her after all, in a private capacity. Sidney Blumenthal popped up in The New York Times three times on May 19 regarding email memos he’d sent to then Secretary Clinton, which she then disseminated to State Department personnel. The Committee Benghazi, of course, officially, is interested in knowing, what, if any influence, Blumenthal might have exerted on matters of policy. Unofficially, the Benghazi witch-hunt is about bringing down Hillary.

What concerns me about the Blumenthal story is that it is yet another example of a Clinton thumbing their nose at authority and deciding that the rules she specifically agreed to, don’t apply. If she was free to use outside help, unvetted sources of intelligence, pass them on to high-level personnel, unfiltered or vetted, in spite of having refused to hire on Blumenthal as an employee, what else has she done her own way?

Initiative stops being a virtue when it turns into disobedience. Even leaders have to obey protocols, agreements, and the law in spirit and right down to the last letter. How much money will Bill Clinton raise when Hillary is in the White House? How much say will he have in policy? Who will it be sponsored by?

---

By STEPHANIE CONDON | CBS NEWS
May 29, 2015