Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation - Connecting the Dots

Updated December 2018

During the 2016 Presidential election cycle, there was significant discussion about the Clinton Foundation and whether it was truly independent of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton, particularly during her time as Secretary of State.  Thanks to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Judicial Watch, we now have yet another eye-opening glimpse inside the Clinton Family money-making and influence-peddling machine.

Here is an email dated February 8, 2010 from Huma Abedin's treasure trove showing an email from Lona Valmoro, Hillary Clinton's Department of State scheduler, that was forwarded to a number of Clinton Foundation employees including Terry Krinvic, former President Clinton's scheduler at the Clinton Foundation and John Zimmerebner, Director at the Clinton Foundation, showing Secretary Clinton's daily schedule for Tuesday, February 9th, 2010:

In case you thought that this might be a one-off breach of security and protocol, here's another email from Huma Abedin's collection showing how the Department of State was sharing Secretary Clinton's daily schedule with the family's business operation, this one showing her schedule for February 23, 2010:

Here we go again with Secretary Clinton's shared schedule for Monday, April 5, 2010, much which has been redacted under the FOIA request but which was all shared with the Clinton Foundation which was deemed worthy of the information:

And, last but not least, here is Secretary Clinton's shared schedule for Wednesday, May 19, 2010:

While the Clintons would have us believe that their family foundation operated completely independently of Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State and that it would have continued to do so while she was President, these emails would suggest that there was a strong link between the power in the office of Secretary of State and the Clinton's own family business/foundation.   

The Effectiveness of the Clinton Foundation

Updated January 2018

During the election, America's mainstream media focussed solely on the potential conflicts of interest between Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and their family charity "business", a very interesting document from the Podesta email release which is addressed to both John Podesta and the Board of Directors of the William J. Clinton Foundation (now the Clinton Foundation) provides us with an inside look at the effectiveness of the Foundation.  The 22 page "Privileged, Personal and Confidential" is from Victoria B. Bjorklund and Jennifer I. Reynoso at Simpson, Thatcher & Bartlett LLP and looks at the results of a 22 question survey that was given to 38 people closely affiliated with the Foundation including the President, Bruce Lindsey, John Podesta, members of the Foundation's Board of Directors, members of the Immediate Office of the President, the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of the Foundation, the heads of the Clinton Global Initiative, Inc. the Clinton Health Access Initiative and the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, Inc. as well as employees who worked in the Foundation's scheduling, marketing, advance and correspondence areas.

As background, the Foundation, which was incorporated in 2005, is an Arkansas Nonprofit Corporation and is subject to the laws under the Arkansas Nonprofit Corporation Act of 1993 even though it is authorized to operate in the state of New York.  It is exempt from federal income taxes and is classified by the IRS as a public charity rather than a private foundation.  The Board of Directors was very small and was composed of insiders (i.e. paid employees or contractors, family members etcetera) when this report was written in 2011; for example, Bruce Lindsey, the Chief Executive Officer now Board Chair, was Bill Clinton's assistant and general counsel through his two terms in office.  Things have changed since then, however, with board members like Dr. Eric Goosby who served as Bill Clinton's Acting Deputy Director of the National AIDS Policy Office in the White House and director of  HIV/AIDS policy at the Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Cheryl Saban, one of Hillary Clinton's largest donors in the 2016 cycle and Cheryl Mills who was the deputy White House Counsel for Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial, one wonders how much has really changed.  

Back to the survey.  The interviewees were asked to rate the efficiency and effectiveness of the Foundation's operations, the effectiveness of the process by which operations were prioritized, the effectiveness of both the budget and employee review processes, who had the most substantial influence over the Foundation, whether they had disclosed actual or potential conflicts of interest within the Foundation, what aspects of governance or operations they would recommend for change and where they saw the Foundation in 10 years.  Here are the key findings:

Almost all interviewees recommended the following:

1. Stressed the need for a stronger Board and stronger management - The Board of Directors was very small and was composed of insiders (i.e. paid employees or contractors, family members etcetera) when this report was written in 2011; for example, Bruce Lindsey the Chief Executive Officer (now Board Chair) was Bill Clinton's assistant and general counsel through his two terms in office.  Things have changed since then, however, with board members like Chelsea Clinton (Vice Chair), Dr. Eric Goosby whom served as Bill Clinton's Acting Deputy Director of the National AIDS Policy Office in the White House and director of  HIV/AIDS policy at the Department of Health and Human Services and Cheryl Mills who was the deputy White House Counsel for Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial, one wonders how much has really changed. 


2. Stressed the need for the Board and the managers to meet, lead and manage - The Board of the Foundation met only once annually until 2007 when this was changed to two yearly meetings and functioned without a Board Chair.  When it met, it would approve the annual budget but would do so mid-way through the budget year.  Board minutes were "cloned" from one year to the next and the minutes were not signed.  By way of comparison, according to the Wall Street Journal, the average number of annual board meeting for a public charity is 7.4, far more often than the Foundation met.


3. Called for strategic planning - The Board was not involved in either strategic planning or program evaluation and does not have an opportunity to pre-approve new projects and programs.    The lack of strategic planning also leads to both duplicative and wasteful work and expenses. 


4. Called for sustainability planning - The Board has not engaged in any succession planning and has not determined what would be required to ensure that the Foundation continued to exist if Bill Clinton were no longer evolved.


