Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Released Documents Show Huge Conflicts Of Interest In Clinton State Department


More and more questions are popping up about her tenure as Secretary of State.

The good folks over at Judicial Watch just forced the release of a number of tasty documents in the course of their ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department last year.

The documents include more than 200 conflict-of-interest reviews by State Department ethics advisers of proposed Bill Clinton speaking and consulting engagements during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

In one example, in June of 2011 the State Department approved a consulting arrangement with a company, Teneo Strategy, led by  Clinton Foundation adviser Doug Band. The Clintons ended the deal after only eight months, as Teneo’s ties to the failed Ponzi scheme investment firm MF Global surfaced.

And then, there were the speaking and consulting fees,over $48 million for Mr. Bill:

Clinton’s office proposed 215 speeches around the globe. And 215 times, the State Department stated that it had “no objection.”

Mr. Clinton’s speeches included appearances in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Central America, Europe, Turkey, Thailand, Taiwan, India and the Cayman Islands. Sponsors of the speeches included some of the world’s largest financial institutions—Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, American Express and others—as well as major players in technology, energy, health care and media. Other speech sponsors included a car dealership, casino groups, hotel operators, retailers, real estate brokers, a Panamanian air cargo company and a sushi restaurant.

“These documents are a bombshell and show how the Clintons turned the State Department into a racket to line their own pockets,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “How the Obama State Department waived hundreds of ethical conflicts that allowed the Clintons and their businesses to accept money from foreign entities and corporations seeking influence boggles the mind. That former President Clinton trotted the globe collecting huge speaking fees while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy is an outrage. No wonder it took a court order to get these documents. One can’t imagine what foreign policy issues were mishandled as top State Department officials spent so much time facilitating the Clinton money machine.”

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 donors to his library and foundation in what he termed “a deal between” Obama “and Hillary.” According to an AP wire story, “Saudi Arabia gave $10 million to $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.”

If a person, a country or a company 'donates' huge sums of money to a public official who's in charge of overseeing government policies that directly affect that person, company or country it's normally known as bribery.

The same goes if that person, company or country employs a spouse or other family member of that public official at exorbitant rates.

But hey, what difference does it make?

No comments: