Archive for the ‘Department of State’ category

State Dept Warns: Iran Seeking to Capture U.S. Citizens

August 23, 2016

State Dept Warns: Iran Seeking to Capture U.S. Citizens, Washington Free Beacon, August 22, 2016

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani addresses the nation in a televised speech after a nuclear agreement was announced in Vienna, in Tehran, Iran, Tuesday, July 14, 2015. Rouhani said "a new chapter" has begun in his nation's relations with the world. He maintained that Iran had never sought to build a bomb, an assertion the U.S. and its partners have long disputed. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)

The State Department issued a warning on Monday urging U.S. citizens to avoid traveling to Iran, which has made the detention of Americans a priority.

The latest travel advisory, which emphasizes Iran’s desire to capture U.S. citizens, comes on the heels of a growing scandal over the Obama administration’s decision to pay Iran $400 million in cash on the same day that it freed several U.S. hostages.

The payment has been cast by lawmakers and others as a ransom payment and prompted concern among U.S. officials that Iran is making arresting Americans a priority.

The travel warning is meant to “highlight the risk of arrest and detention of U.S. citizens, particularly dual national Iranian-Americans,” according to a State Department announcement on Monday. “Foreigners, in particular dual nationals of Iran and Western countries including the United States, continue to be detained or prevented from leaving Iran.”

“U.S. citizens traveling to Iran should very carefully weigh the risks of travel and consider postponing their travel,” the warning adds. “U.S. citizens residing in Iran should closely follow media reports, monitor local conditions, and evaluate the risks of remaining in the country.”

Iran continues to imprison Americans, particularly those holding dual Iranian citizenship, according to the State Department.

“Iranian authorities have detained and harassed U.S. citizens, particularly those of Iranian origin,” the travel warning states. “Former Muslims who have converted to other religions, religious activists, and persons who encourage Muslims to convert are subject to arrest and prosecution.”

The Obama administration expressed particular concern about commercial airlines doing business with Iran. This warning comes as American companies such as Boeing continue to pursue million-dollar business deals with the Islamic Republic.

“The U.S. government is concerned about the risks to civil aircraft operating into, out of, within, or over Iran due to hazards from military activity associated with the conflicts in Iraq and Syria,” the warning states. “The FAA has advised U.S. civil aviation to exercise caution when flying into, out of, within, or over the airspace over Iran.”

The warning emphasizes that “the U.S. government’s ability to assist U.S. citizens in Iran in the event of an emergency is extremely limited.”

Tom Fitton discussing the bombshell release of Clinton emails by Team Judicial Watch

August 22, 2016

Tom Fitton discussing the bombshell release of Clinton emails by Team Judicial Watch, Judicial Watch via YouTube, August 22, 2016

 

Understanding the Dispute Over Peshmerga Command

August 21, 2016

Understanding the Dispute Over Peshmerga Command, Kurdistan News, Laurie Mylroie, August 20, 2016

The battle to liberate Mosul, as well as the ongoing “shaping operations,” in which Peshmerga are prominently involved, is not the responsibility of the State Department. It is the job of the Defense Department—one reason to question the authoritativeness of State Department statements on this matter.

Moreover, there is a crucial difference between how the State and Defense Departments interpret White House guidance on Iraq.

******************

A dispute has erupted between Washington and Erbil over command and control of Peshmerga forces. Most probably, the argument reflects a State Department misunderstanding.

On Wednesday, the State Department’s Deputy Spokesperson was questioned about the recent remarks of Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, in which he said, “The Peshmerga should stay where they are now, and they should not expand their presence even if they help the Iraqi Army.”

When asked to comment on that statement, the Spokesperson replied, “The Peshmerga and all the various fighting groups in Iraq need to be under the command and control of the Iraqi Government and the Iraqi military.”

In turn, the Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) responded, “The Peshmerga are not under the command or control of the Iraqi government. According to the Iraqi constitution, the Peshmerga are part of Iraq’s defense system, but the Iraqi government has not supplied the Peshmerga with weapons or military training, and they have not assumed any responsibility toward the Peshmerga.”

