NY Times Exposes Clinton Foundation

Editor’s Note – Hillary Clinton in 2016? Really? Already? Maybe not so fast. If she is already on the campaign trail as it clearly seems, then its time to vet her, time to educate America again on what would be another dismal failure.

Thank you NY Times for taking the lead on exposing your former NY Senator and our former Secretary of State.

As SUA has been saying for ages, it is amazing how little people actually know or remember about Hillary Clinton. It is equally stunning that she is already in coronation mode three years before the next Presidential election. The media along with the Democrat Party just look beyond all the issues that should completely derail her intentions, but they go on.

Now however, maybe the Main Stream Media is finally noticing that Hillary and her family have a multitude of problems – problems that may just derail her early. When the NY Times uncovers dirty secrets about the Clinton Foundation and reports it, there is more than just smoke, there is fire. Wake up America, Mrs. Clinton is not the answer, she is part of the problem, remember Benghazi and the Watergate hearings to name just a couple of issues?

In the matter of Benghazi, yes it does matter Mrs. Clinton, and in the matter of Watergate, yes we remember you were fired for lying to your boss on the prosecution team. The list is very long and we plan to bring it up at every turn. Obama was not properly vetted by America, and its clear that was a dismal mistake, now we MUST vet Mrs. Clinton, and out all the laundry, again.

Former First Lady, former Presidential Candidate, former NY Senator, former Rose Law Firm, former Secretary of State, former First Lady of Arkansas, former Health Care Czar – former is great word, lets use it often in her case to make sure she stays a ‘former’ in every way, shape, and form!

The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating for Bill and Hillary

By  – Telegraph UK

Is the New York Times being guest edited by Rush Limbaugh? Today it runs with a fascinating takedown of the Clinton Foundation – that vast vanity project that conservatives are wary of criticizing for being seen to attack a body that tries to do good. But the liberal NYT has no such scruples. The killer quote is this:

For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

Over a year ago Bill Clinton met with some aides and lawyers to review the Foundation’s progress and concluded that it was a mess. Well, many political start-ups can be, especially when their sole selling point is the big name of their founder (the queues are short at the Dan Quayle Vice Presidential Learning Center). But what complicated this review – what made its findings more politically devastating – is that the Clinton Foundation has become about more than just Bill. Now both daughter Chelsea and wife, and likely presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton have taken on major roles and, in the words of the NYT “efforts to insulate the foundation from potential conflicts have highlighted just how difficult it can be to disentangle the Clintons’ charity work from Mr Clinton’s moneymaking ventures and Mrs Clinton’s political future.” Oh, they’re entangled alright.

Clinton Foundation

The NYT runs the scoop in its usual balanced, inoffensive way – but the problem jumps right off the page. The Clintons have never been able to separate the impulses to help others and to help themselves, turning noble philanthropic ventures into glitzy, costly promos for some future campaign (can you remember a time in human history when a Clinton wasn’t running for office?). And their “Ain’t I Great?!” ethos attracts the rich and powerful with such naked abandon that it ends up compromising whatever moral crusade they happen to have endorsed that month. That the Clinton Global Initiative is alleged to have bought Natalie Portman a first-class ticket for her and her dog to attend an event in 2009 is the tip of the iceberg. More troubling is that businessmen have been able to expand the profile of their companies by working generously alongside the Clinton Foundation. From the NYT:

Last year, Coca-Cola’s chief executive, Muhtar Kent, won a coveted spot on the dais with Mr. Clinton, discussing the company’s partnership with another nonprofit to use its distributors to deliver medical goods to patients in Africa. (A Coca-Cola spokesman said that the company’s sponsorship of foundation initiatives long predated Teneo and that the firm plays no role in Coca-Cola’s foundation work.)

In March 2012, David Crane, the chief executive of NRG, an energy company, led a widely publicized trip with Mr. Clinton to Haiti, where they toured green energy and solar power projects that NRG finances through a $1 million commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative.

This is typical Clinton stuff. The second thing I ever wrote for this website was about how corporations invest in politicians as a way of building their brand and raising their stock price. It can lead to some funny partnerships. This, from 2011:

Just this month, bedding manufacturer Serta announced that it will be sponsoring Bill Clinton’s keynote address to an industry conference in August. “To us,”’ said the head of the company, “Clinton represents leadership. This appearance shows Serta is a leader and is taking a leadership position. This singles us out.” Some might say that it is beneath a former president to basically endorse Serta’s new “Perfect Sleeper” line, even with its “revolutionary gel foam mattress”.

The cynical might infer from the NYT piece that the Clintons are willing to sell themselves, their image, and even their Foundation’s reputation in exchange for money to finance their personal projects. In Bill’s case, saving the world. In Hillary’s case, maybe, running for president.

It’s nothing new to report that there’s an unhealthy relationship in America between money and politics, but it’s there all the same. While the little people are getting hit with Obamacare, high taxes and joblessness, a class of businessmen enjoys ready access to politicians of both Left and Right that poses troubling questions for how the republic can continue to call itself a democracy so long as it functions as an aristocracy of the monied. Part of the reason why America’s elites get away with it is becuase they employ such fantastic salesmen. For too long now, Bill Clinton has pitched himself, almost without question, as a homespun populist: the Boy from Hope. The reality is that this is a man who – in May 1993 – prevented other planes from landing at LAX for 90 minues while he got a haircut from a Beverley Hills hairdresser aboard Air Force One. The Clintons are populists in the same way that Barack Obama is a Nobel prize winner. Oh, wait…

Hillary Clinton’s abominable national security record

Editor’s Note – Gary Aldrich served in the FBI for 26 years and was assigned to the White House bracketing the Reagan and Clinton Administrations. In his White House post, he was the responsible for background checks for positions including White House Counsel, Chief of Staff, Secretary of State, Attorney General, FBI Director, and other cabinet posts.

