Note: The opinions and comments stated in the following article, and views expressed by any contributor to In Homeland Security, do not represent the views of American Military University, American Public University System, its management or employees.
By John Ubaldi
Contributor, In Homeland Security
With the Democratic convention behind her and the controversy surrounding Donald Trump’s campaign consistently in the news, Hillary Clinton felt she had unstoppable momentum toward the presidency. However, new emails that show a connection between the Clinton Foundation and her time as Secretary of State may erode voter trust in Clinton.
On January 5, 2009, Secretary of State designate Hillary Clinton signed an agreement promising to avoid any conflict of interest with the Clinton Foundation. Clinton’s document states: “For the duration of my appointment as secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party.”
Damaging Hillary Clinton Emails Released by State Department
Last Tuesday, the conservative group Judicial Watch released a new batch of close to 300 emails through a lawsuit. These emails from the State Department indicate a conflict of interest created by Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State and her dealings around the globe in regard to the Clinton Foundation, which is headed by her husband.
One of the new emails was from April 2009. Doug Band, a close confidante of former President Bill Clinton and the person in charge of the foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative, had pressed top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills to secure a connection at the State Department for Nigerian billionaire Gilbert Chagoury. Chagoury was a major donor to the Clinton Foundation.
In the email exchange between Band and Abedin, Abedin states, “It’s Jeff Feltman. I’m sure he knows him. I’ll talk to Jeff,” referring to the then-U.S. ambassador to Lebanon. Band responded, “Better if you call him. Now preferable. This is very important…He’s awake, I’m sure.”
In an article for The Atlantic, journalist David Graham wrote that it was unclear from the emails what Chagoury wanted to discuss with Clinton. According to Clinton Foundation records, Chagoury gave the charity between $1 and $5 million and pledged $1 billion to the foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative.
Chagoury had ties to the former Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha, according to The Wall Street Journal. and to Christian politicians in highly sectarian Lebanon. In 2000, Chagoury paid a $66 million fine in Nigeria as part of a plea deal in a money-laundering case.
In another aspect of the email string, it appears that Band is trying to secure a position for someone. In April of 2009, Band wrote not only to Mills and Abedin, but also State Department official Nora Toiv. He stated that it was “important to take care of” an individual whose name was redacted in the email. Abedin replied, “We have all had him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options.”
Clinton Campaign Responds
As soon as the news broke, the Clinton campaign issued a statement claiming that Band’s email correspondence to the State Department was unrelated to the Clinton foundation. It said, “Neither of these emails involve the Secretary or relate to the Foundation’s work. They are communications between her aides and the President’s personal aide, and indeed the recommendation was for one of the Secretary’s former staffers who was not employed by the Foundation.”
Instead of clarifying Band’s role, this statement only makes the situation murkier. It leaves numerous questions unanswered, such as what other Clinton emails haven’t been released and what was in the 30,000 emails Clinton destroyed.
Justice Department Appears Partisan
This situation looks suspicious. CNN reported that earlier this year, when the investigation into Clinton’s private email server was in full swing, a law official stated that several FBI field offices approached the Justice Department asking them to open a case regarding the relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation. At the time, DOJ declined because it had looked into allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation around a year earlier and found there wasn’t sufficient evidence to open a case.
Even last month while testifying on Capitol Hill, FBI Director James Comey declined to comment whether the FBI was investigating the Clinton Foundation. He said, “I’m not going to comment on the existence or non-existence of any investigation.”
[Related: Will the GOP Replace Donald Trump?]
The non-profit watchdog group Charity Navigator has removed the Clinton Foundation from their site. In an online statement on their site, Charity Navigator stated: “We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model cannot be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.”
If Charity Navigator couldn’t rate the Clinton Foundation because it doesn’t meet any of their evaluation metrics for a nonprofit, what will the Clinton Foundation do in the future?
Wikileaks at It Again
The recent release of emails by the State Department now places the Democratic party in a precarious situation. The situation is made more complex after Wikileaks released 20,000 hacked emails, showing that the Democratic National Committee favored Hillary Clinton instead of Bernie Sanders.
In the past few weeks, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange stated that he will release additional emails that will be damaging to Hillary Clinton. This threat coincides with a New York Times article that a Russian cyberattack was bigger than previously reported. Now, officials believe hackers gained access to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (the fund-raising arm for House Democrats) and to the Democratic National Committee. The hackers may have also accessed a DNC voter analytics program used by Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign.
This Russian hack is likely much more expansive than its victims originally thought. The information leaks may spread to numerous Democratic groups and organizations like the Democratic Governors’ Association.
Where Is The Investigation into The Clinton Foundation?
The question remains: Is there a link between these Democratic organizations, Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton Foundation?
It was only last year when Peter Schweizer authored the book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.” Schweizer described the nefarious actions of the Clinton Foundation, the foundation’s connection to Hillary Clinton and her tenure at the State Department.
Schweitzer’s book was wildly criticized by the media, including ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos, a former White House communications Director for former President Bill Clinton. After the interview aired, Stephanopoulos revealed that he gave three donations totaling $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation, but failed to reveal those donations to ABC News or viewers.
Democrats in a Bind
Democrats are now asking themselves: If more information is revealed about the Clinton Foundation and her tenure as Secretary of State or if any other damaging items are found like the 30,000 supposedly deleted emails, will this place the Democratic National Committee in a bind? The Democrats will have to take their chances with Clinton or seek a viable alternative.
What happens if Clinton is elected president and more emails are released? There have been two presidents who have been through the impeachment process — President Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. President Richard Nixon resigned before impeachment charges could be carried forward.
These legal problems stemmed from actions taken during their presidencies. If Hillary Clinton becomes president, it appears she would prefer any legal issues to occur before she becomes president.
Does the Democratic Party have a contingency strategy in the event that more information is revealed about a connection between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State?
Democratic Party Option in Replacing Hillary Clinton
Like the Republican Party, The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has a provision in the event that Hillary Clinton drops out of the race. The Chair of the DNC can call a meeting and the DNC holds the authority to elect a replacement nominee by majority vote.
Article 2, Section 1 of the Rules and Bylaws of the Democratic Party states that the DNC has the authority to fill vacancies in the nominations for president and vice president. “The Democratic National Committee shall have general responsibility for the affairs of the Democratic Party between National Conventions, subject to the provisions of the Charter and to the resolutions or other official actions of the National Convention. This responsibility shall include, but not be limited to…Filling vacancies in the nominations for the office of the President and Vice President.”
Article 2, Section 7 states, “a special meeting to fill a vacancy on the national ticket shall be held on the call of the Chairperson, who shall set the date for such meeting in accordance with the procedural rules provided for in Article Two, Section 8(d) of these Bylaws.” Article 2, section 8(d) says, “All questions before the Democratic National Committee shall be determined by majority vote of those members present and voting in person or by proxy.”
These rules are clear if the nominee drops out of the race. But it’s unclear what happens if the candidate refuses to drop out.
The current interim chair is Donna Brazile, a long-time Clinton ally. Would she ask Clinton to drop out for the good of the party? What would happen if Clinton if she gets into a protracted dispute?
If Clinton dropped out or was forced out, who would the Democratic Party turn to — Bernie Sanders? The DNC did not want him before and the emails prove that. Who else would they turn to — Vice President Joseph Biden or some other choice?
We are now in uncharted territory. We will have to see what the months ahead bring.
Comments are closed.