IBD/TIPP Poll: Americans Want Special Prosecutor For Clinton Crimes

[Nancy Pelosi Is Also Guilty]

Scandal: Hillary Clinton says if she wins the presidency, it
might be a good idea for former President Clinton to cut his
ties to the Clinton Family Foundation. Good idea? A new IBD/TIPP
Poll suggests that average Americans are way ahead of her on
this issue.

"I don't think there are conflicts of interest" with having
former Bill Clinton run a foundation that raises money around
the world during her campaign, Hillary Clinton said in an
interview with ABC News on Tuesday. Americans, it seem, would
disagree.

Average people have a far less benign view of what's gone on at
the Clinton Foundation. And it looms as a major problem for
Clinton as she pursues the presidency.

In our latest IBD/TIPP Poll, taken the week of Aug. 26 to Sept.
1, shows that Americans are increasingly wary of the Clinton
Foundation's questionable practices, which IBD has written about
extensively. The poll of 934 adults has a margin of error of +/-
3.3 percentage points.

The ups and downs of the Clinton Foundation, it turns out, are
of big interest to average Americans. Some 72% in the IBD/TIPP
Poll said they are following it.

Perhaps more significantly, of the 72% who are following it,
three-fourths — or 77% -- believe that donors to the Clinton
Foundation received special access and favors from the State
Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state from
2009 to 2013.

And there is, surprisingly, bipartisan agreement on this: Some
55% of Democrats agree that the Clintons used public office to
dispense favors to their foundation's friends.

Yet, those investigating both the Clinton email scandal and the
related questions about the Clinton Foundation have been met
with hostility by Clinton partisans. FBI Director James Comey,
who all but indicted Hillary with his words when he announced he
would not prosecute her, this week even had to defend his
decision to release more documents from his investigation. For
the record, his investigation — and subsequent testimony to
Congress — found that Hillary lied repeatedly about her home-
brew email server and about sending and receiving classified
information on it. All of these are crimes.

But even bigger questions are now being raised about the cozy
ties between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's State
Department. Though she promised an arms-length relationship to
the foundation when she was first named secretary of state, at
least 181 Clinton Foundation donors — companies, individuals,
even countries — lobbied the State Department during her years
there.

Indeed, more than half the non-government people who met with
Hillary — 85 of 154 — while she was in office gave money to the
Clinton Foundation. Those donors, together, gave as much as $156
million to the Clinton Foundation, according to an Associated
Press analysis.

It strongly suggests a quid-pro-quo relationship, given that the
State Department can act as a favor-giver and gatekeeper for
business deals and other lucrative arrangements around the
world. It reeks of a corrupt pay-to-play system based on a major
conflict of interest, in which Hillary Clinton was ideally
positioned to grant government favors to those who had already
enriched her, her husband Bill and her daughter, Chelsea, by
giving boatloads of money to the eponymous family foundation.

Charles Ortel, a highly regarded Wall Street financial expert,
took a look at the Clinton Foundation's books over the last year
or so and this week published his partial conclusion: "To
informed analysts, the Clinton Foundation appears to be a rogue
charity that has neither been organized nor operated lawfully
from inception in October 1997 to date ... it is a case study in
international charity fraud, of mammoth proportions."

Based on what appears to be repeated violations of the law and a
shocking disregard for the minimal ethics requirements of
government officials, it's time for a special prosecutor of
Hillary Clinton to look into both the family foundation and the
emails.

Our polling shows Americans would definitely support such a
move, either before or after the election. According to
IBD/TIPP, nearly two-thirds (63%) think a special prosecutor
should be appointed. And 88% of Republicans and 68% of
Independents want a special prosecutor to look into the possible
misconduct. The sentiment that something wrong has taken place
is overwhelming.

To save the nation from another failed presidency, it's time to
put this issue to rest by naming a special prosecutor.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/ibdtipp-poll-time-
to-name-a-special-prosecutor-for-possible-clinton-crimes/