April 11, 2006: A TSA whistleblower is improperly fired and accused of leaking classified information.

Robert MacLean (Credit: public domain)

Robert MacLean (Credit: public domain)

In early April 2006, TSA [Transportation Security Administration] official Robert MacLean appears on NBC News incognito to complain that the TSA is requiring sky marshals to wear suits and ties, making them easily identifiable to potential terrorists. But his identity is somehow discovered by the TSA, and he is fired on April 11, 2006.

The TSA claims he leaked “Sensitive Security Information.” However, he argues that the text message he leaked wasn’t marked as classified and was sent to sky marshals over regular phone lines.

In 2014, after years of legal battles, the US Supreme Court will rule that the Whistleblower Protection Act prevented his firing. A year later, he will be reinstated, but he says he is still fighting with the TSA.

In September 2015, he will note similarities between his case and Clinton’s email scandal, but he predicts she will have an easier time than he did. “There’s just a different standard for whistleblowers than for politicians.” (McClatchy Newspapers, 9/29/2015)

September 18, 2006: Giustra says his chips are on Bill Clinton.

Frank Giustra (front) and Bill Clinton (back) in 2010. (Credit; Shannon Stapleton / Reuters)

Frank Giustra (front) and Bill Clinton (back) in 2010. (Credit; Shannon Stapleton / Reuters)

It is reported that Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra told a reporter, “All of my chips, almost, are on Bill Clinton. He’s a brand, a worldwide brand, and he can do things and ask for things that no one else can.” (The New Yorker, 9/18/2006) 

In 2007, Giustra and Clinton will cofound the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP), a Canadian charity that is an offshoot of the Clinton Foundation.

In 2015, it will be alleged that the CGEP operates as a “slush fund” for the Clintons. (Harper’s Magazine, 11/17/2015)

January 1, 2007: An NSA whistleblower is harassed by the government despite no evidence against him.

William Binney (Credit: Thomas Peter / Reuters)

William Binney (Credit: Thomas Peter / Reuters)

In 2002, William Binney, a recently retired NSA [National Security Agency] official, alerted the Defense Department’s inspector general that the department is wasting over $3 billion on a new system to track Internet data, when it could be done for $3 million instead.

In 2007, the FBI searches his home in a hunt for whoever leaked details of a secret post-9/11 domestic wiretapping program. He isn’t prosecuted, since he had nothing to do with that leak, but government officials “blackball” his consulting firm for intelligence agencies, costing him millions of dollars. He is wiretapped, stripped of his security clearance, and threatened with prosecution for two years.

In 2015, he will complain that he was unfairly targeted because he was a whistleblower. He says Clinton and other top ranking officials will never get prosecuted, no matter what they do. “These people are above the law.” (McClatchy Newspapers, 9/29/2015)

June 21, 2007: A Canadian offshoot of the Clinton Foundation is formed; it will later be called a “structured money-laundering operation.”

The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP) logo. (Credit: CGEP)

The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP) logo. (Credit: CGEP)

Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra and former president Bill Clinton launch the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP), a Canadian charity that is an offshoot of the Clinton Foundation. The CGEP will become known for many charitable works, including funding relief efforts after a 2010 earthquake in Haiti.

However, investigative journalist Ken Silverstein will allege in a 2015 Harper’s Magazine article that the CGEP is actually a “slush fund” for the Clintons. He will write that CGEP “has been moving significant sums of money into the Clinton Foundation’s flagship in New York. There’s no way for the public to know precisely how much total money the CGEP has taken in over the years—or how much it has forwarded on to the Clinton Foundation—because, unlike in the United States, under Canadian non-profit law charities don’t need to report donors to tax authorities.” Nearly all the donors to the CGEP are unknown. It is also unknown how much CGEP has given the Clinton Foundation, except that it ranks in the top donor class of $25 million or more.

Charles Ortel, an independent financial expert, will say, “There are no effective controls over the Clinton Foundation or the [CGEP]. No independent party has had access to the bank account records, including wire transfer records. There are no independent directors ensuring compliance with the law. Only a fool would have any confidence in their numbers; it’s like Al Capone forming a foundation.”

An unnamed “money-laundering expert and former intelligence officer based in the Middle East who had access to the Foundation’s confidential banking information” will claim that members of royal families in the Middle East and officials in corrupt governments around the world donate money to the CGEP, which is then sent to the Clinton Foundation. For instance, “Equatorial Guinea doesn’t give to the Clinton Foundation in New York because it’s too embarrassing [for the Clintons]. They give the money anonymously in Canada and that buys them political protection in the United States. The Clinton Foundation is a professionally structured money-laundering operation. […] I can’t say for certain that it’s illegal because I don’t have access to all the financial information but at best they are skating along the edge.” The source concludes that if one puts together all the known evidence, “it’s obvious that the Foundation is a fraud.”

The Clinton Foundation will fail to disclose an account linked to the CGEP on eight consecutive tax returns, including the time Hillary Clinton is secretary of state. (Harper’s Magazine, 11/17/2015)

January 15, 2008—September 30, 2013: The State Department has no permanent inspector general for the entire time Clinton is secretary of state.

080115HaroldGeiselpublicdomain

Acting Inspector General Harold Geisel (Credit: public domain)

Instead, an acting inspector with close ties to State Department leadership fills the role. An “inspector general” is an internal watchdog tasked with discovering mismanagement and corruption. The position goes vacant in January 2008. President Obama doesn’t nominate anyone to fill the position for more than four years, making it the longest time any department ever went without a permanent one.

Five months after Clinton leaves office, Obama nominates Steve Linick, who is confirmed as the new permanent inspector general three months later, on September 30, 2013.

In 2015, the Wall Street Journal will write, “The lack of a confirmed inspector general raises questions about oversight of the department under Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. The department has been criticized for its failure to gather and archive the email records of Mrs. Clinton and other officials and for responses to public-record requests that lawmakers and advocacy groups say were insufficient… It isn’t clear whether Mrs. Clinton had any role in the lack of a nomination.”

The acting inspector general during Clinton’s term, Harold Geisel, is banned from taking the job permanently due to conflict of interest rules. Matthew Harris, a professor who researches inspectors general, will later comment, “It’s a convenient way to prevent oversight.” Acting inspectors general “don’t feel empowered; they don’t have the backing of their people. They’re in a position where they could be removed at any moment.”

Representative Ed Royce (R), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, will later suggest, “A permanent IG [inspector general] would have objected to [Clinton’s] efforts to circumvent congressional oversight by keeping her emails off the books.”

The White House has yet to explain why it waited so long to nominate a replacement. (The Wall Street Journal, 3/24/2015)

Mid-August 2008: The Chinese government apparently hacks into the 2008 presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain.

Admiral Dennis Blair (Credit: Sasakawa Peace Foundation USA)

Admiral Dennis Blair (Credit: Sasakawa Peace Foundation USA)

Hacking teams traced back to China are caught breaking into the computers of the Obama and McCain campaigns, resulting in high-level warnings to Chinese officials to stop. The computers, laptops, and mobile devices of top campaign aides and advisers who receive high-level briefings are particularly targeted. “Spear phishing” is used to get targets to open an attachment containing a virus that would allow data to be stolen from their computer.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe will later say he got a call in the middle of August 2008 alerting him to the attack and that the FBI was investigating. However, the virus is extremely sophisticated, and it takes months for it to be completely removed from the networks of the two campaigns.

In a May 2009 speech, President Obama will make a general mention of the attacks: “Hackers gained access to emails and a range of campaign files, from policy position papers to travel plans.” However, the involvement of China’s government won’t be publicly revealed until June 2013.

Dennis Blair, director of national intelligence from 2009 to 2010, will comment that year, “Based on everything I know, this was a case of political cyberespionage by the Chinese government against the two American political parties. They were looking for positions on China, surprises that might be rolled out by campaigns against China.” (NBC News, 6/6/2013)

December 17, 2008: The Clinton Foundation’s donor list includes foreign governments as well as business leaders.

Clinton pays an official visit to King Abdullah, in Saudi Arabia, on March 30, 2012. (Credit: Reuters)

Clinton pays an official visit to King Abdullah, in Saudi Arabia, on March 30, 2012. (Credit: Reuters)

Since it began in 1997, the Clinton Foundation had never revealed who its donors were, as it is not legally required to do so. But on this day, with conflict of interest an increasing issue due to Hillary Clinton about to become President Obama’s secretary of state, the foundation releases its list of donors for the first time. Over 200,000 people and entities gave over $500 million to the foundation since it was created. Some of these donations do show conflict of interest concerns, especially in relation to Hillary’s new secretary of state role.

In 2015, the Washington Post will report that the 2008 list of donors “included foreign governments, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which could ask the State Department to take their side in international arguments. And it included a variety of other figures who might benefit from a relationship—or the appearance of a relationship—with the secretary. A businessman close to the ruler of Nigeria. Blackwater Training Center, a controversial military contractor. And dozens of powerful American business leaders, including some prominent conservatives, such as Rupert Murdoch.” Additionally, “It appeared that some wealthy donors—who traveled with [Bill] Clinton or attended his events—also had made valuable business connections at the same time.” For instance, Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra “attended Clinton-related events and met the leaders of Kazakhstan and Colombia, countries where he would later make significant business deals.” (The Washington Post, 6/2/2015) (The New York Times, 12/18/2008)

Former US Treasury Department official Matthew Levitt says donations from “countries where [the US has] particularly sensitive issues and relations” will invariably raise conflict of interest concerns. “The real question is to what extent you can really separate the activities and influence of any husband and wife, and certainly a husband and wife team that is such a powerhouse.”

Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson says the disclosure of donors should ensure that there would be “not even the appearance of a conflict of interest.” (The New York Times, 12/18/2008)

January 21, 2009: President Obama pledges to increase government transparency.

President Obama delivers a speech after being sworn in on January 21, 2009. (Credit: Jim Young / Reuters)

President Obama delivers a speech after being sworn in on January 21, 2009. (Credit: Jim Young / Reuters)

During his swearing-in ceremony, Obama says, “Let me say it as simply as I can. Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”

He adds, “Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known. […] The Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] is perhaps the most powerful instrument we have for making our government honest and transparent, and of holding it accountable. And I expect members of my administration not simply to live up to the letter but also the spirit of this law.” (The White House, 1/21/2009)

In November 2016, Slate will comment, “Needless to say, the agencies have not taken this order seriously, nor has Obama pressured or prodded them to do so. Many crises crowded his agenda soon after his inauguration, leaving the cause of government openness on the back burner, if not in the freezer.” (Slate, 11/2/2016)

January 21, 2009—February 1, 2013: During Clinton’s four years as secretary of state, the State Department dramatically increases the sale of military weapons to countries that are large donors to the Clinton Foundation.

Huma Abedin and Clinton on their way to meet with Abu Dhabi's crown prince, Sheik Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, in June 2011. (Credit: The Associated Press)

Huma Abedin and Clinton on their way to meet with Abu Dhabi’s crown prince, Sheik Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, in June 2011. (Credit: The Associated Press)

The department has to authorize all such sales, and can turn them down for a variety of reasons, such as documented human rights abuses in those countries. But the department authorizes $151 billion in military sales to the 16 countries that are large donors to the foundation, a 143% increase to those nations compared to the last four years of the Bush administration.

By comparison, military sales to all countries, including those countries, increase 80% during the same time period. US defense contractors also donate heavily to the Clinton Foundation during this time, as well as paying for speeches given by Bill Clinton.

Many countries the State Department approves for these sales are also criticized by the department for various problems such as corruption, political repression, and poor cooperation on terrorism. Such countries include Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. The 16 large donor countries give between $54 million and $141 million combined to the Clinton Foundation during this time, as well as paying big speaking fees to Bill Clinton.

Meredith McGehee, policy director at the non-profit Campaign Legal Center, will later say, “The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the Clintons was to give to this foundation. This shows why having public officials, or even spouses of public officials, connected with these non-profits is problematic.”

Gregory Suchan, who was a State Department official for over 30 years, will say that while foreign governments and defense contractors may not have made donations to the foundation exclusively to influence weapons sales, they were clearly “looking to build up deposits in the ‘favor bank’ and to be well thought of.” (The International Business Times, 5/26/2015)

January 21, 2009—2014: While secretary of state, Clinton supports international business deals that benefit Boeing, a US-based airplane manufacturing company.

A $30 billion agreement was made on December 30, 2010, to sell advanced F-15SA Strike Eagle fighter jets (pictured) to Saudi Arabia. (Credit: The Wall Street Journal)

A $30 billion agreement was made on December 30, 2010, to sell advanced F-15SA Strike Eagle fighter jets (pictured) to Saudi Arabia. (Credit: The Wall Street Journal)

Meanwhile, Boeing and the foreign countries involved in the deals donate to the Clinton Foundation and pay for speeches given by Bill Clinton.

