Following up on my prior post about Hillary Clinton, the Panama Papers Scandal, and speaking fees paid to Clinton by Deutsche Bank, let’s point out the obvious.
The Clintons have operated this way for quite a long time. Here are some examples, and this is by no means an exhaustive list.
As he was heading out the door, President Bill Clinton signed legislation repealing Glass-Steagall and deregulating exotic financial instruments — long-held legislative goals of Wall Street’s big banks and other financial institutions. Soon thereafter, Hillary Clinton announced her run for the Senate.
Now, Bill’s last government job before the presidency was as governor of Arkansas, where he’s from. Hillary Clinton, for her part, is from Chicago and spent much of her legal career in Arkansas. Nonetheless, she chose to run for the Senate in New York, which also happens to be the financial capitol of the US. Entirely coincidentally (snark), she received significant support from Wall Street, and has been a consistent friend of Wall Street ever since.
Was all of this perfectly legal? Of course. Hillary Clinton can choose to become a resident of and run for office in any state she chooses, and the voters may accept or reject her. Is there at least the appearance of an ethical issue here? You decide.
Another example. As SoS, Hillary Clinton came to the rescue of UBS, a bank in trouble. The bank, for its part, after receiving this much-needed help, engaged the services of former President Bill Clinton for a number of well-paid speeches. www.theatlantic.com/...
Entirely coincidentally (snark), private citizen Hillary Clinton also spoke to UBS, earning $225k. theintercept.com/...
As SoS, Hillary Clinton LOVED fracking. www.motherjones.com/...
Entirely coincidentally (snark), the fossil fuel industry loves Hillary Clinton back. www.greenpeace.org/...
Legal? Yes. Ethical? You decide.
Hillary Clinton supporters flagged my prior post, and DailyKOS hid it - as is their right; it’s their sandbox after all and we’re just playing in it - because, at least some argued, I was engaging in CT (conspiracy theories), I was smearing Clinton, I implied that Clinton made arrangements with Deutsche Bank before lobbying for the Panama treaty (I most certainly did not!), or some combination of the above.
More broadly, it truly strains credulity to argue that the banks, corporations, and trade groups paying to hear private citizen Hillary Clinton speak during her short interregnum between her service as Secretary of State and declaration as presidential candidate, did not know, KNOW, they were engaging a future presidential candidate — and not just an also-ran future presidential candidate like a Mike Huckabee, but a very smart, driven, motivated, astute, and ambitious politician who still was laser-focused on the prize. It’s not as if Hillary Clinton told her good friends who formed that superPAC long before her public declaration as a candidate to knock it off. It’s not as if she didn’t work assiduously behind the scenes to clear the field and line up endorsements. It bears repeating. Goldman-Sachs, UBS, Deutsche Bank, and the others KNEW they were paying a future presidential candidate to speak, the Kabuki theater of the legalities of the whole thing notwithstanding.
These further examples are to make a point. The way corruption works today is quite simple. The politician does the thing, full-well knowing that when legally permissible, the favor will be returned, especially if the politician may be in a direct position to do more back-scratching later. Sometimes the favor is returned directly to the politician, sometimes to a family member or ally. There is no communication about this between the politician, and the bank or the trade group or the corporate entity, because there doesn’t need to be. Both sides know how the game is played, know their role, and know that to stay in the game they must continue to play their roles.
In every example cited here, it was very clear the Clintons would be, or at least try very hard to be, in a position to directly return favors later.
The Clintons are, in conclusion, just one egregious example of how the system works legally, but not ethically, in the interests of the wealthy, and this is the primary reason I’m using them here. The problem, really, is endemic in the system, and in our tolerance and defense of the fundamentally unethical aspects of the system. And that, IMHO, is what needs to be addressed.