The battle to liberate Mosul, as well as the ongoing “shaping operations,” in which Peshmerga are prominently involved, is not the responsibility of the State Department. It is the job of the Defense Department—one reason to question the authoritativeness of State Department statements on this matter.

Moreover, there is a crucial difference between how the State and Defense Departments interpret White House guidance on Iraq.

According to that guidance, Baghdad is in the lead, and the US (and others) follow its direction. The White House believes this is the best way to ensure Baghdad’s continuing cooperation in the fight against IS.

But the interpretation of that guidance varies. The State Department tends to adhere to it strictly; the Defense Department applies it more loosely.

For example, the Defense Department decided to support the Peshmerga directly, rather than channel aid through Baghdad. In July, it signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Erbil. The Pentagon secured Baghdad’s approval by telling the Iraqis what it intended to do and then asking them if they had any objection.

The State Department, however, tends to leave such decisions to the Iraqi government, as it did regarding the anti-ISIL Coalition meetings in Washington last month. KRG representation was minimal because Iraq’s Foreign Minister decided, as he liked.

The State Department’s restrictive interpretation of this guidance led them to make a major misstatement before. That came in response to a query of mine, following the recent International Pledging Conference that raised $2.1 billion in humanitarian aid for Iraq.

What mechanisms existed to ensure that the Kurdistan Region—which hosts 2/3 of the refugees and Internally Displaced Persons in Iraq—received its fair share, given Baghdad’s notorious corruption?, I asked a State Department Spokesperson.

She did not address the issue of Baghdad’s corruption but clearly affirmed, “Funding and support will go through Baghdad.”

That statement also prompted protest from Erbil. But it turned out to be wrong. The State Department soon clarified that the international aid would go through the UN, not Baghdad.

The State Department’s answer to any question that raises criticism of the Iraqi government, as I have learned, is likely to begin with an affirmation of US backing for Baghdad, and the rest of the answer will probably not address the criticism.

When the question involves a dispute between Baghdad versus Erbil, almost certainly, the answer will favor Baghdad. So I have learned not to ask such questions, unless Baghdad’s actions are so clearly wrong that the question itself will highlight the folly of the answer—and the policy behind it.

The spokespersons are the messengers, not the decision-makers, I regularly remind myself. Their deference to Baghdad’s decision-making may prove a grave error, as it does not seem to acknowledge the sectarian nature of the Iraqi government and the influence Tehran exerts over it. But they are not responsible for that policy.

And their jobs are not easy. For an hour each day, they stand before a camera, answering questions, which can be quite hostile, about a wide range of topics. Such questions may come from ambitious journalists who seem to think that their incessant, repetitive questioning may trap the spokespersons into revealing the kernel of some big scoop. Or they may come from the representatives of hostile states, who seem to think that through their barrage of queries, they can embarrass the US.

This situation happens in real time, on an indelible record, to be posted for the whole world to view. The spokespersons bear the hour with unflagging courtesy, and sometimes even good humor, all the while aware that certain slip-ups can create an international incident.

My guess is that is what happened with the misguided statement about command and control of the Peshmerga.

 

‘Clinton Cash’ Author: Clinton Foundation Foreign Cash Ban ‘Too Little, Too Late’

August 19, 2016

‘Clinton Cash’ Author: Clinton Foundation Foreign Cash Ban ‘Too Little, Too Late’, BreitbartPeter Schweizer, August 18, 2016

Bill-Clinton-Hillary-Clinton-Clinton-Global-Initiative-Foundation-AP-640x480Greg Allen/Invision/AP

If it would be wrong for Hillary’s foundation to accept foreign cash as president, why wasn’t it wrong for Hillary’s foundation to accept foreign cash from oligarchs and countries who had business pending on her desk as Sec. of State?

*****************

In the wake of reports that the Clinton Foundation may have been hacked, Hillary Clinton’s embattled foundation announced on Thursday that, if Clinton is elected, her foundation will no longer accept the kinds of foreign and corporate donations at the heart of the Clinton Cash scandal.

The new pledge is a stunning tacit admission of wrongdoing, but it comes too little too late and raises the obvious question: If it would be wrong for Hillary’s foundation to accept foreign cash as president, why wasn’t it wrong for Hillary’s foundation to accept foreign cash from oligarchs and countries who had business pending on her desk as Sec. of State?

Moreover, if, as has been confirmed by numerous mainstream media organizations, Hillary Clinton violated her ethics pledge with the Obama administration to disclose all Clinton Foundation donations, why should the American people believe she would now honor a new pledge to forgo bagging cash from foreign oligarchs and countries?

After all, as both Bloomberg and the Washington Post have reported, Hillary’s foundation has still not revealed 1,100 foreign donations. And as Clinton Cash revealed, other hidden foreign donations include four totaling $2.35 million from Ian Telfer, the former head of one of the Russian government’s uranium companies, Uranium One. Let that sink in: the head of Russian’s uranium company was transferring funds to Hillary Clinton’s foundation.

Only now, with the fear of hacked emails being made public, has Hillary Clinton decided to entertain the idea of putting an end to the unprecedented practice of a sitting executive branch official with foreign policies pending on her desk accepting hundreds of millions of foreign dollars.

Indeed, for years, and as recently as this week, voices across the political spectrum have been appalled by the glaring conflict of interest and pleaded for the Clinton Foundation to reject foreign money in the hopes of reducing the threat of influence peddling and pay-to-play schemes. The New York Times, the Boston Globe, and even former Democratic National Committee Chairman Ed Rendell have all called on Hillary to stop. She refused. Only once it became clear that the Clinton Foundation may have been vulnerable to hacking, and the potential exposure of internal communications became a serious threat, did she decide to cut off the spigot of foreign funds into her foundation.

This week, Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) launched a probe to discover why the Obama Dept. of Justice blocked multiple FBI field office requests to investigate the Clinton Foundation. That’s a start. And the Clinton Cash documentary has now been viewed well over three million times.

But pressing broader questions remain, questions national mainstream media have heretofore been afraid to ask Hillary Clinton about the most glaring and vast series of conflicts of interest in modern American politics.

Hillary Clinton has not answered why her State Dept. approved the transfer of 20% of all U.S. uranium to Russia while not disclosing to the Obama administration that nine investors in that uranium deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary Clinton has not answered why her brother, Tony Rodham, sat on the board of a company that received a rare “gold exploitation permit” from the Haitian government while she was dispersing billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in Haiti earthquake disaster relief.

Hillary Clinton has not answered why she hid $2.35 million in Clinton Foundation donations from the head of one of the Russian government’s uranium companies.

Hillary Clinton has not answered why she has yet to release the names of the 1,100 foreign Clinton Foundation donors that both Bloomberg and the Washington Post confirm remain secret.

Hillary Clinton has not answered why it was appropriate for Bill Clinton to deliver a $500,000 speech in Moscow paid for by a Kremlin-backed bank while she led the so-called Russian reset as Sec. of State—a Clinton Cash revelation so egregious, that even the progressive New Yorker magazine was left to ponder, “Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?”

Hillary Clinton has not answered why her current campaign chairman, John Podesta, sat on the board of a company alongside Russian officials that received $35 million from Rusnano, Vladimir Putin’s funding apparatus.

Hillary Clinton has not answered whether her husband will stop giving paid speeches.

Myriad questions have gone unasked and unanswered about the toxic brew of foreign cash and Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. decisions.

Perhaps now, with this stunning new tacit admission of unethical and inappropriate behavior by Hillary Clinton and her foundation, will the mainstream media find the spine to do the hard work of investigative reporting and the courage to demand serious answers.