  • In early 2009, Clinton begins working with Boeing to open up new business in Russia. Later in the year, Clinton visits Russia and makes what she describes as a “shameless pitch” to a Russian airline to buy Boeing passenger jets. In 2010, Boeing gets the deal, selling 50 jets worth $3.7 billion.
  • In 2009, China is preparing to host the 2010 world’s fair. However, it seems the US exhibit promoting US businesses will have to be cancelled, since the private fundraising efforts are going poorly. A State Department official warns that there likely will be “extremely widespread” consequences to both diplomatic and commercial interests if the US effort fails. Emails show that Clinton and other State Department officials push Boeing and other US companies to donate, and Boeing eventually gives $2 million, helping make the exhibit a success. US exposition organizer Nick Winslow will later say that he didn’t feel any political pressure, but, “Knowing that it was important to the State Department, did that help? Of course it did.”
  • In August 2010, Boeing donates $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation to support education projects in Haiti.
  • In February 2011, Boeing wins a $35 billion tanker-refueling contract for the US Air Force. Clinton had supported the bid. When she hears Boeing won, she writes in an email, “I’m pleased.”
  • In 2011, the State Department approves a series of weapons deals between Boeing and the government of Kuwait. For instance, Boeing is the prime contractor in a $690 million deal to give Kuwait military transport planes.
  • Later in 2011, Bill Clinton is paid $175,000 by the Kuwait America Foundation for a speech. Boeing is a sponsor of the event. Kuwait also continues to donate millions to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary is secretary of state.
  • In late 2011, Clinton’s State Department approves an enormous weapons deal for Saudi Arabia. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing will deliver $30 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to that country, including 84 new F-15 fighter jets built by Boeing. The deal takes place despite strong opposition from Israel, as well as concerns about Saudi Arabia’s human rights record and lack of democracy. But according to a State Department official, Clinton made the deal a personal “top priority.”
  • Saudi Arabia is prohibited from donating money to the Clinton Foundation during her time as secretary of state as part of a deal Clinton signed with the White House in 2008. But in previous years, the Saudi government gave at least $10 million to foundation. Additionally, private Saudi citizens and Saudi royals give millions to the foundation while she is in office. Then the Saudi government resumes donating to the foundation after she leaves office.
  • Boeing International President Shephard Hill (left) speaks alongside Hillary Clinton in Shanghai, China, on May 22, 2010. (Credit: Getty Images)

    Boeing International President Shephard Hill (left) speaks alongside Hillary Clinton in Shanghai, China, on May 22, 2010. (Credit: Getty Images)

    In early 2012, the State Department helps Boeing secure major deals in Indonesia and Saudi Arabia.

  • In July 2012, Boeing pays Bill Clinton $250,000 for a speech.
  • In September 2012, Bill Clinton gives another speech sponsored by Boeing. He is paid $200,000.
  • In 2013, Boeing sponsored an event in St. Louis called Clinton Global Initiative University. It’s not clear how much Boeing donates, but it gives between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, and the event is part of the foundation’s work.

Lisa Gilbert, of the government integrity watchdog group Public Citizen, will later say that what the Clintons were doing likely was not illegal. However, it seems “unsavory.” (The Seattle Times, 3/21/2016Similar patterns can be seen with other US weapons manufacturers, like Lockheed, and other foreign governments, like Oman and Qatar. Lawrence Lessig, the director of Harvard University’s Safra Center for Ethics, will later say, “These continuing revelations raise a fundamental question of judgment. Can it really be that the Clintons didn’t recognize the questions these transactions would raise? And if they did, what does that say about their sense of the appropriate relationship between private gain and public good?” (The International Business Times, 5/26/2015)

March 2009—2014: The Clintons and the Clinton Foundation benefit after Hillary Clinton helps Swiss bank UBS.

Clinton appears with Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, (left), at the State Department on July 31, 2009, announcing a settlement in a legal case involving UBS. (Credit: J. Scott Applewhite / The Associated Press)

Clinton appears with Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, (left), at the State Department on July 31, 2009, announcing a settlement in a legal case involving UBS. (Credit: J. Scott Applewhite / The Associated Press)

In 2007, a whistleblower gave information about thousands of US citizens who were putting money in Swiss mega-bank UBS to avoid paying US taxes. The IRS [Internal Revenue Service] sues UBS to learn the identities of US citizens with secret bank accounts. UBS faces either complying and violating strict Swiss banking secrecy laws, or refusing and facing criminal charges in a US court.

The US government decides to treat this as a political matter with the Swiss government instead of just a legal problem with the bank. In March 2009, Clinton meets with Swiss officials and brings up a number of unrelated issues where the US wants help from Switzerland, such as using Swiss neutrality to help release a US citizen imprisoned in Iran. The Swiss help with these other issues, and appear to get concessions in the UBS case in return.

On July 31, 2009, Clinton announces a legal settlement: the US government dismisses the IRS lawsuit, and UBS turns over data on only 4,450 accounts instead of the 52,000 accounts worth $18 billion wanted by the IRS.

Some US politicians criticize the deal. For instance, Senator Carl Levin (D), says, “It is disappointing that the US government went along.” A senior IRS official will later complain that many US citizens escaped scrutiny due to the deal.

Former president Bill Clinton and UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive, Bob McCann, took the stage at a Clinton Global Initiative event in 2011. (Credit: Brian Kersey /UPI/ Landov)

Former president Bill Clinton and UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive, Bob McCann, took the stage at a Clinton Global Initiative event in 2011. (Credit: Brian Kersey /UPI/ Landov)

UBS then helps the Clintons in various ways:

  • Total UBS donations to the Clinton Foundation grow from less than $60,000 through 2008 to about $600,000 by the end of 2014.
  • Starting in early 2010, UBS works with the foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, and lends the programs $32 million. In 2012, the foundation will tout these programs as one of their major accomplishments.
  • UBS gives the foundation $100,000 for a charity golf tournament.
  • In 2011, UBS pays Bill Clinton $350,000 for discussing the economy at a UBS event.
  • Also in 2011, UBS pays Bill Clinton $1.5 million to take part in eleven question and answer sessions with a UBS official, making UBS his largest corporate source of speech income.

In 2015, the Wall Street Journal will comment, “there is no evidence of any link between Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the case and the bank’s donations to [the foundation], or its hiring of Mr. Clinton. But her involvement with UBS is a prime example of how the Clintons’ private and political activities overlap.”

Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law professor and Democrat, will say of the Clintons, “They’ve engaged in behavior to make people wonder: What was this about? Was there something other than deciding the merits of these cases?” (The Wall Street Journal, 7/30/2015)

The Atlantic magazine will comment, “If you’re Bill Clinton and your wife has recently intervened in her capacity as a cabinet secretary to help a giant corporation avert a significant threat to its bottom-line, the very least you could do, if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety, is to avoid negotiating seven-figure paydays with that same corporation. [The fact he didn’t do that] is particularly jaw-dropping because ultra-wealthy Bill Clinton has virtually unlimited opportunities to give lucrative speeches to any number of audiences not directly implicated by decisions that his wife made as secretary of state.” (The Atlantic, 7/31/2015)

October 2, 2009: New regulations require that all government emails must be preserved.

The US Code of federal regulations on handling electronic records is updated: “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.” (The Washington Post, 3/10/2015)

In 2015, Jason Baron, former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), will comment that the rules get stricter in 2013. But even prior to that, “the use of a private [email] account was to be rare and occasional, and not to be the norm.” Using a private account “without using an official account is inconsistent with the Federal Records Act.” He adds, “To solely use a personal e-mail for four years [as Clinton did] is something that is highly unusual.” (Bloomberg News, 3/3/2015)

March 2010: Clinton judges a possible department watchdog, raising independence concerns.

The permanent position of State Department inspector general has been vacant since 2008, before Obama became president. An inspector general serves as a department’s internal watchdog. Some time in March 2010, Clinton’s chief of staff Cheryl Mills emails Clinton about a possible nominee for the position. Mills writes, “Let me know if you DON’T want to proceed.”

Clinton writes back, “Are you ok [with] him?”

Then Mills writes, “Yes – he’ll be good.”

It is not known who they are talking about since the name will later be redacted, but Obama will not nominate anyone for the position until mid-2013, after Clinton’s term as secretary of state is over.

The Wall Street Journal will later comment, “The exchange raises questions about the independence of the inspector general’s office. Government inspectors general have broad latitude within government agencies to investigate cases of waste, fraud, mismanagement, and abuse.” (The Wall Street Journal, 2/20/2016)

June 2010—October 2010: Secret donations to a Clinton Foundation offshoot are given around the same time Clinton’s State Department allows Russia to buy a company that controls much of the uranium production in the US.

Ian Telfer (Credit: Galit Rodan / Bloomberg News)

Ian Telfer (Credit: Galit Rodan / Bloomberg News)

In 2009, a branch of Rosatom, a Russian company linked to the Russian government, buys a 17 percent stake in Uranium One, a Canadian mining company. In 2010, it wants to increase that to a controlling 51 percent stake. Some US politicians are concerned, because Uranium One owns uranium mines around the world, and uranium is a strategic asset due to its use in nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. For instance, Senator John Barrasso (R) writes to President Obama, saying the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity. Equally alarming, this sale gives [them] a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.”

According to the Clinton Foundation’s disclosure records, Ian Telfer, the Canadian head of Uranium One, donates less than $250,000 to the foundation, in 2007. However, Canadian tax records show that Telfer gives $2.4 million more from 2009 to 2012. Additional millions in donations are given around this time by other people with ties to Uranium One.

In June 2010, former President Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 to give a speech in Moscow, one of his highest speaking fees. He is paid by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Russian government. That same month, Rosatom makes its deal to get a majority stake in Uranium One. However, the deal can’t go forward without approval from a group of US cabinet officials called the Committee on Foreign Investment, including Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. In October 2010, the committee gives its approval. The committee’s decision-making process is shrouded in secrecy, but it is said the approval goes relatively smoothly.

By 2013, the Russian company will own 100% of Uranium One, and they will have control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the US. The New York Times will later comment, “Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.”

Furthermore, Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra built a company that later merged with Uranium One, and he gives at least $31 million to the Clinton Foundation. (The New York Times, 4/23/2015) In 2007, Giustra cofounded a Canadian offshoot of the Clinton Foundation called the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP), which has been accused of being a “slush fund” that allows politically toxic foreign contributors to anonymously donate money to the Clinton Foundation in the hopes of gaining political influence with Bill and Hillary Clinton. (Harper’s Magazine, 11/17/2015) The secret donations from Telfer and others connected to Uranium One all appear to have gone through the CGEP. (The New York Times, 4/23/2015)

September 23, 2010: A CGI commitment benefits a for-profit company partly owned by friends of the Clintons.

Julie Tauber McMahon (Credit: Getty Images)

Julie Tauber McMahon (Credit: Getty Images)

The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) is a yearly conference connected to the Clinton Foundation that helps inspire and arrange donations to solve problems around the world.

At the personal request of Bill Clinton, the September 2010 CGI conference sets up a financial commitment to benefit a for-profit company partly owned by people who have ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton. The company, Energy Pioneer Solutions Inc., is a small start-up that has a business plan to insulate homes and let the owners pay through their monthly utility bills. The company is 29% owned by Scott Kleeb, a Democrat who twice ran for Congress from Nebraska; 29% by Jane Eckert, an art gallery owner; 29% by Julie Tauber McMahon, a close friend of Bill Clinton; 5% by Andrew Tobias, Democratic National Committee treasurer and longtime Clinton friend; and 5% by Mark Weiner, a former Rhode Island Democratic chairman, and also a longtime Clinton friend.

Out of thousands of CGI commitments, this is one of only a handful that involve private individuals making a personal financial investment in a for-profit company, instead of donations to non-profits or charities. The commitment is added to a database at the CGI website, but it will be removed several months later.

The Wall Street Journal will later report, “The reason was to avoid calling attention to Mr. Clinton’s friendship with one company co-owner, Ms. McMahon, and to protect the integrity of Mr. Clinton and the Clinton Global Initiative, according to people familiar with the matter.” Bill Clinton also personally endorsed the company to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, resulting in a $812,000 grant from the Energy Department that year. The IRS requires that tax-exempt charitable organizations like CGI “must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests.” The $2 million commitment is eventually achieved for the company, although it’s not clear which who gave and by how much. (The Wall Street Journal, 5/12/2016)

In 2014, it will be alleged in some tabloids that McMahon had a prolonged affair will Bill Clinton, roughly from 2001 until 2013, but McMahon will deny it and say they are just close friends. (The Daily Mail, 7/25/2014) (Heavy.com, 8/14/2014)

July 12, 2011: Clinton’s public comments on transparency contradict her personal practices.

Clinton speaks to the Open Government Partnership on July 12, 2011. (Credit: Open Government Partnership}

Clinton speaks to the Open Government Partnership on July 12, 2011. (Credit: Open Government Partnership}

Clinton gives a speech to inaugurate the Open Government Partnership, an international initiative to promote government transparency. “When a government hides its work from public view, hands out jobs and money to political cronies, administers unequal justice, looks away as corrupt bureaucrats and businessmen enrich themselves at the people’s expense, that government is failing its citizens. And most importantly, that government is failing to earn and hold the trust of its people. And that lack of trust, in a world of instantaneous communication, means that the very fabric of society begins to fray and the foundation of governmental legitimacy begins to crumble.”

