¢linton ¢a$h: Nigeria

In the latest chapter of the movie Clinton Cash, author Brian Schweizer makes two allegations about the Clintons in Nigeria: One demonstrably false and dishonest, and the other simply misleading.

FIRST: Schweizer correctly identifies Nigeria as a massively corrupt country, and then says (per my own transcription):

You see, there's a federal law in the United States which says, if foreign governments that receive U.S. assistance aren't transparent in how they spend that money, that they will not be able to get U.S. foreign assistance any more.  It's about transparency.  But there's a way around that law.  You can get waiver from that law.  How? By getting the U.S. Secretary of State to grant you a waiver.

(Nigeria received) hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. foreign assistance, they've not made progress in being more transparent, and of course they've gotten exemptions from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State.  What's so curious about this is what was happening commercially to the Clintons while this was going on.  Bill Clinton for the first time ever gets paid, highly lucrative speeches in Nigeria, which had never happened before.  In fact, he gets paid to do 2 speeches for $700,000 apiece by a businessman (Nduka Obaigbena) in Nigeria who just happens to be close with the president of that country.

Pretty damning stuff, if true.  And it is true that Bill received $700,000 per speech from Nduka Obaigbena (actually from his media operation, Thisday) for giving separate speeches in Nigeria in 2011 and 2012.  Of course, Schweizer neglects to point out that Bill had a long-standing relationship with Obaigbena going back at least as far as 2009 --- and that other political luminaries such as Al Gore, Jeb Bush, Karl Rove and Kofi Annan have been to Nigeria for similar purposes --- all at the same 2009 event, no less.  Schweizer also neglects to point out that Bill has returned to Nigeria numerous times since Hillary left her position as Secretary of State (it is unclear whether Bill's other appearances were paid).

But paid speeches alone mean nothing.  Schweizer needs to show a quid pro quo and (are you ready for this?) there's not one.  So instead Schweizer makes something up and hopes no one will notice.

Schweizer doesn't explicitly cite which "federal law" requires transparency from foreign governments which receive aid from the U.S., but he DOES flash the following image up on the screen at about this point in the video:

Note the highlighted date.  The law he appears to be referencing wasn't even introduced into Congress until Hillary had left office.  So when Schweizer said Nigeria has "gotten exemptions from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State", he had to be lying.  When Hillary was SoS, there was nothing to exempt Nigeria from.

But couldn't there have been a different law in effect when Hillary WAS SoS?  Sure there could be, but then why didn't Schweizer flash that law on the screen?  This article suggests that no such law existed before 2012, and a 2012 version of the bill died in the Senate.

So Schweizer is lying to us, and not only that, he doesn't even make it that hard to discover that he's lying.  It's almost like he doesn't expect anyone to fact-check his hit piece (hmmmmm).  And I don't like being lied to, so now I'm pissed.

You know what else pisses me off?  At this same juncture in the movie, Schweizer shows a video of Hillary talking about transparency and anti-corruption efforts in Nigeria, sort of mocking her, I guess.  It turns out that video is from her final visit to Nigeria as Secretary of State in 2012, when she announces additional U.S. support for Nigerian security forces against the Islamist terror group Boko Haram.

Think about that.  This guy is trying to get Donald Trump elected, and one of Trump's main arguments is that Obama (and by extension, Clinton) haven't done enough to defeat Islamic terrorism, and Schweizer uses video of Clinton actually announcing a policy change to fight Islamic terrorism in his hit piece trying to take her down.  Really infuriating.

But wait!  There's still more!

SECOND: Schweizer notes that Nigerian billionaire Gilbert Chagoury pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Foundation, and that Chagoury has also done some bad things in his life, some of which he's been convicted for.

My first reaction is: so what?  There are precious few billionaires in the world, and hardly any of them are saints.  What's more, the nefarious behavior Schweizer specifically cites, buying up Nigerian oil assets on the part of Sani Abacha, Nigeria's president from 1993 until his death in 1998, happened more than a decade before Chagoury's pledge to the Clinton Foundation.  So, even if Chagoury was engaged in some dirty dealing in the mid-90s, why does that mean anything about the Clinton foundation today?

