Connect with us

Americas

Donald Trump questions Hillary Clinton’s moral credibility for presidency

Published

on

The Donald Trump campaign on June 24 Friday released a 35-page booklet attacking Hillary Clinton of impropriety over donations received by the Clinton Foundation over the years.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee alleged that the Clinton Foundation received funds in 2008 from Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh and Confederation of India Industry seeking support for the Indo-US civil nuclear deal.

The booklet titled “Top 50 Facts about Hillary Clinton from Trump ‘Stakes of the Election’ Address” is available for download on the donaldjtrump.com. It heavily cites a New York Times report on the list of donors who contributed to the family foundation managed by former President Bill Clinton.

It is a known fact that American politicians thrive on bribery money being received from abroad for their “services” to those who request, rather beg, for help on Senate and Congress. In fact, US economy depends too much on finances from abroad.

Like in India, American politicians run Foundations and charity organizations in the country to get huge sum from abroad for “special services” they have to render in US government, Congress and Senate in their favor.

Foreigners, including governments, seek the help of top US politicians, Senate and Congress members, apart from the White House bosses, to get the passage of bills that benefit them. Bill Clinton and his party’s Senate and Congress members made huge money by supporting the “foreign cases” in the Senate and Congress. Later he founded Clinton foundation to channelize the foreign money flow successfully. .

Not only the USA but entire world is being controlled by the corrupt leaders. In 2008, newly-elected President Barack Obama invited, on prior mutual understanding that ended Hillary’s presidential campaigning in favor of Obama as the Democratic candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton to join his cabinet as foreign minister in his cabinet or, as the post is known in USA, as secretary of state. Since Hillary would be involved in drafting America’s foreign policy, her husband Bill, also in an agreement reached between Obama and him, released a list of more than 200,000 donors who gave significant amounts of donations to his family foundation.

While the Pentagon-CIA duo is engaged looting the Arab resources, US politicians loot the national resources as well as foreign money.

Entire world pays huge sum to USA to get their “things” done. Not only colonist nations like India and Israel with occupied nations under their belt pumps in a lot of money to make USA happy, even European and Mideast eastern Arab nations also regular make payment sot USA for a series of services they require from USA.

In fact, Arab governments and rulers plus top leaders pay extra money to USA for “taking care” of their wealth and bank money safely. UK premier Tony Blaire lost this job because of a corruption case involving officals in Riyadh. Arab cannot now antagonize America for fear of losing their wealth and bank amounts in USA and UK. .

Obviously, the domestic donors who granted dollars sumptuously for the parties are entitled to get all favors from the new government. In fact these rich donors are treated as special guests by the US president and government. Foreign donors get their “cases” done through the powerful lobbyists. Israel and India maintain strong lobbyist groups in Washington to get what they want from the White House.

It is not a big story that Indian politicians are frauds who betray the people by making money illegally by corrupt ways and even intelligence cannot do anything to block the corruption practices unless the government asks it to probe some body for creating problems of the government. Generally the government does not bother about corrupt politicians so long as they don’t become a problem for the government. Also, sometimes, government uses the available corruption information to coerce the politicians to fall in line.

The list revealed that the Clinton Foundation received between $1 million and $5 million from Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh, then a close of party Chief Mulayam Singh Yadav, who was in Washington to lobby Congress for the safe passage of the Indo-US civil nuclear deal. Samajwadi party was back then as a coalition partner in the United Progressive Alliance led by the Indian National Congress party led by Manmohan Singh who led a corrupt and insensitive government. Obviously the Congress party, apart from contacting the US lobbyists directly through bribery tactics, it also used Mulayam to bribe the US lobbyists.

Bill reportedly assured Singh that the Democrats would not block the deal in the Congress. In December 2008, Hillary voted in favour of the nuclear agreement between India and USA and the Congress party and government got a shot in its arm by the deal with USA which always opposed India. . .

The booklet also cites a 2011 Indian Express report on Singh receiving a thank you note from the former US president bill for the big money offered by Indian sources. Without directly mentioning the cash payments, Bill wrote to Singh, thanking for his “gift” of a charcoal stove and briquettes to a family in Haiti, which is facing a severe cholera epidemic after last year’s massive earthquake.”This year, in your name, the Clinton Foundation gave an efficient charcoal stove and briquettes manufactured from 100 per cent recycled waste to a family in Haiti,” Clinton wrote to Singh in the second half of December. “Your gift will touch the lives of people who have been struggling to survive the earthquake and cholera epidemic, and the hurricanes of 2008.”

Another article cited by the Trump campaign was an USA Today piece on the Confederation of Indian Industry who gave $500,000 to $1 million.

The Foundation has also accepted funds from foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia, which was the largest donor with a contribution between $10 million and $25 million, and Norway (between $5 million and $10 million). Kuwait, Qatar, the Dubai Foundation, Brunei Darussalam, and Oman donated between $1 million and $5 million each, reported New York Times. Irish Aid, China Overseas Real Estate Development Corporation donated several hundred thousand dollars each. Italy and Jamaica each donated between $50,000 and $100,000.

Interestingly, Americans talk about democracy and freedom exclusively for promoting corruption and imperialist wars. Corruption seems to define democracy of all kleptocracies like USA, India, Israel, etc.

US politicians behave like knotty boys. USA used Pakistan to advance its anti-Islamic agenda in South Asia by attacking and crippling n Islamizing Afghanistan. Now as India pumps in huge money to Washington with a request to contain Pakistan and let Jammu Kashmir stay with Indian occupational forces, Washington insults its ally Pakistan. Americans want money and money no matter from where. .

Clinton Foundation is just one of the American democratic shames!

Clinton’s corrupt practices go hand in hand with her aggressive anti-Palestine and pro-fascist Israeli rhetoric. A hawkish like any Israeli leader, She has no sympathy for Palestine women and children whom Israeli military keeps killing for fun.

Clinton paints herself as the best candidate for Israel and arms manufactures of USA and Israel.

Literally, Hillary equates US imperialism with Zionism and fascism. Clinton addressed Jewish AIPAC’s annual policy conference in Washington DC, attacking Republican front runner Donald Trump for saying that he would be “neutral” on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. America can never be neutral when it comes to Israel’s security or survival,” she stated. “Anyone who doesn’t understand that has no business being our president.” She called on the US to bolster Israel’s missile defense and work together to create tunnel-detecting technology.

Since legal framework of USA is not strong enough to track all corruption drives, there is no way Americans can elect a genuinely democratic present to govern the USA, guide the world properly but only makes sure the president can control the world resources, routes and bases.

Republicans Donald Trump’s attack on democratic Hillary Clinton’s moral credibility for presidency is quite valid but so what? American system allows al these frauds to survive and thrive!

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

A self-inflicted wound: Trump surrenders the West’s moral high ground

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

For the better part of a century, the United States could claim the moral high ground despite allegations of hypocrisy because its policies continuously contradicted its proclaimed propagation of democracy and human rights. Under President Donald J. Trump, the US has lost that moral high ground.

This week’s US sanctioning of 28 Chinese government entities and companies for their involvement in China’s brutal clampdown on Turkic Muslims in its troubled north-western province of Xinjiang, the first such measure by any country since the crackdown began, is a case in point.

So is the imposition of visa restrictions on Chinese officials suspected of being involved in the detention and human rights abuses of millions of Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims.

The irony is that the Trump administration has for the first time elevated human rights to a US foreign policy goal in export control policy despite its overall lack of concern for such rights.

The sanctions should put the Muslim world, always the first to ring the alarm bell when Muslims rights are trampled upon, on the spot.

It probably won’t even though Muslim nations are out on a limb, having remained conspicuously silent in a bid not to damage relations with China, and in some cases even having endorsed the Chinese campaign, the most frontal assault on Islam in recent history.

This week’s seeming endorsement by Mr. Trump of Turkey’s military offensive against Syrian Kurds, who backed by the United States, fought the Islamic State and were guarding its captured fighters and their families drove the final nail into the coffin of US moral claims.

The endorsement came on the back of Mr. Trump’s transactional approach towards foreign policy and relations with America’s allies, his hesitancy to respond robustly to last month’s missile and drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities, his refusal to ensure Saudi transparency on the killing a year ago of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and his perceived empathy for illiberals and authoritarians symbolized by his reference to Egyptian field marshal-turned-president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi as “my favourite dictator.”

