>They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
I have no love lost for Hillary... but let's be real.
>When this sale was used by Trump on the campaign trail last year, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman said she was not involved in the committee review and noted the State Department official who handled it said she “never intervened ... on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter.”
So she stated she recused herself from the vote, and there's yet to be any evidence or accusations to the contrary.
Furthermore it says repeatedly in the article that the FBI didn't inform anyone outside of the Bureau about the investigation until well after the deal had closed.
>“Not providing information on a corruption scheme before the Russian uranium deal was approved by U.S. regulators and engage appropriate congressional committees has served to undermine U.S. national security interests by the very people charged with protecting them,” he said. “The Russian efforts to manipulate our American political enterprise is breathtaking.”
But I mean... stick with the unfounded accusations, it generally makes one look educated to make baseless claims.
It doesn't appear that she recused herself. Rather, it appears that while cabinet members are officially on the committee by operation of law, they rely on staff to do the review work and make the majority of decisions. IOW, Hillary was a member of the committee in name only.
> The problem, according James Lewis, an expert on military
> technology at the Center for Security and International
> Studies, is that the positions needed to move cases along
> have yet to be appointed. "There is no one between the
> committee and the secretary," Lewis said.
If you parse that (and the surrounding context) it's obvious that cabinet members don't actually do the review work themselves. Rather, the law also appoints undersecretaries and other underlings to sit on the committee. Cabinet members probably only get looped-in on rare occasion, when staff members believe an issue should be brought to the attention of a cabinet member. In the Trump administration, because there are no underlings to do the work, the committee is effectively defunct.
Also, The Hill article is clearly trolling when it says,
> Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in
> Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation
> collected millions in donations from parties interested in
> the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee
> on Foreign Investment in the United States.
12 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 50.9 ms ] thread>They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
>When this sale was used by Trump on the campaign trail last year, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman said she was not involved in the committee review and noted the State Department official who handled it said she “never intervened ... on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter.”
So she stated she recused herself from the vote, and there's yet to be any evidence or accusations to the contrary.
Furthermore it says repeatedly in the article that the FBI didn't inform anyone outside of the Bureau about the investigation until well after the deal had closed.
>“Not providing information on a corruption scheme before the Russian uranium deal was approved by U.S. regulators and engage appropriate congressional committees has served to undermine U.S. national security interests by the very people charged with protecting them,” he said. “The Russian efforts to manipulate our American political enterprise is breathtaking.”
But I mean... stick with the unfounded accusations, it generally makes one look educated to make baseless claims.
From http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/22/the-lights-are-on-at-the...
If you parse that (and the surrounding context) it's obvious that cabinet members don't actually do the review work themselves. Rather, the law also appoints undersecretaries and other underlings to sit on the committee. Cabinet members probably only get looped-in on rare occasion, when staff members believe an issue should be brought to the attention of a cabinet member. In the Trump administration, because there are no underlings to do the work, the committee is effectively defunct.Is this part of your first comment incorrect?
Do you think that the Secretary of State should be responsible for the actions of the people that report to her?
Does a donation (before or after) from the involved parties to her husband up the responsibility bar at all?