Senator: U.S. Taxpayer Funds Potentially Diverted to Hamas Terrorists

August 18, 2016

Senator: U.S. Taxpayer Funds Potentially Diverted to Hamas Terrorists, Washington Free Beacon, August 18, 2016

hamas (1)Hamas militants of the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades in Gaza City / AP

U.S. donations to “numerous humanitarian organizations” have been funneled to Hamas “to support its terror and military organizations,” according to Rubio and information disclosed by the Israeli government.

**********************

A leading Republican senator is calling on the Obama administration to launch a formal investigation into the potential diversion of U.S. taxpayer funds to organizations that have reportedly been infiltrated by the Hamas terror organization, according to new documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) is petitioning the State Department to investigate how much U.S. government and taxpayer money may have been given to charities recently discovered to have been secretly infiltrated by Hamas operatives, according to a letter sent by Rubio to Secretary of State John Kerry. He is also calling on the Obama administration to suspend all aid to Gaza until reviews can be undertaken to ensure funds are not disbursed to terror organizations.

U.S. donations to “numerous humanitarian organizations” have been funneled to Hamas “to support its terror and military organizations,” according to Rubio and information disclosed by the Israeli government.

Israeli authorities recently arrested employees working for the nonprofit organization World Vision and the United Nations Development Program. The employees were charged with providing material and financial support to Hamas. Both organizations have received funding from the United States.

Rubio is requesting that the State Department “investigate every allegation and use all resources to ensure American taxpayer dollars as well as individual private donations of Americans are not being used to fund terrorism,” according to the Thursday letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Free Beacon.

“Hamas officials have allegedly infiltrated numerous aid organizations as employees and used their access to redirect western aid to terrorist groups,” according to Rubio.

One individual, Mohammed El-Halabi, was employed as the Gaza director of World Vision. The Israeli government determined he was “a major figure in the terrorist/military arm of Hamas” and alleged that “El-Halabi has been taking advantage of his position to divert the humanitarian organization’s funds and resources from the needy to benefit Hamas’ terrorist and military activities.”

The United States is the world’s larger donor nation, meaning that funds allocated for humanitarian assistance may have been diverted to Hamas operations, according to Rubio.

“As the largest donor nation in the world, these reports of humanitarian assistance going to Hamas are very concerning,” he wrote. “We must ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars are not being siphoned off by murderous terrorist groups such as Hamas. U.S. taxpayers, many of whom donate their own money to charities such as World Vision, should also be able to do so with confidence that their money will not fund terrorism.”

Germany and Australia have already suspended all funding for World Vision programs in the Gaza Strip until a formal investigation is complete. Rubio is asking that the Obama administration to go further.

“I urge you to suspend all U.S. assistance to Gaza until a review of the controls in place to prevent a diversion of funds can occur,” Rubio writes. “The review should examine the mechanisms that exist to identify and stop any potential misuse of taxpayer dollars in Gaza as well as the auditing processes of organizations working in areas controlled by Hamas or any other terrorist group.”

Rubio said he is not surprised that Hamas has been exploiting charitable organizations in order to fund terrorism against Israel and the West.

“Although these allegations are shocking, I am not surprised that Hamas uses humanitarian aid to further its terror campaign against Israel,” he wrote. “Hamas routinely tortures journalists, kills dissidents, and uses civilians as human shields. Hamas is the leading cause of Palestinian suffering in Gaza, including apparently stealing millions of dollars of humanitarian aid that should have gone to the Palestinian people.”

Schweizer: ‘Now We Have, Influencing Our Politics and Getting Favors and Access, Foreign Oligarchs’

August 13, 2016

Schweizer: ‘Now We Have, Influencing Our Politics and Getting Favors and Access, Foreign Oligarchs’, BreitbartIan Hanchett, August 13, 2016

On Saturday’s “Smerconish” on CNN, Breitbart editor at large and author of “Clinton Cash” Peter Schweizer stated that “The Clinton Foundation and the Bill Clinton speaking fees are a way around” are ways around federal law preventing foreign nationals from putting money into campaigns to get access, and “So, now we have, influencing our policies and getting favors and access, foreign oligarchs, not just American businesses and citizens.”

