#clinton tampered in Haiti elections | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

wolainterns · 5 years ago

Text

Why the United States Needs to Stop Supporting Jovenel Moïse’s Presidency

(AP Photo/Dieu Nalio Chery)

By: Kimberly Casso, Fall 2019 Mexico & Migration Intern

Currently, a group of young activists known as the Petro Challengers are protesting against corruption in Haiti, following a string of corruption and electoral fraud scandals that have marred President Jovenel Moïse’s presidency. More specifically, the Petro Challengers are seeking to end the current presidency of Jovenel Moïse. Despite accusations of election fraud and embezzlement, the United States continues to support Jovenel Moïse’s presidency leading protestors to the streets demanding and raising concerns of U.S. interests considering its historical involvement in Haiti.

Background

The Haitian government has a prolonged history of corruption and scandals within their government as well as different interferences that have negatively affected the general population. Between 1990 and 1991, Jean-Bertrand Aristide won the presidential election as a member of the left-winged, democratic party, Fanmi Lavalas. After eight months, he was overthrown by the Haitian army in a coup d'état which ultimately led to the military regime in Haiti.

In 2006, Haiti signed onto Venezuela’s oil program, Petrocaribe, which provides different countries in the Caribbean a discounted rate in oil; each country is required to pay in preferential payment. This program was supposed to help boost Haiti’s economy and help fund different social programs, but Haitians never saw the impact of the money and many have questioned where the money is. According to the Washington Post, two billion dollars have gone missing which has caused others to spectate that the money was stolen. Additionally, investigations conducted by the Haitian Senate have determined that the money was misused. More specifically, it has been speculated that Jovenel Moïse’s political party the Parti Haïtien Tèt Kale (PHTK) is responsible for the missing money.

During the election of Jovenel Moïse speculations of fraud arouse; in Haiti, election fraud has historically consisted of missing candidates on the ballots, irregularities in the tally of votes and people not appearing in the registries. Although election fraud has been an issue for nearly two decades, Jovenel Moise’s fraud is also tied to embezzlement and the misuse of the Petrocaribe money. The Petro Challengers is a protest against corruption in Haiti and the need to keep those that have been involved in dirty politics accountable for their actions.

U.S. Involvement

In 1994, the United States invaded Haiti through Operation Uphold Democracy to end the military regime. Previously, the Clinton administration implemented an economic blockade on Haiti and that administration encouraged the United Nations to add economic sanctions to the country. Haiti’s economy was already weak and therefore, these new policies ultimately hurt the nation and this still affects Haiti today.

Therefore, it is extremely important that the United States and other regional governments stop supporting Jovenel Moïse’s presidency.

U.S.

These are three reasons why the United States needs to stop supporting Jovenel Moïse…

The United States has had a long history of supporting oppressive regimes in Latin America that affect more vulnerable communities such as Haitians. A prime example of a dictator that the United States utilized to further oppress Haitians was Rafael Trujillo. Trujillo was created and built from ideologies that he adopted during the U.S. occupation in the early 1900’s and as a result thousands of Haitians were killed through that regime. The United States was in support of this regime until it was exposed to the rest of the world that Trujillo’s attempted to kill the Venezuelan president.

The United States government has influenced the decline of the Haitian government and economy. During the Francois Duvalier regime from 1957 to 1971, the United States provided funds towards Duvalier’s army. This demonstration of support ultimately lead to various different forms of human rights violations. As a result of a supported army, Haiti militarized their police force which ultimately led to the abuse of Haitians. The funds that the United States provided should have been directly given to the Haitian economy because Haiti did not need a massive army but instead more financial support for its citizens. The United States continues to support these corrupt leaders and ultimately allows these countries to perform different atrocities that hurts the overall Haitian population.

The United States support of Jovenel Moïse is not democratic considering there have been many instances of injustice within the Haitian government that advocates have spoken out about. Therefore, the United States is demonstrating that it is acceptable to silence and oppress a very vulnerable population. The Moise administration has been accused of fraud and corruption and any measures taken to investigate these crimes is currently being tampered with by this administration. The United States is supporting a conservative administration that lacks transparency and fails to recognize its people’s needs.

Recommendations

Press from the United States needs to stop demonizing the protestors, they are not the cause of the issues at hand but rather they are proactively questioning and demanding answers after years of corruption and poverty.

The Haitian government and the current leaders need to be investigated for corruption, election fraud and embezzlement. There should be an independent commission that would expose any wrongdoing within the government and this commission should be able to recommend any legal reform that is necessary based on these findings.

The United States government should refrain from getting themselves involved further.

The Dominican Republic has a history of shutting its borders to Haitian migrants during times of need, therefore, the Dominican Republic needs to reopen their borders and allow individuals who are seeking refuge in the country.

#fall19

2 notes · View notes

statetalks · 3 years ago

Text

How Did President Clinton’s Impeachment Affect Republicans

Overview: Clintons International Policy

Watch: Republicans Demand More Impeachment Witnesses, When Clinton Was On Trial | MSNBC

For decades, the contours of the Cold War had largely determined U.S. action abroad. Strategists saw each coup, revolution, and civil war as part of the larger struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union. With the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, however, President Clinton was faced with international crises in the Middle East, the Balkans, Africa, and Haiti, on their own terms. He envisioned a post-Cold War role in which the United States used its overwhelming military superiority, and its influence as global police, to preserve the peace. This foreign policy strategy had both success and failure.

The Impeachment Was Delayed Due To Air Strikes Against Iraq

An impeachment vote was due for December 17 but was abruptly canceled after the U.S. launched airstrikes against Saddam Husseins Iraq. On December 19, the House approved two articles of impeachment against Clinton. The minor conflict with Iraq began due to Husseins reluctance to comply with United Nations weapons inspectors. It was known as Operation Desert Fox. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said in response to allegations that the bombing was a distraction, I dont think were pretending that we can get everything, so this is I think we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future.