In 2015, Danielle Brian, the executive director of the nonpartisan Project On Government Oversight (POGO), will say that Clinton’s comments “demonstrate extraordinary hypocrisy given that while Clinton was giving this speech she had created essentially a second set of books where her communications were not being captured for the National Archives [and Records Administration (NARA)].” Furthermore, keeping all of her emails out of reach “undermines the whole point of the Open Government Partnership.” (US Department of State, 7/12/2011) (Bloomberg News, 3/5/2015)

September 20, 2011: Clinton’s State Department pledges to improve processing FOIA requests while Clinton keeps her emails out of reach of all such requests.

Abedin (standing) and Clinton (on cell phone) attend a meeting with leaders of the Open Government Partnership in New York on September 20, 2011. (Credit: Politico)

Abedin (standing) and Clinton (on cell phone) attend a meeting with leaders of the Open Government Partnership in New York on September 20, 2011. (Credit: Politico)

The US is one of the founding members of the Open Government Partnership, an international initiative joined by over 60 countries to promote government transparency. The US State Department makes several commitments as part of a transparency action plan. One is to overhaul how the US government stores and manages its records, to create “a reformed, digital-era, government-wide records management framework that promotes accountability and performance.” It also pledges to reform how it processes requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), making government information more searchable and available to the public.

In 2015, Ryan Shapiro, a FOIA expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, will point out that Clinton made this commitment even while she attempted to keep all of her emails from future public scrutiny. “Secretary Clinton’s hypocritical and self-serving stance on transparency should be deeply troubling to everyone who cares about open government and accountability. It’s ironic that Secretary Clinton championed an open government partnership for other countries while simultaneously working diligently to subvert transparency at home.” (Bloomberg News, 3/5/2015) (Opengovpartnership.org, 1/13/2016)

February 26, 2012: The Obama administration punishes whistleblowers for leaks, but not high-ranking officials leaking favorable information.

Obama signs The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act on November 27, 2012. (Credit: public domain)

Obama signs The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act on November 27, 2012. (Credit: public domain)

The New York Times reports that “[t]he Obama administration, which promised during its transition to power that it would enhance ‘whistleblower laws to protect federal workers,’ has been more prone than any administration in history in trying to silence and prosecute federal workers. The Espionage Act, enacted back in 1917 to punish those who gave aid to our enemies, was used three times in all the prior administrations to bring cases against government officials accused of providing classified information to the media. It has been used six times since the current president took office.”

ABC News reporter Jake Tapper says: “I have been following all of these cases, and it’s not like they are instances of government employees leaking the location of secret nuclear sites. These are classic whistle-blower cases that dealt with questionable behavior by government officials or its agents acting in the name of protecting America.”

The Times concludes, “There is plenty of authorized leaking going on, but this particular boat leaks from the top. Leaks from the decks below, especially ones that might embarrass the administration, have been dealt with very differently.” (The New York Times, 2/26/2016)

June 1, 2012: Clinton aide Huma Abedin holds four paid jobs at once with obvious conflicts of interest.

Huma Abedin (Credit: The Hill)

Huma Abedin (Credit: The Hill)

Abedin is Clinton’s deputy chief of staff during Clinton’s time as secretary of state. For the last six months of Clinton’s tenure, she participates in a “special government employee” six-month program that allows her to simultaneously work four paid jobs: the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, Clinton’s personal office, and Teneo, a private consultancy with close ties to the Clintons. In autumn 2015, the State Department’s inspector general will subpoena the Clinton Foundation, requesting records about Abedin’s possible conflicts of interest. (The Washington Post, 2/11/2016)

Senator Charles Grassley (R) will later say he has “fundamental questions” about Abedin’s multiple jobs, asking her in a letter, “How can the taxpayer know who exactly you are working for at any given moment?” (The Washington Post, 8/27/2015)

Summer 2012: A Marine is fired for giving an urgent warning that mentions classified information.

Jason Brezler walks with Afghan children in Afghanistan. (Credit: Corporal Zach Nola)

Jason Brezler walks with Afghan children in Afghanistan. (Credit: Corporal Zach Nola)

Marine Major Jason Brezler sends an email attachment over an unsecure line in an urgent attempt to save the lives of other Marines in Afghanistan. The message is classified, but not marked as such, as Brezler doesn’t know it is classified at the time. The message warns other Marines about the imminent arrival of corrupt Afghan official.

Three weeks later, three Marines will be shot and killed inside a US base by an associate of the official. After finding out that his message contained classified information, Brezler reports this to his superiors. He is later investigated and given an unwanted honorable discharge from the Marines as a result.

The media will later note the similarity between Brezler’s case and Clinton’s. In 2015, the Daily Beast will quote a friend of Brezler’s, who asks him: “Hey, Jason, what did you do that Hillary didn’t?” (The Daily Beast, 8/13/2015)

September 18, 2012—February 2013: A nuclear energy whistleblower is targeted for allegedly having classified information on a computer.

Lawrence Criscione (Credit: Michael Weaver / McClatchy)

Lawrence Criscione (Credit: Michael Weaver / McClatchy)

On September 18, 2012,  NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] engineer Lawrence Criscione sends a long letter to NRC chair Allison Macfarlane about dangerous problems at the Oconee nuclear plant in South Carolina. He shares the letter with 13 members of Congress.

One day later, the NRC’s inspector general begins investigating if he illegally made information marked “For Official Use Only” public. Another government agency soon rules that such information is an “unofficial administrative marking that has no legal import.”

But in February 2013, the inspector general nevertheless asks the Justice Department to charge him with misusing his government computer to transmit sensitive information. Several days later, the department decides not to prosecute him. But it takes another 13 months before he is formally cleared.

Speaking in 2015, Criscione believes he was unfairly targeted to discourage other whistleblowers. Referring to Clinton’s email scandal, he says, “If a career civil servant had a server with ‘top secret’ information in his basement, he would without a doubt do time” in prison. (McClatchy Newspapers, 9/29/2015)

June 6, 2013: Chinese government hacker attacks on US government targets have steadily increased since 2008.

