Tag Archives: Clinton Foundation

Where Are We Going As A Country?

Posted on by

On Sunday, Glenn Reynolds posted an article in USA Today entitled, “When leaders cheat, followers…follow.” That is not good news considering the current state of affairs in America.

The article reminds us:

I wonder more when I read things like this report from the Washington Examiner: “The CIA’s inspector general is claiming it inadvertently destroyed its only copy of a classified, three-volume Senate report on torture, prompting a leading senator to ask for reassurance that it was in fact ‘an accident.’”

Here’s a hint: It very likely wasn’t.

…Then there’s Hillary’s email scandal, in which emails kept on a private unsecure server — presumably to avoid Freedom of Information Act disclosures — were deleted. Now emails from Hillary’s IT guy, who is believed to have set up the server, have gone poof.

“Destroy the evidence, and you’ve got it made,” said an old frozen dinner commercial. But now that appears to be the motto of the United States government.

So this leads to the question:

So why do the rest of us bother to obey the law? And, yes, that’s an increasingly serious question.

The article describes America as currently a high-trust society. Glenn Reynolds defines that as a place where people extend trust to strangers and follow rules for the most part even when nobody is watching. He defines a low-trust society as a place where trust seldom extends beyond close family, and everybody cheats if they can get away with it.

The article concludes:

High-trust societies are much nicer places to live than low-trust ones. But a fish rots from the head and the head of our society is looking pretty rotten. As Lira (Gonzalo Lira, an American novelist and filmmaker) says, “I’m like Wayne Gretsky: I don’t concern myself with where the puck has been — I look for where the puck is going to be.” Where will our society be in a decade if these trends continue? And what can we do to ensure that they don’t?

If the coming Presidential election is won by a Republican, will the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, the email scandal, the Clinton Foundation, etc. be investigated? I don’t know, but an honest investigation might restore some of the trust in our government.

This Could Present A Problem In The Democratic Party Primary Elections

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner is reporting today that last fall the Clinton Foundation received a subpoena for documents related to projects that required State Department approval as well as records related to Huma Abedin, a top aide of Secretary Clinton and currently vice chairman of Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The article reports:

The State Department inspector general probe is entirely separate from an FBI investigation into Clinton’s use of a private server to shield her official communications.

An inspector general cannot charge anyone with a crime.

But the independent government watchdogs can make referrals to the Justice Department and recommendations to the agencies they oversee.

A referral from the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence community sparked the FBI probe of Clinton’s server use, for example.

The Post (The Washington Post) report noted the “full scope” of the inspector general inquiry into the Clinton Foundation and Abedin’s role there was “unclear.”

As I reported here in December:

Bill and Hillary Clinton have amassed a tremendous amount of money since leaving the White House. A lot of that money has been channeled through the Clinton Foundation, which the Charity Navigator refused to rate because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.” The Federalist posted an article in April pointing out that the Clinton Foundation actually spends approximately 10 percent of its donations on charity.

It is somewhat amazing how many of our career politicians whose jobs pay $100,000 a year (more or less) seem to become millionaires. That is something that needs to change. While the New Hampshire primary election proves that you cannot buy elections (Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush spent the most money in the New Hampshire primary.), it seems that once you get elected, you can pretty much buy anything you want to. The voters are the only people who can change the current system. As a voter, you have two choices–vote for someone who is outside ‘the system’ and does not seem to want to play inside ‘the system’ or vote for someone who is already rich and really does not need to make any  money by using his political office as a personal fund raiser.

It will be interesting to see if this new inquiry into the financial dealings of the Clintons has any impact on the primary. Polls in New Hampshire already indicated that voters did not see Secretary Clinton as honest–91% to 5%. How much worse can it get?

The Federal Bureau Of Investigation Is Attempting To Do Its Job

Posted on by

Fox News is reporting today that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is expanding the probe into Hillary Clinton’s emails to see whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws.

The article reports:

“The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed,” one source said.

The development follows press reports over the past year about the potential overlap of State Department and Clinton Foundation work, and questions over whether donors benefited from their contacts inside the administration.

The Clinton Foundation is a public charity, known as a 501(c)(3). It had grants and contributions in excess of $144 million in 2013, the most current available data.  

The article notes that there is pressure building inside the FBI to pursue this aspect of the case.

The article further reports:

One of the three sources said some FBI agents felt Petraeus was given a slap on the wrist for sharing highly classified information with his mistress and biographer Paula Broadwell, as well as lying to FBI agents about his actions. Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in March 2015 after a two-plus-year federal investigation in which Attorney General Eric Holder initially declined to prosecute. 

