Hillary's Big Ethics Problem: Bill
What guidelines should govern Bill Clinton's future activities if Hillary becomes Secretary of State? Recent events suggest that at least two are necessary: no more favors for human rights violators in exchange for big contributions to the Clinton Foundation; and no more lying to the news media about such deals.
It's worth remembering the nearly-forgotten story we could call "Bill Clinton and the Kazakh uranium." As Jo Becker and Don Van Natta Jr. of the New York Times reported in January, 2008, Bill Clinton was part of a corrupt three-way deal in 2005 involving the president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, whose human rights record has been criticized by many, including the Bush White House -- and Senator Hillary Clinton.
Kazakhstan has uranium--one fifth of the world's reserves. The president of Kazakhstan wanted to be named head of an international election-monitoring organization--the same one that had ruled his election fraudulent. What to do?
Bill Clinton had the solution: it centered on a Canadian financier named Frank Giustra who wanted to get in on the Kazakh uranium projects. Clinton and Giustra flew to Kazakhstan in September 2005 on Giustra's private jet and met with President Nazarabayev. According to the New York Times, Bill "expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's bid to head an international organization that monitors elections," despite official opposition from the US as well as from his own wife.
Two days later, Giustra got the uranium deal he wanted. And shortly after that, the Clinton Foundation got its single largest contribution -- from a foundation controlled by Giustra -- $31 million. The contribution was secret, of course.
Then Jo Becker and Don Van Natta Jr. of the New York Times got onto the story. And then the Clinton people started lying.
When the Times asked about Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with the Canadian financier, Clinton sent a written response declaring that the two took the trip together "to see first-hand the philanthropic work done by his foundation." The paper reported that "a spokesman for Mr. Clinton" said Bill "did nothing to help" Giustra get his deal.
That story fell apart when the president of the Kazakh uranium project told the Times that the Canadian did discuss the deal directly with the Kazakh president, and that, according to the paper, "his friendship with Mr. Clinton 'of course made an impression.'"
But what does any of this have to do with Hillary? Quite a bit, it turns out: key staff members of her campaign also played key roles in the Clinton Foundation. Hillary's campaign chairman and chief fund-raiser, Terry McAuliffe, according to the New York Times, also "led the foundation's fund-raising and sits on its board." Hillary's campaign general counsel, Cheryl Mills, also sits on the foundation board. Hillary's campaign press secretary, Jay Carson, previously held a communications position at the foundation.
Frank Giustra is the biggest contributor to the Clinton Foundation, and the one the New York Times investigated. But the foundation has 208,000 contributors. How many other Kazakh-type deals did Bill make with them? Clinton is keeping their names secret from the public (although he has turned them over to the Obama team vetting Hillary).
Here's one more guideline regarding Hillary as Secretary of State: no more secrecy for donors to the Clinton Foundation.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
sunny555 posted "Clintons have enough baggage."
Yes like being of of the most popular Presidents in history of US here and abroad. winning two terms, giant budget surplus; amazing economy, trying hard for peace in Middle East, trying to pass universal health care reform etc. SCOREBOARD!!!!
If the new guy gets ANYWHERE NEAR these accomplishments ( we hope) then you can talk. Until then.... do like the fish
Shhhhhhhhh .......
No facts, please.
You'll interrupt the childrens' temper tantrums.
touche
sunny555 posted "Clintons have enough baggage."
Yes like being of of the most popular Presidents in history of US here and abroad. winning two terms, giant budget surplus; amazing economy, trying hard for peace in Middle East, trying to pass universal health care reform etc. SCOREBOARD!!!!
If the new guy gets ANYWHERE NEAR these accomplishments ( we hope) then you can talk. Until then.... do like the fish and not like Fox News.
If you don't think the Clintons have baggage, you are seriously delusional. And for your information, Fox News mostly supported Hillary during the primaries. They were much, much harder on Barack for obvious reasons -- they had hoped Hillary would be the nominee, because Billary had so much baggage that he/she would be easier to defeat.
Baggage - Duh.
Every politician who's been on the national stage for any length of time has baggage, and the C/int0ns were the target of the right-wing machine for the past 16 years. That being said, that doesn't mean the "baggage" is justified, or would have prevented her from being elected.
And you think there's a "genuine and enduring anger on the part of the electorate toward them" and a "general consensus that the Clintons put their own self-interests ahead of anything else". Really? A general consensus based on what? Because "the electorate" still wants her as SOS by 2-to-1 (79-12 among Dems), and Bi// C, even after a heated primary battle, is still extremely popular among Dems.
Guess it's easy to say anything if you just put "I think" at the front of the sentence.
oh for god's sake, who cares? whats the big deal?
