Time for Democrats to take their party from the Clintons

We learned that Common Cause is calling for an audit of the Clinton Foundation:

The financial issues plaguing Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign have become too much even for liberal groups, and now Common Cause is calling for an independent audit of donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Amid suggestions that foreign governments donated to the foundation in hopes of getting special treatment from President Obama's State Department when Clinton was his top diplomat, the group on Friday said a "thorough review" is needed.

"Six years ago, at Mrs. Clinton's confirmation hearing for her appointment as secretary of state, then-Sen. Dick Lugar observed that 'that foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state.' He was right, and his remarks remain relevant today as Mrs. Clinton seeks the presidency," said Common Cause President Miles Rapoport.

It's about time.

The Clintons' reckless behavior has been consequential:

First, our national security, including President Obama's schedule and other very serious information, was potentially compromised because Hillary Clinton is obsessed with secrecy.

Second, a deal with the Russians regarding uranium was completed, and it stinks.

Amy Davidson of the New Yorker has a good post about this deal.  It asks five important questions, including this one:

Did the Clintons personally profit? In most stories about dubious foundation donors, the retort from Clinton supporters is that the only beneficiaries have been the world’s poorest people. This ignores the way vanity and influence are their own currencies—but it is an argument, and the foundation does some truly great work. In this case, though, Bill Clinton also accepted a five-hundred-thousand-dollar speaking fee for an event in Moscow, paid for by a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin. That was in June, 2010, the Times reports, “the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One”—a deal that the Russian bank was promoting and thus could profit from. Did Bill Clinton do anything to help after taking their money? The Times doesn’t know. But there is a bigger question: Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State? In a separate story, breaking down some of the hundred million dollars in speaking fees that Bill Clinton has collected, theWashington Post notes, “The multiple avenues through which the Clintons and their causes have accepted financial support have provided a variety of ways for wealthy interests in the United States and abroad to build friendly relations with a potential future president.”

This deal, and everything else about this Foundation, stinks!

By the way, where was President Obama during all of this?  Did anybody tell him what was going on?

Glad to see that Common Cause and some in liberal media circles are asking questions.

Yes, liberals need to demand more from a presidential candidate than full devotion to Roe v. Wade, an evolution on same-sex marriage, or "we need a woman in the Oval Office."

We also need an honest person, and the Clintons are not honest people, no matter how many millions went to help little children in Haiti!

P.S. You can hear my show (CantoTalk) or follow me on Twitter.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com