In the Petraeus case, the exposure of classified information was assessed to be limited.

By contrast, in the Clinton case, the number of classified emails has risen to at least 1,340. A 2015 appeal by the State Department to challenge the “Top Secret” classification of at least two emails failed and, as Fox News first reported, is now considered a settled matter. 

…Separately, a former high-ranking State Department official emphasized to Fox News that Clinton’s deliberate non-use of her government email address may be increasingly “significant.” 

“It is virtually automatic when one comes on board at the State Department to be assigned an email address,” the source said.

“It would have taken an affirmative act not to have one assigned … and it would also mean it was all planned out before she took office. This certainly raises questions about the so-called legal advice she claimed to have received from inside the State Department that what she was doing was proper.”

There are a lot of loose threads in this story. If Hillary Clinton is held accountable for her actions, how does that impact the Democratic presidential race? President Obama will ultimately determine whether the Justice Department blocks further investigation or action by the FBI in this matter. Does President Obama want Hillary Clinton out of the race so that Joe Biden can step in? Is that even possible with candidate registration dates in the primary elections? Does President Obama want Bernie Sanders to run as President on the Democratic ticket? In a perfect world, Hillary Clinton would probably be in jail for the way she handled classified information and for the corruption in the Clinton Foundation, but we do not live in a perfect world. This investigation is something we need to be aware of–whether the FBI expands its investigation or is forced to shut it down will be an indication of how corrupt our government has become.

 

The Clintons Seem To Have A Hard Time Playing By The Rules

Posted on by

Today’s Washington Examiner posted a story about a Congressional request for the documents related to ethics office discussions with the Clinton Foundation and both Clintons about speech fee disclosures made since Dec. 2008, when Clinton struck a deal with the White House just before becoming secretary of state. The article explains that the deal imposed stricter reporting requirements on Bill Clinton and the family’s foundation given Hillary Clinton’s impending position as the nation’s chief diplomat.

The article reports:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz pressed the Office of Government Ethics last week for an explanation of its decision to exempt Clinton from laws compelling public officials to disclose all forms of income.

“Earlier this year, press reports indicated that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her husband failed to disclose millions of dollars in paid speeches over the past thirteen years under the belief they did not have a duty to report that because the speeches were delivered on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, and not in the Secretary’s or the President’s personal capacity,” Chaffetz wrote.

The Utah Republican cited “at least five speeches” for which Clinton routed her speaking fee to the philanthropy between 2014 and 2015. She did not list that income on her disclosure form as the law typically requires.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have amassed a tremendous amount of money since leaving the White House. A lot of that money has been channeled through the Clinton Foundation, which the Charity Navigator refused to rate because its “atypical business model . . . doesn’t meet our criteria.” The Federalist posted an article in April pointing out that the Clinton Foundation actually spends approximately 10 percent of its donations on charity.

It is time to examine closely the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons’ sources of income. Hopefully, Congress will not be blocked in this investigation.

Thank God For The Freedom Of Information Act

Posted on by

The government’s Freedom of Information Act website describes the act as follows:

What is FOIA?

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a law that gives you the right to access information from the federal government. It is often described as the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government.

I suspect there are more than a few politicians that really despise this law.

The Washington Examiner reported today that a federal judge has ordered the State Department to release 700 new pages of records from Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State. In November of last year, Jason Leopold of Vice News had filed a FOIA request for virtually all written records from Hillary Clinton and her staff. This was long before we knew anything about her private server.

The article reports:

That FOIA case eventually prompted the court’s high-profile decision to force the State Department to publish all of Clinton’s emails in batches at the end of every month.

Now, the agency could be compelled to prepare thousands of additional documents for release in order to satisfy other aspects of Leopold’s FOIA request, which was narrowed after he and his attorney, Ryan James, sued the State Department.

Remember, Hillary Clinton deleted all of her emails that she deemed personal. This FOIA request may shed some light on how many of those deleted emails were actually personal. Stay tuned. This does not seem to be going away.

Campaign Financing

Posted on by

When the Citizens United case was decided by the Supreme Court, a howl went up from Democratic politicians. “Take the money out of politics,” they said. “This will open the floodgates for corporations to buy elections.”