Furthermore, Chagoury's $1 billion pledge is to help build the new Nigerian city Eko Atlantic, with the goal of providing homes for 250,000 Nigerians and jobs for an additional 150,000.  I don't know much about the project, but I don't find allegations of corruption anywhere, and it sounds like EXACTLY the kind of thing Nigeria needs to improve the quality of life for its people.

In short, it sounds like a Nigerian billionaire gave $1 billion to the Clinton Foundation to do good for thousands of people in his country.  What about this should the Clintons be ashamed of?

I know what Schweizer should be ashamed of, however.  Himself and this whole, clumsily-executed hit piece he's put together.

Bill's Speaking Fees

As I continue to slog through the allegations in Peter Schweizer's Clinton Cash hit piece, I want to pause for a moment to say a few words about the money Bill Clinton receives for making speeches.

It's no secret Bill Clinton likes to talk to people.  Since leaving office in 2001, he's given hundreds of speeches to millions of people, sometimes for a fee, and sometimes for free.  When he does receive a fee, sometimes that money goes to the Clinton Foundation (in which case he personally receives nothing), and sometimes it goes into his pocket.  As I've discussed before, I personally do not believe a contribution to the Clinton Foundation, no matter the size, indicates that Bill or Hillary are on the take.  Since they don't profit personally in that case, there's no reason they should do favors for the donor.

So let's focus on those occasions when Bill does pocket a fee.

Bill Clinton has made A LOT of money in speaking fees since leaving office.  And perhaps you already consider that a mark against him, which would be fair enough.  However, in the interest of fairness, you should also consider that most past presidents, and indeed most well-known politicians, trade off their fame in this manner.  Ronald Reagan famously received $2 million for giving two speeches in Japan.  George W. Bush, Clinton's predecessor, has earned tens of millions of dollars with such speeches.  And of course there's Hillary herself, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin and Colin Powell, and even Donald Trump.

So if you want to condemn Bill (or Hillary) for the mere fact that they got a lot of money for speeches, go ahead --- just make sure you similarly mark down the folks on the other side of the aisle, including Trump.

If not, then what really matters is whether there's a quid pro quo, whether payments to Bill influenced anything Hillary did as Secretary of State.  Schweizer is great at throwing around big numbers, and he's not wrong that the Clintons have made A LOT of money from Bill's speaking gigs.  But unless the Clintons did more for that money than just give a speech, there's nothing scandalous about it.

¢linton ¢a$h: Democratic Republic of Congo

Continuing our review of the anti-Clinton video Clinton Cash, we turn to allegations that Hillary compromised her position as Secretary of State in order to help an obscenely wealthy Swede retain mining contracts in the Democratic Republic of Congo.  Specifically (per my transcription):

By the time Lukas Lundin made his $100 million dollar pledge to the Clinton Foundation, his Congo operation was making 'staggering profits' according to his own financial statements.  

But for those profits to remain staggering, U.S. policy under Hillary Clinton had to remain unchanged.  That's a problem.  Hillary Clinton as a Senator back in 2006 supported something called the Congo Relief, Security and Democracy Promotion Act.

Schweizer goes on to explain that this law supports 'reform' in the DRC, and that although Hillary co-sponsored this law as a Senator in 2006, when she became Secretary of State in 2009 she "reversed course 180 degrees, and went from supporting reform in Congo to supporting the status quo."  The allegation here is that in return for a $100 million pledge to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary changed course on American foreign policy in the Congo in a way that helped Lundin.

I'm sorry, but if Schweizer can't be more specific in his allegations, I may have to abandon this whole project.  His argument boils down to the charge that in 2006, Hillary supported 'reform' in the Congo, and then in 2009, after Lundin pledged $100 million to the Clinton Foundation, she switched to 'supporting the status quo'.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?!?

Did she initially support fair and open elections, and later opposed them?  Did she support  higher taxes in the Congo, and then oppose them?  Lower taxes?  Higher tariffs?  Lower tariffs?  A stiffer anti-doping protocol for the Congolese olympic team?  What?

I will do my best, in good faith, to follow the few breadcrumbs Schweizer has left me, and then draw conclusions.