Rejecting Saudi and Egyptian criticism of his intervention in Syria, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave the United States and Mr. Trump a blunt preview of what they can expect next time they come calling, whether it is for support of their holding China to account for its actions in Xinjiang, issues of religious freedom that are dear to the Trump administration’s heart, or specific infractions on human rights that the US opportunistically wishes to emphasize.

“Let me start with Saudi Arabia,” Mr. Erdogan said in blistering remarks to members of his Justice and Development Party (AKP). “Look in the mirror first. Who brought Yemen to this state? Did tens of thousands of people not die in Yemen?” he asked, referring to the kingdom’s disastrous military intervention in Yemen’s ruinous civil war.

Addressing Mr. Al-Sisi, Mr. Erdogan charged: “Egypt, you can’t talk at all. You are a country with a democracy killer.” The Turkish leader asserted that Mr. Al-Sisi had “held a meeting with some others and condemned the (Turkish) operation – so what if you do?”

The fact that the United States is likely to encounter similar responses, even if they are less belligerent in tone, as well as the fact that Mr. Trump’s sanctioning of Chinese entities is unlikely to shame the Muslim world into action, signals a far more fundamental paradigm shift:  the loss of the US and Western moral high ground that gave them an undisputed advantage in the battle of ideas, a key battleground in the struggle to shape a new world order.

China, Russia, Middle Eastern autocrats and other authoritarians and illiberals have no credible response to notions of personal and political freedom, human rights and the rule of law.

As a result, they countered the ideational appeal of greater freedoms by going through the motions. They often maintained or erected democratic facades and payed lip service to democratic concepts while cloaking their repression in terms employed by the West like the fight against terrorism.

By surrendering the West’s ideological edge, Mr. Trump reduced the shaping of the new world order to a competition in which the power with the deeper pockets had the upper hand.

Former US national security advisor John Bolton admitted as much when he identified in late 2018 Africa as a new battleground and unveiled a new strategy focused on commercial ties, counterterrorism, and better-targeted U.S. foreign aid.

Said international affairs scholar Keren Yarhi-Milo: “The United States has already paid a significant price for Trump’s behaviour: the president is no longer considered the ultimate voice on foreign policy. Foreign leaders are turning elsewhere to gauge American intentions… With Trump’s reputation compromised, the price tag on U.S. deterrence, coercion, and reassurance has risen, along with the probability of miscalculation and inadvertent escalation.”

Continue Reading

Americas

Trump’s effects on diplomacy

Irfan Khan

Published

on

No longer has Trump’s haphazard behaviour persisted, more will be easy for his administration to enact actions against China, Iran and Taliban. The state department is in a quandary because of it, on each front. Trump’s entrenched eagerness to remain “great” and “first” on the chessboard of International power, could damage the world more ahead than before.

Following the Iran’s attacks on the Kingdom of Saudi-Arabia’s oil infrastructure, US wanted to deploy troops to the Kingdom. It is primarily a justification for why the US has been imposing sanctions over Iran. Is troops deployment a solution? Or will it provide safe horizon to Kingdom oil’s installation? Or will it be revolutionary in oil diplomacy? Or is it the only target retaliated on, by Iran. However, such kind of engagement has short term beneficiary spots, while in broader perspective it has consequential effects for all stakeholders. The episode of nuclear deal has, as a factor of quid-pro-quo, been further dramatised by the state department, withdrawing from. Notwithstanding, the deal has advantageous prospects for the Middle East, and an exemplary for rest of nations, has been further dramatised by the US, in order to seek its diplomatic wins. What significant at this point, is an agreement to reback to the deal.

Embracing a different economic model, China, is plausibly on a runner-up position to the US. Whether it’s 5G tech. Or leading status of green energy, or ultra-scales exports or its leading developments for the nations having indigent economies, is a source of chaos for US administration. The current trade war is an antidoting tool for the whole scenario. The US should, I assume, eye China’s hegemony a piece of cake, and welcome its come out while securing its interests under the umbrella of cooperation. This logic, while posing no threat, seems to be long term functional. Is it?

