US Constitution, article 1, section 9: “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
Various statutes and rules have been promulgated to effect the constitutional ban on foreign cash. The U.S. House of Representatives bans cash payments from foreign governments. The U.S. Senate, of which Hillary was a member from 2001 to 2009, bans cash payments from foreign governments. And the U.S. State Department bans cash payments from foreign governments. http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/02/the-u-s-constitution-actually-bans-hillarys-foreign-government-payola/
……………………………………………………………………………………
9-14-16
US President Barack Obama (L) bids farewell to US Ambassador to Britain Matthew Barzun at London’s Stansted Airport on April 24, 2016. – Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
Included in the leak was a list of high-profile donors from 2008 and the ambassadorship they received in exchange for their large donation to the DNC and Barack Obama’s Organizing For Action (OFA). Essentially Obama was auctioning off foreign ambassador positions and other office positions while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state. The largest donor listed at contributions totaling over $3.5 million, Matthew Barzun, served as U.S. Ambassador to Sweden from 2009 to 2011, served as President Obama’s National Finance Chair during his 2012 reelection campaign, and now serves as U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom….
Dan Roberts: “The practice is hardly a new feature of U.S. politics, but career diplomats in Washington are increasingly alarmed at how it has grown. One former ambassador described it as the selling of public office.” …
The recent leak teaser from WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 serves to show how extensive and far back the documents obtained in the hacks go. http://observer.com/2016/09/wikileaks-guccifer-2-0-obama-sold-off-public-offices-to-donors/
……………………………………………………………………………
(A revelation buried in the Wikileaks trove of tens of thousands of Hillary campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails shows him discussing Obama Executive Orders in relation to an “idea” a wealthy donor has.)
—– What does he need? On 4/30/08, Mary Pat Bonner <mpbonner@bonnergrp.com> wrote: > It is for michael king > > —– >
…………………………………………………………………………..
It looks like big banks and corporations agreed to donate to the Democrats a certain percentage of the allocated TARP funds.
(Hoyer & Pelosi are likewise, with others, on this list, getting “donations”)
……………………………………………………………………………
DCCC
- the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
- the official campaign arm of the Democrats in the House of Representatives
- the only political committee in the country whose principal mission is to support Democratic House candidates every step of the way to victory https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/10/04/clinton-foundation/ …………………………………………5-4-16 …a lower court’s conviction of Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife on multiple counts of extortion and honest-services fraud — the couple accepted $140,000 in gifts and loans from dietary supplement-maker Star Scientific in exchange for product promotion (including handing out samples to staffers) and government-granted research on the supplement’s efficacy.
The trial court had no problem convicting the governor under the Hobbs Act, which criminalizes government officials who receive payments or bribes in exchange for official acts. The Federal Appellate Court upheld the conviction but several Supreme Court Justices scoffed at the implication that this was anything but politics as usual.Justice Stephen Breyer noted that the governor’s behavior, which included accepting a Rolex and a $20,000 shopping spree, is so “common” that to uphold the conviction would give the Justice Department too much power to police the behavior of government officials. Chief Justice John Roberts went so far as to say that upholding the case would “cripple the ability of elected officials to fulfill their role in our representative democracy.”
If only it were more shocking to see the Supreme Court interpret bribes as a fundamental part of a representative democracy. But we must remember that this is the same team of corporate cheerleaders who brought us Citizen’s United in 2010, which found that “ingratiation and access” of government officials was not a form of corruption. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/278705-supreme-court-condones-pay-to-play-politics-as-government-as
balance1010 