Shawn Henry (Credit: public domain)

Shawn Henry (Credit: public domain)

In the summer of 2008, the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain had their computers successfully breached by hackers apparently working for the Chinese government. According to NBC News, “US officials say that Chinese intrusions have escalated in the years since, involving repeated attacks on US government agencies, political campaigns, corporations, law firms, and defense contractors—including the theft of national security secrets and hundreds of billions of dollars in intellectual property.”

Shawn Henry headed up the FBI’s investigation of the 2008 attacks and now is president of the computer security company CrowdStrike. He says there’s “little doubt” the Chinese government has an aggressive electronic espionage program targeting the US government and the commercial sector. “There’s been successful exfiltration of data from government agencies (by the Chinese) up and down Pennsylvania Avenue.” (NBC News, 6/6/2013)

July 2013: Clinton’s private server is reconfigured to use a commercial email provider.

The MX Logic logo (Credit: MX Logic)

The MX Logic logo (Credit: MX Logic)

The Colorado-based provider, MX Logic, is owned by McAfee Inc., a top Internet security company. This comes one month after Clinton hired the Colorado-based Platte River Networks to maintain her email server, and four months after a hacker named Guccifer publicly exposed Clinton’s private email address for the first time. (The Associated Press, 3/4/2015) 

Computer security expert Matt Devost will later comment: “The timing makes sense. When she left office and was no longer worried as much about control over her emails, she moved to a system that was easier to administer.” (Bloomberg News, 3/4/2015)

September 22, 2013: The Clinton Foundation’s possible conflicts of interest are scrutinized.

Bill Clinton (left) and Douglas Band (right). (Credit: The White House)

Bill Clinton (left) and Douglas Band (right). (Credit: The White House)

The New Republic publishes a long investigative article about Douglas Band, who has simultaneously been Bill Clinton’s personal assistant, a top manager in the Clinton Foundation, and the head of the Teneo consulting firm. It discusses the Clinton Foundation: “Bill Clinton now leads a sprawling philanthropic empire like no other. The good it achieves is undeniable. It has formed partnerships with multinationals and wealthy individuals to distribute billions of dollars all over the globe. Its many innovative projects include efforts to lower the costs of medicines in developing nations and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in major cities. And yet it’s hard to shake the sense that it’s not all about saving the world. There’s an undertow of transactionalism in the glittering annual dinners, the fixation on celebrity, and a certain contingent of donors whose charitable contributions and business interests occupy an uncomfortable proximity. More than anyone else except Clinton himself, Band is responsible for creating this culture. And not only did he create it; he has thrived in it.”

The article also says, “For corporations, attaching Clinton’s brand to their social investments offered a major PR [public relations] boost. As further incentive, they could hope for a kind word from Clinton the next time they landed in a sticky spot. ‘Coca-Cola or Dow or whoever would come to the president,’ explains a former White House colleague of Band’s, ‘and say, ‘We need your help on this.’ Negotiating these relationships, and the trade-offs they required, could involve some gray areas.” Potential conflicts of interest with Band’s Teneo company, the Clinton Foundation, and Hillary Clinton’s role as secretary of state were a major issue as long as she held that job. (The New Republic, 9/22/2013)

July 11, 2014: Nonprofit Quarterly publishes a story with the title, “The Philanthropic Problem with Hillary Clinton’s Huge Speaking Fees.”

Meyer Luskin (Credit: UCLA Newsroom)

Meyer Luskin (Credit: UCLA Newsroom)

It points out that both Bill and Hillary Clinton has recently been paid speaking fees that are sometimes “astronomical,” and significantly greater than other prominent politicians, including former US presidents. Furthermore, the Clintons often give speeches at public or private universities. These speeches are usually paid by private individuals or foundations, not by the universities themselves.

For instance, in March 2014, Hillary was paid $300,000 to speak to students and faculty at UCLA [The University of California, Los Angeles]. The entire fee was paid through a private endowment by Meyer Luskin, president of Scope Industries, a food waste recycling company. In 2012, Bill Clinton was similarly paid $250,000 for a UCLA speech paid by Luskin. In both cases, the money allegedly went to the Clinton Foundation. (Nonprofit Quarterly, 7/11/2014) However, ABC News has tried and failed to get any documentation from the Clintons proving the speaking fees went to the foundation. (ABC News, 7/9/2014)

Nonprofit Quarterly then suggests this means the Clintons’ speeches to universities could be a way for rich donors to give well over the usual campaign spending limits to Hillary’s “all but inevitable presidential campaign” by effectively “repurposing” money through these large speaking fees. “It would be terribly disappointing to imagine that the colleges and universities paying the Clintons these sums might be fronting, hopefully unknowingly, for individual donors supporting these colleges’ lecture series, but individually have personal or political agendas that would benefit from being associated with an institution of higher education that pays Bill or Hillary Clinton a couple of hundred thousand for a speech—even if the money ends up in the Clintons’ family foundation.” (Nonprofit Quarterly, 7/11/2014)

March 2, 2015: Clinton spokesperson Nick Merrill incorrectly claims that Clinton’s email practices followed “both the letter and spirit of the rules.”

Nick Merrill (Credit: Skidmore College)

Nick Merrill (Credit: Skidmore College)

Merrill’s comment appears in the March 2, 2015 New York Times story revealing that Clinton used a private email account when she was secertary of state. He won’t say why she did this. (The New York Times, 3/2/2015)

However, on March 12, 2015, Douglas Cox, a professor who focuses on records preservation laws, says: “While Clinton may have technical arguments for why she complied with [the various] rules that have been discussed in the news, the argument that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law is unsustainable.” (Politifact, 3/12/2015)

In May 2016, the State Department’s inspector general will conclude that department officials “did not—and would not—approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business.” Her daily use of a private email account for work matters is also determined to be in violation of department rules. (US Department of State, 5/25/2016)

March 3, 2015: Republican National Committee (RNC) chair Reince Priebus suggests Clinton could have mixed diplomacy and private fundraising in her emails.

Reince Priebus (Credit: Win McNamee / Getty Images)

Reince Priebus (Credit: Win McNamee / Getty Images)

Responding to news reports that Clinton used only a private email and private server while secretary of state, Priebus attempts to tie them into previous reports scrutinizing the Clinton Foundation and its fundraising from foreign governments. “It makes you wonder: Did she use the private emails so she could conduct diplomacy and fundraising at the same time?” (Politico, 3/3/2015)

March 4, 2015: A non-profit watchdog suggests Clinton hid her emails because her government work and Clinton Foundation work was intertwined.

John Wonderlich (Credit: Personal Democracy Media)

John Wonderlich (Credit: Personal Democracy Media)

The New York Times reports that a Clinton spokesperson has declined to comment on Clinton’s “use of clintonemail.com for matters related to the Clinton Foundation, which has received millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments.”