Let's start with the Congo Relief, Security and Democracy Promotion Act.  Despite its grandiose name, it actually specifies a grand total of ONE concrete new policy which applies to the U.S. Secretary of State:

The Secretary of State is authorized to withhold assistance made available under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.), other than humanitarian, peacekeeping, and counterterrorism assistance, for a foreign country if the Secretary determines that the government of the foreign country is taking actions to destabilize the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

That's it.  So the only way to interpret Schweizer's charge here is that while Hillary was SoS, she should have withheld funds (other than humanitarian, peacekeeping, and counterterrorism assistance) from some country that was trying to destabilize the Congo.  We can only guess what country Schweizer might have in mind, but it's a fair bet that he's still talking about Rwanda, which did indeed have a proxy faction in the Congolese army starting in March 2009.  This faction staged a rebellion in 2012, and sure enough, Clinton did not withhold any foreign from Rwanda.

Assuming this is Schweizer's real complaint (and if it isn't, he should make another damn documentary where he expresses himself more clearly), then he hasn't proven his case, for the following reasons:

1. Although Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State from 2009 - 2013, she didn't make U.S. foreign policy; she simply advised President Obama and then carried out the foreign policy he saw fit.  As this Atlantic article explains, the decision not to withhold aid from Rwanda was Obama's, not Clinton's, despite the wording of the 2006 law.
2. Furthermore, Schweizer acknowledges that before Lundin pledged a dime to the Clinton Foundation, he was making "staggering profits" from his operation in the Congo.  This undermines the notion that Lundin made his $100 million pledge as part of a quid pro quo.
3. Schweizer asserts --- totally without proof --- that Hillary's failure to suspend aid to Rwanda (or anywhere else) was necessary for Lundin to continue his Congo operation.  But that makes no sense.  As this history of the Lundin operation in Congo explains, Lundin received its mining concession from Laurent Kabila in 1997, and was allowed to continue its operations when Kabila's son Joseph succeeded him in 2001.  If Kabila lost power, then Lundin might lose its mining concession.  So it was in Lundin's best interest to maintain the status quo in Congo, which is exactly what the Congo Relief, Security and Democracy Promotion Act is all about.  If Hillary really DID "reverse course 180 degrees", that would have HURT Lundin, not helped him; and it certainly doesn't prove any kind of corruption on Hillary's part.

The Lundin Group have been accused of bad practices in the Congo and elsewhere, and so one might condemn the Clintons merely for accepting money from such a multi-national conglomerate.  But so far as any kind of quid pro quo in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Schweizer's argument is complete nonsense.

¢linton ¢a$h: Sudan

This is part 3 of our continuing investigation into Peter Schweizer's anti-Clinton film Clinton Cash.  Today we examine a really tenuous accusation Schweizer made that Hillary abused her power to help a friend get a government contract in the Sudan.

Generally speaking, Schweizer alleges that there's a pattern of the Clintons --- mostly Hillary, as Bill has not held any formal government position in nearly 16 years:

1. Facilitate lucrative business contracts between foreign governments and those wishing to do business in those foreign countries,
2. In return for large contributions either directly to Bill or to the charitable organization the Clintons founded, the Clinton Fund.

But when it comes to the Sudan, Schweizer fails to provide proof that either (1) or (2) occurred, so I'm not entirely certain what his point is.

Anyway, Schweizer's allegation in the Sudan involves former U.S. diplomat Joe Wilson (yes, that Joe Wilson).  This is the whole of Schweizer's argument, as best as I can transcribe it:

In 2009, shortly after she became SoS, when Wilson was the vice-chairman of a company called Jarch Capital.  They took out a 50-year lease on 400,000 hectares in south Sudan.  South Sudan was in the middle of a civil war, and this lease was actually signed with warlords who were  involved in the civil war.  These individuals were involved in massive human-rights violations.

Schweizer goes on to suggest that Jarch Capital's lease was somehow unethical.  And maybe it was.  But in order to demonstrate that the Clintons are corrupt in some fashion, Schweizer needs to show that Wilson gave them something to help secure this lease, and he doesn't.  He doesn't even allege that Wilson gave money to the Clintons or their foundation, only that Wilson endorsed Hillary in her 2008 run for president, and that he was under consideration for a post in a Hillary Clinton State Department.