Schweizer said, “We all know that in politics a guy on Wall Street raises money for a candidate, sometimes because they want access and they want favors, but federal law prevents foreign nationals from doing that. If you’re a guy like Gilbert Chagoury, you cannot put money in a campaign to get access, because we don’t want foreign entities getting access and influencing our policymakers. The Clinton Foundation and the Bill Clinton speaking fees are a way around that. That’s why you have guys like Gilbert Chagoury, Frank Giustra, and others sending them large checks. So, now we have, influencing our policies and getting favors and access, foreign oligarchs, not just American businesses and citizens.”

Schwezier added of Chagoury, “I don’t think he is being suggested because of his Lebanese expertise. He’s being suggested because he’s a major Clinton Foundation donor. By the way, he’s somebody with a criminal record, convicted in Switzerland for aiding and abetting a criminal enterprise and money laundering, because he had this slight problem, he helped the Nigerian dictator, Abacha, smuggle billions of dollars out of the country into Swiss bank accounts. And he’s also very controversial in Lebanon. He does not represent a mainstream view of Lebanese opinion.”

Reporter Calls Out State Dept for Repeatedly Dodging on Clinton Emails

August 12, 2016

Reporter Calls Out State Dept for Repeatedly Dodging on Clinton Emails, Washington Free Beacon, August 11, 2016

Associated Press reporter Matt Lee called out State Department Press Director Elizabeth Trudeau during Wednesday’s press briefing for repeatedly not answering questions on whether newly released emails show impropriety between the department and the Clinton Foundation.

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch released 296 pages of State Department emails on Tuesday that it obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. The emails showed cases of top Clinton Foundation officials rewarding their donors with access to the State Department.

“Do you have any response to criticism by some who suggest there was a relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department at the time?” NBC producer Abigail Williams asked Trudeau. “There was an email that came out in this recent set that is between a then-executive at the Clinton Foundation and [top Hillary Clinton aides] Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, in which he is requesting to set up a meeting between a billionaire donor and the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon. Do you have any response?”

Williams was referring to an April 2009 exchange in which a top associate at the foundation pushed to set up a meeting between the donor and the ambassador to Lebanon because of the former’s activities in the country.

Trudeau said she would not comment on any specific emails. Williams tried to ask her question differently.

“You don’t feel like there was impropriety in the relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department at the time?” Williams asked.

Trudeau repeated her initial response, saying the State Department communicates regularly with a wide range of individuals and organizations. She did not address whether or not it was improper for an executive in the Clinton Foundation to communicate with senior State Department officials on behalf of a wealthy donor.

“That’s not her question,” Lee said as another reporter began to ask Trudeau a question.

Lee would later try to ask Williams’ question again.

“Can you at least try to answer Abigail’s question which was, has the department looked into this and determined that there was no impropriety?” Lee asked.

“The Department is regularly in touch with people across the whole spectrum, Matt,” Trudeau said.

“That’s not the question. The question is whether or not you’ve looked into this, the building has looked into it and determined that everything was okay, that there was nothing wrong,” Lee said.

Trudeau did not answer the question.

“We feel confident in our ability and our past practice of reaching out to a variety of sources and being to responsive to requests,” Trudeau said.

Trudeau’s answer upset Lee.

“I’m sorry. Am I not speaking English?” Lee asked before restating the question.

Trudeau then gave Lee an answer to what he was asking her.

“We feel confident that all the rules were followed,” Trudeau said.

Compromised: Justice Dept. Refused FBI Probe of Clinton Foundation

August 11, 2016

Compromised: Justice Dept. Refused FBI Probe of Clinton Foundation, Front Page MagazineMatthew Vadum, August 11, 2016

(Please see also, Report: Justice Department declined FBI request to investigate Clinton Foundation. — DM)

gty_ap_loretta_lynch_hillary_clinton_jt_150726_16x9_992

The highly politicized Department of Justice swatted down pesky FBI requests to investigate the Clinton Foundation earlier this year, CNN reported yesterday.

