A Couple Of Thoughts On The Latest Clinton Revelations
/(1) Deep in Friday's Wall Street Journal, at page C3, we find that New York State regulators are "intensifying" their investigation of entities related to one Howard Dvorkin. The headline is "Dvorkin-Related Probes Intensify." Mr. Dvorkin is known as an advocate for consumer debt relief, and as "founder and former president" of a nonprofit entity called Consolidated Credit Counseling Services. He also has stakes in various for-profit businesses. Here's the gist of the nature of the investigation:
"The New York State Department of Financial Services is investigating whether Consolidated Credit is directing business to for-profit companies owned by Mr. Dvorkin, the agency said in response to an open-records request by the Journal. 'We suspect that personnel at CCCS, a not-for-profit entity, are steering business to for-profit companies' run by people connected to Consolidated, an attorney for the New York state regulator said."
What -- do you mean there's something wrong with using personnel paid by your not-for-profit entity to steer business to your for-profit activities? Somebody better tell the Clintons.
Meanwhile, no word on whether the New York DFS or any other regulator is investigating the Clinton Foundation for any such conduct. Of course, with the latest revelations, you don't really need to do any actual investigating. You could just read the now-famous 2011 Doug Band memo to lawyers at Simpson Thacher, helpfully available at the Washington Post website here. In the memo, Band identifies himself as "the primary fundraiser for the Foundation for the past 11 years." During the same period, Band also worked diligently on behalf of the for-profit activities of what we now refer to as Bill Clinton, Inc. From the memo:
[W]e have dedicated ourselves to helping the President secure and engage in for-profit activities -- including speeches, books, and advisory service engagements. In that context, we have in effect served as agents, lawyers, managers, and implementers to secure speaking, business and advisory service deals. . . . [W]e have personally helped to secure [more than $50 million in for-profit activity] for President Clinton to date.
Band was well-paid for his fundraising for the Foundation during this time period. And how much was Band paid by Bubba to bring in the $50 mil? Answer: nada:
Neither Justin nor I are separately compensated for these [for-profit] activities [on behalf of Bill Clinton].
But don't worry, the fundraising on behalf of Bill was completely "[i]ndependent of our fundraising and decision-making activities on behalf of the Foundation." Sure, Doug. You worked day and night to bring in $50 mil of paid work for Bill and didn't get a dollar from it for yourself. Any chance I could get you to work for me on those terms?
(2) On Friday we learned that the FBI has reopened its criminal investigation into matters related to Clinton emails. Madame Hillary promptly took to the microphones to demand that the Bureau "release all the information it has" about her private email server. From Fox News on Friday:
"We’ve heard these rumors, we don’t know what to believe," Clinton told reporters during a brief news conference in Iowa Friday evening. "And I’m sure there will be even more rumors. That’s why it is incumbent upon the FBI to tell us what they’re talking about."
Good diversion, Hillary. But the problem is, we know that the FBI is duty-bound not to disclose what it knows in an ongoing investigation. So, your demand was fake. On the other hand, there is someone who works for you and who knows what is on Huma's computer, and on Anthony's, and who is not subject to the FBI's duty to keep its ongoing investigations confidential. That person is -- Huma! So, Hillary, when will we see you publicly instructing Huma to tell us everything she knows about what is on her or Anthony's computers? I'm not holding my breath waiting for this.