Before going into office as Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton promised the people more transparency. However, recent develops suggest that, that was not at the top of her agenda.  First it was missing emails and the fact that Hilary’s correspondences encompassed sensitive government business over her private email account and the fact that she lacked a government issued one. Now there is criticism regarding where the Clinton Foundation, powered by her family, has been receiving its  funding.

One of these companies that has been providing cash to the Clinton’s non-profit is a Moroccan government owned mining company called Office Cherifien des Phosphates (OCP). The problem is that this company has been criticized for human rights violations in the past. Media reports have varied, but all agree that the company is completely void of caring about people before its profits. While the purpose of all businesses is to ultimately make money, this company is supposedly capitalizing on impoverished people, and for removing resources from these impoverished lands without adequately compensating the poor who are already struggling to survive  there.

The funding received by the globe-spanning charities of Hillary Clinton’s family from the foreign government has gone under intense investigations over the past weeks, while Mrs. Clinton continues to make moves towards becoming the Democratic nominee for the 2016 presidential race.  So why would the Clinton’s risk the negative fall –out from accepting money from one of the world’s most controversial mining companies? Well, this could easily be in relation to another concern regarding the Federal Election Commission’s inability to properly track and regulate how political candidates are raising and receiving campaign  funds.

About a week ago, the agency’s chairwoman, Ann M. Ravel, announced that the commission was at a stalemate regarding how to enforce and regulate political money funds raised for campaigns. There is proof elsewhere that rules have already been abused or flat-out ignored in anticipation of the 2016 presidential election. The biggest fraudulent activity actually is transpiring within non-profit organizations. There are cases where non-profits are improperly using their tax-exempt status for massive and well-financed political campaigns. Other guilty cases regarding misappropriation of funds include nonprofit companies such as, Crossroads GPS, which is accused of using their tax-exempt status for massive and well-financed political  campaigns.

The Clinton Foundation’s acknowledgement means precise totals for government grants to the charity for the last three years of Clinton’s four-year tenure as secretary of state have still not been publicly disclosed. US charities are required to separately disclose how much they receive in government funding, both domestic and foreign. While experts in charity law have said the issues with the foundation’s public financial records are not evidence of deliberate wrongdoing, they do make it more difficult to grasp how the charities raise and spend their money (as seen in the case of Crossroads,  GPS).

While former President Bill Clinton was shocked to learn that the artist who painted a portrait of him hanging in the National Portrait Gallery had also discreetly included Monica Lewinsky’s dress shadow in the painting, the rest of the nation was shocked to learn that Hilary Clinton only used a personal email address during her tenure as Secretary of State. And it turns out that her more casual way of conducting business may have violated federal requirements. It is extremely unusual for such a high-office official to use their personal account professionally. I’d give her a break if she slipped up between her different mobile in boxes occasionally, but it turns out that she didn’t even have a government email address. Fortunately, this is not the norm within our government, since it’s an obvious security risk in addition to being more difficult to track email  records.

It wasn’t until two months ago that Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of emails from her personal account before deciding which to hand over to the State following the department’s efforts to be in compliance with federal record-keeping requirements. It seems ludicrous that the department would justify one of its top cabinet-level officers to exclusively use her private email account for all conducts of government business.  Under federal law, letters and emails—both written and received—are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that anyone and everyone can go through them. There are exceptions to this law, but Hillary doesn’t fall under that category! Even more troublesome is that it is not clear whether the private email account included any cyber security measures, given the sensitivity of her diplomatic activity. She regularly corresponded with foreign nations. Who, what and how much sensitive information did she put at  risk?

So will there be any reprimanding for her careless and deceptive-like behavior? While there are penalties for not complying with federal record-keeping requirements, I do not think she will suffer any consequences. However, her chance at the white house is over. This nation is already struggling with cyber-security controversies spanning from foreign hackers, terrorists fears, to criticisms that our own government is trying to block what transparency remains between it and the American people. The key to winning the presidential election is either the illusion of a candidate who is being transparent and open with the people, or even perhaps we’ll get the real thing and not an  illusion.

And you can read more political analysis at www.johnlebout.com

Clint Didier, a former Washington Redskins player who caught the Super Bowl-winning pass in 1987, is a Congressional candidate in WA-04.  He issued the following statement in response to Hillary Clinton’s comments about the Redskins quoted in The Hill:

“I’m just flabbergasted that Hillary Clinton now thinks she’s the expert on what’s insensitive.  But if she has suddenly become the Miss Manners of politics, then maybe she’s now willing to publicly apologize for HER OWN insensitive remarks.  Like saying ‘What difference does it make?’ about the attacks in Benghazi.

“She says Redskins owners need to think hard about the name.  I have to wonder if she thinks long and hard about her own insensitive remarks  – like, that she can relate to the problems of most Americans because her family was ‘dead broke.’ Really?

“She does admit that she ‘hasn’t thought much about’ the Redskins, but apparently still feels the need to spout an opinion about it anyway.  Maybe that’s why people don’t trust politicians – because they don’t THINK about what they say.

