Fun Bedfellows: The Clinton Foundation, Hillary's State Department, & Arms Dealers
I didn't think I would ever say, "heck of a job, David Sirota." But he and Andrew Perez have completed some important, eye-opening campaign journalism here: Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton's term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush's second term. The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama's arrival in the White House. American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012. The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton also accused some of these countries of failing to marshal a serious and sustained campaign to confront terrorism. In a December 2009 State Department cable published by Wikileaks, Clinton complained of "an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority." She declared that "Qatar's overall level of CT cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region." She said the Kuwaiti government was "less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks." She noted that "UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups." All of these countries donated to the Clinton Foundation and received increased weapons export authorizations from the Clinton-run State Department. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Clinton Foundation did not respond to questions from the IBTimes. In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton's State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual contributors' donations, making a more precise accounting impossible. At Slate, Ben Mathis-Lilley concludes the piece "doesn't reveal any smoking-gun evidence" -- I don't know, I'm sure all the guns on those deals were smoking after they were fired -- but concludes Hillary Clinton "has often been willing to tolerate high-stakes conflicts of interest." You may recall that if you were anywhere to the right of Michael Moore on the issue of the Iraq War from 2003 to 2008, liberals called you a "warmonger" and "war profiteer" interchangeably. Somehow, because of your desire to see the Iraq invasion through -- in case, say, we withdrew troops too early and the country devolved into chaos and fell to Islamist extremists! -- they insisted you sought to see more "blood for oil" and yearned to see more death and destruction in the name of corporate profits. But now . . . hey, getting a little bonus from arms dealers will be no big deal. It's the worst case of an administration figure being involved in arms dealing since… well, Fast and Furious, which wasn't really that long ago. Allahpundit: However Team Hillary spins this, the sober fact remains for the left that their next nominee will have presided over an unprecedented spree of weapons dealing, including to brutal authoritarian regimes, which complicates the tried-and-true Democratic narrative that Republicans are the party of warmongers. In fact, expect some of the sharper GOP candidates this time around to rebut that by wondering if one not-so-hidden reason why military exports ballooned under Obama is because the world became much less safe under his foreign policy. Of course Middle Eastern autocrats need weapons after Obama encouraged the Arab Spring by turning his back on Hosni Mubarak; of course the Saudis are frantic for the Pentagon to sell them massive amounts of arms while Obama's new friends in Tehran terrorize Sunni populations in four different countries, the latest in the Kingdom's backyard. That Hillary got paid from the aftermath just makes the stench that much more obnoxious. Finally, we used to make fun of Sirota's punching promotional photo, where he looks like he's about to offer a Lightning McQueen "KA-CHOW!" exclamation . . . 
And yes, I once called him a "semi-professional blame-thrower." But he earned some praise today. Fist bump! The Clintons' Mysterious, Secret Shell Corporation Oh, hey, look, what we used to call a "shell company." The newly released financial files on Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton's growing fortune omit a company with no apparent employees or assets that the former president has legally used to provide consulting and other services, but which demonstrates the complexity of the family's finances. Because the company, WJC, LLC, has no financial assets, Hillary Clinton's campaign was not obligated to report its existence in her recent financial disclosure report, officials with Bill Clinton's private office and the Clinton campaign said. They were responding to questions by The Associated Press, which reviewed corporate documents. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to provide private details of the former president's finances on the record, said the entity was a "pass-through" company designed to channel payments to the former president. Gabriel Malor contemplates the sorts of questions that the press would ask Hillary, if the queen ever lowered herself to taking questions from the rabble: "Secretary Clinton, did you get tax advantages from your use of a shell corporation?" "Secretary Clinton, were the payments made through your shell corporation from foreign governments? What about during your time at State?" "Sec. Clinton, were you or your husband getting paid by foreign nationals through this shell corporation while you were secretary of state?" He concludes, "By definition, the Clintons' shell corporation must be ignored for the greater good. That's always the progressives' bottom line." Remember, three years ago, being secretive about your wealth was considered ipso facto evidence that you were a tax cheat. Here's Vanity Fair, back in August 2012: Romney, with an estimated net worth as high as $250 million (he won't reveal the exact amount), will be one of the richest people ever to be nominated for president. Given his reticence to discuss his wealth, it's only natural to wonder how he got it, how he invests it, and if he pays all his taxes on it. Even if WJC LLC is perfectly legal, any maneuvering for tax advantage should be thrown in the face of a candidate who declares, "the rich are not paying their fair share" and "there are rich people everywhere, and yet they do not contribute to the growth of their own countries." The Carly Fiorina Campaign's Delightfully Snarky Press Releases I like your style, Sarah Isgur Flores, deputy campaign manager for Carly Fiorina. Seriously, this press release announcing a Fiorina event in South Carolina reads a bit like a Morning Jolt: Carly Fiorina is speaking in downtown Columbia, South Carolina on Wednesday. And guess what? So is Hillary Clinton. We know it must be hard covering the Hillary for America But Against Transparency campaign. And if the last few weeks have shown us anything, it's that the Clinton Way isn't about change, small businesses, the middle class, reshuffling the deck, or, certainly, trust in leadership. It's all about the Clintons. (Oh, and Carly has 3 email addresses on her phone. Amazing how technology works!) Leading by example, Carly will host a media availability outside the Columbia Marriott at 12:00pm on Wednesday. She will also be speaking to the South Carolina Republican Legislative Caucus at 12:30pmat the Hilton Columbia Center a few blocks away. (We hear Mrs. Clinton is speaking to the Democrat Caucus at the same time, but they aren't letting you anywhere near their event. No surprise there!) Our events tomorrow are all open to the press. And by open press, we mean we'll actually take questions. That's right. We've answered hundreds of questions from reporters because we believe the American people will not and should not elect a president that can't answer for her record, won't explain her positions or for whom the truth is whatever she can get away with. ADDENDA: For those of you in the Silicon Valley area, I'll be speaking to the Conservative Forum of Silicon Valley June 9 at 7 p.m. It's free for members, $15 for non-members, but only $5 if this is your first time visiting the group! In August, the group will host Geert Wilders, vehement voice against Islamism in the Netherlands, and in November my friend Kurt Schlichter is speaking. | 
Comments
Post a Comment