Opinion
No other couple in American politics can offer what the Clintons have to sell.
By
William McGurn
Many Clinton scandals
ago, when Hillary
Clinton was trying to explain how she’d parlayed a $1,000 stake in cattle
futures into $100,000 in 10 months (by talking to other people and reading The
Wall Street Journal) folks were skeptical. How, they asked, could a novice make
so much money in so short a time in such a risky market?
Turns out Mrs.
Clinton is a better learner than she’s given credit for, and the Clinton emails
released by Judicial Watch on Monday prove it. The emails were pried out of the
system by Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, and they suggest why the Clinton
Foundation could be so attractive to the rich and mighty. When a donor had a
problem that required the secretary of state’s attention, there was Doug Band—a
Clinton Foundation exec—emailing Hillary’s top staffers at the State Department
to ask a favor.
Take a June 23, 2009,
email from Doug Band to Huma Abedin. In his email Mr. Band noted that the Crown
Prince of Bahrain (a “good friend of ours”) was asking to see Mrs. Clinton.
There are, of course, many ways to be a “good friend,” but one sure way would
be to contribute between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, as the
kingdom of Bahrain had done. Not to mention that the prince had also spent $32
million on a scholarship launched through the Clinton Global Initiative.
Ms. Abedin responded
that the prince had sought a meeting through “normal” channels but had been
shot down. Less than 48 hours after Mr. Band had asked her, Ms. Abedin reported
that “we have reached out through official channels.” The meeting was on.
It isn’t the only
favor Mr. Band requested. A month earlier, he had emailed Ms. Abedin to ask her
help in getting an English soccer player a visa to the U.S. The player was
supposed to come to Las Vegas for a team celebration, but he needed a special
interview with the visa section at the American Embassy in London due to a
“criminal charge” against him.
Because of this, the
office of Sen. Barbara
Boxer (D., Calif.) had refused to intervene. Mr. Band’s email
made clear the request was on behalf of Casey Wasserman, a sports and
entertainment exec who had contributed between $5 million and $10 million to
the Clinton Foundation via the Wasserman Foundation.
These are only two of
the many email exchanges in which Ms. Abedin was asked to intervene on
behalf of some Clinton Foundation donor. These latest emails fit the same
pattern as another batch released earlier this month, which showed Mr. Band
asking Ms. Abedin and longtime Clinton aide Cheryl Mills for a meeting with a
U.S. ambassador on behalf of a foreign businessman, as well as seeking a job
for someone he described as “important to take care of.”
Judicial Watch
President Tom Fitton sums it up this way: “It looks like the State
Department was outsourcing its work to the Clinton Foundation.”
The model worked well
for the Clintons, and some believe the Clinton Foundation will be copied by
other pols, who will set up spouses or friends with foundations in hopes of
attracting the big dollars that they can use to advance their brands, reward
their friends and operate as a de facto permanent political campaign—all under
the garb of charity.
No doubt some will
try. But no one will be as successful as the Clintons have been.
The reason is simple.
The Clintons are a business partnership with something that no other political
couple has to sell. True, all ex-presidents hit the speaking circuit and have
charities and foundations. Even so, the Clintons are unique in having an
ex-president with a spouse in play, not only as secretary of state but as a
possible president herself. If you are a foreign government or a wealthy
businessmen, a donation to the Clinton Foundation might look like an
excellent investment at just about any price.
Quid pro quo is
notoriously hard to prove in such cases, and we will never know what (if
anything) Mrs. Clinton or State delivered in return. We’re asked to
believe that it was somehow an accident that so many of the millions former
President Bill Clinton raked in from speaking fees would come from
companies, countries or people who had business before a State Department run
by his wife. The truth is, this was inevitable under the Clinton Foundation
business model. And it beggars belief to think all these dollars were being
given out without an expectation of something in return.
In the meantime we
are back to a presidential campaign in which Donald Trump’s
critics attack his business record by pointing out that the New York City
real-estate mogul doesn’t even own many of the buildings that bear his name.
What he’s selling is the Trump brand.
Then again, when it
comes to dubious branding for profit, these latest emails make Mr. Trump
look like a piker compared with Mrs. Clinton.
