Michael Hudson says the media has failed to look
beyond the emails and into potential conflicts of
interest during Hillary Clinton's tenure as
Secretary of State
On Thursday morning, the mediafest and politicalfest
around Hillary Clinton's email scandal continued, as
the head of the FBI, James Comey, spoke at a
congressional House oversight committee. Here's a
little clip of what was said there. But let me just
foreshadow--maybe the emails aren't the real issue
that should be in front of these hearings. Now,
here's the chairman of the House Oversight
Committee, Jason Chaffetz, questioning James Comey
and a bit of his answer.
JASON CHAFFETZ: It seems to a lot of us that the
average Joe, the average American, that if they had
done what you laid out in your statement, that
they'd be in handcuffs. And I think there is a
legitimate concern that there is a double standard.
Your name isn't Clinton, you're not part of the
powerful elite, that Lady Justice will act
differently.
JAMES COMEY: I believe this investigation was
conducted consistent with the highest traditions of
the FBI. Our folks did it in an apolitical and
professional way. There are two things that matter
in a criminal investigation of a subject. And so
when I look at the facts we gathered here--as I
said, I see evidence of great carelessness. But I do
not see evidence that is sufficient to establish
that Secretary Clinton, or those with whom she was
corresponding, both talked about classified
information on email, and knew when they did it they
were doing something that was against the law. So
give that assessment of the facts and my
understanding of the law, my conclusion was, and
remains, no reasonable prosecutor would bring this
case. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the
second case in 100 years focused on gross
negligence.
JAY: Now joining us from New York is Michael Hudson.
Michael's a Distinguished Research Professor of
Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas
City. His latest book is Killing the Host: How
Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the
Global Economy. Thanks for joining us, Michael.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Good to be back here, Paul.
JAY: First, let's talk a little bit about what we
just heard. The chairman of the House Oversight
Committee says, is there a double standard here?
Somebody else might be in handcuffs, and Hillary
Clinton's not being charged. I guess a lot of people
are asking that question. The FBI director says this
doesn't rise to the level of criminality; it's
carelessness. I don't know the law well enough. I'm
certainly not a lawyer. But it seems to me that the
deliberate, willful decision to use a private
server--and some people have said one of the reasons
could be to avoid Freedom of Information Act
requests--and I don't know if that rises to the
level of criminality. But it's sure wrong.
HUDSON: Well, it's obvious that Hillary wanted to
keep some information from the public finding out.
The information that she wanted to keep from the
public probably didn't concern national security so
much as concern her own private dealings, because
nobody has, I think, in American history, has merged
their public service as secretary of state or
president with their private gains to the extent
that Hillary really has. And by that I mean the
Clinton Foundation, overall.
Here's the problem, you can imagine. She's going to
Saudi Arabia, she's going to Europe, she's going to
the Near Eastern countries. Saudi Arabia has asked
her--and this is all very public--we want more arms.
We want to buy arms in America. We know that Saudi
Arabia is one of the major contributors to the
Clinton Foundation. On the other hand, Hillary's in
a position to go to Raytheon, to Boeing, and say
look, do I have a customer for you. Saudi Arabia
would love to buy your arms. Maybe we can arrange
something. I'm going to do my best. By the way, you
know, my foundation is--you know, I'm a
public-spirited person and I'm trying to help the
world. Would you like to make a contribution to my
foundation?
Well, lo and behold, the military-industrial complex
is one of the big contributors to the Clinton
Foundation, as is Saudi Arabia, and many of the
parties who are directly affected by her decisions.
Now, my guess is what she didn't want people to find
out, whether on Freedom of Information Act or
others, are the lobbying she's doing for her own
foundation, which in a way means her wealth, her
husband's wealth, Bill Clinton's wealth, and the
power that both of them have by getting a quarter
billion dollars of grants into the foundation during
her secretary of state.
JAY: As far as we know, there's no direct evidence
that she did precisely what you're saying. And
that--.
HUDSON: [No direct] at all.
JAY: And that actually say--"Give money to the
foundation; I will facilitate such-and-such a
contract." There's no evidence of that, correct?
HUDSON: That's right. And partly there's no evidence
because her private emails are not subject to [inaud.].
They're not subject to finding out this. We don't
have any evidence one way or the other. So certainly
there is no evidence. There is only the appearance
of what looks to me to be an inherent conflict of
interest with the foundation.
JAY: And there's no direct evidence that any
abnormal amount of money has gone to Bill Clinton,
in terms of fees and expenses. One can assume he's
well-compensated. But it does have charitable
status, it has to file a 990. They are under
charitable law regulations, and so far I don't know
of any reporting that says that they have violated
the--.
HUDSON: You're right. The advantage of being under
charitable law is it's in a foundation that--you can
look at it in effect as your savings account. And
you can treat it--you can do with a foundation
whatever you want.
Now, if you or I had a quarter billion dollars, what
we'd want to do is influence policy. Influence the
world. Well, that's what they want to do. They want
to use the foundation to support policies that they
want. And here we're not dealing with unexplained
enrichment. This isn't money that comes into them
that goes into an offshore account in Switzerland or
the Cayman Islands. It's hidden in plain sight. It's
all the foundation. It's tax-exempt. It's
legitimate. So she's somehow been able to legitimize
a conflict of interest, and what that used to be
called corruption in office. Or at least the
appearance of what could be corruption in office.
And the fact is, that is what there has been a
blacked-out screen painted over it, and we don't
have any idea what she's been saying to these
affected parties that not only has she been dealing
with, the secretary of state, but it turned out to
be major contributors to her and Bill's foundation.
JAY: Now, the reason the emails rose to such
prominence, because it was the potential of criminal
charges. That seems to have ended now. The Clinton
foundation certainly has been reported upon in
various places in the mainstream press. It never
rose to the same level of attention as the emails.
But why do you think that is? Because you think
there's enough fodder there that that could have
been quite a media fest. Feast, I should say.
HUDSON: Well, there's no direct link between the
foundation that says it's existing to promote
various social purposes, and Hillary's actions as
secretary of state. But there's such overlap there.
I can't think of any public official at cabinet
level or above, in memory who's ever had an
overlapping between a foundation that they had and
had control, personally, and their public job. So
there's never been so great a blurring of
categories.
JAY: So why isn't this a bigger issue in the media?
Corporate media?
HUDSON: I don't--I think the media are supporting
Hillary. And that's a good question. Why are they
supporting her so much with all of this? Why aren't
they raising this seemingly obvious thing? I think
the media want two things that Hillary wants. They
want the trade agreements to essentially turn over
policy to, trade policy to corporations, and
regulatory policy to--.
JAY: You're talking about TTIP and [TTP].
HUDSON: [They're neocons.] They're the agreement of
politics. If the media agree with her politics and
says, okay, we want to back her because she's
backing the kind of world we want, a neocon world, a
neoliberal world, then they're going to say, this is
wonderful. We can now distract attention onto did
she leak a national secret. Well, the secrets that
are really important aren't the national
classification secrets. They're the personal,
personal, the big-picture secrets. And it's the big
picture we don't have a clue of as a result of all
of these erasures.
JAY: Okay, thanks very much for joining us, Michael.
HUDSON: Good to be here.
JAY: And thank you for joining us on the Real News
Network.
Michael
Hudson is research professor of economics at
University of Missouri, Kansas City and a research
associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard
College.
It is unacceptable to slander, smear or engage in personal attacks on authors of articles posted on ICH.
Those engaging in that behavior will be banned from the comment section.
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
