By Charles Ortel
Within a single week, Hillary Clinton addressed the graduating Yale Class of 2018 in New Haven, then swooped into Massachusetts to collect an achievement medal from Radcliffe’s Institute for Advanced Study, on Harvard’s venerable campus. At both iconic locations, before adoring, elite globalists, Mrs. Clinton attempted to restore a measure of her faded luster.
Beyond the risks tax-exempt Universities shoulder playing politics, what does praising Hillary Clinton late in May 2018 say about Harvard and Yale holding moral authority, when she and her husband remain under massive ethical – if not criminal – storm clouds? Were the decisions by these Ivy League exemplars to lift Hillary Clinton up after her epic failure in 2016 wise at the time – and will this adoration seem hollow as years pass?
The long public record confirms Hillary Clinton’s legal quicksand and 11th-hour rescues. From the start of her Senate career, we learned recently that the FBI had investigated both Clintons for public corruption and influence trading via the tax-exempt entity called “The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation.”
Despite abundant evidence of criminality involving the Clintons and their “foundation” – easily discovered in the public domain – and even more available to the FBI and Department of Justice – the government failed to bring indictments against the Clintons and their allies during four years from February 2001 through 2005, when the investigations sputtered to nothing.
During this failed investigation, three individuals who are much in the news today played crucial roles. Robert Mueller led the FBI during the entire investigation. James Comey was prosecuting U.S. attorney on the Clinton case starting in January 2002 until he became Deputy Attorney General in December 2003.
And during the window of the investigation from 2001 to 2005, Rod Rosenstein served as principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. He supervised the Division’s criminal sections and coordinated the tax enforcement activities of the Tax Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Offices and the Internal Revenue Service. In other words, Rosenstein was the fixer in the three government agencies involved with the Clintons’ alleged crimes.
Why did Mueller, Comey, and Rosenstein turn blind-eyes to obvious crimes involving the Clintons back in 2001 through 2005? And how badly might these individuals wish to obstruct serious investigations today into the Clinton Foundation – a chief vehicle in which donors likely traded cash for political favors during the run up to the 2016 election cycle?
Bad decisions by Mueller, Comey, and Rosenstein continued from 2001 through 2005 to the present day. One common denominator seems to hazily tie the Clintons and potential prosecutors together. Money. And lots of it. From 2005 to 2010, after James Comey left the Justice Department, he served as the senior vice-president with the office of general counsel at Lockheed Martin. Then, Lockheed won 17 lucrative approvals for private contracts with the Department of State. Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State at the time, and Lockheed Martin became a major contributor to the Clinton Foundation. In late 2010, after Lockheed was awarded those contracts by the Hillary Clinton State Department, Comey stepped down from Lockheed and received a $6 million payout.
The dirty money trail continued in 2013, even while federal authorities in the Obama administration investigated the London-based HSBC bank for illegally laundering hundreds of billions of dollars for the Mexican drug cartels and channeling money to the Middle East, specifically Iran. HSBC was a significant contributor to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton was being paid about $200,000 for his speeches at HSBC events. The Obama administration let HSBC off the hook with a meager $1.2 billion fine – which was paid by shareholders – and none of its officers, managers, directors were criminally charged. While all legal maneuvering went on behind closed doors, HSBC appointed James Comey as a director and member of the board at HSBC to assist with damage control. And who was HSBC’s chief counsel? None other than Robert Mueller.
In 2010, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom. The transfer gave Moscow ownership of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply. Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led that 16-member CFIUS committee, and a single vote against the deal would have quashed the sale. Kept secret from CFIUS was an FBI bribery investigation into the very Russian interests involved with the ultimate sale. The investigation was ultimately supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who was fired upon recommendation by the Inspector General earlier this year. In charge of the FBI during the hushed bribery investigation? Robert Mueller. Russian interests coincidently donated some $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Yet why do Harvard and Yale both so visibly lend support to Hillary Clinton’s latest leg in her attempted redemption campaign? The answer is sad and simple: Name brand universities make billions of dollars for their donors, by endorsing novel, forward-looking ways of thinking that look good on paper, yet fail in practice. Since 1988, elites in academia, media, politics, and business have embraced “globalism.” Bill and Hillary Clinton are unabashed globalists who revel in skirting the rules.
Globalists like the Clintons – and universities including Harvard and Yale that promote
globalism – seldom explain that their governance vision immunizes unelected elites from pesky national laws. Moreover, the globalist schemes so adroitly pushed by Bill and Hillary Clinton,
and Harvard and Yale, are purposefully gamed. There is still not a single global regulator with any
teeth or gumption to bring errant globalists to justice, anywhere on earth.
For leading American universities, unregulated globalism means many more applicants and donors for students studying on campuses that have not grown to keep pace with international demand. Globalism means rising faculty compensation, more expansive fields of study, and larger audiences for book sales. Globalism also means greater potential for certain scholars to monetize their expertise in extra-curricular activities.
The globalist notion that borders are unnecessary, and that humans may cooperate to promote essential and common good all play well on Ivy League playgrounds. Tenured faculty members, star journalists, gerrymandered elected officials, and the very few who sit atop multinational corporations all thrive in unregulated globalism. Yet, for all the hope expressed, evolving globalist practices have actually crushed the bottom 80 percent of Americans who cannot save for retirement, and struggle to retain gainful employment.
Why should American taxpayers encourage their own demise at the hand of politicians like the Clintons who promote unregulated globalism yet refuse to respect American laws? And why should Harvard, Yale and other elite educational institutions flourish with tax benefits and government subsidies, even as they hollow out prospects for Americans to earn and to save under unregulated globalism?
These are questions that Americans must ask and answer, particularly as we vote in November 2018, 2020, and beyond. ♦