Laura Seay, a political scientist with expertise centering on Central Africa, says calls to shut down the Foundation can only come from “a position of privilege and ignorance” about what the organization does. It has done good and needed work for worthy causes around the world. Equally legitimate, is the scrutiny the Foundation and the Clinton State Department are under over their interactions. It is based on partial records released by the State Department so far and does not reflect the full scope of people with whom Clinton met as secretary of state.
Advertisement
On December 12, 2008 the Clintons had “agreed to a set of protocols.for managing conflicts of interests, and the appearance of conflicts of interest.” . “Trump’s campaign and Republicans have sought to cast suspicion over Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state and argued that foreign donors’ contributions to the foundation created inevitable conflict-of-interest questions”, he continues.
Hillary Clinton said Friday she was certain no revelations from emails or foreign entities’ ties to her husband’s charitable foundation will derail her bid for the USA presidency. And by 2010, it had contributed $32 million to CGI.
Judicial Watch released more than 700 new pages of State Department correspondence today.
This “extraordinary” finding, as the AP put it, was deemed less extraordinary by other journalists and pundits who noted that Clinton had held thousands of meetings with government employees, foreign representatives, civil leaders, journalists and others while Secretary of State that were not accounted for in the AP’s report. Sounds like the definition of quid pro quo from here.
So what happened? Abedin told Band she’d reach out to Jeffrey Feltman, the acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs at the time. That’s the real story of the Clinton Foundation, not spurious and evidence-free allegations that donations to the foundation gave donors special access to State Department officials or preferential treatment. The company made a commitment to CGI in 2013 with four other organizations to help survivors of sexual slavery in Cambodia.
In another case, Mr Band urged Mrs Abedin that the state department intervene in order to secure a visa for an unnamed member of Wolverhampton Football Club, who was apparently having difficulty because of a “criminal charge”.
That those questions were raised and answered in a way that exonerated Mrs. Clinton is seemingly secondary to the fact that questions had been raised.
Among the areas for talks with Canada and Mexico would be strengthening enforcement provisions to go after those who violate its terms, he said. More importantly money buys an ear and makes people listen.
The emails show that Ms. Abedin occasionally discussed such communications with Ms. Clinton but that many requests were dismissed, particularly if they involved more than a meeting with the then-secretary of state. With very few and minor exceptions, they adhered to those rules – and have continued to disclose all of the Clinton Foundation’s donors long after she left government. All this adds “to the controversy” about “major donors” to the foundation getting “access to other power players”, says Politico.
Not business as usual in Washington D.C. “This is about foreign money gaining access and influence at the highest levels of our government, and we have not been there before”.
The Clinton Foundation, as a nonprofit charity, is not bound by the same disclosure rules and laws as typical lobbyists. More significantly, foreign governments are restricted in what they can give USA officials.
Bill Clinton announced this week that if his wife is elected, the foundation will accept only U.S. contributions, that he will step down from the board and will no longer raise funds for the charity.
Advertisement
The Clintons may have done nothing illegal.