CNN buried the lede, as it frequently does on news stories that make Democrats look bad. The online version bears the innocuous-sounding headline, “Newly released Clinton emails shed light on relationship between State Dept. and Clinton Foundation.”

It is not until the 25th paragraph that the article states that an unidentified law enforcement official gave CNN a heads-up earlier this year. As the probe of Clinton’s private email servers was ramping up “several FBI field offices approached the Justice Department asking to open a case regarding the relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.”

At that time, the article continues, the Justice Department “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.”

Not even enough evidence to look into the foundation’s affairs?

Not more than a year after the publication of Peter Schweizer’s blockbuster book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, opened the floodgates for investigative reporters to dig into the matter.

As I’ve written before, various lawyers have told me there is already a strong legal case against Mrs. Clinton. The fact that she destroyed email evidence — evidence subject to a congressional subpoena, no less — is already evidence in itself that she obstructed justice through spoliation of evidence. Spoliation means you can take as evidence the fact that evidence has been destroyed. Courts are entitled to draw spoliation inferences and convict an accused person on that basis alone.

The only reason FBI Director James Comey didn’t recommend she be prosecuted is because, well, he lacks a spine and he’s corrupt. He said there was no evidence of Clinton’s “efforts to obstruct justice,” a requirement that does not actually appear in the Espionage Act.

Evidence of corruption at the Clinton Foundation is everywhere, yet CNN and much of the mainstream media are still doing everything they can to ignore, misrepresent, or downplay the questionable things Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton did through the foundation.

The congenitally corrupt Clintons created their private email system to frustrate Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) requesters, shield Hillary’s correspondence from congressional oversight, and steer money to their corrupt foundation, which, amazingly enough, still enjoys tax-exempt status.

These illegal, insecure private email servers Clinton used while at the State Department are at the heart of the scandal over her mishandling of an Islamic terrorist attack in militant-infested Benghazi, Libya on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 that left four Americans, including U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens, dead. Even now, four years after the assault, the Obama administration has failed to provide an autopsy report about Stevens who was initially reported to have been ritualistically sodomized before being murdered by Muslim terrorists.

Every few days Judicial Watch has been releasing emails obtained under FoIA that may ultimately lead to evidence of political interference at the highest levels that provided cover for the anticipatory presidential bribe processing vehicle known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

“No wonder Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin hid emails from the American people, the courts and Congress,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “They show the Clinton Foundation, Clinton donors, and operatives worked with Hillary Clinton in potential violation of the law.”

On Tuesday the watchdog group published emails sent to Abedin, Clinton’s longtime aide with generational ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, seeking favors. Abedin now vice-chairs Clinton’s presidential campaign. She also worked at the State Department with Clinton and with her at the Clinton Foundation.

“The new documents reveal that in April 2009 controversial Clinton Foundation official Doug Band pushed for a job for an associate,” according to a Judicial Watch summary. “In the email Band tells Hillary Clinton’s former aides at the State Department Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin that it is “important to take care of [Redacted]. Band is reassured by Abedin that “Personnel has been sending him options.” Band was co-founder of Teneo Strategy with Bill Clinton and a top official of the Clinton Foundation, including its Clinton Global Initiative.”

Emails also show Abedin left then-Secretary Clinton’s daily schedule, presumably a  sensitive document, on a bed in an unlocked hotel room.

“An email on April 18, 2009, during a conference in Trinidad and Tobago, from aide Melissa J. Lan to Huma Abedin asks for the Secretary’s “day book binders.” Abedin replies: “Yes. It’s on the bed in my room. U can take it. My door is open. I’m in the lobby. Thx.” Moreover, the emails show the annoyance of another Clinton aide that the schedule was sent to an authorized State Department email address and not to an unsecured non-state.gov account.”