Business deals are made and broken worldwide daily based on who you know and how much power they have in every country, every government, and in every political party.
I'd say the NO-Bid contracts for military suppliers to our troops that frauded the Pentagon, failed our troops and failed to do their jobs in the middle east, given to Republicans from Bush's party faithful, and the New startups handed freebies of our tax money shown on a contract list on the Pentagon's website, handed over to Republican owned and operated suppliers are FAR more of a Crime, Far worse for the American people, and Bush's Entire presidency filled with secrecy is a giant pot of lies, fraud, and crimes against americans that needs to be investigated.
I really could care less about what deals Clinton helped make for donations to his Freaking Charity, or his dumb library, because NONE of it has any serious effect on Americans even close to what Bush has done.
As long as Slick Willy continues to avoid mentioning Obama's name his sleeze will not taint the President Elect. Hawk-Hillary , on the other hand......
I just read that Monica is being considered for a post somewhere. Bad move!
for what post? "Under-secretary" to the Secretary of State's husband? ahahaha.
Bill can't have an ethics problem folks--you've got to have ethics first in order for there to be a problem. Seriously, why is Hillary still negotiating for the Secretary of State position? Other cabinet nominees pass vetting and accept. As usual, the Clintons (and I'm going to just call them that because the SOS job is for both of them) are playing their "I'm as important as hell" game and holding things up. Who's the president-elect here? And why is he tolerating their bad behavior? Makes me wonder if Billary got the offer of the SOS position before the election.
Best thing Obama could do is hire her, then let her replacement be appointed and seated, then fire her. Then both Clinton's will be out of politics and boy do we ever need these two out of the American Citizens lives !
Your screen name says it all.
Where Bill is involved, a sideshow ensues.
And smart politics and country consensus, and political success for Democrats and popularity for US abroad....
A wise poster on another Clinton thread commented yesterday that the Clintons have enough baggage to fill an airport hangar. I think there is genuine and enduring anger on the part of the electorate toward them for many reasons. A major sticking point seems to be the general consensus that the Clintons put their own self-interests ahead of anything else.
Personally, I am still disturbed by the Marc Rich pardon. I'm not upset with Holder, because I believe his hands were politically tied. Also, he didn't financially benefit from Rich or the pardon, as did the Clintons.
That was me. I said you couldn't berth the Clinton's ego in the Aerodrome. And this pick is an utter disaster. But, the cheerleading nitwits, that think Democrats can't do any wrong still insist on letting Barack make this seriously foolish mistake. I'm sure in typical Clintonian fashion, a deal was struck back in the primaries- top cabinet post and I'll drop out and not destroy the party out of spite. The Clinton's hid the massive robbery that Bush Sr. did (which is directly responsible for the dire straits we're in http://new
Actually, it wasn't you who posted the specific comment I refer to, but apparently a lot of people have the same opinion -- and so do I. And to think, Hillary almost made it to the White House. I was originally a Hillary supporter who switched to McCain when I felt Obama was too inexperienced. As time went on, three things happened. First, I became disillusioned with Hillary, especially when she stayed in the primary race with no statistical chance of winning. I felt it was the height of selfishness, and that ultimately she would be using her so-called 18 million supporters as collateral for either the VP position or something in the cabinet. Second, McCain picked Palin. Huge mistake that needs no further elaboration. And finally, I began to learn more about Obama, and liked almost everything I saw and heard. What he lacks in experience, I believe he can make up for with his many other skills and talents.
I wish the Clintons would just disappear and let our new P.E. govern without all the B.S. those two bring.
Is there a leash and muzzle tight enough for this barking horn-dog?
Can't help but think- at some point, in some way- Pres. Obama will regret any
his administration's official association with Bonnie & Clyde Clinton.
Then again, any "lapse" that may occur on his/her/their part will be their responsibility
but will also speak to Obama's naiveté .
As I have said before, "DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!!"
I hope O knows what he's doing. Appointing a jaded, ambitious (and bitter) rival to head the Department of State is dangerous. Not to mention confusing. Didn't Obama take Hillary to task for her vote authorizing the Iraq invasion? Now he wants to put her in the most important cabinet position in the administration? As for Bill's deals, does this surprise anybody? From the Rcih and FALN pardons, using the Lincoln Bedroom like a Motel 6, to the sale of missile technology to China (against his national security advisors objections), to his numerous adulterous affairs. The man is a sleaze.
Yes ! Why not email Obama at the new website www.change
Thank you. I will. If enough people do it, I suppose it MIGHT catch their attention. The more the merrier!
Obama is either not the one calling the shots, is just as sleazy as they are but better at covering it up, or both.
Oh, crap Stell! Hillary Clinton has agreed to be an employee in the State Dept.
