OK, I am finally getting back to responding. Please forgive
me – life gets in the way – and I wanted to devote a fair amount of time to
reading and digesting your material.
Thank you for providing it. It is
good to know that the Clinton foundation does so much good. I am not going to defend Trump and his
foundation in any way – however your information was helpful. I appreciate the time you took to do it. I hope you are able to make some time to
review the information I’ve provided. I
know it can be difficult to find time as I just demonstrated by responding a
week late. It’s evident that you are
fairly rooted in your views as am I. I
imagine we could go back and forth with support for our views ad
infinitum. My hope is that this does not
turn into a debate. Perhaps you feel the
same. It makes me wonder if we would
serve each other better by just discussing the fundamentals behind our views. I
have tried to weave into my points some of the foundational reasons for my stance. I hope that helps.
One other thought before I start my comments – As I
mentioned last time – I do not support either Trump or Hillary (I don’t like
using short names out of respect for our leaders except in the interest of
brevity). Your comments and supporting
information are helpful – yet it seems that you continue to base support for
Hillary and/or the Clinton foundation, at least in part, on Trump and his
foundation. You also base support
because of the good an organization does excluding, of course, the Trump
foundation. Regardless I prefer to
compare Secretary Clinton and her organization to basic standards and ethics. It’s these standards and ethics that separate
us from third world nations along with our system’s checks and balances. It is
self-evident proof. When these
principles are removed we become closer to third world practice.
As you stated in your response there is “no proof that Sec Clinton met with people
seeking access…for [cash or gain]…” Yet as
you also stated I focused on the word “potential”. The appearance of potential conflict of
interest in a leader is a concern. The appearance
of impropriety is a common and historic business and legal practice in Judaeo-Christian
tradition (1 Thes 5:22). I do not share
you comfort with avoiding this fundamental principle while focusing only on
proof. Would you support any administration’s
Sec of State doing what Ms. Clinton did if it gave $ to a worth well cause even
a conservative cause regardless of a little back scratching? I’m not trying to be smart but I guess you
think Reagan’s Iran-Contra affair was a faux congressional scandal because in
the end Iran was overcharged for purchasing equipment and the extra dollars
went to support free nation rebel Contras in Nicaragua.
I work at a small bank based here in Indiana. Certainly not on the national stage, let
alone state wide, we are small potatoes. All personnel, and in particular officers of
our institution, must adhere to ethical practices. Self-evidentially we do not come close to the
importance of the Department of State. However, Federal guidelines, personal
certifications (CPA, Esquire, Governance Certifications, etc.), and bank policy
require annual and repeated training, security restrictions, and formal
agreements ensuring that we will comply with ethics thus confirming we
understand noncompliance consequences while striving to protect client information. Among the many ethics guidelines are conflict
of interest and privacy commitments. For
example I could be fired for having an unapproved second job because it could create a conflict of
interest appearance. When an officer abuse occurs, Bank personnel
by law are required to complete a SAR (Suspicious Activity Report – www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase). Employees at all levels of our company have
been disciplined and fired over noncompliance, even in the instance of human
error. This is standard financial
institution practice. As in every publicly traded company; the CEO and CFO can been held accountable including
criminal charges and civil suits. By law
a financial institution is prevented from providing CEO/CFO insurance to cover
this. I think this all will only become
stricter as a result of the current Wells Fargo debacle. Congress sure did hammer the Wells Fargo CEO
– as he should have been. The former Sec
of State said on October 3rd that “No
American should ever be taken advantage of like thousands were by Wells Fargo.”
Can we agree that all humans share the same heart
condition? (We all need a Savior in part
because we all are subject to doing what is in our own interests, often sinful
interests, rather than pursue greater good.)
To state the obvious – we need police, defense, auditors (my
occupation), pastors, government, and checks and balances; to name a few
mitigants. The brilliance of our
founding fathers “separation of powers” principle, as I am sure you know, is
based upon this premise. If you agree
with this premise, then you will likely agree that whether a human is in the
business world, educational world, or governmental world, we are subject to the
same flaws. Here’s my point, too many
people seem to assume private sector leaders are bad and public sector leaders
are good. To say it another way,
business is corrupt and government is noble.
I don’t understand this interpretation and I can say with evidential
support that our founding fathers certainly did not either. Leaders will trend
toward self-interest, regardless of where they serve, without checks and
balances.
As we judge or admonish the Wells Fargo CEO and company why
would we not, especially after consideration of events, not hold circumspect
those in government when reason presents possible mismanagement. The Wells Fargo CEO is being held answerable
(and should be) for the actions of lower level managers, perhaps in part
because of upper management poor strategy or poor monitoring of their
strategy. Laws will change as a result
of the Wells Fargo event. And the former
Sec of State will continue to cry Wall Street fraud throughout this election
pointing to Wells Fargo. But each time
she does I hear hypocrisy and see double standards; Double standards from the
media and double standards from liberals. Why should the Wells Fargo CEO be
held accountable for lower level management abuse - when media and democrats
are content that the Sec of State had nothing to do with say security at the
Benghazi compound and non-response to repeated security requests by the Libyan Ambassador? Both Democrats and Republicans will correctly
charge Executives for the Wells Fargo failure.
It’s only liberals who are silent concerning Ms. Clinton and State
Department mismanagement in regards to Benghazi. Stop for a moment and ask what if the Wells
Fargo CEO said in response to congressional outrage “What difference does it
make!” No one died associated with the Wells Fargo fraud. If this comparison is discounted or her State
leadership given a pass, while bearing antipathy for the Wells Fargo CEO, a
person forfeits moral high ground.
As I mentioned above my nationally unknown insignificant
financial institution places a higher standard regarding conflict of interest
on all personnel and especially the CEO and CFO than what occurred at Ms.
Clinton’s State Department and Clinton foundation. Following are just a few recent non-partisan
examples of State and Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest. Perhaps these are examples where you have
given Ms. Clinton the benefit of the doubt.
Regardless, it is reasonable to conclude possible cronyism. Shouldn’t we
hold our leaders to a standard that is based on avoiding mere appearance of
conflict? My little bank does and
everyone expects it to. Would you agree that those entrusted with Government
leadership should be held to a higher standard than a local bank teller,
auditor, or CEO? BTW if the President of
my bank rented out the old court room (read Lincoln Bedroom) in our office
building for gain on behalf of an organization he cared about - without
approval from the board of directors (equivalent of congress) a SAR would be
filed and he would likely be fired.
Serious question – When considering appearance of impropriety do the
ends justify the means in your support of the Clinton foundation?
- http://freebeacon.com/national-security/clinton-sought-pentagon-state-department-contracts-chelseas-friend/
- http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624
- http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/290864-in-email-state-dept-asked-to-take-care-of-clinton-foundation
- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/us/politics/emails-raise-new-questions-about-clinton-foundation-ties-to-state-dept.html?_r=0
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-vice-presidential-debate/fact-check-pences-description-of-the-ap-report-on-clinton-foundation-donors/ Note: Though this article points out a factual error in Pence’s debate claim it however supports the AP article’s position and adds groups to it concerning the Clinton Foundation.
- http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/06/hillary-clinton-went-to-bat-for-chevron.html
- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/nyregion/weiners-wife-huma-abedin-failed-to-disclose-consulting-work-done-while-a-state-dept-aide.html
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/clinton-foundation-mcauliffe-donor-caught-up-in-chinese-cash-for-votes-scandal/2016/09/16/bfb3b8fc-7c13-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html
- http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2016/09/08/ralph-nader-clinton-foundation-s-actions-should-result-in-indictment.html
There are other subjects to broach but I have already
belabored. So I will keep this short
while trying to finish my reply to your points.
You expressed contentment with Republican FBI Director Comey’s unbiased
recommendation to not prosecute Secretary Clinton’s “extremely careless” misuse
of SAP, Top Secret, and Classified information.
I don’t see how this causes one to respect her. As Ms. Clinton has stated – “out of personal
convenience” – she was inconsiderate of US secrets and information subjecting
them to risk while commingling with Clinton Foundation and personal
information. Would you agree that was
irresponsible? A poor example of leadership?
A series of untrustworthy events? Then she decided what would not be
turned over (read destroyed). Is this not the epitome of conflict of
interest? It is certainly more than a
mere appearance of impropriety. There is
so much more that could be said here. So sad.
Are her actions and lack of transparency serious to you? You stated that “every single Republican lead
committee found that Clinton did not do anything wrong.” That is inaccurate. She did a lot wrong (see below links). See Email Scandal which lead to FBI
investigation which lead to the committee’s incredulous response to Comey’s
recommended no charges. Congressional committees
by design of our separation of powers, as you well know, do not have the
authority to press charges – only the Justice Department can do that. And they sadly, in this instance, have a
conflict of interest.
- http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/fbi-clinton-email-server-comey-damning-lines/
- http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/26/hillary-clinton-emails-mills-server-immunity-jonathan-turley/91092182/
- http://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-coordinated-on-clinton-email-issues-new-documents-show-1475798310
- http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbi-treated-clinton-with-kid-gloves-1475709394
I do share your views on Trump. He is a misogynist, sexist, etc., etc. I also think that former President Clinton is
as well – excluding perhaps racism, but adding abuse of power and lying under
oath. If abused woman can be believed as
Ms. Clinton said earlier this year “sexual assault accusers must be believed.”
Bill Clinton has many accusers. As you
state about Trump – Bill also has been accused of rape and is a proven serial
adulterer. So incredibly sad on both fronts. Both Bill Clinton and Trump are cads. Hillary
is unfortunately an enabler and it’s likely due to political gain. Can you say
that? If not, please help me
understand. I hope you are not giving
Bill the benefit of the doubt and I hope you speak nearly as tough on Bill as
you do Trump. Even with today’s reporting on Trumps disgusting 2005 despicable
comments - it is difficult for me to believe that Bill Clinton’s behavior is
much different. And I hope you see that
there is a case for concluding that Hillary ismay be an opportunist. Here are just a few recent articles. I’m sure you know there is a plethora of
reputable reports on this going back over thirty years.
- http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/14/hillary-clinton-haunted-by-efforts-to-destroy-bill/
- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html
In closing, I don’t know how anyone can claim contempt for
Trump and not have disdain for Hillary. I may still respect the opinion of
those who do – I just can’t comprehend it.
It is not enough, based on even some of her actions, to say that she is simply unlikable, if you want to keep integrity.