A similar allegation surrounded Clintons bombing of terrorist bases in Sudan and Afghanistan in August 1998, around the time the president was due to appear before a grand jury. That operation was known as Infinite Reach.

But News Of Clinton’s Affair With Lewinsky Got Out

In July 1998, Clinton testified over the allegations that he’d committed perjury by lying about his affair with Lewinsky. And by August, he’d admitted to having an affair with Lewinsky.

Lewinsky had also recorded conversations of her talking about the affair, and the transcripts of the conversation went public in October 1998.

Read Also: Who Supported The Republicans In The Spanish Civil War

Comparing Impeachments Across Us History

Note: This lesson is

Note: This lesson is adapted from materials contained in the Bill of Rights Institutes forthcoming U.S. History resource entitled Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness: A History of the American Experiment. This free online resource covers 1491 to the present day, is aligned to the College Boards AP U.S. history framework, and will be available for use in the 2020 school year. To learn more and to receive updates, visit our website. Lesson Objectives:

Students will review the Founders intentions for the practice of impeachment using excerpts from Madisons Notes on the Debates of the Federal Convention;and the Constitution.

Students will compare the contexts for the impeachment proceedings of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump.

Students will evaluate the significance of the process of impeachment as a component of the system of checks and balances.

Resources:

Handout A: The Constitutional Provisions on Impeachment

Handout B: Impeachment in U.S. History

The president receives gifts from a foreign power without the approval of Congress. The president orders detention of a racial or ethnic group for national security reasons. The president refuses to enforce laws passed by Congress. The president participates in a conspiracy to conceal evidence that his associates have committed a burglary. In a sexual harassment lawsuit, the president lies under oath.

On February 5 The Senate Acquitted Trump On Both Charges

For the abuse of power charge, 48 senators voted to convict Trump, including Republican Sen. Mitt Romney, who was the first senator to ever vote for the removal of a president in their own party. The other 52 Republican senators voted to acquit him.

“Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine,” Romney said in a speech announcing his decision.

Romney joined the Republicans to vote to acquit in the obstruction of Congress charge, which passed on a 53-47 vote.

Don’t Miss: What News Channel Do Republicans Watch

Impeachment And Public Opinion: Three Key Indicators To Watch

There have been two serious efforts in the past half-century to impeach and remove a U.S. president from office. The first, which ended in 1974, led to the resignation of its targetPresident Richard Nixon. The second, which began in 1998 against President Bill Clinton, led to the resignation of the man who had orchestrated the effortHouse Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Now we have entered the early phase of a third impeachment and removal effort, this time directed against President Donald Trump. Will it lead to triumph or disaster for Democrats? Will it lead to the end of Mr. Trumps presidency or pave the way for his reelection? We do not know. But history gives us clues about what to watch for along the way.

First, a presidents standing with the American people as the impeachment inquiry proceeds makes a big difference. As the Watergate hearings unfolded in the summer of 1973, soon followed by the infamous Saturday night massacre in the fall, President Nixons job approval fell steadily from 50% in the late spring of 1973 to just 24% at the beginning of 1974. During the next eight months, culminating in Mr. Nixons resignation, it barely budged. In short, Nixon was gravely damaged politically long before the House of Representatives voted to impeach him on three counts in July.

What Were The Consequences

According to some accounts, Johnson wept at the news of his acquittal, vowing to devote himself to restoring his reputation.

It didn’t work.

He served out the rest of his presidential term, but his final months in office were beset with the same power struggles that warped his tenure prior to impeachment.

And in 1869, Democrats lost the White House to Republican candidate General Ulysses S Grant, who allowed his party’s plan for Radical Reconstruction to continue.

And buying Alaska in 1867 for a cool $7.2m.

Johnson was also one of the poorest presidents. He never went to school.

Recommended Reading: Who’s Winning The Democrats Or The Republicans

From The Washington Post Archive

President Bill Clinton was impeached on Dec. 19, 1998.

Over what? Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstructing justice to cover up an Oval Office affair with Monica Lewinsky, an intern. Clintons affair and its cover-up was investigated as part of a four-year probe led by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

Here is complete coverage of Clintons impeachment from The Washington Post archive.

The House of Representatives impeached the president of the United States yesterday for only the second time in American history, charging William Jefferson Clinton with high crimes and misdemeanors for lying under oath and obstructing justice to cover up an Oval Office affair with a young intern.

At 1:25 p.m. on a day of constitutional drama and personal trauma, the Republican-led House voted 228 to 206 largely along party lines to approve the first article of impeachment accusing the Democratic president of perjury before a grand jury. Within the hour, lawmakers went on to pass another article alleging he tampered with witnesses and helped hide evidence, but rejected two other articles on perjury and abuse of power.

Emerging from the Oval Office with first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton on his arm and Vice President Gore at his side, the president stood with his Democratic defenders and decried the partisan vote against him. Brushing aside calls for resignation, Clinton vowed to serve “until the last hour of the last day of my term.”

The Clinton Impeachment And Its Fallout

House of Representatives impeached US President Donald Trump

America was captivated by the story, especially;as it played out in;televised hearings, often with graphic detail

By Russell Riley

The next seven months found the American public consumed by the Lewinsky affair, following every nuance of the investigation by Starr and debating the merits of the case. Nothing like this had so captured the attention of the American public since Watergate and Nixon’s resignation from office. Startling revelations came out, including taped interviews in which Lewinsky described details of the affair as well as a dress that contained samples of the President’s DNA. On August 17, 1998, following his testimony before a federal grand jury on the matter, Clinton acknowledged in a televised address to the nation his “inappropriate” conduct with Lewinsky and admitted that he had misled the nation and embarrassed his family. But he did not admit to having lied, having instructed anyone else to lie, or orchestrating a cover-up involving anyone else.

