Exposing Hillary So She Won't Get Elected

While at State, Clinton Chief of Staff Held Outside Job

For those who want a preview of the Clinton Administration, look to her tenure as Secretary of State. One feature that is sure to continue is the loose boundaries imposed on key staff. As at State, senior Clinton loyalists will no doubt float among their official jobs, the Clinton Foundation and outside positions. This all screams of conflicts of interest and influence buying.

Today’s example is Cheryl Mills (pictured), Clinton’s Chief of Staff (we’ve covered the exploits of Clinton’s other close advisor, Huma Abedin, and her own conflicts of interest, before.)

During her first four months at the State Department, Mills also held another high-profile job, working part-time at New York University, negotiating with officials in Abu Dhabi to build a campus in that city. Mills reported that NYU paid her $198,000 in 2009, when her university work overlapped with her time at the State Department, and that she collected an additional $330,000 in vacation and severance payments when she left the school’s payroll in May 2009.

The concern, should it really need to be spelled out, is that Mills got something from Abu Dhabi and/or NYU in return for access to Clinton. That’s called influence buying.

The arrangement, which Mills discussed publicly for the first time in an interview with The Washington Post, is another example of how Clinton as secretary allowed close aides to conduct their public work even as they performed jobs benefiting private interests.

Mills’s situation raises questions about how one of the State Department’s top employees set boundaries between her public role and a private job that involved work on a project funded by a foreign government. Republican lawmakers have accused Clinton of allowing potential conflicts of interest at the State Department.

Mills rejected the suggestion of a conflict. She said her employment status was “approved by career professionals at the State Department.”

Let’s look at that last sentence, because in responding to critics of such deals for her staff, Clinton typically emphasizes that her actions were fully “within the rules.” The magic words are “approved by career professionals at the State Department.”

Does anyone truly believe that bureaucrats at the State Department would disapprove something their boss and her most senior advisor wanted? You know, risk their careers to stand up against such blatant cronyism? No, Clinton stayed within the rules because she basically made the rules.

So stick around for 2016 — you ain’t seen nothing yet!