As testimony to her narcissism and pure arrogance, the former Secretary of State must include a picture of those she left behind at Benghazi in the entrance to another unneeded building in Washington.
Each wall should have a witch in her likeness flying into to it to give it a more authentic appearance.
Remember there is a big difference between having a building named for a person, say the J.Edgar Hoover FBI building and one built to help a former member of Washington deal with their narcissistic issues.
If one takes the time to search the answer to the following question, there is no answer available.
Has a building or monument ever been built to honor a living member of the federal government?
The answer is NO!
Be joyful that she had members who laundered their money in the Clinton Crime Foundation, or you dear reader as taxpayers would be picking up the tab.
Seriously, you can’t make this stuff up!
I wait breathlessly for the edifice Obama has built to commemorate his 8 failed years in the Oval Office.
Accountability, yep, with just a little she’s going to prison.
This was summarily rejected upon presentation in 2009
By DICK MORRIS
January 10, 2017
Anxious to etch her name in glass if she cannot do so in history, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will speak today at the dedication of the Hillary Clinton Pavilion at the U.S. State Department.
Seriously, is this complete B.S. or what?
Apparently, she believes she needs something like this for the living to remember her failures.
It’s doubtful that many people would have forgotten her without the waste of money.
Now visitors to Foggy Bottom will enter through the Hillary Clinton Pavilion, to be festooned with artifacts of her time as Secretary.
Image left courtesy: “Back to the Future.”
I don’t know about the reader, but I plan to make this my first stop on my next trip to D.C. with SueShe!
The Hillary Clinton U.S. Diplomacy Center.
It seems that while she was selling favors for access at the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, she took time out during her busy tenure to raise $37 million from the usual corporate and foreign donors to build a new entrance pavilion at the State Department named after herself.
***Speech delivered two years ago, nothing here, so move along. HA!***
The glass pavilion was financed by corporate and foreign donors most of whom have issues before the State Department, Four oppressive Middle East governments — the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait and Brunei — all with close ties to the Clinton Foundation and important issues before State contributed as did the usual coterie of corporations that regularly support Clinton’s favored causes.
The largest gifts of $2.5 million or more came from four companies: FedEx, Boeing, PepsiCo and Intel. All four also contributed to the Clinton Foundation.
Boeing was particularly generous, giving not only $2.5 million for the would-be Hillary Center and $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
These donations came after Clinton personally and successfully intervened to try to persuade Russia to buy $3.7 billion of Boeing aircraft.
Other contributors included Cisco, Bank of America, Caterpillar, Citigroup, eBay, General Electric, Microsoft, Walmart, and co-founder of Blackstone , all of whom gave between $500,000 and $1,000,000 to the Hillary Center project.
All, except Schwarzman, were also Clinton Foundation donors. (Schwarzman’s partner, Pete Peterson, gave between $1 million and $5 million to the foundation).
Apart from the questionable propriety of collecting money to get a building named after yourself, what is wrong with this ego trip?
It’s very similar to what Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) did, an action that led to his censure by the House and his loss of the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee.
Rangel used his congressional staff, resources and official stationery to solicit funds for a graduate center to be named after him at the City University of New York.
The charge was improperly using government resources to raise money.
According to The New York Times, “Some of the donors, the committee found, were businesses and foundations with issues before the House Ways and Means Committee.
The contributions left the impression that the money was to influence legislation, although Rangel was not charged with taking any action on behalf of donors.”
Image: Ode to Poet
Hillary too raised the money from corporations, to quote the Times story on Rangel, that “had issues before [the committee].”
Is it not true that here, as with Rangel, the donations “left the impression that the money was to influence legislation?” And, Hillary, too, used the services of her State Department official staff to raise the funds, relying on Special Adviser to the secretary Elizabeth Bagley.
Is there any difference between what Clinton did and what Rangel was censured and humiliated for doing?
This continued evidence of pay-for-play can only stoke the investigations into Hillary’s tenure and add fuel to the efforts of Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Chair of the House Government Reform Committee, to look into her shenanigans.