I have posted charts from opensecrets.org before. These charts show that the top spenders (before and after Citizens United) are still the unions. No one is talking about taking away the right of unions to donate to campaigns. Also, keep in mind that the people who pay union dues and provide the money for the donations don’t have a say in where the money is donated. At least the leaders of a corporation that donates to a PAC are accountable to their stockholders. The fact that government employee unions give political donations is also a bit questionable–they donate to the people they are going to negotiate contracts with. Is it possible to do that without a conflict of interest?

Any, here is one of the charts from opensecrets.org:

campaigndonationsSo why am I mentioning this? First of all, I firmly believe that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If unions are allowed to make campaign donations, corporations should also be allowed to make campaign donations. If you want to eliminate one, take them both away. Otherwise, you are creating an unbalanced situation where the government is suppressing free speech.

The National Review is reporting today that according to the Hillary Clinton emails, Mrs. Clinton was planning to reverse the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United as soon as possible.

The article reports:

Although President Obama came out swinging against the decision during his State of the Union address a few day later — prompting some Justices to boycott future speeches — Clinton remained largely silent on the issue for years. She didn’t openly declare her opposition to Citizens United until April 2015, after she’d already announced her candidacy. In May, she said she’d use opposition to Citizens United as a litmus test for any Supreme Court nominee.

The Ready for Hillary Super PAC — founded under the new Citizens United rules — raised $15 million for the Clinton campaign before it was disbanded early this summer following her presidential announcement.

Mrs. Clinton’s emails to Sidney Blumenthal show a desire to overturn the Citizens United decision, yet she was willing to take advantage of the law up until the time she ran for President. She disbanded the PAC before any low-information voters would learn about it. Also, there is the question of the money flowing through the Clinton Foundation that might have made the PAC unnecessary. Remember that most of the Clintons travel expenses are paid through the Foundation, and a large part of campaigning is travel. That may or may not be illegal, but it is questionable at best. The hypocrisy is amazing.

 

It Will Be Interesting To See If This Goes Anywhere

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner posted an article today about a lawsuit filed in Florida charging the Clinton Foundation with racketeering. The lawsuit was filed by Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch.

The article reports:

The racketeering, influenced and corrupt organizations, or RICO, case alleges the former first couple and their family philanthropy traded political favors for donations or generous speaking fees for Bill Clinton while his wife was the nation’s chief diplomat.

“Negotiations by email about influencing U.S. foreign policy or U.S. Government actions to benefit donors to … The Clinton Foundation or sponsors of speaking engagements would not be captured on a U.S. Government email account because her emails would not be with a U.S. Government official,” Klayman said in court documents obtained by the Washington Examiner.

“Hillary Clinton deleted 32,000 email messages from her email server that included her communications arranging, negotiating, and agreeing upon speaking engagements by Bill Clinton in return for large speaking fees and donations to The Clinton Foundation,” the documents, dated May 20, said.

There has been so much questionable behavior regarding finances surrounding the Clintons, it is amazing that there have not been more legal steps taken to hold them accountable. I am reminded that the life expectancy of many people involved with the Clintons in Arkansas seemed to be very short. It would be very interesting to see Hillary Clinton’s emails involved in negotiating speaking fees and consulting fees.

 

A Private State Department?

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal posted an article today about the latest batch of Hillary Clinton’s emails released by the State Department. While there is no ‘smoking gun’ in the emails as such, the emails reveal a State Department that was not run according to the usual chain of command.

The article reports:

In the pre-Memorial Day weekend news dump, long-time Clinton plumber Sidney Blumenthal plays Maxwell Smart, passing along intel on Benghazi from half a world away. Secret Agent Blumenthal apparently derived this wisdom from his new business associates who were attempting to win contracts from Libyan nationals. Mrs. Clinton often circulates the memos among her top diplomats with comments like “useful insight” and “very interesting,” and they would often then push them down the chain of command, without identifying the source.

Mrs. Clinton was the Secretary of State, for heaven’s sake, one of the five most powerful national security positions in the U.S. government. She had the entire State Department intelligence division at her disposal, known as the Bureau of Intelligence and Research or INR, and presumably had access to the 16 other U.S. agencies that make up the intelligence community.

Yet she’s consuming and taking seriously information from an “analyst” who knows nothing about the subject. Mr. Blumenthal’s expertise is in political wet work and monetizing his connections to the Clintons. The imprimatur that Mrs. Clinton’s office put on Mr. Blumenthal’s outside improv offered him a way to influence policy even after the Obama White House had barred Mrs. Clinton from formally hiring him.

It is becoming very obvious that Mrs. Clinton ignored the advice of the White House and played by her own rules.