However, John Wonderlich, policy director of the Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit organization that advocates transparency in government, comments, “It seems her intent was to create a system where she could personally manage access to her communications” both relating to her secretary of state work and the Clinton Foundation. “Given all the power she had as secretary of state, a lot of that work would be jumbled together. Her presidential ambitions and the family foundation would be wrapped up technically in email.” (The New York Times, 3/4/2015)

March 4, 2015: Clinton’s private server used a misconfigured encryption system.

Alex McGeorge (Credit: CNBC)

Alex McGeorge (Credit: CNBC)

Alex McGeorge, head of threat intelligence at Immunity Inc., a digital security firm, investigates what can be learned about Clinton’s still-operating server. He says, “There are tons of disadvantages of not having teams of government people to make sure that mail server isn’t compromised. It’s just inherently less secure.” He is encouraged to learn the server is using a commercial encryption product from Fortinet. However, he discovers it uses the factory default encryption “certificate,” instead of one purchased specifically for Clinton.

Bloomberg News reports: “Encryption certificates are like digital security badges, which websites use to signal to incoming browsers that they are legitimate. […] Those defaults would normally be replaced by a unique certificate purchased for a few hundred dollars. By not taking that step, the system was vulnerable to hacking.”

McGeorge comments, “It’s bewildering to me. We should have a much better standard of security for the secretary of state.” (Bloomberg News, 3/4/2015)

March 4, 2015: Clinton’s emails could have been read by the company that filtered them for spam.

McAfee Logo (Credit: McAfee)

McAfee Logo (Credit: McAfee)

In July 2013, Clinton’s private server was reconfigured to use a commercial email provider, MX Logic, which is owned by McAfee, Inc. (The Associated Press, 3/4/2015) 

Cybersecurity expert Brian Reid analyzed public records about the server and found that Clinton’s emails were routed to McAfee for spam and virus filtering. He says, “The email traces all end at McAfee. If nothing else, they have and had the technical ability to read her email. This does not mean they did, only that they could have.” (McClatchy Newspapers, 3/4/2015)

March 8, 2015: A Clinton surrogate suggests a neutral party could review Clinton’s private server; this secretly upsets Clinton’s campaign manager.

Lanny Davis (Credit: Leigh Vogel / The Associated Press)

Lanny Davis (Credit: Leigh Vogel / The Associated Press)

Lanny Davis was a special counsel to President Bill Clinton, and is a longtime media surrogate for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Speaking to journalist Chris Wallace on Fox News, he says regarding Clinton’s emails on her private server, “There can be a neutral party to review all these records. Nothing unlawful-”

Wallace asks, “You’d like to have a neutral party? … [D]o you think that’s a reasonable idea?”

Davis replies, “I think it is a reasonable idea if anybody has any doubts that there’s a delete on a hard drive-”

Wallace interrupts, “To have an independent party go inspect her private email?”

Davis responds, “I think there is a reasonable idea. If the State Department asks, she will say yes.” (Fox News, 3/8/2015)

Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook writes in an email to Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, “We gotta zap Lanny out of our universe.  Can’t believe he committed her to a private review of her hard drive on TV.” (WikiLeaks, 11/1/2016)

Podesta’s reply, if any, is unknown. The Mook email will be released by WikiLeaks in November 2016.

Clinton will never agree to a neutral review of her server. Later in the month, an employee of the company managing her server will delete and wipe all the emails from her server.

March 18, 2015: The DIA’s former chief technology officer says: “I have no doubt in my mind that [Clinton’s server] was penetrated by multiple foreign powers.”

Bob Gourley (Credit: public domain)

Bob Gourley (Credit: public domain)

He adds, “To assume otherwise is to put blinders on.” This is according to Bob Gourley, who was the chief technology officer at the DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] from 2005 to 2008 and is the founder of Cognitio, a cybersecurity consulting firm. (Bloomberg News, 3/18/2015)

March 18, 2015: Clinton’s private server was not protected against hackers who might impersonate her identity.

A security evaluation of Clinton's server. (Credit: Bloomberg View)

A security evaluation of Clinton’s server. (Credit: Bloomberg View)

Bloomberg News reports, “According to publicly available information, whoever administrated [Clinton’s private server] didn’t enable what’s called a Sender Policy Framework, or SPF, a simple setting that would prevent hackers sending emails that appear to be from clintonemail.com. SPF is a basic and highly recommended security precaution for people who set up their own servers.”

Bob Gourley, who was the chief technology officer at the DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] and is the founder of his own cybersecurity consulting firm, says: “If [an SPF] was not in use, [hackers] could send an email that looks like it comes from her to, say, the ambassador of France that says, ‘leave the back door open to the residence a package is coming.’ Or a malicious person could send an email to a foreign dignitary meant to cause an international incident or confuse US foreign policy.” This also would have made it easy for hackers to launch “spear phishing” attacks from Clinton’s account. Other government officials could have thought they were getting a real email from Clinton and then be tricked into having their own accounts breached.

Clinton’s spokesperson claims there is no evidence her account was ever successfully exploited in this manner. But Bloomberg News points out, “The problem with such confidence is that if hackers exploited the SPF vulnerability, Clinton’s office would likely never have known her domain name…was being used surreptitiously.” (Bloomberg News, 3/18/2015)

March 18, 2015: Clinton’s team won’t answer basic questions about the security of her private server.

John A. Lewis (Credit: John Hopkins University)

John A. Lewis (Credit: John Hopkins University)

Clinton spokesperson Nick Merrill claims that when Clinton set up her private email server, “Robust protections were put in place and additional upgrades and techniques were employed over time as they became available. There was never evidence of a breach, nor any unauthorized intrusions.”

However, Merrill declines to say who exactly was in charge of maintaining the server and ensuring its security. Furthermore, it’s unclear what sort of security vetting that person or persons received, if any. Additionally, Merrill won’t reveal if other departments that protect government communications, such as the FBI or the NSA, were ever told of the server’s existence, and if so, if they helped provide security for it.

James A. Lewis, who held senior technology posts at the White House and State Department, comments that emails “that run on commercial services are vulnerable to collection. […] I don’t think people realize how much of this information is available to foreign intelligence services.” (Bloomberg News, 3/18/2015)

Contrary to Merrill’s claim, a May 2016 State Department inspector general report will reveal that there were hacker attacks on Clinton’s server.

April 6, 2015: Former Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Director Michael Flynn says it’s very likely foreign governments have Clinton’s emails.

