Part 1 of 3
Clinton’s Experience: Fact and Fancy
By Barbara Koeppel
April 15, 2008

The problem for candidate Clinton is how to stop kicking herself in the leg. Although she’s scored real achievements over the years, when repeating her 35-years-of-experience mantra, she pushes the facts too far.

By now, her gaffes on Tuzla, Bosnia, where her claims of “landing under sniper fire” and “running for cover” are well-known. Ditto her lines on Northern Ireland – where Nobel Peace Prize winner Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, Ireland, said she was “a wee bit silly” for exaggerating the part she played in bringing peace.

But if we reality-check some other claims, what can we say of her 35 years, on which she hopes to distinguish herself from Obama, who has actually logged more years in elected posts, counting his years in the Illinois legislature?

To start with, for 14 of the 35 years that she’s counting, Clinton was a full-time corporate litigator in Little Rock, Arkansas, at the Rose Law Firm. Further, for her White House years – aside from her work as chair of the President’s Task Force on Health Care Reform – she served as First Lady, not policy maker.

While First Lady in Arkansas, she did, as she claims, help “transform the education system.” Teachers and others there agree that, as chair of a commission to re-write Arkansas’ deplorable education standards, she was effective. Among other things, the new norms raised teacher salaries and amounts spent per pupil, and reduced class size.
Since Arkansas ranked 49th out of America’s 50 states in most educational measurements, and dead last in the percent of students who went on to college, the base was so low that any gains would be good. But it’s a fact the numbers improved.
Add to the fact column her work on child welfare boards, like the Children’s Defense Fund and the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.

Dubious Claims
Other claims, however, are downright dubious, if not terminal twaddle.

Let’s start with her now-impassioned concerns for workers’ rights. This is surely an eyebrow-raiser, since her record on labor issues is roughly zero.
For example, she was on WalMart’s Board of Directors from 1986-1992, a company legendary for its low wages and union busting. Not surprisingly, her official biography omits this six-year stint.
Nor does she mention it when she woos Pennsylvania workers for the upcoming April 22 primary. In an effort to expunge the WalMart connection, Clinton returned its $5,000 campaign contribution to her in 2005.

According to Sam Ortega, a Wall Street Journal reporter and author of In Sam We Trust: The Untold Story of Sam Walton and How Wal-Mart is Devouring America, the company fiercely fought any union attempts to organize WalMart workers – threatening, spying on and firing supporters, all illegal acts.
Ortega writes that, during a Teamsters’ campaign at a distribution center, “Sam Walton bluntly told them he’d take away their profit-sharing if they voted for the union.”

Further, Ortega says many workers “remember his (Walton’s) threats with perfect clarity.” He adds that one worker, Larry Havener, recalls, “He told us if the union got in, the warehouse would be closed.”
Worse, Ortega writes, “union activists were soon laid off—always for some other stated reason, of course.”

Moreover, “Walton asked all employees to call John Tate – the company’s chief union-buster – if they noticed anything that smacked of union activity,” Ortega notes.

Low Wages
WalMart’s devotion to low wages seems not to have lost Clinton any sleep.
Ortega notes that in 1988 – two years after Clinton joined the Board – an Arkansas state senator publicly attacked the company for “dumping its overhead on state taxpayers, saying many of its near minimum-wage workers made so little they had to get by on public assistance.”

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2008/041408a.html

Part 2 of 3
Another problem plaguing the company was the use of child workers – some as young as nine – by its foreign suppliers: When shown photos of children in Sakara, a Bangladesh sweatshop that made WalMart-label shirts, the company claimed ignorance.
Another problem plaguing the company was the use of child workers – some as young as nine – by its foreign suppliers: When shown photos of children in Sakara, a Bangladesh sweatshop that made WalMart-label shirts, the company claimed ignorance.
Moreover, despite her long-term concern for health care – along with child welfare, Clinton’s signature issues – she stayed on the Board although Ortega says WalMart insured fewer than 40 percent of its workers.

Why? Perhaps it was Clinton’s $15,000 annual WalMart salary, which rose to $45,000, for her service at four meetings a year, at a time her husband earned just $35,000 as Governor.

Perhaps it was her corporate lawyer role at the conservative Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, where she worked from 1978 until the couple moved to the White House.

Perhaps it was Arkansas’ “right-to-work” fundamentalism that made her mute. Whatever the motive, today’s worries for working-blokes’ concerns ring hollow.

Then there’s NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), which passed on her husband’s watch in 1994. Critics worried then, and insist now, that it caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs.

Today, candidate Clinton claims to have doubted NAFTA’s merits from the start. But the record indicates otherwise. As recently as 2004, she praised NAFTA as “good for New York and America.” This observation has been omitted in her Pennsylvania campaign.

Health-Care Choices

But more than any others, Clinton’s claims about her desire to improve health coverage and care through her efforts as chair of President Clinton’s health care task force are seriously flawed.

History and numbers tell the story best. In 1993, health care was a crisis for the U.S. public: 37 million Americans had none, and millions more had very little. Thus, public opinion polls ranked it as the number-two concern, second only to the economy – since the country, as today, was in a recession.
A majority wanted universal health care: Even many providers and the American Medical Association initially favored some form of universal plan.
The universal model adopted in Canada and most Western European countries, called the single-payer system, is not socialized medicine, as insurance companies repeat by rote.

Governments do not tell patients which doctors to see. Nor do they dictate what doctors may or may not do. Instead, it’s a payment mechanism, like Medicare: The government pays the health care bills directly, rather than the insurance companies.
This way, overhead costs linked to billings are slashed: In 1993, when First Lady Clinton launched her task force, a hospital official in Windsor, Canada, told me his costs associated with billing the Government for patient services accounted for just 9 percent of the hospital’s budget, while the average U.S. hospital spent 14 percent – a big difference in a multi-million-dollar budget.
In Canada, the savings left huge sums for covering patient care.

