Tag: judicial watch
Goodbye, CGI: A Moral Victory For Bill Clinton — And Many Others

Goodbye, CGI: A Moral Victory For Bill Clinton — And Many Others

Late on the afternoon of September 21 — almost exactly eleven years after Bill Clinton inaugurated the annual Clinton Global Initiative conferences in New York City — the former president offered closing remarks there for the very last time. Having watched this innovative organization grow from a casual idea into a formidable entity credited for delivering quality health care, clean water, modern education, disaster relief, and other essential benefits to millions of people around the world, he told its members and supporters gathered in a midtown hotel ballroom that “CGI has worked out better than I ever dreamed.”

It was understandable and probably wise for Clinton to declare victory this year, after profoundly changing the mindset and practice of modern philanthropy. But even as John Lennon’s “Imagine” filled the room, it was impossible to ignore another aspect of CGI’s conclusion — the angry, exaggerated, and almost entirely inaccurate attacks on CGI from political adversaries of Bill and Hillary Clinton, bristling with accusations of “corruption” and favoritism.”

Such shrill assaults were never heard until Hillary Clinton became the favored candidate to succeed Barack Obama in the White House. Over the years since CGI began, in fact, its membership and operations were resolutely non-partisan, with the participation of many Republicans and independents who shared the desire to do some good in the world. Republican businessmen like John Chambers of Cisco Systems joined CGI, provided financial support, and undertook the “commitments to action” that were at the heart of its mission. Republican politicians like John McCain, Mitt Romney, and even Carly Fiorina came to the annual conference and offered high praise for its work.

But that was then — and now, with Hillary Clinton as the historic nominee of the Democratic Party, what Republicans once lauded as a font of good works is denounced as a sewer of venality. While scarcely a word of the criticism is true, that doesn’t matter as much as the opportunity to smear the Clintons for political advantage. The most illuminating example was a widely-publicized press release that falsely depicted a 2005 CGI “commitment” by Bahrain’s crown prince as a bribe to sway the Secretary of State in 2010. Like so many other slanders surrounding the Clintons’ philanthropy, that “exposé” from the right-wing claque called Judicial Watch was a clumsy fraud, yet damaged reputations anyway.

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton are accustomed to such attacks after a quarter-century under the national spotlight. He has occasionally observed that “politics ain’t beanbag.” But the vicious attacks on the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative don’t only injure those two battle-hardened politicians. The collateral damage includes many decent, hardworking people who have toiled for years on foundation and CGI projects, including thousands of volunteers, whose pride in helping humanity has been turned to ashes by this sustained propaganda campaign.

Pouring abuse on people who do hard work to save lives is vile — and as James Carville said recently, “Somebody is going to hell for this.”

If there is a just God, Carville is surely right. While the liars and slanderers contemplate eternal damnation, the rest of the American people — and indeed, people around the world — ought to learn something about what the Clinton Foundation and in particular the Clinton Global Initiative have actually achieved during the past decade or so.

Much of the story is told, from the beginning, in my new book Man of the World: The Further Endeavors of Bill Clinton, in which I try to apportion credit to at least a few of the many people who have worked with him over the years. Two years ago, on CGI’s tenth anniversary, the data-processing giant Palantir released a study of its commitments that reached some startling conclusions — and that report is very much worth reading on the foundation website. That website provides detailed information on many of the individual commitments undertaken by the nonprofits, corporations, trade unions, and universities that have joined with CGI — such as Procter & Gamble’s massive project that has delivered billions of gallons of potable water to families in the developing world.

Not everything tried by CGI members has succeeded, as Clinton and his staff are quick to acknowledge. But as he said at the end, at least they got caught trying to improve the world. They deserve to be thanked and congratulated rather than shamed.

That is much more than anyone can say for their mean-spirited and mendacious critics.

For those with shorter attention spans, this brief video that preceded Clinton’s final CGI address is uplifting and instructive, if frankly promotional  — and showcases a few of the individuals who nobly assisted in that organization’s work.