It is also interesting that the emails the State Department released had certain items redacted that were not redacted in the emails that the New York Times obtained. It is interesting to see what the State Department chose to redact. I strongly suggest following the link above to read the entire article in the Wall Street Journal.

It is obvious to me (and I suspect to any thinking person) that the Clinton emails had been well scrubbed before they were released. It is also obvious that they were released just before Memorial Day when the American public would be least likely to pay attention to them. This is typical of the past behavior of the Clintons and could be expected to be typical of any future behavior should Mrs. Clinton be successful in her bid for the presidency.

The article concludes:

The larger question isn’t Mr. Blumenthal’s faux life of danger. It’s why a potential Commander in Chief invested so much trust in such a figure. The Southern Gothic novel that is Clinton family political history—with its melodrama, betrayals and paranoia—has left them dependent on insular loyalists like Mr. Blumenthal whose opinions are never second-guessed. Voters should know they’d not only be electing Hillary, and Bill, and Chelsea, but this entire menagerie.

It Just Gets Worse

Posted on by

The presidency of the United States used to have an air of dignity about it. Unfortunately, in recent years that seems to have disappeared. I understand that we are not responsible for the actions of our family members, but sometimes you just have to shake your head.

The Weekly Standard posted a story today about Hillary Clinton’s brother. The New York Times has posted a story in which Tony Rodham (Hillary Clinton’s brother) states, used the Clinton family foundation to make deals. I suppose that is not a surprise, but still…

The article reports:

“I deal through the Clinton Foundation. That gets me in touch with the Haitian officials,” Mr. Rodham said, according to a transcript of his testimony. “I hound my brother-in-law, because it’s his fund that we’re going to get our money from. And he can’t do it until the Haitian government does it.

“And he keeps telling me, ‘Oh, it’s going to happen tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow.’ Well, tomorrow hasn’t come yet.”

…“I was complaining to my brother-in-law I didn’t have any money. And he asked McAuliffe to give me a job,” Mr. Rodham said during the court proceedings, which were the result of a lawsuit over unpaid legal bills filed by his lawyer in a child support case.

Do we really want this family back in the White House?

 

Would You Give To Any Charity That Gave So Little To The People It Was Claiming To Help?

Posted on by

The Clinton Foundation has been in the news a lot lately. There are some real questions as to what some of the donations actually bought or why they were given. Now there are some real questions as to how wisely the money was spent.

Yesterday Breitbart.com posted an article about the expenditures of the Clinton Foundation. The article reports:

“Charity Navigator, who we have on the show all the time, placed the Clinton Foundation on a watch list,” she ( Fox Business Network’s “The Willis Report,” host Gerri Willis) continued. “They think there are problems with this non-profit.” She added, “Any Democrat—they say what a wonderful charitable organization it is doing to help people in need, people who are hungry, people who have AIDS. Listen, 6 percent of the money it collected in 2013, 6 percent — $9 million, of the $140 million in total it collected, went to help people.”

Washington Free Beacon’s Liz Harrington weighed in saying, “The numbers just don’t add up. One of the biggest offenses of the Clinton Foundation came out yesterday — 88 percentof the their expenditures go directly to their charitable programs. That is just simply not true. As you mentioned, they raked in $140 million. They only spent nine million on direct aid. Most of their money goes towards salaries, bonuses, to close friends, folks tied to the Clinton campaign.”

Willis read the $140 million 2013 spending breakdown from the New York Post, saying, “Here is a list of foundation spending—where the money goes: $30 million on payroll expenses, $9.2 to conferences and meetings, fundraising — $8 million. Nearly $8.5 million on travel.”

Unfortunately this problem is not unique to the Clinton Foundation. It is a good idea to do some research before you give to any organization in order to find out how much of your gift will actually be spent on the mission of the organization. Charity Navigator rates charities according to their financial transparency and overhead. For example, Goodwill Industries of Greater New York and Northern New Jersey is rated at 89.62, the American Red Cross is rated at 85.25, and Operation Blessing is rated at 92.12. The Charity Navigator has placed the Clinton Foundation on a watch list. That says it all.

This Really Does Not Seem To Be An Innocent Mistake

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner is reporting today that the head of the Clinton Foundation has stated that the Foundation made mistakes in the way donations to the Foundation were reported.

The article reports:

Pally (acting Foundation CEO Maura Pally) wrote that the foundation didn’t list individual donors to its Canadian arm because national law requires charities to gain permission from individuals before disclosing them.

