For several days now we have been posting about the tensions between Doug Band and Chelsea Clinton (see here, here and here). The whole dispute between the two seemingly started when Chelsea raised concerns over potential conflicts of interest related to Band's firm, Teneo, which she thought had sought favors from the State Department on behalf of clients, including MF Global.
But, in the latest batch of WikiLeaks emails, Band escalates the situation to a whole new level by rattling off a litany of other Clinton Foundation conflicts including with Bill Clinton who he says is "far more conflicted every single day in what he does" than Teneo.
Justin Cooper then decides to pile on by also highlighting Bill's many conflicts. Per the email below, Cooper expresses frustration that nothing in the proposed conflicts resolution memo addresses "how wjc's activities interface with each other or how this structure resolves his own conflicts."
Meanwhile, in another email sent just a few days later, Band points out that he negotiated a speaking deal with UBS in which Bill Clinton was paid $150,000 for 6 speeches to be given between 2011 and 2012. The more interesting part though is that Band says he "could care less if he does them or not"...of course not, because the speeches aren't really the point now are they?
The next exchange between Robby Mook, John Podesta and Huma Abedin shows just how much disconnect there is between campaign trail rhetoric and real life. The emails below, highlight just how far Hillary is willing to go to cater to her large wall street donors while pretending to be fighting for "main street." The exchange starts when Clinton campaign manager, Robby Mook, highlights that Bill's March 15, 2015 speech to Morgan Stanley may be delayed...a delay that Mook would prefer because it corresponds with Hillary's first day of campaigning in Iowa which Mook argues is just "begging for a bad rollout."
But apparently Hillary was more in favor of collecting the speaking fees, as Huma shoots back that "HRC very strongly did not want him to cancel that particular speech."
The chain continues on as "HRC reiterates her original position" that Bill should move forward with the Morgan Stanley speech despite the potential political consequences in Iowa. We guess that clears up any doubts on where her true loyalties lie.
Finally, if there was any doubt left in your mind that the Clinton's are fighting for the little guy, then it will be promptly eliminated after reading this next email exchange in which two Clinton staffers ponder why Bill refuses to have dinner with small donors. As Teddy Geoff points out:
"i don't understand why the optics of hobnobbing with the rich and powerful are somehow better than the optics of sitting down with a few $5 donors. it seems like the latter is what we ought to be emphasizing, not running away from."
But, as pointed out below, the Clinton Foundation has "always been careful about protecting his brand." We guess they're concerned about speaking fees dropping to $45,000 per hour vs. $50,000 per hour if Bill happens to be seen in public with a minimum wage worker?