Hillary's Big Ethics Problem: Bill

What guidelines should govern Bill Clinton's future activities if Hillary becomes Secretary of State? Recent events suggest that at least two are necessary: no more favors for human rights violators in exchange for big contributions to the Clinton Foundation; and no more lying to the news media about such deals.

It's worth remembering the nearly-forgotten story we could call "Bill Clinton and the Kazakh uranium." As Jo Becker and Don Van Natta Jr. of the New York Times reported in January, 2008, Bill Clinton was part of a corrupt three-way deal in 2005 involving the president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, whose human rights record has been criticized by many, including the Bush White House -- and Senator Hillary Clinton.

Kazakhstan has uranium--one fifth of the world's reserves. The president of Kazakhstan wanted to be named head of an international election-monitoring organization--the same one that had ruled his election fraudulent. What to do?

Bill Clinton had the solution: it centered on a Canadian financier named Frank Giustra who wanted to get in on the Kazakh uranium projects. Clinton and Giustra flew to Kazakhstan in September 2005 on Giustra's private jet and met with President Nazarabayev. According to the New York Times, Bill "expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's bid to head an international organization that monitors elections," despite official opposition from the US as well as from his own wife.

Two days later, Giustra got the uranium deal he wanted. And shortly after that, the Clinton Foundation got its single largest contribution -- from a foundation controlled by Giustra -- $31 million. The contribution was secret, of course.

Then Jo Becker and Don Van Natta Jr. of the New York Times got onto the story. And then the Clinton people started lying.

When the Times asked about Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with the Canadian financier, Clinton sent a written response declaring that the two took the trip together "to see first-hand the philanthropic work done by his foundation." The paper reported that "a spokesman for Mr. Clinton" said Bill "did nothing to help" Giustra get his deal.

That story fell apart when the president of the Kazakh uranium project told the Times that the Canadian did discuss the deal directly with the Kazakh president, and that, according to the paper, "his friendship with Mr. Clinton 'of course made an impression.'"

But what does any of this have to do with Hillary? Quite a bit, it turns out: key staff members of her campaign also played key roles in the Clinton Foundation. Hillary's campaign chairman and chief fund-raiser, Terry McAuliffe, according to the New York Times, also "led the foundation's fund-raising and sits on its board." Hillary's campaign general counsel, Cheryl Mills, also sits on the foundation board. Hillary's campaign press secretary, Jay Carson, previously held a communications position at the foundation.

Frank Giustra is the biggest contributor to the Clinton Foundation, and the one the New York Times investigated. But the foundation has 208,000 contributors. How many other Kazakh-type deals did Bill make with them? Clinton is keeping their names secret from the public (although he has turned them over to the Obama team vetting Hillary).

Here's one more guideline regarding Hillary as Secretary of State: no more secrecy for donors to the Clinton Foundation.

Comments (27)

1. A private citizen, not a sitting president. And wife works for Obama. Hopefully this will make the hate machine's efforts to prove doomsday is upon us even thinner than usual.

   Oh, and then there's the objective fact that we've already gone over the waterfall and are headed for the rocks.

   Posted by winyahn at 11/22/2008 @ 7:02pm

2. Now don't get mad at Obama for weighing and probably nominating Hitlery, Jon. When you're only a front for Rahm Emanuel, you get a pass for such things.

   Posted by john lowell at 11/22/2008 @ 7:05pm

3. Um...wow. I'm kind of impressed at how weak the foundation for this entire argument is. It's literally, "so people of the New York times said this thing happened...and even though Bill and Hillary deny it that's what they'd do if they were guilty." Shouldn't we want a LITTLE more support than this before making a substantial set of conspiratorial assertions?

   Posted by Thrawn at 11/22/2008 @ 7:18pm

4. I don't understand why we bothered with the primary. We could have avoided a lot of huffing and puffing (and I personally could have saved a lot of money) if we had just agreed a year ago to reinstate the Clinton administration. I'd have been angry, but hey. I'm angry now. What we have, it's now clear, is a new "brand" on the third Clinton administration - the corporate-friendly neocons who dominate Obama's transition team and his cabinet. Obama is there for one purpose only: to give a new, friendly face to business as usual. Announcing this evening: Larry Summers is Obama's chief economic adviser. This can't be happening. All the crap about change? Deal with it, fellow chumps. We've been had again. We bought compassionate conservatism, and now we've bought change you can believe in. One was as real as the other. I realize that Obama is civilized and intelligent, and that is, God knows, a step in the right direction. But I took his inspiring rhetoric seriously. I feel like an idiot.

   Posted by journey80 at 11/22/2008 @ 8:21pm

5. >>>What guidelines should govern Bill Clinton's future activities if Hillary becomes Secretary of State? Recent events suggest that at least two are necessary: no more favors for human rights violators in exchange for big contributions to the Clinton Foundation; and no more lying to the news media about such deals.<<<

   You are right on the money on this one, JON WIENER!

   The basic problem with Hillary as Sec. of State is Bill, not Hillary, and concrete and transparent steps must be taken to make sure Bill's side-dealing doesn't embarrass Obama or undermine his foreign policy carried out by Hillary.

   I think the Kazakhstan thing is just the tip of the iceberg, as Bill had always counted on Hillary (as the next president) to back his plays around the world as he raised 100s of millions of dollars. Guys DON'T donate 10-20 million dollars to ex-presidents unless there is some prospective deal in exchange.

   Posted by Metteyya at 11/22/2008 @ 8:46pm

6. First, odd this hasn't drawn out FRANKGRITS (or his new nick)...

   Second, A theory bouncing around is that Hillary had her people put out the rumor that Obama was pickig her as Sec State to force Obama to do it...

   but HIS people fired back with leaks on "trouble vetting BILL" to kibosh the deal.

   We shall see I suppose.

   Posted by Mask at 11/22/2008 @ 8:48pm

7. I'm appalled, but only if in fact Nazarbayev was in fact named to the election monitoring committee. Weiner doesn't say.

   If the visit did take place as reported, and Clinton offered to get Nazarbayev on the committee (darn it, what was its name ...?), but somehow wasn't able to, then I understand: Bill was just taking an arrow from Henry Kissinger's quiver -- realpolitik as usual.

   If Obama has an Achilles heel, its name is Bill. I am already regretting the amount of controversy the next administration will have to handle about ethical issues it doesn't have but has to own. Is this trip necessary?

   Posted by gdutton at 11/22/2008 @ 9:18pm

8. One more thing. Stories like this circulate in segments of the media and blogosphere constantly. Even if this one is batted down, dozens will present their Medusa fangs. I don't want to see the Obama administration spend more than a millisecond dealing with any of them.

   Given that there are so many more critical matters at hand, both the Clintons should be ejected from the fold as quickly and as euphemistically as possible.

   Posted by gdutton at 11/22/2008 @ 9:30pm

9. Obama will rue the day he appointed Hillary.

   If Bill Clinton has shown us one thing it's that he simply cannot be trusted.

   We voted for change.

   And now we're getting the Clintons & all their baggage.

   Good luck to US, we're going to need it.

   Posted by sloper at 11/22/2008 @ 9:47pm

10. Joe Klein's description of Hillary's "is she or isn't she" as a kabuki dance is becoming more and more apt the more this drags out. Wouldn't it be cool for Obama to just say fuck it all and give it over to Richardson?

    Posted by yutsano at 11/22/2008 @ 10:34pm

11. Wow, the lefty paranoia is a little unhinged lately. Can anyone of the 'the whole election was a waste of time' hallucination please come back to earth? Name names. Name policies. Actionable intelligence. Who exactly would be better than who??

