How the Clintons Get Away With It
The Clintons are protected from
charges of corruption by their reputation for corruption.
By Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal
I have read the Peter Schweizer book
“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and
Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.” It is something. Because it is
heavily researched and reported and soberly analyzed, it is a highly effective
takedown. Because its tone is modest—Mr. Schweitzer doesn’t pretend to more
than he has, or take wild interpretive leaps—it is believable.
By the end I was certain of two
things. A formal investigation, from Congress or the Justice Department, is
needed to determine if Hillary Clinton’s State Department functioned, at least
to some degree and in some cases, as pay-for-play operation and whether the
Clinton Foundation has functioned, at least in part, as a kind of high-class
philanthropic slush fund.
I wonder if any aspirant for the
presidency except Hillary Clinton could survive such a book. I suspect she can
because the Clintons are unique in the annals of American politics: They are
protected from charges of corruption by their reputation for corruption. It’s
not news anymore. They’re like . . . Bonnie and Clyde go on a
spree, hold up a bunch of banks, it causes a sensation, there’s a trial, and
they’re acquitted. They walk out of the courthouse, get in a car, rob a bank,
get hauled in, complain they’re being picked on—“Why are you always following
us?”—and again, not guilty. They rob the next bank and no one cares. “That’s
just Bonnie and Clyde doing what Bonnie and Clyde do. No one else cares, why
should I?”
Mr. Schweizer announces upfront that
he cannot prove wrongdoing, only patterns of behavior. There is no memo that
says, “To all staff: If we deal this week with any issues regarding Country A,
I want you to know country A just gave my husband $750,000 for a speech, so
give them what they want.” Even if Mrs. Clinton hadn’t destroyed her emails, no
such memo would be found. (Though patterns, dates and dynamics might be
discerned.)
Mr. Schweizer writes of “the flow of
tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation . . . from
foreign governments, corporations, and financiers.” It is illegal for foreign
nationals to give to U.S. political campaigns, but foreign money, given as
donations to the Clinton Foundation or speaking fees, comes in huge amounts:
“No one has even come close in recent years to enriching themselves on the
scale of the Clintons while they or a spouse continued to serve in public
office.” The speaking fees Bill commands are “enormous and unprecedented,” as
high as $750,000 a speech. On occasion they have been paid by nations or
entities that had “matters of importance sitting on Hillary’s desk” when she
was at State.
From 2001 through 2012 Bill
collected $105.5 million for speeches and raised hundreds of millions for the
foundation. When she was nominated, Hillary said she saw no conflict. President
Obama pressed for a memorandum of understanding in which the Clintons would
agree to submit speeches to State’s ethics office, disclose the names of major
donors to the foundation, and seek administration approval before accepting
direct contributions to the foundation from foreign governments. The Clintons
accepted the agreement and violated it “almost immediately.” Revealingly, they
amassed wealth primarily by operating “at the fringes of the developed world.”
Their “most lucrative transactions” did not involve countries like Germany and
Britain, where modern ethical rules and procedures are in force, but emerging
nations, where regulations are lax.
How did it work? “Bill flew around
the world making speeches and burnishing his reputation as a global humanitarian
and wise man. Very often on these trips he was accompanied by ‘close friends’
or associates who happened to have business interests pending in these
countries.” Introductions were made, conversations had. “Meanwhile,
bureaucratic or legislative obstacles were mysteriously cleared or approvals
granted within the purview of his wife, the powerful senator or secretary of
state.”
Mr. Schweizer tells a story with
national-security implications. Kazakhstan has rich uranium deposits, coveted
by those who’d make or sell nuclear reactors or bombs. In 2006 Bill Clinton
meets publicly and privately with Kazakhstan’s dictator, an unsavory character
in need of respectability. Bill brings along a friend, a Canadian mining tycoon
named Frank Giustra. Mr. Giustra wanted some mines. Then the deal was held up.
A Kazakh official later said Sen. Clinton became involved. Mr. Giustra got what
he wanted.
Soon after, he gave the Clinton
Foundation $31.3 million. A year later Mr. Giustra’s company merged with a
South African concern called Uranium One. Shareholders later wrote millions of
dollars in checks to the Clinton foundation. Mr. Giustra announced a commitment
of $100 million to a joint venture, the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth
Initiative.
It doesn’t end there. When Hillary
was secretary of state, Russia moved for a bigger piece of the world uranium
market. The Russians wanted to acquire Uranium One, which had significant
holdings in the U.S. That meant the acquisition would require federal approval.
Many had reservations: Would Russian control of so much U.S. uranium be in
America’s interests? The State Department was among the agencies that had to
sign off. Money from interested parties rolled into the foundation. The deal
was approved. The result? “Half of projected American uranium production” was
“transferred to a private company controlled” by Russia, which soon owned it
outright.
What would a man like Vladimir Putin
think when he finds out he can work the U.S. system like this? He’d think it
deeply decadent. He’d think it weak. Is that why he laughs when we lecture him
on morals?
Mr. Schweizer offers a tough view of
the Clinton Foundation itself. It is not a “traditional charity,” in that there
is a problem “delineating where the Clinton political machines and moneymaking
ventures end and where their charity begins.” The causes it promotes—preventing
obesity, alleviating AIDS suffering—are worthy, and it does some good, but
mostly it functions as a middleman. The foundation’s website shows the Clintons
holding sick children in Africa, but unlike Doctors Without Borders and
Samaritan’s Purse, the foundation does “little hands-on humanitarian work.” It
employs longtime Clinton associates and aides, providing jobs “to those who
served the Clintons when in power and who may serve them again.” The Better
Business Bureau in 2013 said it failed to meet minimum standards of
accountability and transparency. Mr. Schweizer notes that “at least four
Clinton Foundation trustees have either been charged or convicted of financial
crimes including bribery and fraud.”
There’s more. Mrs. Clinton has yet
to address any of it.
If the book is true—if it’s
half-true—it is a dirty story.
It would be good if the public, the
Democratic Party and the Washington political class would register some horror,
or at least dismay.
I write on the eve of the 70th
anniversary of V-E Day, May 8, 1945. America had just saved the world. The
leaders of the world respected us—a great people led by tough men. What do they
think now? Scary to think, isn’t it?
Poster's comments:
1. They came from Arkansas.
2. This could be the title of Grade B scary movie.
3. A reminder: His nickname in the local media was "Slick Willie".
4. I personally don't recommend turning over the keys to the National Treasury to any of them.
Poster's comments:
1. They came from Arkansas.
2. This could be the title of Grade B scary movie.
3. A reminder: His nickname in the local media was "Slick Willie".
4. I personally don't recommend turning over the keys to the National Treasury to any of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment