[ExI] The Clinton Foundation

[spike]

From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 9:03 AM
To: spike66 at att.net
Subject: RE: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation

 

 

 

>…On Behalf Of John Clark
…
>…Subject: [ExI] The Clinton Foundation

 

>…Right wingers look at the Clinton Foundation as if it is some sort of international crime organization straight out of a James Bond movie, but let's look at the facts…I think the world needs more international crime organizations…John K Clark

 

John, the problem with these lines of argument is that it tends towards ends-justify-the-means in government which is dangerous.  

I have seen plenty of apologists who use the strategy when dealing with the case of Huma Abedin’s employment by the Department of State in 2012 in particular.  She was being paid as a GS12 by the State Department with GS6 credentials and no supporting documentation to justify it.  This is contract fraud itself.  Simultaneously she was on salary to the Clinton Foundation.  This is conflict of interest, for regardless of who was actually doing what, it creates the appearance of pay to play as well as contract fraud.

If apologists wish to argue that there is no fire in the smoke, this is a flame burning brightly, but obscured by smoke from multiple other smoldering but presumably non-flaming sources.  

For the moment, let us ignore the many training courses one takes in government about avoiding the creation of billowing columns of ethical smoke.  Everyone who deals in government contracts is trained in avoiding the appearance of impropriety, for doing so causes the public to suspect there is fire somewhere causing all that smoke.

Note that none of this has anything to do with any of Mrs. Clinton’s opponents; her mainstream rival has never held any elected office.  Any mention of his name is a diversion from something we are likely to hear a lot about after the election, if Mrs. Clinton is reported to have won that.  When it came out last spring, the campaign petitioned the FBI to hold the evidence until after the election.  Known-Republican FBI director James Comey quietly complied.  Now, he dumps it the day after the election, and no one can argue that being elected is equivalent to a voter-level defacto pardon, because we didn’t have the evidence.  Then… the whole matter goes into a new phase.

It would not likely be referred to the Attorney General, who would be in a conflict of interest situation herself, having been offered (presumably) a job as AG in Mrs. Clinton’s administration, negotiated by Mr. Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix in a private meeting aboard AG Lynch’s aircraft.

So… the matter goes over to the senate.  Note that in all of this, I have had no need to even mention any of Mrs. Clintons opponents in this election, for it is completely irrelevant to the argument, it is completely unrelated to the question of Huma Abedin’s employment and gross overpayment for yet-unknown and possibly personal services to Mrs. Clinton, particularly in 2012.

Regardless of what good deeds the Clinton Foundation does or did or might do, it was illegal to have Huma Abedin employed as a GS12 (I could put a period after that, but it gets worse) and simultaneously on salary to the Clinton Administration.  Never mind the army of subcontract administrators needed to do something like that, and the second army of inspectors to watch the first army of administrators, none of which was done, which is contract fraud.  This is a fire burning brightly, but we strongly suspect it isn’t the source of the rest of all this smoke we keep hearing so much about, and choking violently to the point of nausea.

So… Does Mrs. Clinton get a special pass?  Who else gets that?  All secretaries of state?  Their staff?  Anyone else?  Do they need to be charity good-deed doers?  How good do they need to be to get the get-out-of-jail-free cards?  Who gets to define the term “good” and how many deeds?

Even if an organization does good deeds, it is required to follow established law.  There was crime involved here, a clear unambiguous case of contract fraud.  No need to mention any alternate candidate to discuss that matter, no relevance to what wing is saying what, no need to cite good deeds by any organization.  Only contract law is relevant to this discussion.

spike

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160830/2148ea2f/attachment.html>