Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > scruz.market > #19

The bribery standard

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Bernie Sanders never understood the epic quality of the Clinton 
scandals. In his first debate, he famously dismissed the email 
issue, it being beneath the dignity of a great revolutionary to 
deal in things so tawdry and straightforward.

Sanders failed to understand that Clinton scandals are 
sprawling, multi-layered, complex things. They defy time and 
space. They grow and burrow.

The central problem with Hillary Clinton’s emails was not the 
classified material. It wasn’t the headline-making charge by the 
FBI director of her extreme carelessness in handling it.

That’s a serious offense, to be sure, and could very well have 
been grounds for indictment. And it did damage her politically, 
exposing her sense of above-the-law entitlement and — in her 
dodges and prevarications, her parsing and evasions — 
demonstrating her arm’s-length relationship with the truth.

But it was always something of a sideshow. The real question 
wasn’t classification but: Why did she have a private server in 
the first place? She obviously lied about the purpose. It wasn’t 
convenience. It was concealment. What exactly was she hiding?

Was this merely the prudent paranoia of someone who habitually 
walks the line of legality? After all, if she controls the 
server, she controls the evidence, and can destroy it — as she 
did 30,000 emails — at will.

But destroy what? Remember: She set up the system before even 
taking office. It’s clear what she wanted to protect from 
scrutiny: Clinton Foundation business.

The foundation is a massive family enterprise disguised as a 
charity, an opaque and elaborate mechanism for sucking money 
from the rich and the tyrannous to be channeled to Clinton Inc. 
Its purpose is to maintain the Clintons’ lifestyle (offices, 
travel, accommodations, etc.), secure profitable connections, 
produce favorable publicity and reliably employ a vast entourage 
of retainers, ready to serve today and at the coming Clinton 
Restoration.

Now we learn how the whole machine operated. Two weeks ago, 
emails began dribbling out showing foundation officials 
contacting State Department counterparts to ask favors for 
foundation “friends.” Say, a meeting with the State Department’s 
“substance person” on Lebanon for one particularly generous 
Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire.

Big deal, said the Clinton defenders. Low-level stuff. No 
involvement of the secretary herself. Until — drip, drip — the 
next batch revealed foundation requests for face time with the 
secretary herself. Such as one from the crown prince of Bahrain.

To be sure, Bahrain, home of the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, is an 
important Persian Gulf ally. Its crown prince shouldn’t have to 
go through a foundation — to which his government donated at 
least $50,000 — to get to the secretary. The fact that he did is 
telling.

Now, a further drip: The Associated Press found that more than 
half the private interests who were granted phone or personal 
contact with Secretary Clinton — 85 of 154 — were donors to the 
foundation. Total contributions? As much as $156 million.

Current Clinton response? There was no quid pro quo.

What a long way we’ve come. This is the very last line of 
defense. Yes, it’s obvious that access and influence were sold. 
But no one has demonstrated definitively that the donors 
received something tangible of value — a pipeline, a permit, a 
waiver, a favorable regulatory ruling — in exchange.

It’s hard to believe the Clinton folks would be stupid enough to 
commit something so blatant to writing. Nonetheless, there might 
be an email allusion to some such conversation. With thousands 
more emails to come, who knows what lies beneath.

On the face of it, it’s rather odd that a visible quid pro quo 
is the bright line for malfeasance. Anything short of that — the 
country is awash with political money that buys access — is 
deemed acceptable. As Donald Trump says of his own donation-
giving days, “when I need something from them .?.?. I call them, 
they are there for me.” This is considered routine and 
unremarkable.

It’s not until a Rolex shows up on your wrist that you get 
indicted. Or you are found to have dangled a Senate appointment 
for cash. Then, like Rod Blagojevich, you go to jail. (He got 14 
years.)

Yet we are hardly bothered by the routine practice of presidents 
rewarding big donors with cushy ambassadorships, appointments to 
portentous boards and invitations to state dinners.

The bright line seems to be outright bribery. Anything short of 
that is considered — not just for the Clintons, for everyone — 
acceptable corruption.

It’s a sorry standard. And right now it is Hillary Clinton’s 
saving grace.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-bribery-
standard/2016/08/25/958e4eb6-6ae8-11e6-ba32-
5a4bf5aad4fa_story.html?utm_term=.7230f78a3af9
    

Back to scruz.market | Previous | Next | Find similar

Thread

The bribery standard "Nancy Pelosi Is Also Guilty" <investigate.pelosi@cnn.com> - 2017-05-30 05:03 +0200

csiph-web