IMAGE: Former U.S. President Bill Clinton speaks during the Clinton Global Initiative’s annual meeting in New York, September 29, 2015.  REUTERS/Lucas Jackson 

Pay For Play? The Scandal Is Judicial Watch Misleading Gullible Media

Pay For Play? The Scandal Is Judicial Watch Misleading Gullible Media

Listening to the national media over the past few weeks, many Americans may now believe that the Clinton Foundation was set up as a “pay-to-play” scheme for Hillary Clinton to squeeze wealthy foreigners and rich Americans for millions of dollars. According to this theory, popularized by a lavishly funded right-wing organization called Judicial Watch, the Secretary of State would only deal with people and governments that had donated big money to her husband’s foundation.

But that story is itself a scam and a fraud, perpetrated by Judicial Watch with misleading information fed to gullible and lazy Washington journalists.

Consider the tale of the Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain, head of state of one of America’s primary allies in the Persian Gulf. Rummaging through thousands of Hillary Clinton’s emails, Judicial Watch discovered that the prince had requested a meeting with the Secretary of State on a specific day in 2010, via an email from Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band to Hillary’s aide Huma Abedin.

In a hysterical press release, Judicial Watch denounced this request as an outrageous example of unethical and possibly illegal behavior, because “by 2010, [the crown prince] had contributed $32 million” to CGI [the Clinton Global Initiative].”

That damning narrative, usually condensed into “Bahraini prince gave $32 million to Clinton Foundation,” appeared in news outlets across the country.

By leaving out the most important facts — which show there was no unethical conduct — Judicial Watch could confidently assume that gullible (or malicious) journalists would omit that crucial information as well. And of course, they did.

The simple fact is that not one cent of that $32 million ever went into the bank accounts of the Clinton Global Initiative, the Clinton Foundation, or any member of the Clinton family. Every cent went instead toward the college education of Bahraini students, which was the purpose of the Crown Prince’s “commitment,” announced like hundreds of others at the Clinton Global Initiative conferences in New York.

More misleading still, Judicial Watch failed to mention that the crown prince’s $32 million commitment was announced at the very first Clinton Global Initiative meeting in September 2005 — or more than three years before Barack Obama asked Hillary Clinton to serve as Secretary of State. Unless the crown prince was clairvoyant, he had no way of knowing that his 2005 CGI commitment would induce the nation’s top diplomat to meet with him five years later.

So the money didn’t go to the foundation and was committed long before Hillary went to work in the State Department. That doesn’t fit any sane definition of “pay to play.” But it does reveal the deception behind those screaming press releases from Judicial Watch, an outfit whose claims deserve to be treated like anthrax by any journalist with integrity.

Unfortunately, many Washington reporters seem eager to repeat any accusation brandished against the Clintons, even from a dubious source, without rudimentary checking. Upon receipt of that dishonest press release from Judicial Watch, any reporter could have called the Clinton Foundation to learn the truth about the crown prince’s $32 million commitment to his own country’s students. Indeed, any reporter could have discovered the same facts by entering a few data points into a search engine like Google.

From the context of the emails quoted by Judicial Watch, it is obvious that Clinton was initially reluctant to meet with the crown prince on a particular day on short notice. Any reporter who believes that the Secretary of State would simply refuse to see the head of state of one of America’s principal allies in the Persian Gulf, whether he made a CGI commitment or not, is too stupid to write about foreign affairs.

Similar stories have emanated not only from Judicial Watch, but from the Associated Press and other outlets in recent days — and so far, all are similarly flawed, relying on the omission of essential facts and the emphasis of false narratives.

It is important to recall that when Obama asked Clinton to serve in his cabinet, she resisted at first. When she agreed, her advisers and the president-elect’s transition team negotiated a set of rules to govern her husband’s philanthropic and business activities. With very few and minor exceptions, they adhered to those rules — and have continued to disclose all of the Clinton Foundation’s donors long after she left government.

Unlike the Clinton Foundation, however, Judicial Watch doesn’t disclose the names of the donors who provide almost $30 million annually to finance its ongoing harassment of the Clintons and their aides, which has continued for decades. Unlike the Clinton Foundation, which has saved millions of lives, Judicial Watch exploits its nonprofit status to advance the partisan objectives of its unnamed donors. And unlike the Clinton Foundation, which enjoys a four-star rating from the watchdog Charity Navigator, the nonprofit and “charitable” Judicial Watch only gets two stars, because its operations are inscrutable and it spends an excessive percentage of its revenues on salaries and fundraising.

Perhaps it is time for someone in the media to investigate their conduct.

