The Wall Street Journal's hatchet jobbing of Hillary Clinton last week left me wondering who would buy a story with so many apparent contradictions? Most readers probably didn't continue past the first five paragraphs of the piece, thinking they had all they needed to know.
The story, sketched out by the Journal, claims that Hillary Clinton, newly sworn-in as Secretary of State in 2009, went out of her way to do a favor for Switzerland’s largest bank, and that the favor was returned with donations to the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees for Bill.
Remember, this isn't Matt Taibbi writing an exposé for Rolling Stone. It isn't Occupy Wall Street protesting the cozy relationship between politicians and banksters. It's the Wall Street Journal feigning concern with a cheesy spoof of an exposé.
The Journal's disclaimer comes in the sixth paragraph:
| “There is no evidence of any link between Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the case and the bank’s donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, or its hiring of Mr. Clinton.” |
Buried in the 32nd paragraph, readers learn that the “unusual intervention,” mentioned in the 3rd paragraph, wasn’t an intervention at all. The settlement wasn't a favor from Clinton to let the bank off the hook. The settlement was arranged by the Justice Department and the IRS. They signed the agreement. Clinton had the privilege of announcing it during a visit by Switzerland's Foreign Minister.
The Wall Street Journal hit piece doesn’t mention the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), at all.
FATCA is the legacy we have from the UBS case. It was passed in March 2010 and it went into effect July 1 2014. FATCA requires foreign financial institutions in participant countries, to report all income paid to American account holders, thus ending tax haven practices in over 70 jurisdictions around the world including Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, etc.