In hundreds of documents released to POLITICO under the Freedom of Information Act, not a single case appears where the State Department explicitly rejected a Bill Clinton speech. Instead, the records show State Department lawyers acted on sparse information about business proposals and speech requests and were under the gun to approve the proposals promptly. The ethics agreement did not require that Clinton provide the estimated income from his private arrangements, making it difficult for ethics officials to tell whether his services were properly valued.
(...)The records also highlight a blind spot in the ethics deal the Clintons and the Obama transition team hammered out in 2008 with the involvement of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: While the pact subjected Bill Clinton’s moneymaking activities to official review, it imposed no vetting on donations to the Clinton Foundation by individuals or private companies in the U.S. or abroad.The Clinton's must have felt uncomfortable with the going's on, after all they tried like the dickens to keep the information above secret:
Concerns about individuals seeking influence by dropping money in both buckets arose soon after the first few Bill Clinton speech proposals landed at Foggy Bottom. In a 2009 memo greenlighting those talks, a State Department ethics official specifically asked about possible links between President Clinton’s speaking engagements and donations to the Clinton Foundation. However, the released documents show no evidence that the question was addressed.
“In future requests, I would suggest including a statement listing whether or not any of the proposed sponsors of a speaking event have made a donation to the Clinton Foundation and, if so, the amount and date,” wrote Jim Thessin, then the State Department’s top ethics approver and No. 2 lawyer.
Both the department and the Clinton Foundation this week defended the pact that enabled Bill Clinton to conduct private business dealings while Hillary Clinton served in public office, saying it went beyond government ethics requirements. Hillary Clinton has said the couple was “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001, but they quickly amassed tens of millions of dollars through investments, book royalties and paid speeches around the globe.
Doubts also remain about the transparency of the ethics deal. Obtaining details on how the approval process played out in practice has been difficult and slow. For nearly three years after POLITICO filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the records in late 2009, the State Department released no information.And now Hillary wants to be President and she promises the same or less scrutiny should she be elected (less than zero?)
The State Department ethics agreement is coming under new scrutiny as Hillary Clinton prepares to enter the 2016 presidential race. Her representatives have cited it as proof of the care she used in guarding against ethical conflicts as she, her husband and their daughter, Chelsea, built a global foundation that has attracted $2 billion in contributions, including many from foreign governments and business entities.Yes ladies and gentleman that's what you can expect from a Hillary Clinton presidency, she would not only "owe" the radical progressive wing of the Democratic Party, but also foreign governments such as United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Oman.
Once Hillary Clinton left office, the newly renamed Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation resumed fundraising from foreign governments that had been off-limits during her government service.
Donations in the past two years have come from the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia and Germany. The foreign gifts — disclosed voluntarily on the Clinton Foundation website — have led to calls from activists and ethics watchdogs for the foundation to cease such fundraising as Clinton ramps up her expected campaign drive.
“I think the foundation should stop taking money from foreign sources — now,” said Richard Painter, a fellow at Harvard’s Safra Center for Ethics and a former White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush. “I would have been more conservative than the Clintons were here.”
Foundation officials have stopped short of promising to reject funds from foreign governments if Hillary Clinton enters the Democratic Party presidential race. But they have suggested that the procedures would serve as a model for the future.