While she was Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, Cheryl Mills also played a central role in the operation of the Clinton Foundation, in apparent violation of conflict of interest laws, and contrary to her sworn statements to congressional investigators.
That is the picture painted in emails to and from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, released by Wikileaks in October. The hacked emails confirm earlier allegations, first made by NLPC, about Mills’ dual allegiances. The emails were first detailed in an October 12 Daily Mail story by Alana Goodman.
NLPC Chairman Ken Boehm told the Daily Mail, “The new revelations in the latest Wikileaks email disclosure prove Cheryl Mills worked extensively with the Clinton Foundation, their Board, President Clinton, and Chelsea Clinton while at the same time working in a role at the State Department that appears to have created a serious conflict of … Read More ➡
Bill Gertz reports in the Washington Free Beacon that Hillary Clinton, while Secretary of State, assisted a personal friend of Chelsea Clinton in securing contracts from the Defense and State Departments. According to emails recently released by the State Department, Hillary went to bat for Jacqueline Newmyer Deal who heads a company called Long Term Strategy Group (LTSG), which secured hundreds of thousands of dollars in government contracts. From the story:
Good government advocates say the emails indicating Clinton sought to steer contracts to her daughter’s friend are troubling and appear to violate ethics rules.
“By now there is a strong pattern of Hillary Clinton showing bias in the dispensing of government funds and favors to a long list of friends, political supporters, and Clinton Foundation donors,” said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.
“It looks like she was single-handedly trying to revive the corrupt
Chuck Ross of the Daily Callerreports that Bill & Hillary Clinton took tax deductions for computer maintenance that appear to correspond to payments made to Bryan Pagliano, the technician who set up Hillary’s private email server. The Clinton’s took tax deductions for the depreciation of the equipment, as well. The IRS does not allow deductions for personal expenses. From the article:
“The Clintons are no strangers to questionable tax deductions, going back to their Arkansas days,” Ken Boehm, the president of the National Legal and Policy Center, told TheDC.
“It goes without saying that it is improper to take a tax deduction for a server or anything else which was used or maintained by the government. The Clintons and their hired help have tied themselves in knots refusing to answer questions about the notorious server. That is not the conduct of anyone with nothing to hide.”
Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and his co-defendant, Dr. Salomon Melgen, are expected to face trial in early 2017 on a score of corruption and bribery charges.
Menendez had sought to have the indictments thrown out but on September 13 a Philadelphia-based appeals court refused, upholding an earlier ruling that rejected Menendez’ claim that the “speech or debate” clause of the U.S. Constitution shielded him from prosecution. “Members of Congress are not to be ‘super-citizens’ immune from criminal liability,” Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro wrote for the three-judge panel in July.
Federal prosecutors immediately asked that dates be set for a trial. They pointed out, “It has been 17 months since a grand jury sitting in the District of New Jersey indicted Senator Menendez and Dr. Melgen for numerous counts of corruption.”
Menendez has pledged to stay in office while defending himself, but has given up his post as the … Read More ➡
Lame duck Congresswoman Corrine Brown (D-FL) is asking supporters for donations to fund her defense in her upcoming corruption trial. On her website, she asserts:
I am fighting the Department of Justice, which has unlimited resources. They have smeared my good name. They are trying to take my freedom.
In July, when Brown was indicted on fraud charges for using a charity called “Open Door for Education” as a slush fund for personal expenses, she claimed that if federal agents had not been so busy pursuing her, they could have prevented the Orlando disco massacre in June.
The evidence against Brown must be particularly strong because the Justice Department under Eric Holder and now Loretta Lynch has protected other African-American House members like Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Gregory Meeks (D-NY) who clearly have committed indictable offenses.
In January, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sponsored a conference called PrivacyCon, reports Sam Biddle of the The Intercept, where most of the presenters had financial ties to Google. This is yet more evidence of our observation in March that top FTC officials, led by FTC Chair Edith Ramirez, act like Google employees. According to Biddle:
Google’s ties to PrivacyCon are pervasive enough to warrant interrogation. As a case study in how pervasive and well-concealed this type of influence has become, PrivacyCon is hard to beat.
Authors of a whopping 13 out of 19 papers presented at the conference and 23 out of 41 speakers have financial ties to Google. Only two papers included disclosure of an ongoing or past financial connection to Google.
Back in March, we called the FTC/Google relationship the most extreme example of “regulatory capture” that we had seen in Washington in recent years. … Read More ➡
Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller reports that the emails and other Democratic National Committee (DNC) documents made public by Wikileaks show evidence that the DNC sought to reward big political donors with appointments to federal boards and commissions. From the article:
The documents, which were circulated among top DNC officials in April, could raise legal questions for the party, says Ken Boehm, the chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group.
“The disclosed DNC emails sure look like the potential Clinton Administration has intertwined the appointments to federal government boards and commissions with the political and fund raising operations of the Democratic Party,” Boehm told The Daily Caller.
Alana Goodman in the Washington Free Beacon today reports that Bill Clinton gave some thirty speeches for fees totaling $7 million, but that the actual identities of the sponsors is a “mystery.” The speaking fees were apparently routed through speakers bureaus and other entities, which the Clintons reported on Hillary’s disclosure forms as the source, obscuring the actual payer of the fees. From the article:
Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group, said the way the Clintons have handled these paid speaking engagements “suggests secrecy and non-transparency.”
“While those paying the exorbitant fees have included special interests with lobbying efforts to influence federal policy, even more troubling is the fact that the true financial sponsors are sometimes hidden through cut-out middlemen or anonymous donors,” said Boehm. “The tens of millions in speaking fees going directly to the Clintons should be completely transparent. Anything
In the wake of the murder of three police officers in Baton Rouge, we are today asking Eric Schmidt of Google, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, and Jack Dorsey of Twitter to end their personal and corporate support for Black Lives Matter (BLM). The letters read in part:
Billionaires don’t have to worry about their personal security, but working people and the poor do.
Your support for Black Lives Matter is helping to fray the social fabric in cities all over the country, cities in which you do not live. The American people — both liberal and conservative — are increasingly concerned about corporate executives who put their own interests above those of our country.
BLM deliberately and recklessly seeks to poison the relationship between the police and ordinary citizens.
The most successful police forces practice community-based policing, which relies on mutual trust and respect. That is why it has been … Read More ➡
FBI Director James Comey today announced that he would recommend that Hillary Clinton not be prosecuted for conducting State Department business on a private email system.
He started by referencing the possibility of a “violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way…”
Comey then provided an extremely generous interpretation of Hillary’s actions but one that still clearly placed her in violation of the law:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
Comey then went on to square his own circle:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would