The Latest Clinton Email ‘Scandal’ Is Still…No Scandal

The Latest Clinton Email ‘Scandal’ Is Still…No Scandal

It is now officially “scandalous” to recommend a capable young person for a job in the State Department, or to connect a potentially useful source of information about a Mideast trouble spot with an American diplomat.

According to Judicial Watch, the ultra-right organization that has devoted the past few decades to legal harassment of the Clintons, and its enablers in the mainstream media, a new batch of emails released by the State Department reveals a scandal (or multiple scandals!) because they show Douglas Band, former counselor to President Bill Clinton, engaged in those nefarious activities.

Evidently Band urged State to consider the resume of Brock Johnson, who had worked advance in Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign and then went on to toil under very difficult conditions in earthquake-wracked Haiti. Johnson had proved his value and mettle, so Band thought he might prove useful to our diplomatic service. Obviously, it’s very, very bad to help a youthful idealist find a way to serve his country, and of course nobody from any other campaign or foundation has ever done such an awful thing, right? (Wrong.)

Then there is the matter of Gilbert Chagoury, a very wealthy gentleman of Lebanese ancestry and mixed reputation, who asked Band to put him in touch with someone at the State Department dealing with issues of “substance” that pertained to his homeland — which was then in the midst of an election campaign. Active in Lebanese affairs, Chagoury wished to impart his perspective to American officials. He was pursuing no pecuniary interest — as his spokesman, former Republican Justice Department flack Mark Corallo, confirmed to the New York Times. Nothing came of Chagoury’s request and he did not press his requst any further. He has given generously to the Clinton Foundation, among many other charities, although stories suggesting that he gave “a billion dollars” to the Clinton Global Initiative are wrong. (Chagoury made a substantial CGI “commitment” in 2009 to repair coastal erosion in Nigeria — but money spent to fulfill that pledge would not benefit the Clintons or their foundation.)

With its customary tone of shrieking hysteria, Judicial Watcha insists that these email communications somehow violated Hillary Clinton’s agreement with the Obama Administration, prior to her appointment as Secretary of State, outlining how to deal with potential conflicts of interest. But how was Brock Johnson’s interest in public service a conflict for Clinton? And how did Chagoury’s desire to impart information about Lebanon conflict with her duties, exactly?

Nowhere does that agreement, which I have read many times, forbid Clinton Foundation officials from recommending individuals for employment at the State Department or connecting potential sources of information with U.S. diplomats. If it did, that would be pointless and very, very stupid.

Everyone in Washington, including the reporters who wrote these breathless stories, knows that the same kind of communications have occurred every day, at every level of government, for the past hundred years. Every day, former aides who have worked on campaigns, and executives at nonprofit groups and businesses who are connected to Cabinet officials, send messages recommending possible appointees. Every day, those same kinds of individuals seek to connect sources of information with those in our government who need to know.

Yes, this kind of behavior is scandalous — but only if you are associated with Hillary or Bill Clinton or the foundation that bears their names.

Judicial Watch Wants More Information On Congressional Delegation Travel

Judicial Watch Wants More Information On Congressional Delegation Travel

By Alex Gangitano, CQ-Roll Call (TNS)

WASHINGTON — The Defense Department has a lawsuit on its hands over lawmakers jetting off together.

The group Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit seeking records about official congressional delegation travel, also known as CODELs. Air Force jets and personnel usually are the means of travel for CODELs, and Judicial Watch is looking for records concerning travel costs.

“Congress, under both Republicans and Democrats, has a long record of abusing taxpayers and the military with wasteful ‘official’ travel,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a press release.

Speaker Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., has declined to use Air Force jets to travel between Wisconsin and Washington, which former Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, also did.

In 2009, Judicial Watch knocked Rep. Nancy Pelosi for what it said was the “abuse” of using Air Force jets to travel between her congressional district and Washington when the California Democrat was speaker. The practice was utilized because of her place in the presidential succession process, behind the vice president.

In August, the group requested congressional travel records from the Air Force and was “ignored,” according to its release. The request involved records regarding mission-taskings of flights escorting members, transportation costs for members, passenger manifests for transporting members and weekly travel reports for members.

Judicial Watch has also previously sued for information on President Barack Obama’s presidential travels and how much taxpayers pay for them.

©2016 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Photo: Members of the House of Representatives meet on Capitol Hill on January 6, 2015 in Washington, DC