¢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.