She also acknowledged mistakenly combining government grants with other donations in tax filings, although she said the grants were still publicly available on the foundation’s financial statements posted online.

The donations to the Foundation are in the news right now, but the more interesting part of the Clintons financial story is the exorbitant speaking fees President Clinton began to collect from foreign countries after Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State. Again, it is questionable as to what laws (if any) have been broken, but there is certainly the appearance of dishonesty. That appearance is aggravated by the disappearing emails, which would have either provided proof of total innocence or guilt.

The Clintons have amassed a tremendous amount of wealth while serving in public office. Unfortunately, that is not unusual at the present time. The question is whether they did it by cutting the usual corners or they did it by inventing a few new corners to cut. I do know that if you or I acted in the way that they are acting, we would find ourselves in jail for a very long time.

The Baggage Increases

Posted on by

Hillary Clinton seems to be the frontrunner for the Democrat presidential nomination in 2016, but things keep turning up. Yesterday Hot Air posted a story about the Clinton Foundation‘s adventures in Haiti. It’s a rather complicated story (complete with videos), so I can understand why the major media has not paid a lot of attention to it. A soundbite will simply not tell the story. It is a typical Clinton scandal, involving money and influence–the Clintons make money and questionable people (or countries) gain influence.

Please follow the link above to read the entire story.

Here is the conclusion:

So to sum up, the foundation rifles money from the nefarious human rights violating Algerian regime through donations that were in breach of Hillary’s agreement with the Obama administration when she joined it, kept them secret while being lobbied more heavily than before on the human rights concerns at State, and when caught about the appearance of impropriety with the donations, pointed to the good work done in Haiti. Naturally, the ones protesting the loudest are the Haitians, who think the Clintons have used the island nation as their own personal front company to funnel money. One of the few natural resources the island apparently has is gold in them thar hills. One company gets the permit, and of the seven billion people who populate Earth who could possibly be chosen to join the advisory board, it’s Tony Rodham, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s brother, and all apparently without Hillary Clinton’s knowledge. With the ability to beat the odds like this, you’d think Hillary would skip the presidential aspirations altogether and try and make some real money. I mean, she could totally make a killing betting on cattle futures or something.

Sure glad we can trust her. If she can run this shell game in Haiti for five years, she can totally decide which emails are public and which ones are private, right?

This really isn’t anything new.

Connections Americans Need To Know About

Posted on by

Yesterday the Washington Free Beacon posted a story about Gehad El-Haddad, a former employee of the William J. Clinton Foundation. Mr. El-Haddad was arrested in Cairo on Tuesday and charged with inciting violence.

The article reports:

Gehad el-Haddad served as one of the Muslim Brotherhood’s top communications officials until Egyptian security forces seized him as part of a wider crackdown on officials loyal to ousted former President Mohamed Morsi.

Before emerging as a top Brotherhood official and adviser to Morsi, el-Haddad served for five years as a top official at the Clinton Foundation, a nonprofit group founded by former President Bill Clinton.

…He was raised in a family of prominent Brotherhood supporters and became the public face of the Islamist organization soon after leaving his post at the Clinton Foundation.

However, much of his official work with the Brotherhood took place while he was still claiming to be employed by the Clinton Foundation.

“It was only a matter of time before Gehad el-Haddad was arrested,” Egypt expert Eric Trager told the Washington Free Beacon. “Many of the other Muslim Brotherhood spokesmen have been apprehended, and in addition to decapitating the organization, the military-backed government has been specifically targeting the Brotherhood’s media wing, including by shutting down its T.V. stations at the time of Morsi’s ouster on July 3.”

This is not the only connection between the Clintons and the Muslim Brotherhood. Huma Adedin, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top adviser, has strong family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The article further reports:

El-Haddad represented the Clinton Foundation’s Clinton Climate Initiative in Egypt during his overlapping tenure, according to his LinkedIn profile.

He additionally “setup the foundation’s office in Egypt and managed official registration,” “supervised policy-making workshops & presented foundations views,” and “presented projects to high-level government officials,” among many other duties.

El-Haddad left the Clinton Foundation in August 2012, two months after Morsi assumed the Egyptian presidency.

He was appointed a “senior adviser and media spokesman” to the Muslim Brotherhood in January 2013 and served in that role until his arrest.

It seems as if the military rulers in Egypt are more aware of the threat to democracy represented by the Muslim Brotherhood than our own elected officials.

Enhanced by Zemanta