Hillary’s Bogus Contract With America & Its Geopolitical Implications
Part of the problem with convincing people of the relevance of Hillary’s involvement with the Clinton Foundation (CF) to assessing her worthiness of even running for President relates to the complexity of the issues and the amount of information that needs to learned. As a charitable organization the laws, rules and regulations (the ‘Regs’) CF has to comply with relate to the state it was incorporated in, as well as every state in which it operates. But then there are the highly technical, detailed Regs of the IRS. Add to that the Regs of every country in which CF has operated. It is, at a minimum, a pardonable sin not to want to wade into all of that to decide whether or not to vote for Hillary.
Hillary’s Bogus Contract With America
There is a relatively quick way, however, to get a sense of just how troubling CF is, and therefore Hillary’s involvement with it, by examining a key document it entered into late in 2008. Though frequently referred to in news stories on CF, the document, known as a “Memorandum of Understanding” (essentially, a ‘Contract’ (its five page text and the related cover letter to Congress available here)), has not been examined in nearly the detail it deserves. One reason that is the case is that to appreciate its significance requires looking beyond the two ‘parties’ who executed the Contract: CF and Obama’s ‘Transition Foundation.’
The real parties to the Contract, however, were Hillary and Obama. Furthermore, the Contract was intended to remain in force for as long as Hillary was Secretary of State. That effectively means it became an official US Government Contract upon Obama taking office. Moreover, Congress, as the representative body of the people of the US, was what is known in contract law as the ‘third party beneficiary.’ As much as any document the Contract was thus a “contract with America.”
Because of the nature of the issues implicated by the Contract, which relate to the very integrity of the US government, one would have hoped that the very best practices in drafting and executing legal documents would have been insisted upon for the Contract. That would include doing due diligence and obtaining legal opinions. That clearly did not happen. If it had, the Contract would have been recognized as fraudulent and Hillary’s nomination would never have been approved.
Misrepresentation & Breach
A basic legal opinion CF should have been required to provide would have included language that CF was, among other things (for example, duly organized and in good standing), “validly existing.” While that was then, and is today, ostensibly true as it relates to the Regs of the State where it was initially incorporated (Arkansas), its existence as a charity is a function of the Regs of the IRS. Based on available evidence no attorney could possibly conclude CF was at the time the Contract was delivered to Congress — or is today — validly existing as a charity. There simply is no evidence the IRS ever approved, inter alia, of the international scope of CF’s activities. That is particularly notable because such activities constituted the very rationale for entering into the Contract.
As a legal ‘person’ CF itself plainly knew then (as it must today) that it has not complied with the applicable IRS Regs vital to obtaining what is the lifeblood of any US charity: tax deductible contributions. That means Hillary knew. By executing the Contract and presenting it to Congress as a condition to Hillary’s confirmation, CF (and hence Hillary) defrauded Congress.
As bad as that is, it gets worse. The Contract itself, from a legal perspective, employs what is essentially a diversionary device. The equivalent of three of its not quite five full pages are taken up with language lifted from CF’s marketing material. To recognize the absurdity of such marketing language in an otherwise purely legal document is to recognize the identity of the drafter: the Contract could only have been drafted by a CF friendly attorney. That is strategically valuable to know for interpretive purposes. It means that deficiencies and ambiguities of the Contract can and should be construed against the interests of CF, and hence Hillary.
In this regard it is particularly troublesome for CF that Sec. II of the Contract imposes specific requirements on two of its initiatives. Such requirements are predicated on the assumption that they constituted identifiable entities in some sense independent of CF (such identification is often vital to establishing legal intent and obligation). Neither such initiative was in any way independent of CF at the time and hence barely identifiable apart from CF itself. Sec. II constitutes a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts by CF.
Pursuant to the Contract, “should [Hillary] be confirmed as Secretary of State,” CF was obligated to incorporate one such initiative (the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI)), “as a separate entity,” but that did not occur until months after her confirmation. Incredibly, in testifying before Congress prior to her confirmation, Hillary stated “CGI is not in the [Contract] . . . [it] is separate from the foundation” (full transcript available here). That was a lie. It gets even worse: CGI was merged back into CF at the end of 2012, a full month before Hillary’s resignation became effective. Thus not only did Hillary misrepresent the Contract, which itself was a misrepresentation, but it is hard to imagine a more flagrant example of breach of contract, from start to finish, than is evidenced by the history of CGI’s incorporation.
Notwithstanding its generally CF friendly language, the Contract concludes with language that it would seem was negotiated into it at the last minute, as a catch-all. It is evidence that someone who represented Obama had concerns about Hillary and how the Contract otherwise addresses such concerns. It requires that a State Department official “review and advise [Hillary] with respect to any activity that may be imputed under . . . any . . . applicable regulation or law, to her as a potential or actual conflict of interest” (bold italics mine). It is obvious that Hillary set-up her email deliberately to thwart precisely the oversight this language contemplates.
Therefore, all the details about how many emails Hillary received or sent that may have been classified, all the details about the emails about yoga classes and wedding plans — all are irrelevant to the basic fact that she deliberately breached the Contract — a US Government contract — that was the condition for the approval of her as Secretary of State. Such a breach can well be characterized as criminal if not treasonous.
“What Difference Does It Make?”: Geopolitical Implications
At this point it is fair to raise the question, as Hillary did in a not entirely unrelated context, “what difference does it make?” A sizable percentage of US voters do not seem to be bothered by it. If Hillary becomes President, the political realities will translate into legal ones: there is little chance a State regulator or the IRS will take legal action against CF or Hillary.