Impeachment Fallout

In the process of pursuing an impeachment of the president, the Republicans had seriously overplayed their hand. An indication of what lay ahead came when the party actually lost five seats in the House while gaining no Senate seats in the November 1998 elections conducted just prior to the impeachment vote. Traditionally, the opposition party registers significant gains in the off-year elections of a President’s second term, and so the Republican loss was virtually unprecedented.

Recommended Reading: What Are The Main Differences Between Democrats And Republicans

Republican Who ‘wanted To Destroy’ Bill Clinton During 1998 Impeachment Has Regrets

A former Republican congressman who led the charge to impeach Bill Clinton in 1998 said he paid a visit to the former Democratic president a few years ago to ask forgiveness for his role in the affair.

I hated Bill Clinton, wanted to destroy him, asked to be on Judiciary Committee so that I could impeach him, said Bob Inglis, R-S.C., in an interview on The Long Game, a Yahoo News podcast.

Inglis visited Clinton a few years ago at the former presidents office in Harlem, he said, in what he described as a very interesting meeting. Inglis informed Clinton that he joined the Judiciary Committee as soon as he was elected to Congress in 1992, the same year Clinton was elected president, with the intent of impeaching him.

I hated you so much that I wanted to impeach you, Inglis told Clinton.

Clinton sort of flinched, Inglis said. I said, Yeah, I know you hadnt done anything yet, but so much did I hate you.

I told him that it wasnt good for my soul, it wasnt good for the country, for me to have that level of animosity toward him, Inglis said. He didnt say the words that you would hope to hear, which is, Youre forgiven. But in every way he has expressed that to me. Hes been very kind to accept the apology for sure.

Inglis left his seat in Congress in 1998, the same year the Republican-controlled House impeached Clinton, to run for the U.S. Senate. He narrowly lost to Democratic incumbent Sen. Fritz Hollings, who had held the seat since 1966.

_____

Clinton Was Popular Impeachment Wasnt

By the time the House of Representatives voted to open an impeachment inquiry against Clinton in October 1998, the allegations against the president had been in the news for months. Clinton had publicly confessed to the affair in August, and in mid-September, Starr delivered his lengthy and salacious report which included a case for impeaching Clinton to Congress.

At that moment, support for impeachment seemed like it might be on the upswing. A Gallup poll conducted in mid-October, just after the House voted to formally open an impeachment inquiry, found that 48 percent of the public supported the decision to hold hearings. But as the chart below shows, support for impeachment didnt continue to tick upward. In mid-December, when the House voted to impeach Clinton on two counts of perjury and obstruction of justice, just about 40 percent of the public continued to think he should be impeached and the same was true in February, when the Senate voted to acquit him.

There were other signs, too, that the public didnt think Clinton should be removed from office. Republicans efforts to impeach Clinton appeared to be dramatically backfiring in real time after running a slew of ads attacking Clinton in the lead-up to the midterms, they lost seats and House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who had been one of Clintons loudest critics, resigned the speakership.

Recommended Reading: How Often Does Joe Manchin Vote With Republicans

What Did He Do

In the shadow of the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson – a Democrat – sparred constantly with the Republican-held Congress over how to rebuild the defeated US South.

The “Radical Republicans” of this period pushed for legislation to punish former Confederate leaders and protect the rights of freed slaves. Johnson used his presidential veto to block the Republican efforts at every turn.

In March, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act, crafted to curtail the president’s ability to fire members of his cabinet without approval from the Senate. In defiance, Johnson suspended a cabinet member and political rival, Edwin Stanton, while Congress was in recess.

If today’s proceedings seem like a lot of political theatrics, it is in keeping with impeachment tradition: Stanton responded to his firing by locking himself in his office and refusing to leave.

Stanton’s removal proved to be the final straw – the House Republicans rushed to draft 11 articles of impeachment.

After a vote along party lines the articles were presented to the Senate, where he was acquitted, but only just. It was a single vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to convict.

Clinton Impeachment Process Began On October 5 1998

In September 1998, the House Judiciary Committee announced that an impeachment resolution would be brought to a vote on October 5. On that day, the committee voted 21-16 to move forward with a full impeachment inquiry. At the time, the New York Times described it as a party-line vote, with Democrats voting in favor of Clinton and Republicans voting in favor of impeachment.

You May Like: How Did The Republicans Take Control Of Congress

Bill Clinton Impeachment: 5 Fast Facts You Need To Know

Getty

Bill Clintons impeachment process lasted for four months between 1998 and 1999. Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States, was accused of lying under oath and of obstruction of justice in relation to a sexual harassment lawsuit that had been brought by Paula Jones. That lawsuit led to an independent inquiry from Counsel Ken Starr for the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee.

On September 24, 2019, the House Democrats announced that they had opened an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in announcing the beginning of the inquiry, No one is above the law.

Heres what you need to know:

The Criminal Justice System

The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was an Act of Congress dealing with crime and law enforcement. It is the largest crime bill in the history of the United States, and consisted of 356 pages that provided for 100,000 new police officers, $9.7 billion in funding for prisons, and $6.1 billion in funding for prevention programs, which were designed with significant input from experienced police officers. Sponsored by Representative Jack Brooks of Texas, the bill was originally written by Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, and then was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton.

Following the 101 California Street shooting, the 1993 Waco Siege, and other high-profile instances of violent crime, the Act expanded federal law in several ways. One of the most noted sections was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Other parts of the Act provided for a greatly expanded federal death penalty, new classes of individuals banned from possessing firearms, the elimination of higher education for inmates, and a variety of new crimes defined in statutes relating to immigration law, hate crimes, sex crimes, and gang-related crime. The bill also required states to establish registries for sexual offenders by September 1997.

