Read the article though, and - although incredibly snarky - shows nothing wrong.
But it really tries to imply it.
|"Tax-Payer" money. Duh, everything the government spends is tax-payer money. It wasn't delivered ion un-marked bills under the cover of darkness on a street corner in Harlem. I mean - he has a public foundation.|
Now the article really tries to make it all sound bad I mean, article says this law was written to "keep the ex-President out of the poor house". But that doesn't really appear anywhere in the law. President Clinton's retirement fund was used as intended, as a retirement account for an ex-President to use as he wished.
|So.. staff, e-mail servers and the Foundation work were all pretty much DIRECTLY IN LINE with the act... That's terrible?|
Poppie Bush used his retirement funds to live the great live in Kennybunkport, AND so support the election of his sons to Governorships!
President Nixon bought a massive sea-side estate with his money, hired staff and researchers and wrote books.
President Reagan invested his in land.
This isn't some scandal - as is implied, it is exactly what the money was ear-marked for, post-Presidential work. President Clinton happened to want to work on Education, Climate Change and Women's Health issues after he left office rather than run around in a yacht off Maine. That isn't some nefarious issue.