One of the latest bits of news about Hillary Clinton's time as Secretary of State is just about the worst so far. It centers on a donation by a company called Pacific Rubiales that has extensive operations in Colombia. The story is reported by Powerline. Here's the background:
1. In 2007 and 2008, there was extensive labor unrest in Colombia. The workers were often arrested or otherwise intimidated by government troops who acted as strike breakers.
2. Candidate Hillary Clinton opposed the free trade deal with Colombia on the express basis that Colombia did not recognize workers' rights.
3. Once candidate Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, she switched sides in the free trade agreement debate and supported the treaty. There was a new side agreement added to the deal, however, which required Colombia to recognize workers' rights and to treat labor better than it had done previously.
4. After the agreement was signed, there was a large strike at the facilities of Pacific Rubiales in Colombia. During the strike, the government sent in troops who rounded up the strikers at gun point and intimidated them into ending the strike. This was a major strike breaking event and was well known throughout Colombia.
5. The State Department, which was charged with monitoring the adherence of Colombia to the agreement regarding the rights of labor ignored the events at Pacific Rubiales. There was not even a protest by the State Department made to the Colombians.
6. Pacific Rubiales contributed almost $4 million to a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation at roughly the same time as the strike.
7. The multi-million dollar contribution by Pacific Rubiales is one of the 1100 or so major contributions that the Clinton Foundation failed to disclose despite the agreement that it would do so.
The truth is that the facts set forth above would be enough in my opinion to bring and indictment against Hillary Clinton on corruption charges. A reasonable jury could conclude from these facts that Mrs. Clinton refrained from enforcing US policy in exchange for the "donation" from Pacific Rubiales. The hiding of the contribution from disclosure increases the chances that a jury would convict. To be clear, this is not a slam dunk kind of case; the jury could acquit. But ability to avoid conviction is not the test. The amazing thing is that we now have a major presidential candidate who at least looks like a crook, and it keeps getting worse for her as more information comes out.
1. In 2007 and 2008, there was extensive labor unrest in Colombia. The workers were often arrested or otherwise intimidated by government troops who acted as strike breakers.
2. Candidate Hillary Clinton opposed the free trade deal with Colombia on the express basis that Colombia did not recognize workers' rights.
3. Once candidate Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, she switched sides in the free trade agreement debate and supported the treaty. There was a new side agreement added to the deal, however, which required Colombia to recognize workers' rights and to treat labor better than it had done previously.
4. After the agreement was signed, there was a large strike at the facilities of Pacific Rubiales in Colombia. During the strike, the government sent in troops who rounded up the strikers at gun point and intimidated them into ending the strike. This was a major strike breaking event and was well known throughout Colombia.
5. The State Department, which was charged with monitoring the adherence of Colombia to the agreement regarding the rights of labor ignored the events at Pacific Rubiales. There was not even a protest by the State Department made to the Colombians.
6. Pacific Rubiales contributed almost $4 million to a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation at roughly the same time as the strike.
7. The multi-million dollar contribution by Pacific Rubiales is one of the 1100 or so major contributions that the Clinton Foundation failed to disclose despite the agreement that it would do so.
The truth is that the facts set forth above would be enough in my opinion to bring and indictment against Hillary Clinton on corruption charges. A reasonable jury could conclude from these facts that Mrs. Clinton refrained from enforcing US policy in exchange for the "donation" from Pacific Rubiales. The hiding of the contribution from disclosure increases the chances that a jury would convict. To be clear, this is not a slam dunk kind of case; the jury could acquit. But ability to avoid conviction is not the test. The amazing thing is that we now have a major presidential candidate who at least looks like a crook, and it keeps getting worse for her as more information comes out.
No comments:
Post a Comment