Read Also: Why Is The Media Against Republicans

Impeachment By House Of Representatives

On December 11, 1998, the House Judiciary Committee agreed to send three articles of impeachment to the full House for consideration. The vote on two articles, grand juryperjury and obstruction of justice, was 2117, both along party lines. On the third, perjury in the Paula Jones case, the committee voted 2018, with Republican Lindsey Graham joining with Democrats, in order to give President Clinton “the legal benefit of the doubt”. The next day, December 12, the committee agreed to send a fourth and final article, for abuse of power, to the full House by a 2117 vote, again, along party lines.

Although proceedings were delayed due to the bombing of Iraq, on the passage of H. Res. 611, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, on grounds of perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice . The two other articles were rejected, the count of perjury in the Jones case and abuse of power . Clinton thus became the second U.S. president to be impeached; the first, Andrew Johnson, was impeached in 1868. The only other previous U.S. president to be the subject of formal House impeachment proceedings was Richard Nixon in 197374. The Judiciary Committee agreed to a resolution containing three articles of impeachment in July 1974, but Nixon resigned from office soon thereafter, before the House took up the resolution.

The Republican Impeachment Push

Rep. Biggs’ advice to Republicans battling impeachment

Republicans distilled those down into four articles of impeachment. Two of them for perjury in depositions other than the grand jury and for obstructing Congress didnt make it out of the House of Representatives. But Clinton was impeached for perjury after he lied to the grand jury in the Jones case, and also for obstruction of justice.

Clinton wasnt the only one whose private failings were revealed. Rep. Bob Livingston, a Republican who supported impeachment and was in line to be speaker of the House, abruptly withdrew his name from running for that leadership position and admitted his own infidelity. He had been snared by a public call from Larry Flynt, publisher of the pornographic Hustler magazine, for proof of sexual hypocrisy.

The Senate trial of Clinton was a spectacle that featured videotaped testimony from Lewinsky and the embarrassing questions from Clintons grand jury testimony played back on the Senate floor.

The entire scandal consumed the country for a year. News of the affair leaked into the press in January of 1998. Clinton talked to a grand jury about the meaning of the word is in August. Starr released his infamous report with its prurient details in September. The House voted to impeach in December. Clintons trial in the Senate took place in February 1999.

Read Also: What Republicans Are Voting Against Trump

source https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-did-president-clintons-impeachment-affect-republicans/

0 notes

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

How Did President Clinton's Impeachment Affect Republicans

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-did-president-clintons-impeachment-affect-republicans/

How Did President Clinton's Impeachment Affect Republicans

Overview: Clintons International Policy

Watch: Republicans Demand More Impeachment Witnesses, When Clinton Was On Trial | MSNBC

The Impeachment Was Delayed Due To Air Strikes Against Iraq

But News Of Clinton’s Affair With Lewinsky Got Out

In July 1998, Clinton testified over the allegations that he’d committed perjury by lying about his affair with Lewinsky. And by August, he’d admitted to having an affair with Lewinsky.

Lewinsky had also recorded conversations of her talking about the affair, and the transcripts of the conversation went public in October 1998.

Read Also: Who Supported The Republicans In The Spanish Civil War

Comparing Impeachments Across Us History

Note: This lesson is

Students will review the Founders intentions for the practice of impeachment using excerpts from Madisons Notes on the Debates of the Federal Convention;and the Constitution.

Students will compare the contexts for the impeachment proceedings of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump.

Students will evaluate the significance of the process of impeachment as a component of the system of checks and balances.

Resources:

Handout A: The Constitutional Provisions on Impeachment

Handout B: Impeachment in U.S. History

The president receives gifts from a foreign power without the approval of Congress.

The president orders detention of a racial or ethnic group for national security reasons.

The president refuses to enforce laws passed by Congress.

The president participates in a conspiracy to conceal evidence that his associates have committed a burglary.

In a sexual harassment lawsuit, the president lies under oath.

On February 5 The Senate Acquitted Trump On Both Charges

Romney joined the Republicans to vote to acquit in the obstruction of Congress charge, which passed on a 53-47 vote.

Don’t Miss: What News Channel Do Republicans Watch

Impeachment And Public Opinion: Three Key Indicators To Watch

What Were The Consequences

According to some accounts, Johnson wept at the news of his acquittal, vowing to devote himself to restoring his reputation.

It didn’t work.

He served out the rest of his presidential term, but his final months in office were beset with the same power struggles that warped his tenure prior to impeachment.

And in 1869, Democrats lost the White House to Republican candidate General Ulysses S Grant, who allowed his party’s plan for Radical Reconstruction to continue.

And buying Alaska in 1867 for a cool $7.2m.

Johnson was also one of the poorest presidents. He never went to school.

Recommended Reading: Who’s Winning The Democrats Or The Republicans

From The Washington Post Archive

President Bill Clinton was impeached on Dec. 19, 1998.

Here is complete coverage of Clintons impeachment from The Washington Post archive.

The Clinton Impeachment And Its Fallout

House of Representatives impeached US President Donald Trump

America was captivated by the story, especially;as it played out in;televised hearings, often with graphic detail

By Russell Riley

Impeachment Fallout

Recommended Reading: What Are The Main Differences Between Democrats And Republicans

Republican Who ‘wanted To Destroy’ Bill Clinton During 1998 Impeachment Has Regrets

I hated Bill Clinton, wanted to destroy him, asked to be on Judiciary Committee so that I could impeach him, said Bob Inglis, R-S.C., in an interview on The Long Game, a Yahoo News podcast.

I hated you so much that I wanted to impeach you, Inglis told Clinton.

Clinton sort of flinched, Inglis said. I said, Yeah, I know you hadnt done anything yet, but so much did I hate you.

_____

Clinton Was Popular Impeachment Wasnt

Recommended Reading: How Often Does Joe Manchin Vote With Republicans

What Did He Do

In the shadow of the Civil War, President Andrew Johnson – a Democrat – sparred constantly with the Republican-held Congress over how to rebuild the defeated US South.

If today’s proceedings seem like a lot of political theatrics, it is in keeping with impeachment tradition: Stanton responded to his firing by locking himself in his office and refusing to leave.

Stanton’s removal proved to be the final straw – the House Republicans rushed to draft 11 articles of impeachment.

After a vote along party lines the articles were presented to the Senate, where he was acquitted, but only just. It was a single vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to convict.

Clinton Impeachment Process Began On October 5 1998

You May Like: How Did The Republicans Take Control Of Congress

Bill Clinton Impeachment: 5 Fast Facts You Need To Know

Getty

Heres what you need to know:

The Criminal Justice System

Read Also: Why Is The Media Against Republicans

Impeachment By House Of Representatives

The Republican Impeachment Push

Rep. Biggs’ advice to Republicans battling impeachment

The Senate trial of Clinton was a spectacle that featured videotaped testimony from Lewinsky and the embarrassing questions from Clintons grand jury testimony played back on the Senate floor.

Read Also: What Republicans Are Voting Against Trump

0 notes

xtruss · 4 years ago

Text

War Criminal George Bush Opposes the Government Murder of People of Color!

So is he going to turn himself in?

— James Bovard | Anti-Empire.Com | June 5, 2020 | Russia Insider | Mises Institute

Former president George W. Bush has returned to the spotlight to give moral guidance to America in these troubled times. In a statement released on Tuesday, Bush announced that he was “anguished” by the “brutal suffocation” of George Floyd and declared that “lasting peace in our communities requires truly equal justice. The rule of law ultimately depends on the fairness and legitimacy of the legal system. And achieving justice for all is the duty of all.”

Bush’s declaration was greeted with thunderous applause by the usual suspects who portray him as the virtuous Republican in contrast to Trump. While the media portrays Bush’s pious piffle as a visionary triumph of principle, Americans need to vividly recall the lies and atrocities that permeated his eight years as president.

In an October 2017 speech in a “national forum on liberty” at the George W. Bush Institute in New York City, Bush bemoaned that “Our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication.” Coming from Bush, this had as much credibility as former president Bill Clinton bewailing the decline of chastity.

Most media coverage of Bush nowadays either ignores the falsehoods he used to take America to war in Iraq or portrays him as a good man who received incorrect information. But Bush was lying from the get-go on Iraq and was determined to drag the nation into another Middle East war. From January 2003 onwards, Bush constantly portrayed the US as an innocent victim of Saddam Hussein’s imminent aggression and repeatedly claimed that war was being “forced upon us.” That was never the case. As the Center for Public Integrity reported, Bush made “232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda.” As the lies by which he sold the Iraq War unraveled, Bush resorted to vilifying critics as traitors in a 2006 speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Bush’s lies led to the killing of more than four thousand American troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. But since those folks are dead and gone anyhow, the media instead lauds Bush’s selection to be in a Kennedy Center art show displaying his borderline primitive oil paintings.

In February 2018, Bush was paid lavishly to give a pro-democracy speech in the United Arab Emirates, ruled by a notorious Arab dictatorship. He proclaimed: “Our democracy is only as good as people trust the results.” He openly fretted about Russian “meddling” in the 2016 US election.

But when he was president, Bush acted as if the United States were entitled to intervene in any foreign election he pleased. He boasted in 2005 that his administration had budgeted almost $5 billion “for programs to support democratic change around the world,” much of which was spent on tampering with foreign vote totals. When Iraq held elections in 2005, Bush approved a massive covert aid program for pro-American Iraqi parties. The Bush administration spent over $65 million to boost their favored candidate in the 2004 Ukraine election. Yet, with boundless hypocrisy, Bush proclaimed that “any (Ukrainian) election…ought to be free from any foreign influence.” US government-financed organizations helped spur coups in Venezuela in 2002 and Haiti in 2004. Both of those nations, along with Ukraine, remain political train wrecks.

In that October 2017 New York speech, Bush proclaimed: “No democracy pretends to be a tyranny.” But ravaging the Constitution was apparently part of his job description when he was president. Shortly after 9-11, Bush turned back the clock to before 1215 (when the Magna Carta was signed), formally suspending habeas corpus and claiming a prerogative to imprison indefinitely anyone he labeled a terrorist suspect. In 2002, Justice Department lawyers informed Bush that the president was entitled to violate the law during wartime—and the war on terror was expected to continue indefinitely. In 2004, Bush White House counsel Alberto Gonzales formally asserted a “commander-in-chief override power” entitling presidents to ignore the Bill of Rights.

Under Bush, the US government embraced barbaric practices which did more to destroy America’s moral credibility than all of Trump’s tweets combined. Bush’s “enhanced interrogation” regime included endless high-volume repetition of a Meow Mix cat food commercial at Guantanamo, head slapping, waterboarding, exposure to frigid temperatures, and manacling for many hours in stress positions. After the Supreme Court rebuffed some of Bush’s power grabs in 2006, he pushed through Congress a bill that retroactively legalized torture—one of the worst legislative disgraces since the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. During his years in the White House, Bush perennially denied that he had approved torture. But in 2010, during an author tour to promote his new memoir, he bragged about approving waterboarding for terrorist suspects.

