Clinton Sought Pentagon, State Department Contracts for Chelsea’s Friend

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sought to arrange Pentagon and State Department consulting contracts for her daughter’s friend, prompting concerns of federal ethics rules violations.

Say it ain't so. I mean Hillary would never violate ethics rules or participate in something that would give the appearance of impropriety, would she?

Specifically, the Code of Federal Ethics states that government employees “shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual.” Pentagon ethics guidelines also call for avoiding actions that would create even the appearance of improper behavior or conflicts of interest.

We all know how careful Hillary is of the optics of any of her decisions and how much regard she gives to federal statutes.

Deal, a specialist in China affairs who worked at the White House as a press aide for First Lady Clinton in the 1990s, wrote back to Clinton saying she would meet Flournoy on May 5, 2009, and stated “thank you very much for making this happen.”

Later that month, Deal thanked Clinton for “all your encouragement and help with DoD, ” shorthand for the Defense Department.

“I met with Michele’s other deputy yesterday, and we had a productive discussion about Iran and developments in maritime Asia,” Deal stated. “We also discussed contract vehicles and mapped out what we need to do so that we can go to work! I am very grateful for everything you have done.”

I'm certain Hillary never intended to show preferential treatment toward Chelsea's good friend, right?

“Happily, Michele Flournoy’s office is reaching out and has asked me to participate in a wargame next week for the [Quadrennial Defense Review], which I hope will build the foundation for a contract between her office and LTSG,” Deal stated in the email. “I am extremely grateful to you for helping me find opportunities to serve our government,” she added.

Hm, I wonder what the people who were helping to move things along for Deal would say if asked?

Slaughter, through a spokesman, said she had no recollection of contacts with Deal.

Flournoy also said she did not remember discussions with Deal, but stated through a spokesman that in her government career she met with hundreds of young women seeking to advance their careers in the national security field.

...

Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook declined to comment on the emails.

Bad memories and silence in response to questions?

The strategy group charged the Pentagon around $60,000 each for unclassified monographs averaging 20 to 40 pages in length and around $40,000 each for workshops with defense officials and think tank experts. Estimates of the total value of contracts for the group are around $6 million since 2009.

...

A third contract potentially worth $1.9 million over several years involved U.S.-Japan relations and included meetings with Japanese defense and intelligence officials regarding Japan’s development of strategic nuclear weapons and forces.

Millions to be made, so let's just set aside rules meant to prevent this sort of thing from happening, shall we?

But it's only money being made right? It's not like national security was ever endangered or anything, is it?

Months later, in September 2009, Deal wrote Clinton an email that was redacted because it contained classified information withheld under security rules that prohibit releasing CIA information about agency personnel or sources.

Deal stated in this email that she had completed a workshop with Pentagon officials and outside experts on Iran that concluded that any military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities would be counterproductive.

“Based on patterns of Iranian behavior in the past, there is reason to think that some diplomatic communications may serve to increase Iranian fears about the consequences of its pursuit of a nuclear capability,” Deal stated, in what appears to be support for the White House’s effort to ultimately reach the nuclear deal with Iran.

The last series of emails between Deal and Clinton took place in May 2011. In the email chain, Deal thanked the secretary of state for attending her wedding on April 29—one day before the commando raid in Pakistan that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

“I was delighted to be there and stayed as long as I could at the reception before having to leave,” Clinton wrote back. “I confess that the Bin Laden op the next day consumed most of my mental space!”

Freebeacon

Up til now I had been giving Chelsea a pass, but it looks like she's following in her parents' footsteps and helping to grease the wheels so that friends and acquaintances can be on the receiving end of the governments' (tax payers money, remember) largess and take advantage of certain relationships not available to anyone not with the 'in crowd.'

Sounds like it was just another unintended coincidence.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Chelsea Clinton is the equivalent of Alex Soros (George Soros son) - riding their parents wave of bureaucratic connections and dealings and following close in their parents footsteps.

We need positive legacies being born.. meanwhile silver spoon-raised people like Chelsea start out with every opportunity in life and are told they are elites and on another level than the rest of us. Screw 'em

a reply to: FamCore

That's how the elite become elite and stay in power. Hell, Meritocracy is dead. Getting ahead in life based upon a persons skills and hard work (merit) is becoming an endangered species due to identity politics and crony capitalism.....

Parents often help their kids get jobs through where they work and their work connections.

This is nothing new or a revelation of any kind.

Scraping the bottom of the barrel just to have something to complain about?

a reply to: Annee

All well and good in private industry, and even in that circumstance many large companies have specific policies in place to prevent both the appearance of and actuality of a conflict of interest.

A further excerpt from the source article:

Both federal government and Pentagon ethics regulations state that “an employee shall not use or permit the use of his government position or title or any authority associated with his public office in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person, including a subordinate, to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to himself or to friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity.”