“Well I have thought about it lot – for 7 years when I played with the Redskins. And I knew it was a name meant to honor the Native Americans who were part of the early history of the team.  We all wore the name proudly on our uniforms. Check out www.RedskinsFacts.com.

“This whole ‘name-calling’ thing is so hypocritical.  A  reporter at the liberal ‘Seattle Weekly’ recently took a jab at me  & the people of my district, calling us ‘rednecks’ and me ‘Chief Redneck” – -but no one called him out about that.  Can you say ‘hypocrisy?’  (FYI –No matter how he meant it, I choose to take it as a compliment – that I’m a hard-working farmer who gets his hands dirty every day.)

“But I won’t be sitting around holding my breath waiting for either Ms. Clinton’s or his apologies.  I have alfalfa to bale tonight.”

The issue that the senator-elect championed is one that the Democratic left feels passionately about — to the point of demonstrations in the street and a massive outpouring of protest against the bipartisan status quo in Washington.

Hillary Clinton — one-time darling of the left, going all the way back to her 1974 role on the House Judiciary Committee impeachment of President Nixon — is seen as a “sell-out” on this key, crucial issue as she positions herself as a general election candidate. Many on the left feel betrayed on this issue by Hillary; others feel she and Bill take them for granted.

The role of Bill is a part of the problem. He sees the Democratic Party as “The Clinton Party” and thus moves to sew up all the donors and all their money for Hillary’s presidential run — and to scare any possible challengers from entering the race. Some feel Bill’s goal in electing Hillary is to vindicate himself after the Monica Lewinsky impeachment mess. If Bill can get Hillary elected as president, it virtually erases that mark on his record.

So Bill manipulates things as a clever former president can inside his party’s establishment — and tries to keep an eye out for Hillary in the upcoming general election — always preserving her “viability.”

Hillary’s rationale for running? The potentially historic campaign to be the first woman president — and the now-receding good memories among some Democrats of the Bill Clinton Presidency, i.e. the first successful two-term Democratic president since FDR, often labeled back then as a co-presidency or two-for-the-price-of-one.

But that is a passionless sales pitch — and is rooted in the past; the senator-elect’s cause is current and filled with anger on the left against the political establishment, including Hillary and Bill. Which is more likely to win: passionless nostalgia or a red-hot energy to change things for the future?

In private, the senator-elect is constantly being told by left-wing compatriots to run against Hillary. But the Democratic donor class is with Hillary and Bill; they are betting on Hillary to prevail because she is so far ahead in the polls; she seems “inevitable.” Bill Clinton has told intimates, “I will raise up to one billion dollars to win this thing for Hillary.”

On the other hand, the senator-elect keeps wondering, “I don’t need a ton of money to win in Iowa; instead, I need passion and a desire to change the country. I can get enough money in small contributions — $50 per person — to sustain my campaign ’til things really get rolling … and then, if I win in Iowa, I can roll into New Hampshire and more and more money will come in … the big donors will start to have second thoughts about Hillary’s ability to win.”

OK, you have been wondering, who is this mysterious senator-elect?

Is/was it then-Sen.-elect Barack Obama back in 2004?

Well, yes … but it is also another senato

The scenario painted above, which of course resulted in Obama defeating Team Clinton in 2012, could happen again in 2016.

The “purity” of an issue is vital to the bases of both parties. On the left, the distinguishing issue between Obama and Hillary in 2007 and 2008 was her vote for the use of force in Iraq. This single vote has so bedeviled Hillary — and caused her a decade of mistrust from the left — that she has now written in her new book that she regrets that vote and wishes she had never voted for the war in Iraq.

What is the new distinguishing issue that divides Hillary from the left now?

Wall Street. Big Banks and Big Business. And the Clintons’ coziness to them, symbolized by Hillary making two speeches for Goldman Sachs at $200,000 per speech.

The Occupy Wall Street Movement — now no longer apparent from street demonstrations — is still a nascent movement on the Democratic Party’s left. Warren is their passionate advocate for reining in Wall Street excesses.

The difference between Hillary and Warren over this particular issue could not be greater. While Hillary — and Bill and all their interconnected causes, charities and Global Initiatives — are funded in great part by Wall Street, Warren has led the charge to limit the “Too Big to Fail” nature of these Wall Street institutions.

The left is aghast at how these banks were bailed out by the public and yet the very executives who presided over the 2008 financial crisis have remained in power and continue to receive multimillion-dollar compensation packages.

Simply stated, Warren is seen as “pure” on this crucial issue; Hillary is seen as a “sell-out.”

And that singular difference between these two women could be the defining issue in the 2016 Democratic primaries and caucuses — especially the two early states of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Warren’s candidacy also undercuts the first woman president rationale for Hillary.

Don’t be surprised that, as Hillary continues to stumble over questions of her wealth and relationship with Wall Street, her poll numbers continue to deteriorate. And that will make the left question her “inevitability.”

Sitting there will be the “pure” liberal: Elizabeth Warren.

It could happen to Hillary. Again.