Is Bush nominating himself to be the nation’s racial healer? When he was president, Bush inflicted more financial ruin on blacks than any president since Woodrow Wilson (who brought Jim Crow barbarities to the federal government). Bush trumpeted his plans to close the gap between black and white homeownership rates and promised in 2002 to “use the mighty muscle of the federal government” to solve the problem. Bush was determined to end the bias against people who wanted to buy a home but had no money. Congress passed Bush’s American Dream Downpayment Act in 2003, authorizing federal handouts to first-time homebuyers of up to $10,000 or 6 percent of the home’s purchase price. Bush also swayed Congress to permit the Federal Housing Administration to make no–down payment loans to low-income Americans. Bush proclaimed: “Core American values of individuality, thrift, responsibility, and self-reliance are embodied in homeownership.” In Bush’s eyes, self-reliance was so wonderful that the government should subsidize it. And it didn’t matter whether recipients were creditworthy, because politicians meant well. Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign trumpeted his down payment giveaways, a shining example of “compassionate conservatism.”

Thanks in large part to his policies, minority households saw the fastest growth in homeownership leading up to the 2007 recession. The housing collapse ravaged the net worth of black and Hispanic households. “The implosion of the subprime lending market has left a scar on the finances of black Americans—one that not only has wiped out a generation of economic progress but could leave them at a financial disadvantage for decades,” the Washington Post reported in 2012. The median net worth for Hispanic households declined by 66 percent between 2005 and 2009. That devastation was aptly described in a 2017 federal appeals court dissenting opinion as “wrecking ball benevolence” (quoting a 2004 Barron’s op-ed I wrote). But almost none of the media coverage of the ex-president reminds people of the economic carnage of this Bush vote-buying binge.

It is possible to condemn police brutality and, even more importantly, the evil laws and judicial doctrines that enable police to tyrannize other Americans without any help from a demagogic ex-president who ravaged our rights, liberties, and peace. As I commented in an August 2003 USA Today op-ed, “Whether Bush and his appointees will be held personally liable for their [Iraq War] falsehoods is a grave test for American democracy.” The revival of Bush’s reputation vivifies how our political media system failed that test. As long as George Bush doesn’t turn himself in for committing war crimes, all of his talk about “achieving justice for all” is rubbish.

Source: Mises Institute

0 notes

96thdayofrage · 8 years ago

Text

Yes, Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid U.S. Russian Uranium Deal

In 2015, The New York Times stated “As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.”

The next paragraph in this New York Times piece states “And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

Vox, POLITIFACT, and others haven’t commented on the two quotes above and have only pontificated against President Trump’s awkwardly worded claims.

Hillary Clinton didn’t “give up” 20% of U.S. uranium to Russia, but Uranium One donations to the Clinton Foundation might have influenced the State Department and Obama’s administration to approve the deal.

Was it merely coincidence that Uranium One officials were Clinton Foundation donors, or is there legitimate conflict of interest?

Also, did the FBI tape Bill Clinton’s speech at a Moscow bank?

There’s absolutely no way for Vox or any other Clinton public relations firm to spin the fact Bill Clinton received $500,000 from a Moscow bank with ties to the Kremlin.

Also, nothing said at Trump’s press conference refutes the fact Uranium One officials donated millions to the Clinton Foundation amid the sale of U.S. uranium to Russia.

After Trump’s recent press conference, millions of Clinton loyalists gleefully read a POLITIFACT piece titled Donald Trump repeats his Mostly False claim about Hillary Clinton, Russia and uranium.

That POLITIFACT piece references another POLITIFACT article titled In a nuclear claim, Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton ‘gave up’ one-fifth of U.S. uranium to Russia.

Both articles rate the truthfulness of Trump’s accusation that Clinton “gave up” (or was solely responsible) for the uranium sale.

As with all Clinton scandals, the entire story is far more complicated (with defenders focusing on semantics and plausible deniability more than possible foul play), and leads to a major conflict of interest; especially in today’s neo-McCarthy Democratic Party.

Frist, Clinton didn’t even intentionally use a private server, so she didn’t “give up” 20% of U.S. uranium all by herself.

The issue POLITIFACT, Vox and others conveniently circumvent is the New York Times quote stating “As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation.”

Did millions of dollars to her Foundation influence Clinton?

Furthermore, three FBI field offices wanted to investigate the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation has been the subject of quid pro quo controversies, from an AP report to weapons deals. Last year’s AP Report states millions in donations correlated with access to America’s Secretary of State:

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

If you replace Clinton with Trump in the story above, how would Washington Post journalists react? 85 people give $156 million to Trump’s foundation and nobody questions the transfer of money?

This story (if Trump were the subject) would spark outrage today. Instead, Vox and others defended Clinton and denied any possible conflict to interest.

As for the uranium deal (approved under an Obama administration that eventually sanctioned Russia for alleged election tampering), it’s similar to Clinton’s weapons deal scandal reported by the International Business Times. Read the International Business Times article titled Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

This all gets back to the POLITIFACT articles.

POLITIFACT states “The State Department did approve the Uranium One deal, but it didn’t act unilaterally.”

And… this is supposed to be a good thing?

The New York Times states “The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

Vox recently called Trump a Russian stooge, yet it was Clinton’s State Department that approved a deal bringing “Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

President Obama’s administration approved a uranium deal that motivated Pravda to write “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

If Putin is America’s great adversary, why did Clinton’s State Department and eight other agencies approve the deal?

Why didn’t President Obama veto the deal?

Why did Uranium One officials feel the need to donate millions to the Clinton Foundation amid the sale?

This blind spot within American media is the reason Trump won the White House. Clinton engages in an overt controversy, and the American press focuses solely on the semantics within Trump’s accusation. With Clinton, it’s never using a private server to hide information. Everything is merely a coincidence, or there’s enough semantic leeway for plausible deniability. Yoga emails were deleted, not Clinton Foundation emails.

As for the billions lost in Haiti linked to Bill and Hillary Clinton, Hatian-born journalist Daddy Cherry demands the Clintons “Return Haiti’s Earthquake Billions.”