I think that barrel of excuse you've been using is becoming thinner and thinner as you're starting to scrape the sides due the bottom being gone at this point.

a reply to: FamCore


do you consider trump silver-spoon raised? his kids?

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: FamCore


do you consider trump silver-spoon raised? his kids?

You're missing the point....these were Government contracts....not private business....as in stuff We The People paid to get done and expect no bias when awards happen.

While I am sure it happens all the time, it is just another in the long run of things pointing to Clinton's ethics, or lack of.

originally posted by: Annee
Parents often help their kids get jobs through where they work and their work connections.

This is nothing new or a revelation of any kind.

Scraping the bottom of the barrel just to have something to complain about?

Some parents have ethics. Case in point, my sister-in-law is a Circuit Judge. When her daughter turned 16 and got her drivers license it was drilled into her to obey traffic laws. If she got caught for speeding, she was never under any circumstance use her mother's name to get out of a ticket. One day she got stopped for speeding. Listening to her tell the story of trying to answer the officer's questions without mentioning her mother was priceless. She couldn't remember something about her insurance coverage but wanted to answer his questions. Basically she said something like "I could call my mom. She knows but, she can't be reached today." Officer asks why she can't be reached. "I'm not suppose to call her."
Why not? "Because she's busy." Busy doing what? She went round and round trying to answer honestly but not tell him who her mother was or even give him a clue to what her job was. After about 10 minutes of questioning her she finally said "She's in court." He asked her why she was in court, probably thinking she was a defendant. She finally gave him the answer. He did let her go but she never tried use her mother's name. Just the fact that she spent 10 minutes trying to answer while avoiding her mother's name or job proves it. SOME public figures don't trade on their name. It's called ethics and morals.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: FamCore


do you consider trump silver-spoon raised? his kids?

You're missing the point....these were Government contracts....not private business....as in stuff We The People paid to get done and expect no bias when awards happen.

While I am sure it happens all the time, it is just another in the long run of things pointing to Clinton's ethics, or lack of.

Did Hillary award her the contracts?

Or did she just refer her?

There is no law against calling up a contact to get an interview for a friend. Unless Clinton directly awarded her a contract without taking other bids...there is nothing illegal here.

So is this any more wrong than a vice President who gave no bid contracts to the company that he used to run and has a good amount of stock?

a reply to: Annee

I'm a federal contracting officer, and this would be akin to issuing a janitorial services contract to the boss's brother...

In Government contracting, even the 'appearance' of impropriety is a big no-no.

I'm too busy right now, but if anyone wants to dive into this, I would research these contracts via FPDS.gov (public database of all contract awards) as well as FBO.gov (where solicitations / requirements / notices) are posted by the Government for opportunities.

I would also be inclined to contact the contracting shop where these contracts came from, and look into who the Contracting Officer was that ultimately signed these contracts...

I.e. if these were sole sourced, or competed, etc. It would also depend what kind of money was used for these (i.e. appropriated funds / grants, etc.)

a reply to: kruphix

Considering it was a contract with the DoD, I don't see how Hillary could have done the awarding, even if the contract had been with the Department of State, Hillary herself would not have been the one awarding the contract. But this further excerpt should help clarify matters:

Good government advocates say the emails indicating Clinton sought to steer contracts to her daughter’s friend are troubling and appear to violate ethics rules.

“By now there is a strong pattern of Hillary Clinton showing bias in the dispensing of government funds and favors to a long list of friends, political supporters, and Clinton Foundation donors,” said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center.

“It looks like she was single-handedly trying to revive the corrupt spoils system,” Boehm added. “As the old saying goes, sometimes things are what they look like.”

But then again, I'm sure Hillary never meant for it to appear as though she was calling in favors for her daughter's friend.

a reply to: kruphix

That is an inaccurate statement.

It is a little more nuanced than that. A whole host of laws and regulations could be at play here. I.e. depending on what agency issued the contracts, what type of contract vehicle was used, what color of money (appropriations) were used, etc. etc.

As far as 'getting interviews for friends' that really depends as well. With Government contracting, things are very different than the private sector. If any 'procurement sensitive' (re: source selection, requirements, budgetary) info was passed on to that friend to make their 'bid' more likely to win, that would be a problem. Also, if this was sole sourced to this 'friend' I would be interested in reading the justification (a document that would have to be publicly posted by the contracting office)...

a reply to: SonOfThor

If I've done this right, here is one of the contracts. Some information from the link:



Search results

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: FamCore


do you consider trump silver-spoon raised? his kids?

You're missing the point....these were Government contracts....not private business....as in stuff We The People paid to get done and expect no bias when awards happen.

While I am sure it happens all the time, it is just another in the long run of things pointing to Clinton's ethics, or lack of.

Did Hillary award her the contracts?

Or did she just refer her?

There is no law against calling up a contact to get an interview for a friend. Unless Clinton directly awarded her a contract without taking other bids...there is nothing illegal here.