    Name names, THEN anchor your claim by articulating HOW. How would a Richardson or Nader be superior at bringing about a sovereign Palestine, or universal health coverage?? Any major policy area involves a heated stalemate as it is. A far-lefty, IMO, risks more of the same congressional flatlining regardless of the POTUS best efforts.

    Just imagine the rabid underdog minority fame-seekers and their reformed fear/flag lies. Go back and re-watch the ads the RNC ran the night before, day or two before the election. It's insanely naive to think a Nader could do anything but polarize. The repugs don't exist if they're not at war. This is all incredibly temporary. Obama's doing his damnest to hold on to this respite, get a couple things done before the corporate media declares/echos in some new form that he's not part of the real America. Mark my words, the Ken Starr, the celeb / exotic / just an orator / really a Muslim / hates true Joe 6pack Americans / socialist / distributionist / appeaser / afraid to fight... Sure shootin' it's a comin'. Your progressive picks would bring it on sooner, deeper, wider, worse. Is this your secret wish, a return to the perfect storm of 'everyone in government is basically the same' haughtiness?

    Posted by winyahn at 11/22/2008 @ 10:41pm

12. Posted by winyahn at 11/22/2008 @ 10:41pm

    If Nader is such the idealistic pure progessive candidate, explain how he exactly will get his legislation through the 535 disparate voices of Congress, a body he has neither experience with nor the temperament to handle. There is nothing wrong with being a social critic, and I personally believe Nader fills that role admirably. But the quixotic runs for the Presidency that serve little purpose than to get a few progressives to rant and rave about the supposed Nirvana Nader would bring with little actual substance to their rantings.

    Posted by yutsano at 11/22/2008 @ 10:48pm

13. >>>Mark my words, the Ken Starr, the celeb / exotic / just an orator / really a Muslim / hates true Joe 6pack Americans / socialist / distributionist / appeaser / afraid to fight... Sure shootin' it's a comin'. Posted by winyahn at 11/22/2008 @ 10:41pm<<<

    You are living in the past, my friend!

    If one thing Obama exposed in this campaign is just how shallow fearmongering actually is and why voters prefer hope over fear.

    Reagan was a success not because he was a conservative, it was because he gave Americans hope of better days ahead.

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/22/2008 @ 11:02pm

14. Posted by journey80 at 11/22/2008 @ 8:21pm

    "Obama is there for one purpose only: to give a new, friendly face to business as usual."

    Yup, you got it. Over the period of the last eight years, Bush did the figurehead honors with Cheney in charge. Over the period of at least the next four, Obama will be the figurehead with Rahm Emanuel in charge. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. And there are the usual rationalizations from the filth that knowingly defend this slight-of-hand and the oafs that fail to grasp it.

    Posted by john lowell at 11/23/2008 @ 12:53am

15. Posted by john lowell at 11/23/2008 @ 12:53am

    And your propsal for correcting this was to vote for Nader. No wait, Baldwin! How come you never stumped for the Greens? I can't take you seriously anymore, you're just a low-life anti-Semite with some weird axe to grind.

    Posted by yutsano at 11/23/2008 @ 02:15am

16. Wouldn't it be cool for Obama to just say fuck it all and give it over to Richardson? Posted by yutsano at 11/22/2008 @ 10:34pm

    No evidence of fuck it all anywhere in Obama's adult life.

    He is Mr. Cautious, totally. He does not ever upset his mentors/big backers.

    Little backers can be ignored with impunity now that the election is over. He owns their email addresses, they don't own him.

    He'll pay for it later, as the Clintons behave the way they've always behaved throughout their adult lives.

    Posted by sloper at 11/23/2008 @ 04:13am

17. He'll pay for it later, as the Clintons behave the way they've always behaved throughout their adult lives. Posted by sloper at 11/23/2008 @ 04:13am

    No. We'll pay for it.

    And it would be a hell of a lot cooler to say fuck it all and give it to Colin Powell.