5. Called on the Foundation to develop the infrastructure of a best-in-class charity. 

Let's look at some additional details of problems at the Foundation.  Conflict-of-interest policies were in place but not implemented or enforced and any conflicts were not disclosed in a timely fashion (i.e. at the time that the individual is aware that there is a conflict).   Individuals were required to sign and return an annual conflict of interest disclosure questionnaire however, some interviewees reported conflicts of those raising funds or donors, some of whom may have an expectation of quid pro quo benefits in return for gifts.  Interestingly, Clinton Global Initiative offered approximately 1298 complimentary memberships compared to only 500 paid memberships with the normal cost of a membership being $20,000.  Of the complimentary memberships, 160 were offered to celebrities and 276 were considered discretionary.  Interviewees stated that there was no transparency in how the list of complimentary memberships was created.

Interviewees also stated that there was a lack of internal controls, noting that certain employees weree allowed to abuse expense account privileges and did not follow the Foundation's travel expense policy which stated that employees use the lowest commercial class airfare unless travel time exceeds 14 hours.  Additionally, employees were to use the lowest available rates when booking lodging.  Public charities are permitted to pay for ordinary expenses including the cost of travel and all expenses must be documented and, according to law, must not be "lavish or extravagant".  Problems with these  types of expenditures were noted by numerous interviewees as well as expenses incurred for non-employee family member travel companions. 

It is interesting to see how the Clinton Foundation functioned during the period up to 2011.  While an updated survey is not available (at least not publicly), it certainly appears that the management of the Clinton Foundation at the time was rather ineffective and amateurish with a board of directors that was considered weak and composed of insiders, conflicts of interest that went unchallenged and a lack of internal fiscal controls that led to abusive expense spending by Foundation employees.  This gives us a sense of little regard the Foundation had for its donor base, both large and small.

Speaking for the Clinton Foundation - The South Korea Connection

While we repeatedly hear about Bill and Hillary Clinton and their speech-making factory which has earned them well in excess of $100 million since the former president left office, we rarely hear about how much money their speeches have earned for their family foundation and which companies and organizations have been the recipients of a speech given by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.  From the Clinton Foundation website, here's a listing:

 Speeches designated with a "#" were given by former President Clinton, those designated with a "+" were given by Hillary Clinton and those designated with a "^" were given by Chelsea Clinton.  In addition, those designated with an asterisk were given during the second quarter of 2016.

It is interesting to look at the wide ranging groups that were recipients of wisdom that emanated from the Clinton family, even from Chelsea who has never held public office but because of her association with the former President and Secretary of State has picked up her wisdom by osmosis.  

Let's focus on one of the three speeches that raised the most money for the Clinton Foundation.  This speech was given to Hanwha, a Korean company that was founded in 1952 in the ruins of post-Korean War South Korea.  Hanwha's founder, Chong-Hee Kim, realized that explosives would form an important aspect of rebuilding post-war Korea and acquired Joseon Gunpowder Joint Market, Inc. from which he established Korea Explosives.  In 1955, he purchased a power plant from Chosun Oil and Fat Company in 1955, developing the ability to produced nitroglycerin, the second nation in Asia to have its own explosives business.  During the 1960s, Hanwha expanded its business footprint by purchasing other businesses in key industries; the petrochemical industry through Korea Hwasung Industrial Company and Kyungin Energy which built and operated South Korea's only private thermal power station.  Since then, Hanwha has expanded into a myriad of other businesses.     

Here is a graphic showing Hanwha's businesses since 2007:

Hanwha is one of South Korea's largest business conglomerates; it currently has more than 53 subsidiaries that operate across the globe including Canada, Australia, China and the United States. 

Now, let's get to the Clinton connection.  According to the 2008 Clinton Foundation donor data release that occurred as a result of Hillary Clinton's acceptance as Secretary of State, Hanwha's subsidiaries have also donated between $600,000 and $1.25 million directly to the Clinton's family foundation.  Hanwah's Chairman, Kim Seung Youn, pictured on the right in this photo:

...is one of South Korea's 50 richest individuals and has a rather chequered past.  He was found guilty of embezzling $81 million worth of company funds back in 2012.  He received a landmark four year prison sentence and a $4.5 million fine for breach of trust in 2012, a sentence that was reduced to three years in 2013 upon appeal.  He served part of his sentence but was released to hospital in January 2014.  His prison sentence was suspended for five years in February 2014 by the Seoul High Court because of Mr. Kim's health and because of his "contributions to South Korea's economic development".  Mr. Kim was also accused of using company money to pay back the debts of companies that he ran under borrowed names.  Going further back in time, Mr. Kim was imprisoned in 2007 after he was found guilty of abducting the employees of a karaoke bar and transporting them to a construction site where he beat them with a steel pipe in revenge for an attack on his son.  His 18 month prison sentence was commuted on the condition that he complete 200 hours of community service.  Despite all of this, the Hanwha Group won an $8 billion contract to build infrastructure in Iraq (the Bismayah New City Project) in 2012 and an additional $2.12 billion Iraqi infrastructure contract in 2015.  One wonders how much "Clintonian" influence was used to ensure that one of their private foundation donors received a massive contract in war-torn Iraq. 


The company that we keep speaks volumes about our character.  None more so than the Clinton Family.