We continue to explore the story of a couple who despite protests from all over, had the money power behind them to continue their outrageous patterns.
Either way, the Clintons were just getting started. Once liberated from the White House, Bill hit the lecture circuit, collecting $105.5 million from 2001 through 2012 and raising hundreds of millions of dollars for the Clinton Foundation. Significantly, his biggest payments came not from sources in the United States but from foreign investors, businesses, and governments eager to please the former president and probably hungry for access to the corridors of American power. Meanwhile, Hillary was quickly rising in the ranks of the US Senate, gaining influence and power, especially on matters concerning national security and foreign policy.
Follow the money.
When she ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, her power prospects rocketed. While Barack Obama's unexpected victory in the Democratic primaries apparently derailed this inexorable ascent, she still ended an even more powerful position than before.
When President-elect Obama first floated Hillary Clinton's name for secretary of state in late 2008, serious questions arose up in about the sources of funds donated to various Clinton interests. Many were troubled by the fact that so much of the Clintons' new-found wealth was tied to foreign contributors. During her tenure as a senator, two-thirds of Bill's enormous speaking fees had come from foreign sources. (As we will see, after she became secretary of state, Bill's speaking fees and income from foreign speechmaking ballooned.) There was also the fact that tens of millions of dollars had-flowed to the Clinton Foundation from the foreign governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, as well as from dozens of foreign financiers. Would Hillary feel indebted to these foreign donors? Would these relationships influence her decisions on matters affecting US interests? Some foreign newspapers raised concerns about her "impartiality" because of the money funneled to her foundation from certain countries."
Some foreign observers viewed these donations not as acts of disinterested charity but as efforts to buy goodwill and influence from the incoming secretary of state. Donations from Indian billionaires and industrialists, wrote the Indian Express, were about "jockeying for access and influence. What else explains why [donors are] so keen to donate to the Clinton Foundation, when discharging its own commitments in India has been, at best, very reluctant?"
The late Christopher Hitchens, writing in 2009, wondered the same: why didn't these third world oligarchs just donate the money directly [to charities in their own country] rather than distributing it through the offices of an outfit run by a seasoned ex-presidential influence-peddler" The Clintons dismissed such concerns.
During Hillary's confirmation hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, members from both parties openly worried about global influence peddling. Then senator Richard Lugar said it was a serious problem. Lugar is no bomb thrower but as Time magazine put it, "a paragon of bipartisan collegiality." He also happened to be a friend of the Clintons.
Lugar's words were direct: "The core of the problem is that foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the Secretary of State. Although neither Senator Clinton, nor President Clinton has a personal financial stake in the Foundation, obviously its work benefits their legacy and their public service priorities." Lugar went on: But the Clinton Foundation exists as a temptation for any foreign entity or governmemt that believes it could curry favor through a donation. It also sets up potential perception problems with any action taken by the Secretary of State in relation to foreign givers or their countries." Hillary's job was all-encompassing and touched on many vital issues with life-and-death outcomes. As Lugar warned, The nature of the Secretary of State post makes recusal from specific policy decisions almost impossible, since even localized U.S. foreign policy activities can ripple across countries and continents. Every new foreign donation that is accepted by the Foundation comes with the risk it will be connected in the global media to a proximate State Department policy or decision."
Partisan politics is deliberately media driven subversion to keep us divided so we won’t unite to stand up together for our best interests.
The same goes for most religion.
…
Lugar's colleagues across the aisle shared his concerns. Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, echoed the general view. "I think it's fair to say that Senator Lugar is not speaking from a partisan's perspective, but I think he is really expressing a view of the Committee as a whole."
Politicians weren't the only ones nervous about the Clin- tons' flow of foreign funds. Mainstream media outlets like Time warned of "the danger that [foreign funds] might taint Hillary Clinton's role as Secretary of State." Hillary herself rejected the notion that a foreign government giving millions of dollars to her husband while she served as maestra of American foreign policy might present a problem. "Ultimately, there is no conflict between the foreign policy of the United States and the efforts of the Clinton Foundation seeking to reduce human suffering and increase opportunity for people in need," she told the senators." But the Clintons' attempts to downplay or dismiss the issue failed to quell concerns. Incoming president Obama and his transition team were nervous about the influence of foreign funds as well.
Before announcing Hillary as his choice for secretary of state, Obama directed his aides to conduct detailed and extensive negotiations with the Clinton camp over the issue. Doug Band, a Clinton confidant and top aide at the foundation, negotiated at length with Cheryl Mills, a former Clinton White House attorney who represented the Obama team. (Mills simultaneously served on the Clinton Foundation board, and would shortly appointed Hillary's chief of staff at the State Department. Like other key Clinton retainers, she will appear several times in these pages.)
The march of tyranny
The two sides finally hammered out a memorandum of understanding (MOU). Bruce Lindsey, a longtime Clinton friend who ran the foundation, inked the deal between the Clinton Foundation and the incoming administration so Hillary's nomination could go forward. Valerie Jarrett, Obama's hard-nosed confidante, signed for the incoming president. The MOU required the Clinton Foundation to submit to several conditions designed to address widespread concerns about possible foreign influence coming through donations and speaking fees. For one thing, the Clintons agreed to submit all future paid speeches to the State Department ethics office for review. They also committed to publicly disclose on an annual basis the names of any major donors to the Clinton Foundation and its initiatives. Finally, the Clintons said they would seek preapproval from the Obama administration on direct contributions to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments or government-owned businesses.
We are in desperate need of a new bird.
Both Bill and Hillary were unequivocal in stating that they would be transparent about the flow of foreign money. In her written answers to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Hillary promised that "the Foundation will publish annually the names of all contributors for that year." Bill went on CNN and said, "If she is going to be secretary of state, and I operate globally and I have people who contribute to these efforts globally, I think that it's important to make it totally transparent."
Obama administration National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor agreed: "Going forward, all donors will be disclosed on an annual basis, and new donations from foreign governments will be scrutinized by government ethics officers."
Some Clinton loyalists found these requirements heavy handed; they believed Bill and Hillary were "forced to go above and beyond the bar that would have been set for anyone else. But who else in American politics would be so audacious as to have one spouse accept money from foreign governments and businesses while the other charted American foreign policy? Or would permit one spouse to conduct sensitive negotiations with foreign entities while in some instances the other collected large speaking fees from some of those same entities?
Agents have consistently attempted to drive me to the fringes of discourse.
They merely exposed their sneaky tactics.