Defense Intelligence Agency Director Michael Flynn (The Daily Caller)

Defense Intelligence Agency Director Michael Flynn (The Daily Caller)

He is asked in an interview, “What do you think the odds are that the Chinese, the Russians hacked into [Clinton’s] server and her email account?” He replies, “Very high. […] They’re very good at it. China, Russia, Iran, potentially the North Koreans. And other countries who may be ‘our allies’ because they can.” He adds that since Clinton’s only excuse for using the private server was convenience, she should have been fired.

The DIA is similar to the CIA, but focuses on military intelligence. Since retiring in 2014, Flynn has been notably critical of President Obama. (The Weekly Standard, 4/7/2015) (CNN, 2/13/2016) 

By January 2016, Flynn will occasionally advise Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. (Bloomberg News, 1/31/2016) In February 2016, Flynn will say, “I think Hillary Clinton, for the good of the country, should step down [from the presidential race] and let this FBI investigation play out.” (The Daily Caller, 2/10/2016)

April 26, 2015: The Clinton Foundation admits mistakes.

Maura Pally (Credit: The Clinton Foundation)

Maura Pally (Credit: The Clinton Foundation)

The foundation’s acting CEO Maura Pally says, “Yes, we made mistakes, as many organizations of our size do, but we are acting quickly to remedy them, and have taken steps to ensure they don’t happen in the future.” Her comments come in the wake of numerous news reports about conflicts of interest and lack of transparency in the foundation.

Many of the reports are based on the book Clinton Cash by conservative author Peter Schweizer. According to CNN, Schweizer says he doesn’t “have ‘direct evidence’ of ethical misconduct, but [says] the pattern he uncovered should raise eyebrows and trigger an investigation.” (CNN, 4/27/2015)

Pally was a deputy assistant secretary under Clinton at State Department. 

April 26, 2015: “It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons.”

Bill Allison (Credit: The Texas Tribune)

Bill Allison (Credit: The Texas Tribune)

This comment is by Bill Allison, who is a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit government watchdog group. Law professor Zephyr Teachout, a Democratic candidate for governor of New York in 2014, was an organizing director there. (The Daily Mail, 4/27/2015) It is headed by Chris Gates, who was chairman of the Democratic Party in Colorado. (The Colorado Independent, 9/9/2014)

April 30, 2015: The Clinton Foundation is said to be in a “campaign tailspin.”

The cover of The New York Post on April 21, 2015, is critical of the Clintons and The Clinton Foundation. (Credit: The New York Post)

The cover of The New York Post on April 21, 2015, is critical of the Clintons and The Clinton Foundation. (Credit: The New York Post)

Politico reports this after some major donors are reconsidering giving to the foundation due to recent negative media reports as well as Hillary Clinton’s recent announcement she is running for president again. An unnamed donor who gave at least $500,000 to the foundation last year says, “There are a lot of factors and the reputational is among them. We had some questions about how the money was being spent—and that was long before the problems were in the press.” (Politico, 4/30/2015)

May 4, 2015: Former President Bill Clinton responds to criticism of the Clinton Foundation and his large speaking fees.

Bill and Hillary Clinton in Manhattan, New York, on January 6, 2015. (Credit: Carlo Allegri / Reuters)

Bill and Hillary Clinton in Manhattan, New York, on January 6, 2015. (Credit: Carlo Allegri / Reuters)

“There is no doubt in my mind that we have never done anything knowingly inappropriate in terms of taking money to influence any kind of American government policy.” He says he won’t stop being paid for giving speeches. “I gotta pay our bills. And I also give a lot of it to the foundation every year.” He also says, “People should draw their own conclusions. I’m not in politics. All I’m saying is the idea that there’s one set of rules for us and another set for everybody else is true.” (NBC News, 5/4/2015)

The next day, Politico reports that his “I gotta pay our bills” comment strikes some Democrats as “off-key” and worrisome, given the vast wealth the Clintons have. (Politico, 5/5/2015)

May 15, 2015: Former Deputy CIA Director Michael Morrell says he believes some foreign intelligence agencies possess the contents of Clinton’s private email server.

Deputy CIA Director Michael Morrell (Credit: Time)

Deputy CIA Director Michael Morrell (Credit: Time)

He says, “I think that foreign intelligence services, the good ones, have everything on any unclassified network that the government uses.” (Politico, 5/15/2015) Morrell was acting CIA director twice under President Obama before retiring in 2013.

May 26, 2015: The Clintons are criticized for mixing government work with fund raising.

Stephen Walt (Credit: public domain)

Stephen Walt (Credit: public domain)

Stephen Walt, a Harvard University professor of international affairs, says that the intertwining financial relationships between the Clintons, US defense contractors, and foreign governments who buy US weapons is “a vivid example of a very big problem—the degree to which conflicts of interest have become endemic. […] It has troubled me all along that the Clinton Foundation was not being more scrupulous about who it would take money from and who it wouldn’t. American foreign policy is better served if people responsible for it are not even remotely suspected of having these conflicts of interest. When George Marshall was secretary of state, nobody was worried about whether or not he would be distracted by donations to a foundation or to himself. This wasn’t an issue.” (The International Business Times, 5/26/2015)

June 2, 2015: The Washington Post reports on the controversial reputation of the Clinton Foundation.

Former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in Washington, DC, September 8, 2014. Their foundations have partnered to launch The Presidential Leadership Scholars Program. (Credit: Saul Loeb / Getty Images)

Former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush in Washington, DC, September 8, 2014. Their foundations have partnered to launch The Presidential Leadership Scholars Program. (Credit: Saul Loeb / Getty Images)

“Today, the Clinton Foundation is unlike anything else in the history of the nation and, perhaps, the world: It is a global philanthropic empire run by a former US president and closely affiliated with a potential future president, with the audacious goal of solving some of the world’s most vexing problems by bringing together the wealthiest, glitziest, and most powerful people from every part of the planet. […] The foundation now includes 11 major initiatives, focused on issues as divergent as crop yields in Africa, earthquake relief in Haiti, and the cost of AIDS drugs worldwide. In all, the Clintons’ constellation of related charities has raised $2 billion, employs more than 2,000 people, and has a combined annual budget of more than $223 million.”

According to the independent watchdog group the American Institute of Philanthropy, the foundation spends about 89 percent of its money on its charitable mission. Thus that group has given it an A rating (with A-plus being the best). However, Charity Navigator, the other leading watchdog group that rates charities, has not issued a grade for the foundation, saying its structure makes it too complex to grade. In 2015, it put the foundation on its “watch list,” due to negative media reports. (The Washington Post, 6/2/2015)