Hidden Deals, Conflict of Interest When Obama Appointed Hillary
Article submitted by: Veronica Coffin
The moment Barack Obama tapped Hillary Clinton to serve as Secretary of State, the alarm bells starting ringing.
Not only because of the Clintons’ long history of corruption (see Chinagate, Filegate, Travelgate and the long list of women abused and smeared by both Clintons, for just a few examples), but also because of the Clintons’ propensity to peddle influence to the highest bidder without regard for the harmful impact on the United States of America and its people.
How on earth could Hillary Clinton serve as the nation’s top diplomat with her husband traipsing around the globe collecting six figures on speeches and donations from foreign governments for his Clinton Global Initiative?
What kind of wheeling and dealing took place behind closed doors that might compromise or influence U.S diplomatic policy?
The possibilities for high stakes shenanigans were endless.
And so, Judicial Watch began asking questions.
And those questions were ignored (again) by the Obama administration in defiance of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
So we are now once again forced to go through the courts to seek redress.
On May 28, we filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of State to obtain documents pertaining to possible conflicts of interest between the actions taken by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and Bill Clinton’s activities (including his Clinton Global Initiative).
The Judicial Watch lawsuit was filed after two years of the State Department refusing to comply with a May 2011 FOIA request for responsive documents.
By law, “all federal agencies are required to respond to a FOIA request within 20 business days.”
Pursuant to a Judicial Watch FOIA request filed with Department of Justice (DOJ) on May 2, 2011, in addition to standard forms from the Office of Personnel Management pertaining to Clinton’s position as Secretary of State, we seek the following records:
- Any and all certificates of divestiture for Mrs. Clinton;
- Any and all individual waivers issued to or for Mrs. Clinton pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 208 (b)(1) and 5 C.F.R. §2640.301 or any other applicable ethics statues, regulations, guidelines or agreements;
- Any and all communications and records of communications – including but not limited to phone logs – related to Mr. Clinton’s speech schedule; and,
- Any and all communications and records of communications – including but not limited to e-mails, fax reports, and phone logs – related to former Mr. Clinton’s personal or charitable financial relationships with foreign leaders and governments.
The State Department acknowledged receiving the Judicial Watch FOIA request on May 17, 2011, and was required by law to respond by June 8, 2011, at the latest.
As of the date of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, the State Department had failed to produce any records responsive to the request, indicate when any responsive records will be produced, or demonstrate that responsive records are exempt from production.
The potential for conflicts of interest between Hillary Clinton’s role as Secretary of State and Bill Clinton’s international ventures grew increasingly controversial in late 2008 when the former president released a list of 200,000+ donors to his library and foundation in what he termed “a deal between” Obama “and Hillary.”
This “deal” reportedly included nine conditions to which Bill Clinton acquiesced, says the New York Times, including a ban on foreign government contributions to the Clinton Global Initiative.
And here’s why those donations are so sensitive.
According to an AP wire story, “Saudi Arabia gave $10 million – $25 million to the foundation.
Other government donors include Norway, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman …”
CNN at the time warned that Clinton’s “complicated global business interests could present future conflicts of interest that result in unneeded headaches for the incoming commander-in-chief.”
Yes, the web of connections between the Clintons and foreign interests is complex, to say the least.
But the potential impact of these complexities goes far beyond any migraines suffered by Barack Obama.
This is about the potential for undermining our national interest in exchange for contributions to the Clintons’ coffers.
After all, the Clintons sold out our national security to the Communist Chinese in exchange for contributions to Bill Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign.
So why not solicit the Saudi Arabians for contributions to Clinton’s non-profit empire, for example?
Again, in politics, and especially with the Clintons, even the appearance of impropriety can be impropriety itself.
Also among the “conditions” of the Clinton-Obama deal was a stipulation requiring Bill Clinton’s activities to be subjected to review by State Department ethics officials.
Does this make you feel more comfortable?
Especially considering the fact that one of the individuals responsible for vetting Mrs. Clinton for the job of Secretary of State in the first place was none other than Bill Clinton’s former deputy White House counsel Cheryl Mills.
Mills is a longtime Clinton family confidante, who “endeared herself to the Clintons with her never-back-down, share-nothing, don’t-give-an-inch approach …” wrote the Washington Post in 1999.
As I noted in a recent column on Mills, she has been a “Clinton cover-up expert, specializing in subverting investigations of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Whether in the Bill Clinton White House or the Hillary Clinton State Department, Mills has served as something of a “double agent” – working on the taxpayers’ tab while seeming to spend all her time defending the personal fortunes of the Clintons.”
(Read more about her activities here.)
Most recently, evidence emerged that Mills attempted to silence the congressional testimony of State Department whistleblower Gregory Hicks in the Benghazi-gate scandal.
Not surprisingly, after clearing Mrs. Clinton for the DOS job, Mills was named the incoming Secretary’s Chief of Staff.
Incidentally, Ms. Mills was also a featured speaker at Bill Clinton’s 2012 Clinton Global Initiative annual meeting.
So the job of “ethically vetting” Mrs. Clinton was left to a former Clinton hack, who was subsequently offered a job from the person whom she was “investigating.”
And she also served as a keynote speaker for the very organization at the center of the controversy over the Clintons’ conflicts of interest.
Hardly reassuring.
And this is precisely why we went to court to secure the records necessary for the American people to judge for themselves whether or not Bill and Hillary Clinton acted ethically during the former First Lady’s tenure at the State Department.
We’re certainly not willing to leave the matter to the likes of Cheryl Mills.
http://bloodonherhands.com/hidden-deals-conflict-of-interest-when-obama-appointed-hillary/
Now voters may better appreciate why we are taking on the responsibility of the Nevada Libertarian Party nominated Common Sense Fresh Start Politics of Prosperity Constitutional Campaign for US representative in Las Vegas District 1.
Join the campaign for Constitutional Government with more Justice, Life, Liberty, Peace and Prosperity for All.
Compra Los Documentos Fundadores EstadoUnidenses en el Espanol, Aqui':
https://www.createspace.com/4677401http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IX3Q5I2
No comments:
Post a Comment