Prior to his White House assignment, Aldrich held liaison positions in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. From 1969-1986, he served as FBI Special Agent Investigator in Austin, Los Angeles, Miami, and Washington, D.C. (Read more here.)

ALDRICH: Hillary Clinton’s abominable national security record

History of incompetence and dangerous decisions

By Gary Aldrich – Washington Times

Gary Aldritch

I have extensive experience in national security matters, including years served in the House, the Senate and the White House, where I was detailed as senior FBI special agent liaison and investigator with the Bush and Clinton White House counsel’s office.

There was never a question that national security was a top priority for George H.W. Bush’s executive branch. The security system was ironclad, serious and professional. The rest of the federal agencies followed the lead of the Bush White House.

Our national security group consisted of the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Defense and the Secret Service, all working united in a common mission. I cannot recall a single complaint that the Bush administration ignored warnings or suggestions of those ready to give their all — including their lives — to protect the president and his White House, and our national security. We performed our mission, and it was appreciated by the Bush team.

Contrast that with the mess that occurred when Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton took office. The administration, with few exceptions, did not take national security seriously. National and White House security were not priorities. We were shocked.

Because of an obvious disregard for security-related matters throughout the executive branch, career professionals left the Clinton White House and their respective agencies in droves. I knew many who did, and it was a sad day when another one would greet us in the hallways of the Old Executive Office Building with an announcement of retirement, transfer or outright resignation. I could not blame them. I also approached my FBI managers with my own request for reassignment.

Why did I want to leave one of the most unique assignments an FBI agent could achieve? The bad attitude the Clintons had toward national security made it impossible for us to perform our duties successfully. Their failure to properly assess threat levels, along with their unwillingness to acknowledge that they knew little about national security, was a recipe for disaster. We knew this from experience.

Mrs. Clinton eventually was accused in congressional testimony of ordering the hiring of Craig Livingstone — a former bar bouncer — to head the White House security office. Mr. Livingstone also headed up liaison with the FBI. His was not a serious appointment — he was a joke. Some of my security friends thought that this was Mrs. Clinton’s way of showing us that she held no respect for us.

Lacking respect did not discourage Mrs. Clinton from using security agencies as a hammer to attack and punish those who stood in her way. The FBI, the Secret Service and the Internal Revenue Service hounded and then prosecuted seven innocent men who worked for the White House travel office simply because they were standing in the way of Mrs. Clinton’s political interests and ambitions. She knew federal investigations would destroy those good men, but she wanted her friends in those slots, and that was all that mattered.

No one could understand why Mrs. Clinton would want to insert herself into security matters. She was neither elected nor appointed, and day-to-day security issues were considered dry or boring. Security usually is not micromanaged by the front office. Moreover, a good front office always staffs this important function with the best candidates. One possible reason for Mrs. Clinton’s unusual interest was that she and her husband had much to hide. There was no statutory authority for her to be so involved, but that didn’t seem to matter, either.

The Clintons left a wake of questionable activities behind them. Both had come up from the same crowd — the anti-war left, where Saul Alinsky taught that all truth was relative, a tool to be used to win. Having won the White House, Mr. Clinton had little interest in staffing, as documented in articles and books explaining the chaos, released after the fact.

Mrs. Clinton called on Arkansas Rose Law Firm associates to staff the Clinton White House Counsel’s Office. Most memorable among these was Vince Foster, who died in Fort Marcy Park of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound. Foster, a seemingly decent man, was deputy counsel in charge of the overall security program in the White House. He possessed no background or education for the job. Foster’s deputy, William Kennedy, also a former co-worker of Mrs. Clinton, supervised Craig Livingstone. FBI and Secret Service agents did their best to work with this trio, but within days it was clear that there was not a dime’s worth of experience between them regarding White House security or national security. That didn’t seem to register in Washington, where perception trumps logic and truth.

Soon the predictable happened, as the Clinton White House became a swamp of scandal and chaos, eventually resulting in Mr. Clinton’s impeachment. We were lucky that nothing worse than the Monica Lewinsky scandal occurred. The Clinton White House — with a security system conceived and overseen by Mrs. Clinton — was an exceptionally soft target for espionage and also for a deadly terrorist attack.

Five House members recently raised questions about Huma Abedin, an aide in Mrs. Clinton’s State Department, whose family has ties with terrorist sympathizers. This aide should not be a candidate for close access. Only those completely above suspicion should ever be given close access to a Cabinet secretary’s daily business or schedule. Such a person would require the highest clearance possible. Agendas, comings, goings, identities, plans, what the president says and thinks — that is a virtual treasure trove of key data if a potential spy can access an inner circle participant. Of course, Mrs. Clinton’s choice for a constant travel companion could be an innocent person, but if the FBI director’s closest aide was the son of a Mafia boss, would that be deemed acceptable?

On the heels of this national security background investigation mystery, now there are four deaths — one of a U.S. ambassador — apparently because of other lapses in national and embassy security procedures at Mrs. Clinton’s State Department. She hired a former bar bouncer for White House security — who runs the State Department’s security office?

Mrs. Clinton has a documented track record of interference and poor judgment as she micromanaged the White House security program, sans credentials. In recent days, she has said that what happened in Libya is her fault, and maybe that’s the truth. The media ought to ask her some tough questions about State Department security, and then seek to get some straight answers.

More important, a preventable horror such as the one that happened in Benghazi, Libya, on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks should require an in-depth congressional hearing. No one should be allowed to hide behind weak, insincere apologies or cover up a national security collapse. Our nation and the families of the victims deserve better, and true accountability can prevent future national security debacles.

Gary Aldrich is president of The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty and author of “Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House” (Regnery, 1996).