We’ve written several times about Hillary Clinton’s rock-star level demands for speaking engagements, both in terms of money and amenities. Recently, however, it seems she forgot to disclose some of that money. Sarah Westwood at the Washington Examiner reports,
Rep. Jason Chaffetz pressed the Office of Government Ethics last week for an explanation of its decision to exempt Clinton from laws compelling public officials to disclose all forms of income.
“Earlier this year, press reports indicated that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her husband failed to disclose millions of dollars in paid speeches over the past thirteen years under the belief they did not have a duty to report that because the speeches were delivered on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, and not in the Secretary’s or the President’s personal capacity,” Chaffetz wrote.
The Utah Republican cited “at least five speeches” for which Clinton routed her speaking fee to the philanthropy between 2014 and 2015. She did not list that income on her disclosure form as the law typically requires.
The ethics office’s spokesman, Vincent Salamone, had issued a statement in May arguing public officials did not need to disclose payments if they are made directly to an organization, as was the case with the Clinton Foundation speaking fees.
However, Walter Shaub, director of the Office of Government Ethics, struggled to explain the statute behind Salamone’s assertion during a hearing Dec. 16, simply arguing it was a “very long, very detailed” rule.
Pressed later in the hearing to cite the exact statute, Shaub pointed to a rule that actually outlined requirements for officials to report income paid to a charity.
So we have an ethics office occupied by people who can’t explain their decisions, can’t explain the rules, and who get confused over what the rules say. Shouldn’t people hired to do a job know what the job entails?
Compare these people’s treatment of Hillary Clinton to the way Lois Lerner treated grassroots conservative political organizations.