There you go.

Rarely does someone "get someone a job".

Sure, through contacts, you can maybe nudge an interview.

People just really blow this stuff up into ridiculousness.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The first link didn't get to anything for me - can you tell me what it says under the procurement identifier at the top of the page?

I'm already seeing some questionable information on the screenshot.

*They selected full and open competition, with negotiated proposal / quote, yet only 1 offer received?

Also the description of "Direct Labor" seems strange given the PSC code is R499 "Other Professional Services" - but I would like to see more of this specific entry...

a reply to: SonOfThor

I think it was from this one:



I thought it odd as well:

*They selected full and open competition, with negotiated proposal / quote, yet only 1 offer received?

It left me wondering if there really was a competitive bid offered seeing as there was only 1 listed as having been received.



fortunately, the search results link in the referenced post does work.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Diving deeper into this, it seems like a rabbit hole I'm going to have to check out this weekend.

One of the Indefinite Delivery contracts that has a ceiling of $7 million dollars has some red flags:

Says it was full and open competition, yet there is no solicitation identifier (even though they checked off that it was posted to FBO), also only has 'number of responses' at 1. I find it hard to believe if this opportunity was posted to FBO for this kind of money that there would only be one responsible source capable of this work.

Also, I could not find any publicly posted sole source justifications (given that the FPDS records are marked to indicate the Contracting Officer used FAR Part 15 for the requirement) the justification for sole source would need to be posted.

Also red flag - this is listed as an Indefinite quantity labor hour contract, yet they cite FAR 52.232-16 "progress payments", and the company itself is only listed as having 4 employees (meaning one would assume they would be subbing out a lot of the work, hence needing to be paid in advance)...

I would be very interested to find out what percentage of any of the actual work this 'consulting' company did.

Seems like a really, really, good contract to submit a FOIA request on.

ETA: Looking at this FPDS entry, this is some shoddy contracting. As a contracting officer who reviews other specialists work, I am stricter on their fpds-ng reports for a $28,000.00 office furniture buy than these people were on a $7 million IDIQ contract.

If I were to submit a FOIA request into this, I would want to know all of the documentation that showed this was a competitive procurement, yet only one offer was received. I would also want information related to the 'negotiations' that were conducted, and I would want information related to the solicitation which should have been posted (anything over $25k has to be publicly posted) - even if it were sole sourced, the sole source justification document would have to be publicly posted...

a reply to: SonOfThor

Looking a little closer at the company itself:

LONG TERM STRATEGY GROUP, LLC

Company Number
4204070
Incorporation Date
11 August 2006 (about 10 years ago)
Company Type
Limited Liability Company
Jurisdiction
Delaware (US)
Agent Name
THE CORPORATION TRUST COMPANY
Agent Address
CORPORATION TRUST CENTER 1209 ORANGE ST, WILMINGTON, New Castle, DE, 19801
Directors / Officers

THE CORPORATION TRUST COMPANY, agent

Open Corporates

LONG TERM STRATEGY GROUP, LLC branch

Company Number
EXTUID_4119241
Native Company Number
L00004596485
Status
Revoked
Incorporation Date
11 August 2006 (about 10 years ago)
Dissolution Date
16 September 2013
Company Type
Limited Liability Company
Jurisdiction
District of Columbia (US)
Branch
Branch of LONG TERM STRATEGY GROUP, LLC (Delaware (US))
Registered Address

1920 N ST. NW, STE# 210
WASHINGTON
20005
District of Columbia
United States

Agent Name
C T CORPORATION SYSTEM
Agent Address
1015 15th St NW, Suite 1000, Washington, District of Columbia, 20005
Inactive Directors / Officers

C T CORPORATION SYSTEM, agent
DEAL, JACQUELINE N, governor

Registry Page
corp.dcra.dc.gov...

Open Corporates

LONG TERM STRATEGY GROUP, LLC branch

Company Number
000931605
Incorporation Date
22 August 2006 (about 10 years ago)
Dissolution Date
18 July 2012
Company Type
Foreign Limited Liability Company (LLC)
Jurisdiction
Massachusetts (US)
Branch
Branch of LONG TERM STRATEGY GROUP, LLC (Delaware (US))
Registered Address

124 MT. AUBURN STREET, SUITE 460S
CAMBRIDGE,
02138
MA
USA

Agent Name
CT CORPORATION SYSTEM
Agent Address
155 FEDERAL STREET STE 700 BOSTON, MA 02110 USA
Inactive Directors / Officers

CT CORPORATION SYSTEM, agent
JACQUELINE NEWMYER DEAL, manager

Registry Page
corp.sec.state.ma.us...

Open Corporates

It looks like the Massachusetts branch closed in 2012 and the Washington DC branch closed in 2013.

And the address above for the Massachusetts branch does not match what is shown in the contract listing. Not sure if pertinent, but you never know.