Sorry, but so what?  LOTS of Democrats endorsed Hillary in 2008, and Joe Wilson had already worked for the State Department under the George H. W. Bush administration, so what does this prove?

Schweizer also fails to show that Hillary did anything to help Jarch Capital obtain its lease, which is hardly surprising considering that she couldn't have done anything to help.  Check out this article from the Financial Times, dated January 9, 2009:

Philippe Heilberg, a former Wall Street banker and chairman of New York-based Jarch Capital, told the Financial Times he had gained leasehold rights to 400,000 hectares of land – an area the size of Dubai – by taking a majority stake in a company controlled by the son of Paulino Matip.

Barack Obama was first sworn in to office on January 20, 2009, and Hillary Clinton was confirmed as Secretary of State the next day.  Considering that Jarch Capital had acquired the lease nearly two weeks earlier, how exactly did she abuse her power to help Joe Wilson?  Did she somehow, as a sitting U.S. Senator, pull strings with contacts inside the Bush administration?

¢linton ¢a$h: Rwanda

We continue our examination of the anti-Clinton documentary Clinton Cash and its allegations.  Today we examine what writer Peter Schweizer has to say about the Clintons' involvement in the African nation of Rwanda.

For those who may not be as old as I am, the decade of the 1990s was a particularly brutal one for Rwanda.  In 1994, nearly 1 million Rwandas were murdered by their government in the name of ethnic cleansing.  To survive this kind of horror is thankfully unimaginable to most people; just as unimaginable is how a country returns to any kind of 'normal' day-to-day life afterward.

In the case of Rwanda, the credit for restoring normalcy goes to the current president, Paul Kagame, who led the opposition forces in the face of remarkable odds to defeat the government forces who were committing genocide, and to unite the country after a time.  To achieve this miraculous result out of such chaos no doubt requires a great deal of heroism, and no small amount of villainy --- and indeed, it's clear that while Kagame is clearly his country's savior, he is far from a saint.

Bill Clinton has publicly praised Kagame --- no doubt for his heroism, not his villainy --- calling him one of "the greatest leaders of our time," and the Clinton Foundation has awarded Kagame its Global Citizen Award.  It seems that Schweizer brings this up solely to paint the Clintons as those who would do business with tyrants, softening up the viewer for darker allegations to come.  Schweizer does say that the Clintons legitimize strongmen such as Kagame to create "commercial opportunities for donors and friends and allies who want to do business in Africa."

Well, maybe.  But the Clintons' support of Kagame is a poor example, considering that Schweizer fails to identify any Clinton "donor, friend or ally" to benefit from this support.  Additionally, the Clintons are far from alone in praising Kagame:

Kagame, credited with commanding the rebel force that put an end to Rwanda’s genocide 20 years ago, has made himself a global celebrity. Bill Clinton hails him as among “the greatest leaders of our time.” Tony Blair calls him a “visionary.” Bill Gates works closely with him. Kagame has spoken at Harvard and received honorary doctorates from a number of universities in the United States and Europe. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is also a fan, telling Kagame in May, “I hope many African nations will emulate what Rwanda is doing. I highly commend you.”

In addition to all of this praise, Rwanda has received international financial support, including from the United States --- from both Republican and Democratic administrations.  U.S. aid to Rwanda averaged $12 million/year in the five years after the genocide, increased to $34.7 million/year in the first Bush administration, and jumped to $150 million in 2012.  The intricacies and moral trade-offs involved in determining why the international community might support a strongman like Kagame are quite complex, but I expect it mostly boils down to this: Considering the genocide Rwanda endured 20 years ago, world leaders prefer the stability a leader like Kagame provides to the possible chaos which might result without him.

It's true that there are valid reasons to revile Kagame and his rule in Rwanda.  And one can reasonably question the Clintons motives in publicly supporting him both verbally and financially (Schweizer insinuates that the Clinton Foundation has given money to Rwanda; I have no idea whether this is true).  But given the widespread support for Kagame, including bipartisan support from the U.S. government, there is absolutely no reason to conclude that the Clintons' support comes from any nefarious self-interest.