Trump, according to many native writers, is psychologically unfit, unstable and fickle, however have had strong narrative to prevent America’s engagement into “useless wars” and end “endless” wars. Following this token, Trump announcement of troop withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan put the world politics and even his administration into chaos. This divided strategists and Washington security officials, which was underpinned by the resignation of James Mattis and recently John Bolton. The ten months of peace process which followed the US’s announcement of troop withdrawal, precipitously ended, putting once again the international and national politics into chaos. Trump, grandiloquently fired a tweet that talks with Taliban are dead and futile. The argument he contended was the Attack in Kabil, where one American soldier with 12 other people were lost. The policymakers and high officials in Washington who already negated the policy of troop withdrawal and then after peace deal. They, of course are winner in this policy discourse, have staunch beliefs in their opinion, who may make Trump’s change of heart. The Kabil attack was given, probably, an agent of resurgent for Obama’s approach. However, Trump’s administration had already scripted their policy framework for the region, and pretending Kabul attack was perhaps a way of redemption from the peace talk.

Trump’s factor in US foreign policy was chaotic to his subordinates for which, he attempted to compensate by cancelling peace deal with Taliban. However , on the domestic front, it is likely to be more pluses than on diplomatic front given to Trump in next year’s presidential election. Let’s see which side the wind blow. 

Continue Reading

Americas

Trump Cannot Be Impeached Over Ukrainegate, But Pelosi and Schiff Can Be Charged Criminally

Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq.

Published

on

Pursuant to United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936), the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unmistakable clear edict concerning the foreign affairs powers of the President of the United States.

In its majority opinion, the Court held that the President, as the nation’s “sole organ” in international relations, is innately vested with significant powers over foreign affairs, far exceeding the powers permitted in domestic matters or accorded to the U.S. Congress.

The Court reasoned that these powers are implicit in the President’s constitutional role as commander-in-chief and head of the executive branch.

Curtiss-Wright was the first decision to establish that the President’s plenary power was independent of Congressional permission, and consequently it is credited with providing the legal precedent for further expansions of executive power in the foreign sphere.

In a 7–1 decision authored by Justice George Sutherland, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. government, through the President, is categorically allowed great foreign affairs powers independent of the U.S. Constitution, by declaring that “the powers of the federal government in respect of foreign or external affairs and those in respect of domestic or internal affairs are different, both in respect of their origin and their nature…the broad statement that the federal government can exercise no powers except those specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and such implied powers as are necessary and proper to carry into effect the enumerated powers, is categorically true only in respect of our internal affairs.”

While the Constitution does not explicitly state that all ability to conduct foreign policy is vested in the President, the Court concluded that such power is nonetheless given implicitly, since the executive of a sovereign nation is, by its very nature, empowered to conduct foreign affairs.

The Court found “sufficient warrant for the broad discretion vested in the President to determine whether the enforcement of the statute will have a beneficial effect upon the reestablishment of peace in the affected countries.”

In other words, the President was better suited for determining which actions and policies best serve the nation’s interests abroad.

Period.

It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations – a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution.

Separation of Powers Doctrine

In other words, neither the U.S. Congress nor the U.S. Senate can say or do very much of anything to prevent or interfere with this power, and if they do, they can in fact be held responsible for violating the Separation of Powers doctrine pursuant to the U.S. Constitution wherein the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) are kept separate.

This is also known as the system of checks and balances, because each branch is given certain powers so as to check and balance the other branches.

Each branch has separate powers, and generally each branch is not allowed to exercise the powers of the other branches.

The Legislative Branch exercises congressional power, the Executive Branch exercises executive power, and the Judicial Branch exercises judicial review.

National Security and Foreign Affairs

The Curtiss-Wright case established the broader principle of executive Presidential supremacy in national security and foreign affairs, one of the reasons advanced in the 1950s for the near success of the attempt to add the Bricker Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would have placed a “check” on said Presidential power by Congress, but that never passed, or became law.

If Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats really wanted to interfere with or prevent President Donald Trump from engaging in the activity that they are trying to prevent vis-a-vis Ukraine, China, and Joseph Biden’s alleged corruption and its effect on National Security, they would have to first draft, propose, enact, and pass sweeping legislation, and this could take years and would most probably never pass.

Even so, it could not affect President Donald Trump’s actions already occurred, since the U.S. Constitution prohibits ex post facto criminal laws.

Turning This All Against Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff

To that end if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Adam Schiff persist in pushing said “impeachment proceedings” against President Donald Trump, it is actually they who could find themselves on the wrong side of the law, with formal and actual charges of Treason, Sedition or Coup D’ Etat being levied upon them by the U.S. Government.

The consequences of that occurring, are truly horrific indeed.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy