Bill Clinton – USA Gov Policy

NOTE: today’s previously announced column, The Campaign vs. Free Speech, can be read at http://www.usagovpolicy.com/nyanalysis/campaign-vs-free-speech-continues/

FBI Director James B. Comey’s decision not to indict Hillary Clinton should not be reviewed in terms of its effect on the 2016 campaign. Far more important is its effect on the federal system of justice, and its increasing susceptibility to political influence. We have reviewed points raised during his statement, and how they should be interpreted:

Comey acknowledges wrongdoing by Clinton, and the resulting danger to the United States:

“From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent… there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information… For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail. ” None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

The Director acknowledges a cover-up by Clinton:

“It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

Comey acknowledges that laws were broken:

“…there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information…”

And finally, the Director acknowledges that another person would receive punishment:

“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.”

Summarizing the above, the FBI:

Admits that Clinton handled top secret information with reckless disregard for the safety of the nation;
Admits that the former Secretary of State attempted to cover-up her misdeed;
Admits that laws were probably broken;
And acknowledges that someone else doing precisely what Clinton did would face punishment.

This allows customers the ability buy browse that super generic cialis at much reduced prices and gives them the opportunity to restore their potency at a greatly affordable rate. These new versions are convenient forms of traditional viagra generic canada pill. Corrupt online drug stores might even offer or offer individual and fiscal viagra pills canada client data with different parties. The drug works to improve the blood circulation in http://midwayfire.com/minutes/Approved%20minutes%202-12-13.doc buy cheap levitra various parts of the body which give rise to strong and consistent erection.
The decision was handed down just days after an inappropriate meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, which the FBI sought to hide by banning journalists and photographers from covering the matter. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and Director Comey reports to Lynch.

Imagine this scenario:

A District Attorney has a friendly meeting with the spouse of a suspect under investigation. A few days later, despite admitting that harm was done to the public, laws were broken, and a cover-up of evidence took place, an announcement is made that no charges would be pressed, even though punishment was appropriate. Local cops prevented news reporters from trying to cover the meeting.

It’s obvious the public would be outraged, the District Attorney would be removed, and an indictment of the suspect would proceed.

The Clinton-Lynch case, however, is protected by partisanship, the heavy hand of the White House, and a media which is heavily biased in favor of Clinton’s candidacy. It may escape the full fury from the Republican Party, whose leaders are so distracted by the civil war between Trump’s supporters and detractors that they can’t effectively do what an opposition party is supposed to do. However, Republican leaders in Congress are planning to demand that Comey testify regarding his decision.

The hyper-partisan environment of presidential politics is preventing an open discussion of the Clinton dilemma.

When the Clinton ethics question is raised, allies in politics and the media, well trained thanks to the unending trail of abuses of the public trust, respond vehemently, frequently alleging bias against female candidates or a fictional “vast right wing conspiracy,” intentionally ignoring the fact that Clintonian practices are sufficiently controversial to engender spontaneous opposition.

The reality is that despite the good intentions of their many supporters, the history of the Clintons is less a political movement than a criminal enterprise, in which an objective review of the records leads to a legitimate concern that official favors have been traded for personal enrichment, in a manner that may have seriously harmed the United States.

The Office of Inspector General’s Report on former Secretary Clinton’s emails noted that “…Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary. At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act…”

This, of course, is just one part of the Clinton email scandal—probably, the lesser part. The remaining question is what is in the emails themselves, particularly those that have not been made public

For most candidates, the OIG analysis would be harmful enough. Added to the long list of Hillary Clinton’s ethical violations and consistent record of devastating Obama/Clinton policy failures as secretary of state, (the failed reset with Russia, Benghazi, ISIS, the Russian/Chinese/Iranian/North Korean nuclear arms increases, alienation of key US allies, etc.) however, it raises the very serious question of how and why she will be the candidate of a major political party for President of the United States. Indeed, some members of her own party have raised that issue, even though her only current opponent is an aged socialist with only a limited chance of winning the general election, even against a candidate as unusual as Donald Trump.

The depth of opposition from many committed Democrats comes from the reality that the Clintons are more openly for sale than any other politicians at their high level. The New York Post recently noted that “Mandatory financial disclosures released this month show that, in just the two years from April 2013 to March 2015, the former first lady, senator and secretary of state collected $21,667,000 in “speaking fees,” not to mention the cool $5 mil she corralled as an advance for her 2014 flop book, ‘Hard Choices.’ Throw in the additional $26,630,000 her ex-president husband hoovered up in personal-appearance “honoraria…”
Another manual therapy used in cialis cheapest chiropractic care is massage. Let us throw http://icks.org/n/data/ijks/1483111470_add_file_5.pdf buy cheap cialis light on few of the new car games. Unfortunate sexual life makes men edgy and off and on again an erection is realized however not maintained long enough to finish sex; at different times an erection is never accomplished in any tadalafil prescription icks.org case. A single dose of Kamagra pill or are there other factors that must be considered? Read on brand cialis price to find out more.
Other ex-holders of high political office have earned large speaking fees, as well. But they did so after having left the political arena, and in a manner in which no real suspicion was raised that the acceptance of dollars was such a direct quid-pro-quo. Hillary’s solicitation of funds from foreign governments for the Clinton Foundation, a source of personal enrichment for the Clintons, while she was serving as Secretary of State, was a blatant violation of the public trust.

Also during her tenure as Secretary of State, Judicial Watch reports billions of dollars of funds were somehow “misplaced.”

The history of Clinton scandals is in a class by itself, not only for the amounts of dollars raised, but for the potential harm not only to the public trust but to the nation as a whole. Serious questions still remain about the relationship of China’s efforts to make illegal campaign contributions during the Bill Clinton presidency, and President Clinton’s extraordinary act of allowing the sale of a supercomputer to China.

The China issue continues. Time Magazine has just reported that “Wang Wenliang, [is] a Chinese national with U.S. permanent residency… An American company controlled by Wang made a $60,000 contribution to [Virginia Governor] McAuliffe’s campaign [McAuliffe is a very close friend of the Clintons, who recently gave the vote to over a half million convicted felons in an effort to insure that Clinton carries the state in November] three weeks before the fundraiser. Less than a month later, a separate Wang company pledged $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, the first of several donations that eventually totaled $2 million.

Perhaps the most devastating ethical question surrounding Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State concerns the transfer of uranium, the substance required for the construction of nuclear weapons, to Russia. The New York Times, not known for being anti-Clinton, reported: “the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain…As the Russians gradually assumed control … in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013…a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons…And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin.”

The Clintons protest that the complaints are just part of the usual partisan smear campaign. But their long and unique history, their close association with numerous ethical issues too numerous to repeat here, and the unprecedented nature of the involvement of foreign governments raises substantial issues about the inherent lack of appropriateness of another Clinton presidency.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.