The fact that what is essentially a criminal issue has been allowed to become so politicized is a symptom of a disturbing level of dysfunction within the US Government. Congress itself, for example, either prior to Hillary’s confirmation as Secretary of State or afterwards in performing oversight of her activities as such, could have done a modest bit of diligence and discovered that the Contract was a fraud. It would take a competent paralegal only a matter or minutes to pull up the relevant evidence. A bit more work would reveal the fact that lurking beneath CF’s balance sheet is a veritable miasmic swamp of civil and criminal liabilities arising from years of CF’s soliciting and receiving donations without IRS approval (an ongoing fraud with a history now of well over a decade).
Nevertheless, US political and legal issues are arguably trivial relative to the geopolitical implications of what Hillary has done. For Hillary’s misrepresentation and breach of the Contract ultimately leads to the inference that in her mind distinctions of all sorts can and do collapse. Precisely because this relates to her tenure as Secretary of State and because of her many responsibilities throughout the world in that regard, there is good reason for many countries to raise questions about whether they are victims rather than beneficiaries of what in effect was not so much the foreign policy of the US as it was of Hillary personally. It must be emphasized that such questions go beyond any one ‘transaction’ and whatever dollar figures may have been involved. The very fact that not enough is known about what was going on means it is fair to suspect practically anything. After all, if Hillary was willing to flaunt applicable Regs in the US, why would she have any respect for the Regs of foreign countries or the rights of their respective citizens?
Questions Among Allies of the US
As a general matter, the ‘Anglo’ branch of the Anglo-American legal tradition has a far greater respect for legal formalities and hence sensitivity to the implications of ignoring them than is the case in the US. It is not surprising then, that it is in English speaking countries that criticism of Hillary and CF generally has been particularly pronounced. One takeaway from the controversy a graffiti artist caused with his mural of Hillary in Melbourne Australia is that the perception of Hillary as having used her tenure as Secretary of State for personal gain is strikingly widespread and deeply rooted down under.
Another indication of that is a scathing critique of CF and Australia’s involvement with it by the noted Australian journalist, Tony Thomas: The Clintons and Their Corruptocrats. Another Australian, Michael Smith, in part because of his military and police background, is sufficiently outraged at what he thinks CF has been up to that he is arguing for a charge of fraud to be brought against it. In addition to Australia, there have been questions raised in Canada regarding CF’s Canadian affiliate. In Ireland there are questions about its government’s funding of CF.
The most extreme manifestation of flaunting applicable Regs is the direct or indirect use of force to achieve power: that is, a coup d’état. Hillary essentially put all of our allies on notice that she was willing ‘to go there’ very early in her tenure as Secretary of State. Only a few months into that tenure there was a coup in Honduras, resulting in the removal of its democratically elected leader. Notwithstanding broad criticism of the coup both domestically (among Democrats and Republicans) and internationally, Hillary worked to recognize the new government and thus legitimize the coup.
Recently, the bizarre coup attempt in Turkey has raised questions about US involvement. Notwithstanding that it is nominally a US ally, given Hillary’s track record, Erdogan, who is not a sympathetic figure but nevertheless is Turkey’s democratically elected leader, can be forgiven for imagining US involvement. As if the legacy of Hillary’s involvement in the coup in Honduras were not enough, through CF she specifically has ties to the Turkish religious leader Erdogan accuses of being behind the coup.
Questions Among Enemies of the US
Given her attitude to Honduras and by implication to Turkey, what difference does it make whether a country deems itself to be a friend or enemy of the US? And if she does not see any difference, then why should anyone else?
This has ominous implications. Erdogan, for example, seems to be leveraging off of the perceived responsibility of the US for the failed coup to open a new phase in Turkey’s relationship with Russia. It would seem only natural that Erdogan might reach out next to Iran. There the legacy of the involvement of yet another Secretary of State (Dulles (whose brother headed the CIA at the time)) in the coup of its democratically elected leader is all too apparent in the anger of many Iranians towards the US. Erdogan is likely to find a sympathetic audience there.
As for Russia, there are questions to be raised and perhaps strategically left unanswered in order to make as much mischief out of what Hillary may or may not have done as possible. For example, some have claimed the 2014 “revolution” in Ukraine was not the spontaneous, grass roots, uprising it otherwise appears to have been, but rather another US backed coup of an ostensibly democratically elected leader. That is far more difficult to dismiss in the context of what is perceived to have nearly happened in Turkey than it otherwise would be. It also would seem to be far more difficult to stop Russia from moving into Ukraine now, especially with Turkey as a sympathetic bystander, than would have been the case if the history of Hillary’s meddling was not so murky.
A Globalist’s Karma
To a degree not seen in the US since perhaps before its entrance into WWI, US political debate is marked by a dichotomy not between liberal and conservative, but globalist and nationalist. Hillary is plainly and correctly identified as a globalist. But if she is elected President she may rue the fact that she is so identified.
To win the presidential election would be purely a national victory. Yet,from a global perspective, it could well act as a catalyst for reactions in foreign countries against what she actually did or is perceived to have done that seem now only to be simmering. Such reactions are fueled by far more motivation and resources than a State regulator or an IRS bureaucrat might hope to have. Hillary could then — ironically — find herself feverishly building if not real walls, at least virtual ones, to ring around her and others associated with CF, in a vain effort to protect her from being in a very real sense defeated by the consequences of the harm she has done globally.
