Clinton scandals – USA Gov Policy

The political scandals of 2017 are unlike anything seen before in American history. They include the continued lack of indictment concerning the personal enrichment of a sitting Secretary of State via the provision of key nuclear weapons material to a hostile nation; the unaddressed abuse of federal intelligence agencies to surveil political rivals in the 2016 campaign; and the apparently baseless charges of “Russian Collusion” against the current president being investigated (despite a lack of any substance to the allegation) by a politically biased special prosecutor who has hired supporters of the defeated candidate to do the research.

Liability for the acts in question are not limited to the direct perpetrators. It extends to an entire network of federal officials who facilitated, through assistance, acquiescence, or neglect, the crimes in questions. Former FBI Director James Comey, despite the obvious nature of Clinton’s acts regarding both the uranium deal and her mishandling of emails, completely failed in his duty. Revelations that he prepared to exonerate the former Secretary of State before a formal investigation was even partially completed have provided even greater weight to the increasingly abundant body of evidence that he replaced his loyalty to the FBI and the American people with partisanship. Despite that reality, the media severely criticized President Trump for firing him.

While misdeeds by government are frequently exposed through the media, in this case, a very substantial portion of the press, through its refusal to provide honest journalistic practices, has become a party to them.

Some outlets, however, have done exceptional due diligence. The Hill deserves particular credit for its ongoing expose of events surrounding Hillary Clinton’s uranium-related transactions with Moscow—and the complicity of Obama Administration officials. John Solomon and Alison Spann recently wrote: “the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering.” Their report notes that there was a “violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act,” according to official document. “Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit the Clinton Foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill…Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.”

Evidence of anxiety masked by physical symptoms Stress is closely linked side effects from viagra to a biological mechanism called “flight-or-fight” instinct. purchasing this cheapest cialis uk Research has found that a few natural ways of lowering your blood pressure, which can also help prevent hardships from arising. To enhance one’s understanding about different medications that impact male’s fertility, the current article enlists some of the medications that you are taking. cialis pills for sale The dosage pattern is quite easy and not so complicated so make sure you consult your doctor to change your drug therapy. cost of prescription viagra Eventually, Moscow, despite its clear hostility to the United States, its dramatic strengthening of its conventional and nuclear military strength, and its invasion of Ukraine, gained control of 20% of all American uranium.

Despite the Obama/Clinton Administration’s tenure-wide tilt towards Moscow, including giving Russia, for the first time in history, a lead in nuclear weapons, providing only weak sanctions in response to the invasion of Ukraine, and giving in to Putin’s demands about America’s missile defense, a myth was propagated that Trump’s campaign colluded with the Kremlin to win the 2016 election. The desperate to find something—anything—to provide some substance to the charge has been an embarrassment both to those who first propagated the story and to those journalists who ignored the lack of evidence and continue to tout it.

Cheryl K. Chumley, writing for the Washington Times notes that “The tables have turned and what was once the media’s favorite message — President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election — has now grown silent. Apparently, it’s Bill and Hillary Clinton who’ve been doing the behind-scenes and suspicious dealings with Russia all along. Oh, and perhaps others in the Barack Obama administration, too.”

While official Washington has dragged its heels on indicting Hillary Clinton for any of the misdeeds she is implicated in, James Comey may have to worry about action from an unexpected direction. Stephen Dinan of The Washington Times reports that Ty Clevenger, a New York attorney, has filed a grievance with his state’s bar association on the grounds that Comey lied to Congress and allowed the destruction of evidence in the Clinton email investigation. Clevenger’s actions could result in Comey losing his license to practice law.

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.