¢linton ¢a$h: The Clinton Foundation only uses 10% of Donations for Charitable Work

Right-wingers love to bash the Clintons with some form of this accusation: Sure, they set up this global, multi-million dollar charitable organization, but hardly any of the money actually gets spent helping people.  This is the first charge Schweizer makes in his Clinton Cash movie, and he really hits the ground flailing, because this charge is 100% demonstrably false.

According to the hyper non-partisan Consumer Reports, the three best watchdog sites for charities are: Charity Navigator, Charity Watch, and the BBB Wise Giving Alliance.  Of these, Charity Navigator doesn't give a rating for the Clinton Foundation, and says that the lack of a rating "does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator".  As for the other sites, Charity Watch gives the Clinton Foundation an A, indicating that 88% of funds collected are actually spent on program costs.  The BBB Wise Giving Alliance indicates that the Clinton Foundation spends 86% of funds collected on program costs.

I'm no math expert (no wait a minute, I am!) --- but it doesn't take a PhD to figure out that 88% or even 86% is much, much larger than 10%.

As long as we're talking about the Clinton Foundation, I want to mention one other thing.  Practically all of the accusations in the Clinton Cash movie allege that some bad actor gave a lot of money either to the Clinton Foundation, or to Bill Clinton in the guise of a 'speaking fee', in return for which the Clintons helped said bad actor to do nefarious things.  As I said earlier, all such accusations are extremely difficult either to prove or to disprove, but there's a very important difference between giving money to Bill Clinton versus giving it to the Clinton Foundation.

If someone gives money to Bill Clinton as a speaker's fee, Bill Clinton pockets it.  It belongs to him (and Hillary) and not the foundation, and as such serves as a powerful incentive for him to perhaps help bad actors do nefarious things.

If someone gives money to the Clinton Foundation, on the other hand, the Clintons themselves don't receive a penny of it.  The Clinton Foundation clearly states that Bill and Chelsea receive no compensation for their work on the foundation, and neither did Hillary when she was on the board.  And we know they're telling the truth because unlike some presidential candidates (ahem!), the Clintons have released their tax returns.  So when someone gives money to the Clinton Foundation, I'm sure the Clintons appreciate it, but it seems highly unlikely that they'll do anything unethical in return.

UPDATE (9/04/2016): As of September 1, Charity Navigator now has a rating for the Clinton Foundation!  Charity Navigator gives the Clinton Foundation 4 stars, or a score of 94.74 out of 100!

¢linton ¢a$h

So . . . a guy named Peter Schweizer came out with a long hit piece on the Clintons, called Clinton Cash.  It was first released as a book, and then later as a movie.  After the Clintons left the White House in 2001, they started up a charitable organization called The Clinton Foundation.  They also both (but mostly Bill) made a lot of money giving speeches to various organizations.  None of this is in dispute.

The premise of Clinton Cash is that in return for large donations to the Clinton Foundation, or for large speaking fees for Bill, the Clintons used their influence --- as a former President, and as Secretary of State --- to assist various unsavory characters in various ways, usually in form of business contracts of one sort or another with foreign governments.

On the one hand, such accusations are very difficult to prove.  Suppose Sam Slimeball gives Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech, and two weeks later, Hillary does something as Secretary of State which benefits Sam.  While that certainly looks suspicious, Hillary might have made the exact same decision even without the $500,000.  Unless she radically changes her position for no apparent reason, or there's a video/recording/email somewhere where Hillary tells Sam "I will support policy X if you pay Bill $500,000 for a speech", we can't know for certain that a quid pro quo was in place.

On the other hand, the right wing loves to make accusations like this, because they are literally IMPOSSIBLE to disprove.  Unless we can show that Sam Slimeball never gave Bill any money, or that Sam didn't benefit from any decision Hillary made, or there's a lot of evidence that Hillary would have made the same decision anyway, right-wingers like Schweizer can make all the accusations they want, and no one can say for certain that they're wrong.

Which is, of course, the reason Schweizer wrote the book in the first place.  How can I be so sure?  Because Schweizer has a history of supporting Republicans and conservative publications, while making misleading or inaccurate attacks on Democrats.  This doesn't necessarily mean that all of his charges in Clinton Cash are wrong, but it does mean that they should be analyzed with a healthy dose of skepticism.  That's what I plan to do in the coming weeks.