Do we want a mechincal doll to be Sec. of State? We want someone who has gravity and can think on his/her feet.
And do you really think that Hillary pays attention to Bill's advice? Or does she have a mind of her own.
Stell, You're right. Obama isn't calling the shots. Ask David Rockefeller.
So the philanthropic work that he resumed is simply a cover for sleazy business deals. You have to have a cover, which is what I suppose CGI is.
Wouldn't be surprised if their daughter, the hedge fund manager is getting into "Public Health" for the same reasons.
Not surprised to see Terry Mc. inthe middle of all of this either.
This stinks to high heaven.
"Bill Clinton had the solution: it centered on a Canadian financier named Frank Giustra who wanted to get in on the Kazakh uranium projects. Clinton and Giustra flew to Kazakhstan in September 2005 on Giustra's private jet and met with President Nazarabayev. According to the New York Times, Bill "expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's bid to head an international organization that monitors elections," despite official opposition from the US as well as from his own wife.
Two days later, Giustra got the uranium deal he wanted. And shortly after that, the Clinton Foundation got its single largest contribution -- from a foundation controlled by Giustra -- $31 million. The contribution was secret, of course
Then Jo Becker and Don Van Natta Jr. of the New York Times got onto the story. And then the Clinton people started lying.
When the Times asked about Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with the Canadian financier, Clinton sent a written response declaring that the two took the trip together "to see first-hand the philanthropic work done by his foundation
I'm sorry but sooner or later this has to reflect poorly on Obama.
Time to get over this Bill stuff don't you think?
It's not an issue of "getting over" Bill Clinton. It's about the vetting process and having the way paved for Hillary to become the next Secretary of State. Because Barack Obama and his transition team have such strict criteria regarding conflict of interest and because her name is on the short list, there's no doubt in my mind that Bill, himself, would be vetted as well.
Everything needs to be out in the open and I think that if Bill really wants to help Hillary and the American people, he ought to be forthcoming about what he has done with the Clinton Foundation so there isn't so much of a media backlog of questionable actions including Clinton helping Nursultan Nazarbayev.
Because Kazakhstan and their president's name is too hard for the media to pronounce and because this article never got the widescale media attention it needed, that concern won't be raised, but I'm concerned and the American people would be concerned to hear about this as well. It would be wise for Bill to talk about this deal openly as well as his other projects.
Look, if we're going to have a government about change, accountability and transparency must be interchangeable.
Ochs Nation
http://och
Bill would certainly like us to "get over this Bill stuff" -- and let him keep doling out favors in exchange for contributions to his foundation. . .
why? It's obscene that the Clintons once again are "above the rest" in being able to avoid consequences for their acts. Vile people. Can't help but think there is something we don't know about this last power play that makes Hillary SoS....it taints an otherwise brilliant Obama campaign and transition
"Time to get over this Bill stuff don't you think?."
Christian, Yes.
Christian, although I would like for us to get over the Bill stuff.. I still do not want Hillary as SoS or any office in Obama's adm. I can't stand her. For obvious reasons.
She tried to destroy a fellow Democrat. That I cannot get over.
Correct me if I'm wrong but...Hila
Since a year ago both Bill and Hillary thought she would become president, you would have thought Bill would have cleaned up his act regarding Clinton Foundation funding -- it IS amazing that apparently he didn't.
Let's get the weasels to watch the hen house . . . incredible liberal illusions.
Let's stop bashing the Clintons for a while and turn the mirror on their supporters. Why would anyone support the appointment of Hillary to SoS given their (Bill and Hilly's) track record of: lies, corruption, unaccountability, deceit, "triagulation," controversy, mismanagement, and on and on?
From the very broad and sometimes underedited biography from Wikipedia on Hilly:
http://en.
*She has no administrative or upper level management skills of a Cabinet level nature;
*She has no foreign policy skills, other than her trips as First Lady, remember USO and Bosnia;
*She has no advanced degrees in international affairs or political economy;
*She is not a convincing campaigner or diplomat or team builder;
*She is not nor has been on a foreign relations or international affairs committee in the Senate;
*She is only been in the Senate one-term and was re-elcted to a second in 2006 where she spent campaigning most of the last 18 months;
*She has no foreign language skill;
But she's a "terrific SoS candidate"!!??!!!
Why is she being foisted as Secretary of State? It's a political pay off for not going negative on Obama after his primary victories over the Clinton Machine. Ponder these issue and then add the ethics issues and you can understand why the nation deserves better.
Hillary Clinton has had many chances. None of them has led to anything substantial other than keeping her running around. Personally she may be a fine person, but she is no one for advancing policy or position or results.
Just what is being "successful" anyway, people? That one gets to a certain level and manages to stay in place? I don't see what she has produced. AND she is my Senator.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
