Hillary Clinton Servergate, Foundation Controversies Unresolved, Could Dim Presidential Run

Gowdy's committee has subpoenaed any Clinton communications related to Libya.

On Friday, Gowdy indicated that Hillary Clinton would be expected to testify on Capitol Hill soon about the Benghazi terrorist attacks in which four Americans, including the ambassador, were murdered. "Secretary Clinton's decision to seek the presidency of the United States does not and will not impact the work of the committee. The Committee needs to and expects to talk with Secretary Clinton twice, as ensuring the committee has all relevant material is a condition precedent to asking specifically about Libya and Benghazi," Gowdy affirmed.

Ironically, the former U.S. Ambassador to Kenya was allegedly forced out of his diplomatic post in part because of his use of a private email system in violation of State Department policy. Said Scott Gration, [Clinton aide Cheryl Mills] "obviously knew Secretary Clinton was using commercial e-mail, yet she stated my use of Gmail was one of the reasons I had to move on."

The Servergate "disconnect" has emerged against the backdrop of the Clinton Foundation accepting ethically questionable large donations from foreign countries (and multinational corporations), which were simultaneously lobbying the U.S. government before, during, and after Hillary served as America's top diplomat in the Obama administration. There is much speculation that the allegedly deleted emails could provide evidence of a conflict of interest in that regard.

As the Inquisitr previously reported, despite Mrs. Clinton's reputation as a champion of women's issues, several of the countries making Clinton Foundation donations, including Algeria, have questionable human rights records, particularly in the context of women's rights, and/or have "complicated diplomatic, military and financial relationships with the U.S. government," as the Washington Post noted.

Added the New York Times, "But the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars in donations from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Algeria and Brunei — all of which the State Department has faulted over their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues."

The International Business Times provided more detail on this transaction.

"The details of these financial dealings remain murky, but this much is clear: After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation -- supplemented by millions more from [Pacific Rubiales founder Frank] Giustra himself -- Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it 'strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.' The change of heart by Clinton and other Democratic leaders enabled congressional passage of a Colombia trade deal that experts say delivered big benefits to foreign investors like Giustra."

"[A] major phosphate company owned by the Moroccan government has just pledged at least $1 million to the foundation. In 2011, Clinton's State Department assailed Morocco as a corrupt state guilty of 'arbitrary arrests and corruption in all branches of government.' Women in Morocco are still subjugated by Islamic rule, yet last September, Hillary Clinton's public stance on the government had changed."

Freedom Watch is also suing Hillary Clinton in federal court over the emails. "The conservative group Freedom Watch has filed a racketeering lawsuit against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that accuses her of failing to produce documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The civil suit, filed [March 25] in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, argues that Clinton used her private emails to sell access to other officials in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation."

Reacting to the Clinton Foundation fundraising issue, the National Journal asked "What did these companies and countries expect in return for their cash? Did the Clintons promise any favors? Those are fair questions—not partisan questions and not media 'gotcha' questions. The Clintons are responsible for the management of their foundation. Hillary Clinton is responsible for stashing her emails in a secret server. She is running for president. The rest of us should follow the money."

Hillary Clinton's favorability rating has recently seen a decline, but polling this far out is generally meaningless.

Do you think either of these controversies or scandals -- depending upon what terminology you wish to embrace -- will have a significant effect on the Hillary 2016 campaign?

[image via Twitter]