Other emails show Clinton campaign adviser and pollster Mark Penn provided Clinton advice on NATO and piracy. Clinton fundraiser Lana Moresky asked Clinton to have the State Department hire someone. Clinton asked Abedin to follow up and “help” the applicant and asked Abedin to “let me know” about the job.

Meanwhile, the Left is trying to take the focus off the Clinton Foundation.

A high-profile watchdog group controlled by Hillary Clinton ally David Brock is demanding the IRS investigate Donald Trump’s personal foundation for allegedly aiding his presidential campaign.

The call by CREW, or Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, has to be the most obvious political hit job of this election cycle.

CREW is a member of what some in the conservative think tank community call the “Brocktopus,” that is, the network of groups the disgraced former journalist runs, which spends oodles of money defending all things Clinton. An admitted serial liar, Brock’s empire of sleaze also includes “conservative misinformation” watchdog Media Matters for America, pro-Hillary disaster-control spin site Correct the Record, and American Bridge 21st Century, a super PAC that promotes Hillary and attacks her critics.

CREW executive director Noah Bookbinder asked the IRS to investigate the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a tiny nonprofit founded by Trump decades ago to give away profits from his book, The Art of the Deal.

How the foundation, which ranked 4,347th in the FoundationSearch “Top Foundations by Assets for the state of New York” list would help the Trump campaign isn’t clear. “The Trump Foundation has no full-time staff, and gave away just $591,000 in 2014 — the last year for which records are available,” the Washington Post reports.

It’s possible the Trump Foundation has been helping the Trump campaign but the philanthropy is so anemic it is difficult to imagine it doing much to help its benefactor’s political career. Even if the IRS takes up this piddling little case not much is likely to come of it. It’s a political stunt by CREW, a nakedly partisan group under the boot of one of Hillary’s biggest backers.

It’s the wheeling and dealing Clinton Foundation with its involvement in billion-dollar transactions, its ties to shady figures, and the debt it owes to the unsavory governments of countries around the world that needs to be properly and thoroughly examined.

Another Day, Another Hillary/Clinton Foundation Scandal

August 10, 2016

Another Day, Another Hillary/Clinton Foundation Scandal, Power LinePaul Mirengoff, August 10, 2016

(Please see also, Report: Justice Department declined FBI request to investigate Clinton Foundation. — DM)

In today’s installment we learn that (1) Hillary Clinton, during an official visit to Bangladesh as Secretary of State, publicly defended the bank of a crooked long-time friend of her husband and major Clinton Foundation donor, (2) in response, the Clinton Foundation emailed top Hillary aide Cheryl Mills about accepting a donation from the bank and a giant Abu Dhabi oil company, (3) The Clinton Foundation accepted the donation, and (4) Bill Clinton ended up with a big speaking fee.

This information comes from a May 7, 2012, email chain between Mills and the Clinton Foundation’s foreign policy director, obtained through the legal efforts of Citizens United, and from the reporting of Richard Pollock of the Daily Caller.

As always with Clinton cash corruption, you can’t tell the players without a scorecard. The players here, in addition to the Clintons and Cheryl Mills, are:

Muhammad Yunnus — a longtime friend of Bill Clinton. He has often been a featured speaker at the annual Clinton Global Initiative celebrity galas in New York. His Grameen America foundation donated between $100,000 to $250,000, according to the Clinton Foundation website. During Hillary’s tenure at State, the U.S. Agency for International Development, a State Department division, awarded millions of grant dollars to Yunus and to his allies

The Grameen Bank — a Bangladesh bank run by Yunnus that was supposed to give out “micro-loans” to poor women in the country.

TAQA — a giant oil and gas company in Abu Dhabi, formally known as the Abu Dhabi National Energy Company. Owned mostly by the Abu Dhabi government, it operates in 11 countries, including Canada and the United States. In 2010, it won the first of three “blanket agreements” with the Obama administration to import billions of cubic feet of natural gas from Canada into the United States.

Linda Andich — the Clinton Foundation’s development director.

Amitabh Desai — the Clinton Foundation’s foreign policy director.

The story begins when Yunus was charged by an official Bangladeshi commission with financial mismanagement of Grameen Bank. Eventually, he was forced to leave the bank. Hillary responded to the charges against Yunus by publicly urging the government of Bangladesh not to do anything to undermine his bank. She said this during an official visit to Bangladesh.

Then came the May 7, 2012 email chain that Citizens United recently pried loose. The chain kicks off when Linda Andich of the Clinton Foundation saw an Associated Press article about Clinton’s intervention on behalf of Yunus. Aldridge attached the AP article to an email to Desai (the Clinton Foundation’s foreign policy director) and wrote:

Just reading about HRC’s support of the Grameen Bank, which prompted me to check in for any updates for the State Department, re: the Donation from TAQA.

She added:

To refresh, they bought the ‘spend a day with President Clinton’ auction experience — donation to be split 50/50 with Grameen. The winners are top execs from their Scottish office, not Abu Dhabi.

Three hours later, Desai forwarded Andich’s email to Mills and wrote, “we’d welcome your guidance on accepting funds from TAQA.” Mills replied, “Will call to discuss.”

The donation of TAQA funds was being offered by TAQA managing director in Scotland. He had agreed to give $60,000 to the foundation for Bill to speak at a Scotland charity and auction.

Ultimately, the Foundation accepted the donation of $60,000. Bill went to Scotland where, in addition to collecting the donation to his Foundation, he received at least $250,000 for a speech before a group called “Business For Change,” according to the Foundation’s website. The black tie dinner raised funds for Yunus and his bank.

And a good time was had by all.

This scenario repeats a familiar pattern documented by Peter Schweitzer in Clinton Cash. Hillary Clinton, in her capacity as Secretary of State, does a favor for a big donor. The donor contributes more money. Bill Clinton gets a lucrative speaking opportunity.

As usual, too, there is a very deep pocket in the picture. Here, it is TAQA/Abu Dhabi. As Pollack shows, the Clintons’ connections with Abu Dhabi run deep, as do Cheryl Mills’.

But here we also have evidence of involvement by Hillary Clinton’s top State Department aide in the transfer of money from a Clinton Foundation donor to the Clinton Foundation. Foundation staff sought “guidance” on accepting the dough.

We don’t know what guidance Mills gave. However, the donation went through, which suggests that Mills, in the phone call she promised, authorized it.

Why did the Foundation seek Mills’ (and therefore Hillary’s) guidance. Presumably, to make sure the donation wouldn’t embarrass Hillary. Note how Andich pointed out that the winners of “the Bill Clinton experience” would be executives from TAQ’s Scottish office, not from Abu Dhabi.

As I discussed in connection with yesterday’s Hillary/Clinton Foundation scandal, Hillary Clinton agreed to the following before she became Secretary of State:

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.

Signing off on contributions to the Clinton Foundation strikes me as inconsistent with that pledge. And the whole deal stinks.

Report: Justice Department declined FBI request to investigate Clinton Foundation

August 10, 2016

Report: Justice Department declined FBI request to investigate Clinton Foundation, Washington ExaminerSarah Westwood, August 10, 2016

(Surprise! — DM)

Justice Department officials decided against an investigation into the Clinton Foundation after the FBI requested the agency open a case into allegations of corruption stemming from Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

But the Justice Department’s public integrity unit declined to pursue the probe given what it characterized as insufficient evidence, according to a CNN report Wednesday.

The State Department’s seemingly preferrential treatment of foundation donors under Clinton’s leadership has raised questions about whether she and her aides ignored conflicts of interest in order to help the charity’s most generous donors. Emails made public this week have deepened suspicions that donors were afforded access and favors that other outsiders could not get from the agency.

FBI Director James Comey declined to comment last month on whether the FBI’s reported investigation of the Clinton Foundation had concluded with a separate probe into Clinton’s emails. For months, reports had hinted at a widening FBI inquiry related to the philanthropy’s foreign activities.

The Justice Department did not immediately return a request for comment.