11 - FAMILY BUSINESS

To this day we don't understand why [George H. W. Bush] hasn't resigned. It's causing a scandal.

—Tom Fitton,

Judicial Watch, in a phone interview, November 2001

Merriam Webster's Dictionary defines nepotism as a noun, meaning favoritism based on kinship. It is a simple definition, inherently neutral, and easy to understand. After all, isn't it natural to favor your own family members over strangers? It seems harmless enough. But when applied to international politics, it could not be more inappropriate. Our world leaders have a responsibility to act on behalf of the people they represent. Many of them take an oath to that effect. So when a politician, particularly the president of the United States, demonstrates nepotism in his actions, it is cause for serious and immediate alarm.

George Herbert Walker Bush and his son George W. Bush have repeatedly and flagrantly crossed this border of impropriety since the younger Bush became president in 2001.

And the company creating this ongoing breach of the public's trust is the Carlyle Group.

Money: A Bi-Partisan Goal

The ascension of George W. Bush to the presidency wasn't all good for the Carlyle Group. It was true that the new president had close ties to the company and would be in a position to send all kinds of business their way. It could even be said that the new president might be inclined, or at least not disinclined, to push policies and projects that might fatten his father's, and in a less direct way his own, bank accounts.

But along with those newfound advantages for Carlyle came the continued, and at times increased, scrutiny of its behavior; fevered charges of cronyism; and the occasional accusation that the company was not a private equity firm at all, but rather a shadow government pulling the strings in Washington. Some of these concerns are more legitimate than others, but there was another more immediate issue: Who were they going to hire now that all the Republicans were going back to work?

Carlyle had been cultivating an unseemly reputation as a Republican boys club, whose membership privileges included the thrill of deal making on a global scale and a hefty paycheck at the end of the month. Indeed, it was difficult to spot any Democrats on the employee roster aside from Rubenstein himself, and he was 20 years removed from service by this time.

But as always, Carlyle already had a plan. It was time once again to pick over the bones of an outgoing administration. And this time, they were looking to harvest a host of Democrats. In the spring of 2001, just a few months after Clinton had cleared out his desk, Carlyle snatched up both outgoing Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman William Kennard and outgoing Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) chairman Arthur Levitt. The announcements of their hirings were less than a week apart.

Both men are loyal to traditional democratic doctrine. Levitt has long been known for his concern for the individual investor, fighting to defend the little guys from the scourge of corporate greed. In one master stroke, indeed in one week, the Carlyle Group went from being a dark and mysterious GOP lair to a bright and open bipartisan buyout firm with a heart. It was Rubenstein at his best, fully aware of public opinion, and ready to make whatever changes were needed. Incidentally, the company had also picked up two of the best minds in the telecommunications and securities businesses.

But like most of Carlyle's high-profile hires, it seems that Kennard and Levitt did not come without baggage. Kennard in particular had the apparent stink of a quid pro quo deal. Over the course of 2000, SBC Communications, the parent company of the Baby Bell Southwestern Bell, was pursuing two major agendas simultaneously. On on e hand, SBC was eager to buy into the Saudi Telecommunications Company (STC), as the Saudi Arabian Kingdom took the state-owned and run telephone monopoly private.

In so doing, the company had contracted Carlyle to help them, because, as one European investor noted, "Carlyle had Saudi Arabia completely sown up. They controlled the deal flow in and out."

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_carlyle14d.htm#13%20-%209/11/2001

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_clinton24.htm

HIDDEN VIDEO (included in link)

when I clicked on it there was a short video, then the documentary began/

>>4386499

MOAR

So popular was its first and only broadcast, distribution on other networks and the right to re-air the film would have garnered hefty returns.

"The Clintons made sure that no one can see 'The Path to 9/11'," Nowrasteh continued, "which is, by the way, the most detailed and informative account" of the time period from 1993 until 2001.

Covering that time,

"in factual detail, which was really the problem for the Clintons because we portray the opportunities that Bill Clinton had to kill bin Laden, and passed on it."

In 2006, Accuracy in Media reported the censorship effort by Sen. Harry Reid and other Democrats in Congress had such heft, they,

"went over the line in threatening to revoke ABC's broadcast license unless changes were made to benefit former President Clinton and officials of his Administration."

Now, as Hillary's campaign is dealing with backlash over her statement that she doesn't believe she's ever lied to the American public, the censoring of 'The Path to 9/11' again becomes a pertinent bit of historical context.

Rather than taking responsibility for errors and pitfalls of the past, the Clintons choose instead to impose crushing censorship - as if covering the truth will somehow make it disappear.

Nowrasteh noted the Clintons,

"made sure the DVD was never released of 'The Path to 9/11', so Americans could not see it; and made sure that it was never rebroadcast - it is basically the only banned film in America."

When asked by Brian Sussman, based on his experience, how Hillary Clinton would,

"operate as President of the United States," Nowrasteh replied, "She's out… they're out to silence their critics, as aggressively as they can possibly get away with… and what we know about the Clintons is they get away with a lot."

Of course, this suppression of the series occurred as a,

"direct result of [Hillary's] run for the Presidency - her initial run" in the 2008 election cycle.