Clinton Scandal Watch (A Continuing Series)

I’m waiting for Hillary Clinton to realize that she and many of those who hang around her are too ethically compromised to be allowed near the White House, and to withdraw from presidential consideration as a consequence. Until that happens, I guess that I and others will have to keep emphasizing the point that Hillary Clinton has no business being president of the United States.

I have written previously about David Metcalfe, who in the past, was responsible for FOIA implementation at the Department of Justice. Here is more regarding his concerns about Clinton’s e-mail practices:

. . . the soft-spoken academic who resembles Santa Claus maintains he’s not looking to derail Clinton’s anticipated 2016 bid. To the contrary, he says. Metcalfe notes he is a registered Democrat and will vote for the former first lady if she runs for the White House. That makes his criticism even more damaging.

While Democrats are largely rallying behind Clinton, Republicans have seized on the email uproar. And the matter isn’t going away anytime soon: The State Department has said it is reviewing the issue, congressional committees have launched probes and The Associated Press has filed a lawsuit.

[. . .]

Metcalfe isn’t a public figure, but he is a respected expert who has been asked to address legal groups, government agencies and Congress.

[. . .]

On C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” show, he said, “Based upon my first-hand involvement in a number of things during the Clinton administration, I have absolutely no doubt that Secretary Clinton well knows the operation of the Freedom of Information Act and knows what, frankly, what she was doing.”

In an interview with The Hill, Metcalfe disputed Clinton’s assertions that she didn’t do anything wrong with her email communications: “There was indeed much wrong with what happened.

“There’s no doubt in my mind and in the minds, frankly, of people at the National Archives and Records Administration, what she did was contrary to the Federal Records Act,” he added.

Be sure to watch the video associated with the link. And remember: Metcalfe is a Democrat who says that he will vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee; this is no Republican practitioner of political dark arts. But he is deeply disturbed by her conduct, and well he should be.

And then, there is the putative First Brother:

Drive down the rutted dirt road a couple of miles to the guardhouse, then hike 15 minutes up to the overgrown hilltop, and there it is: a piece of 3 1/2 -inch-wide PVC pipe sticking out of the ground.

This is what, at least for the time being, a gold mine looks like.

It also has become a potentially problematic issue for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she considers a second presidential run, after it was revealed this month that in 2013, one of her brothers was added to the advisory board of the company that owns the mine.

Tony Rodham’s involvement with the mine, which has become a source of controversy in Haiti because of concern about potential environmental damage and the belief that the project will primarily benefit foreign investors, was first revealed in publicity about an upcoming book on the Clintons by author Peter Schweizer.

In interviews with The Washington Post, both Rodham and the chief executive of Delaware-based VCS Mining said they were introduced at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative — an offshoot of the Clinton Foundation that critics have long alleged invites a blurring of its charitable mission with the business interests of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their corporate donors.

[. . .]

All sides deny that the Clintons had any role in Rodham’s appointment to the VCS advisory board.

Yeah, right. Can you say “racket”? I knew you could. More on the putative First Brother:

As a congressional committee prepares to ask questions about a scathing report on political favoritism in a federal visa program, one of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s brothers, Tony Rodham, remained mum Wednesday about accusations that an investment firm he runs pressured a Homeland Security official to speed up action on their business requests.

Meanwhile, Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D-Va.), who was also a focus of the inspector general report, issued a statement through a spokesman that didn’t dispute the basic facts the Department of Homeland Security watchdog found. Instead, the governor’s team said he was simply pressing the agency to speed up slow decisions on complex petitions related to the arrangements designed to allow foreigners to win green cards by investing in U.S. business ventures.

[. . .]

The report describes McAuliffe as intervening repeatedly with then-U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas to press for approval of various petitions pending for Gulf Coast Funds Management, which is run by Rodham. The calls took place before McAuliffe became governor and appeared intended to benefit an electric car firm tied to the veteran Democratic operative and fundraiser, GreenTech Automotive.

While Mayorkas denied any impropriety, he offered colorful descriptions of McAuliffe’s lobbying.

“I recall that over the course of many months I received several voice messages from Mr. McAuliffe complaining about USCIS’s handling of the GC/GTA case. The messages were caustic. I remember in particular one voice message that I played for [redacted], as it was laced with expletives at a high volume,” Mayorkas said in a written statement to investigators.

McAuliffe, of course, is a longtime Clinton crony. Are we really supposed to believe that he wasn’t working to stack the deck for the brother-in-law of his longtime political patron, the 42nd president of the United States? Are we really supposed to believe that he wasn’t trying to do a favor for his other political patron, the lady who aspires to be the 45th president of the United States? And are we really supposed to believe that these activities were above board?

Of course, to be fair to Tony Rodham, he’s hardly the only family member benefiting from associations with the Clintons:

Since marrying Chelsea Clinton five years ago, Marc Mezvinsky, a money manager, appears to have settled into his life as Bill and Hillary Clinton’s son-in-law. He has regularly appeared at charitable events, once introducing the former president at the Clinton Foundation’s celebrity poker tournament by dryly saying, “You may have heard of my father-in-law.” And at the recent N.B.A. All-Star Game, Mr. Mezvinsky took a seat next to Mr. Clinton and his partner in charitable endeavors, Dikembe Mutombo, the former basketball star.

Beyond the glamour, being part of the Clinton family has provided Mr. Mezvinsky with another perk: access to wealthy investors with ties to the Clintons.

When Mr. Mezvinsky and his partners began raising money in 2011 for a new hedge fund firm, Eaglevale Partners, a number of investors in the firm were longtime supporters of the Clintons, according to interviews and financial documents reviewed by The New York Times. Tens of millions of dollars raised by Eaglevale can be attributed to investors with some relationship or link to the Clintons.

So, there are a bunch of people buying access to the putative next president of the United States by giving money to her son-in-law. And we’re not supposed to have a problem with this?

Remember: If the Clintons make it back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, you are going to hear a lot more of these stories. You will hear them for four years. You may hear them for eight. And while the country examines and chews over the many ethical shortcomings of the Clintons and their hangers-on, the country’s problems and priorities will go unaddressed because the putative next president of the United States will not be able to address them from anything resembling a position of moral authority. She is simply too compromised to do so.

So why elect her president?