    Posted by journey80 at 11/23/2008 @ 07:31am

18. I was not totally sold on Hillary becoming SOS at first I must admit, but I am sure everything that has to be done to satisfy Obama has been done correctly. I still don't know why all this stuff about Bill during his Presidency is still bothering folks. Did he make mistakes, absolutely and was he perfect, of course not....but the darn country was in great shape, with jobs and people affording extra things and we had a surplus...does no one remember that!!!! I'd like any Republican to say that this country is in good shape now and look at how much we are in DEBT!!!! You can blame Bill for a lot of things, but getting this country into a recession, loss of respect around the world, fighting a trumped up war were definitely not on his list of mistakes!! Bush has had no credibility for years, so it's time for Obama to step in with his team of very competent people, no matter who they are and make this country great again.

    Posted by Caj at 11/23/2008 @ 09:05am

19. "The basic problem with Hillary as Sec. of State is Bill, not Hillary, "METT

    I think the basic problem is the ETHICS, or lack thereof, of the Clintons. They both have shown that they are willing to do whatever it takes to get their way. 7 1/2 years of that was too much.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/23/2008 @ 10:20am

20. Posted by yutsano at 11/23/2008 @ 02:15am

    Watch who you're calling an anti-semite, toilet-flush! I'm going to explain this to you just once, so be aware that you're on notice. After that, lets just say that this is a public medium, you're in writing, and that there's a name to describe what you've just called me.

    Every complaint I've ever made here about the influence of AIPAC over American Middle East policy or its operatives, like Rahm Emanuel, have been complaints about American Likudists, most of whom are neo-conservatives, or those that support them, such as John Hagee and his cohort of Christian Zionists. My complaints most specifically are not an indictment of Jews per se. Most Jews don't even share the views of these Likudists as the J Street Project will attest:

    http://www.ipsnews.org/note_award.asp?idnews=42002

    Your smear of me is the same smear endured recently by Jimmy Carter, John Mershimer, Stephen Walt and Tony Judt. Its a smear intended to silence complaints about the influence of AIPAC over the conduct of American foreign policy. And it is a vicious falsehood. I have never once made a statement here or anywhere else villifying Jews. I'll have an apology.

    Posted by john lowell at 11/23/2008 @ 10:34am

21. Hillary Clinton's biggest ethics problem is that she is Hillary Clinton.

    And John Lowell, don't worry, I know you're not anti-semitic.

    Just like my disgust for Hillary Clinton does not make me a sexist.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 11/23/2008 @ 12:59pm

22. some nice light sunday reading:

    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/well-great-

    depression-2-2011/story.aspx?

    guid=%7BB28B49B5%2DEFD1%2D4941%2DB57E%2D

    A2BA1545BA09%7D&dist=TNMostRead

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/23/2008 @ 3:07pm

23. Barack Obama has not needed Hillary to date. He has held her off so far.

    Hillary does not have the corner on female intelligence.

    Keeping her (an enemy) close for counsel is wise.

    But handing this ambitious woman a cabinet position only encourages her to further her own agenda.

    Posted by kittyhorse9 at 11/23/2008 @ 3:21pm

24. HOLY COW!

    here it is! the complete "brainiac"!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZcvnRRuck0&fmt=18

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/23/2008 @ 3:55pm

25. Tell me you didn't use the words ethics and Clintons in the same sentence.

    Posted by Incoming at 11/23/2008 @ 4:30pm

26. RE: Hillary's ...

    Blame the victim, that's a national passtime.

    Posted by HelenDAO at 11/23/2008 @ 9:09pm

27. I guess I work for AIPAC too now huh John? Sorry, I don't apologize to blatant right-wing trolls who think they're cute going on progressive message boards trying to stir the pot. Your reaction, however, was predictable. You totally ignored the actual substance of what I posted. Well, you won't be the first or the last on my iggy heap, but that's about the best place for you from now on.

    Posted by yutsano at 11/23/2008 @ 11:23pm