Congratulations, vigilant and daring American press, whose only goal is to defeat Trump. You’ve again focused on Trump’s wild accusations, while ignoring the giant elephant in the room.

Once again, America is playing Trump’s game (fact checking based on semantics, as opposed to the overall picture) and refusing to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for a genuine conflict of interest. This paved the way for Trump’s recent conflicts of interest.

Sure, Hillary Clinton didn’t “give up” 20% of U.S. uranium.

Trump is wrong about Clinton “giving” the uranium to Putin.

Also, it’s 20% of U.S. uranium capacity, that’s true.

There, feel better now DNC?

You shouldn’t if you think Russia influenced the election and fear the implications of General Flynn’s phone calls, or Trump’s contacts with Russia.

I highlight the impact of the Obama administration’s uranium deal with Russia in the following segment on H. A. Goodman YouTube:

Is it America’s national interest to have “Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain”?

In the McCarthy era atmosphere of today’s Democratic Party, what if Trump approved the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium capacity to Russia, as his foundation received millions?

For every fact-checking piece mocking Trump’s claims, simply reread the original NYT story. The New York Times explains the possible quid pro quo arrangement in a now legendary piece by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire titled Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

Again, would this be condoned if Trump’s foundation had accepted millions from uranium one?

Also, why were Uranium One donations “not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors”?

There’d be widespread calls for impeachment if this happened with Trump, and people would be right.

The Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars, as the Podesta Group lobbied on behalf of Uranium One. Uranium One was already owned by the Kremlin, while the Podesta Group was lobbying on behalf of Uranium One. The Obama administration sold U.S. uranium to a company that was essentially owned by Putin.

The fact 9 agencies had to sign off on the deal is irrelevant. If Clinton’s State Department, under Obama approved the deal, this shows Hillary Clinton was never worried about Russian aggression or influence.

Uranium One officials felt the need to donate to Clinton’s Foundation during the uranium deal, and that brings up the question of Clinton’s influence on Obama’s administration.

Most importantly, the Clinton Foundation coincidentally shut down its Global Initiative, shortly after Clinton lost, and no longer accepts foreign donations.

Why did Bill and Hillary shut down the Clinton Global Initiative?

Could it be that the Clintons no longer have access to give to donors?

Or is it only Trump who has conflicts of interest?

The Clinton Foundation did accept millions of dollars from Uranium One during the sale, approved under Obama’s administration, while the Podesta Group lobbied on behalf of company owned by Russia. In addition, the Panama Papers reveal Clinton’s ties to the Kremlin. Therefore, it’s a fact Clinton and President Obama presided over the sale of 20% of U.S. uranium capacity to Russia. If the fact Uranium One officials donated millions amid the deal doesn’t bother you, then there’s a job waiting for you at Vox.

0 notes

reasoningdaily · 8 months ago

Text

Haiti protesters blame the Clintons for a litany of ills in their mother country

Donald Trump has said the work of Bill and Hillary Clinton in Haiti was a "disgrace". What really happened?

"The Clinton family, they are crooks, they are thieves, they are liars," says Haitian activist Dahoud Andre.

He has been leading protests outside the Clinton Foundation headquarters in Manhattan and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign base in Brooklyn for the last two years.

He said protesters from his small activist group, the Committee to Mobilize Against Dictatorship in Haiti, will continue to level their allegations - so far all unproven - if the Democratic candidate wins the White House.

Haiti honeymoon

The Clinton Foundation has raised more than $2bn since its launch in 2001

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump raised the matter in the third and final presidential debate when he told Mrs Clinton: "I was at a Little Haiti the other day in Florida.

"And I want to tell you, they hate the Clintons, because what's happened in Haiti with the Clinton Foundation is a disgrace."

Mrs Clinton retorted that she was proud of the foundation's work, and pointed out her rival's namesake charity had spent money on a lifesize portrait of himself.

The Clintons' history with the world's first black republic dates back to their 1975 honeymoon, when they met a voodoo priest and visited a hotel where Ernest Hemingway once stayed.

The January 2010 earthquake killed an estimated 220,000 people

Few could have guessed the two young Americans touring the attractions that December would one day wield such influence over the impoverished Caribbean island nation.

Mr Andre is not alone among his compatriots in blaming the once-and-perhaps-future first couple for a litany of ills in Haiti.

Kim Ives, editor of Haiti Liberte newspaper, told the BBC: "A lot of Haitians are not big fans of the Clintons, that's for sure."

Bill and Hillary Clinton at the grand opening of the Caracol Industrial Park four years ago

"The fact the Clintons kind of took over things after the earthquake and did a pretty poor job of it translates to why the Haitians have a pretty dim view of them," he added.

Replicated mistakes

Mrs Clinton was Secretary of State and Mr Clinton was UN Special Envoy to Haiti when the January 2010 earthquake struck, killing an estimated 220,000 people.

Some $13.3bn (£10.9bn) was pledged by international donors for Haiti's recovery.

Mr Clinton was appointed co-chairman of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC), along with Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with former Haitian President Michel Martelly

But the IHRC found itself under fire as frustrations mounted at the slow pace of recovery.

Its mandate was not renewed by the Haitian parliament in 2011.

A US Government Accountability Office report discovered no hint of wrongdoing, but concluded the IHRC's decisions were "not necessarily aligned with Haitian priorities".

The bulk of it went to UN agencies, international aid groups, private contractors and donor countries' own civilian and military agencies.

For example, the Pentagon billed the State Department hundreds of millions of dollars for sending US troops to hand out bottled water and keep order on the streets of Haiti's ravaged capital, Port-au-Prince.

The Clinton Global Initiative - a part of the Clinton Foundation - is billed as an annual gathering of "foremost thinkers" and "visionaries"

Jake Johnston, an analyst with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a nonpartisan group that has studied the quake reconstruction, told the BBC "it's hard to say it's been anything other than a failure".

But he believes the State Department and IHRC simply replicated the mistakes of the whole foreign aid industry by chasing short-term gains instead of building longer-term capacity on the ground.

"They relied too much on outside actors," Mr Johnston says, "and supplanted the role of the Haitian government and domestic producers."

While the Clintons in their respective roles clearly had a say over where some of the quake relief cash flowed, their political enemies have wrongly claimed the family foundation directly controlled all the billions in funds.

The foundation itself raised a relatively modest $30m for aid projects in Haiti.

A spokeswoman for the charity told the BBC: "Every penny of the more than $30m raised was deployed on the ground, with no overhead taken by the Clinton Foundation."

A Haitian protester outside New York's Hofstra University, scene of the first presidential debate in September

'Friends of Bill'

Mrs Clinton's campaign has said she never did anything at the State Department as a result of donations to the Clinton Foundation.

But potential conflicts of interest have emerged.

After the earthquake, disaster capitalists flocked to the nation of 10 million people, which is about the size of the US state of Massachusetts.

Private contractors were eager to sell services, in what one US envoy described in a Wikileaks-disclosed diplomatic cable as a "gold rush".

In email exchanges with top Clinton Foundation officials, a senior aide to Mrs Clinton, who was then-secretary of state, kept an eye out for those identified by the abbreviations "FOB" (friends of Bill Clinton) or "WJC VIPs" (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs).

"Need you to flag when people are friends of WJC," wrote Caitlin Klevorick, a senior State Department official who was vetting incoming offers of assistance coming through the Clinton Foundation.

Since 2010, the Clinton Foundation has raised a total of more than $30m for Haiti

"Most I can probably ID but not all."

Ms Klevorick told ABC News she made the comments about Mr Clinton to help pin down whether would-be contractors had a history in Haiti or with disaster relief.

The emails, which were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the Republican National Committee, have fuelled claims the Clintons were running a pay-to-play operation, though no hard evidence of this has emerged.

House Republicans are already laying the groundwork for a volley of congressional hearings into the Clinton Foundation in the event the Democratic candidate wins the White House in a week's time.

Possibly the most enduring criticism of the Clinton Foundation's work in Haiti stems from its signature project, a garment factory known as the Caracol Industrial Park.

The foundation, working with the Clinton State Department, helped arrange a US-subsidised deal with the Haitian government to build the $300m factory complex in 2012.

Several hundred farmers were evicted from their land to make way for the 600-acre manufacturing site, which produces clothes for retailers such as Old Navy, Walmart and Target.

South Korean textile giant Sae-A Trading Co, which is the main employer at the facility, subsequently donated between $50,000 to $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

Mr Clinton declared 100,000 jobs would be created "in short order".

But the Caracol Industrial Park has created only 8,000 jobs.

An injured Haitian receiving medical care in Port-au-Prince

Sae-A spokeswoman Karen Seo told the BBC: "The rate of job growth depends both on the efficiency in building facilities, as well as customer demand - including the long tail of the recession. Momentum is growing and we are optimistic."

In its defence, the Clinton Foundation - which has raised more than $2bn from over 330,000 donors since its 2001 launch - points to its A rating from philanthropic monitors.

Charity Watch says 88% of the Clinton Foundation's budget was spent last year on programme expenses.

But the watchdog's president, Daniel Borochoff, told the BBC the high mark was not intended to reflect whether Mrs Clinton kept donors to her family's foundation at appropriate arm's length, or provided favoured access as secretary of state.

Questions 'fester'

The Clinton Foundation rebutted any suggestion of special favours, saying that in the aftermath of the Haiti quake they worked with a "wide range" of partners to mobilise relief efforts immediately "and many people they had previously worked with responded to this call to help".

The charity's statement to the BBC continued: "President Clinton and the Clinton Foundation's only goal in Haiti is to help the people of Haiti.

"Since 2010, the Foundation has worked on the ground in Haiti with a range of partners - helping more than 7,500 farmers lift themselves out of poverty; improving the Haitian environment by planting more than 5 million trees and installing more than 400 KW of clean energy; and supporting women through literacy training and job skills for over 2,000 women."

Mrs Clinton's presidential campaign did not respond to requests for comment from the BBC.

In the Little Haiti neighbourhood of Miami that was visited by Mr Trump this September, the head of a local women's advocacy group has questions for Mrs Clinton.

Marleine Bastien, executive director of Fanm Ayisyen Nan Miyami, believes that Clinton-backed projects have helped global investors more than they have benefited poverty-stricken Haitians.

She told the BBC: "The more Secretary Clinton refrains from responding to the concerns and questions from the people of Haiti, this perception that she's trying to evade responding will continue.

Will Donald Trump's pitch to Haitian-Americans work?

"Instead of allowing these questions to linger and fester, why not come clean? The questions will not go away, they will continue."

As for Mr Trump's attempt to woo Haitian-American voters, it may prove a longshot, given his threats to round up millions of undocumented immigrants.

There are an estimated 150,000 members of this electoral bloc in Florida, a crucial swing state where the presidential contest is on a knife-edge.

Jeff Lozama, chairman of the Haitian American Chamber of Commerce of Florida, told the BBC that regardless of misgivings about the Clintons' work in Haiti, his countrymen and women in the diaspora overwhelmingly hope she wins election on 8 November.

He says many of them fear what a Trump presidency could mean for their US status.

"Haitians cannot afford to have any mass deportation," he said.

"Immigration is the number one item (among Haitian-Americans) for these candidates."

#Haiti #the clintons #election tampering #US election 2016: What really happened with the Clintons in Haiti?

0 notes