Did Clinton’s task force examine the single-payer option? Alas, it was never on the table.

According to Vicente Navarro, a physician and professor of health and public policy at Johns Hopkins University, and a member of Clinton’s task force, he tried repeatedly to get it considered, and failed.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2008/041408a.html

Part 3 of 3

In a 2007 CounterPunch article, “Why Hillary’s Health Care Plan Really Failed,” Navarro writes that although he promoted the views of the single-payer community (unions, grassroots organizations and many providers) “they were heard but not heeded. … I had the feeling I was in the White House as a token.”

Nixing Single-Payer
Why such disdain for the system used in most industrialized nations?

Navarro says Bill Clinton was pushing the managed-competition model, backed by the insurance industry, where the companies “have full control over health-care providers.”

As proof, he writes that Bill Link, vice president of Prudential, stated that “For Prudential, the best scenario for reform … would be ... managed competition.”

The plan the task force ultimately sent to the Senate failed to pass, but not, Navarro insists, because of “bad timing” or the “excessive generosity” of the plan’s proposed benefits, as is generally believed.

Rather, it died because the President and Hillary Clinton refused to send a plan that was truly universal, and one around which the public could mobilize.

Thus, no plan was approved and insurance companies continued to control – and prosper from – the U.S. health-care model.

Now, 14 years later, another 10 million are uninsured and millions more are under-insured – often impoverished by serious or even not-so-serious illnesses.

Again, why? Why rule out even a cursory discussion of single-payer models?
Navarro says Hillary Clinton told him a single-payer plan was not politically possible. But to pass NAFTA, the President twisted every congressional arm he needed to make the deal.

So, why couldn’t he use the bully pulpit to mount the same push for universal health care – an issue on which most of the public agreed?

One answer could be contributions from the insurance industry and those connected to it: According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), over Bill Clinton’s career, insurance industries rank among the top 20 donors, while law and the financial firms are among the top 10 – the sectors often tightly linked to the insurance industry.

Fast forward to 2008 and, based on CRP figures, the industry continues its generosity, this time to Hillary Clinton – giving $913,000 to date. Obama has benefited too, with $700,000.

Since Bill Clinton and other Hillary supporters complain she’s picked on by the press, she would do well if she only claimed what is legitimate. This way, the press would not have to flush out the fables.

Barbara Koeppel is a Washington-based investigative reporter.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2008/041408a.html

Well Said, Maani. One point I think is worth making: ANY individual who has high-level ambitions wants to be on the board of directors for major corporations. To be on the board of Wal-Mart, at the time one of the largest companies in the world (now the largest), was quite a coup for a modest law firm in Arkansas. Even if you’re a bit squeamish about their business philosophy, without outright fraud or abuse, it’s awfully tough not to take that opportunity if it comes your way. And who knows? Maybe you can make a difference and nudge that company’s culture in a more progressive direction. The bottom line is that board members have very little individual power or even influence in a company, but they have enormous prestige. There are plenty of reasons to fault Hillary (or any of the candidates), but this isn’t one of them.

This was a classic MSM hit piece, lighting a match under an old story in the effort to create a whiff of scandal

Leefeller:

“Has Hillary stated any comments about the jobs lost to China?” Yes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17403964/

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Hillary-vows-t o-fight-for-every-job-shipped-out-of-US/291469/

Peace.

I hope Walmart has a epiphany and attempts to sell U.S. made goods in its stores as it once did.

The Chinese have a trillion cash of U.S. money, we have to entice them to spend it here in the U.S while improving our own industrial infrastructure.

Not this American! It would be one thing if Walmart waved the flag with passion, but instead they stuffed it up our asses and grabbed on the the Chinese flag.

Bottom line more money for that is what they do, Walmart and the Clintons do not give a rats ass for the people, except to lighten them of their money.

Has Hillary stated any comments about the jobs lost to China?  Cheap labor is the hallmark of the opportunists, hence Clinton’s and Bush’s and McCain we do not know about the newbie Obama.  He may not be tainted, we should find out.

Clinton’s time on its board didn’t export jobs or effect the nastsy corporatization; she tried to secure better labor conditions for its force and fair career opportunity for women

Okay....Johnny...I think we all know what Walmart’s has become...my point was, based on what they said they were doing...buying American etc...who would have been opposed to that???
Now, as to being on the Board of Walmarts...In 1986 as the First Lady of Arkansas...they made a spot for her on the Board...some references as to environmental concerns...she left the board in 1992…
I looked up references to “HER MINUTES”...lots of noise of course...I saw a reference to a Nafta Briefing and another meeting “Nafta Healthcare Meeting”...and based on that...everyone went ballistic...it proves nothing to me...actually there is a quote by David Gergen( who attended a meeting with her) and he said she was opposed to Nafta!
I haven’t looked into the Colombia story yet...but this much I do know...I take everything said with a grain of salt...I know some news sources are biased, most blogs are...and I try to think for myself…
If you know of any reliable sources...Feel free t

Leefeller:

“Nope, sorry Manni, no baited breath here.”

I’m glad.  I’ve heard you don’t look good in blue...LOL

Peace.

Nope, sorry Manni, no baited breath here.

Yep, I remember, Walmart looked like fox news today, with all the American flags, now Walmart should be waving the Chinese flag.

We had to fight tooth and nail to keep GMO’s out of our county, I used to belong to the Farm Bureau, until I found out they were controlled by Monsanto.

The military complex connection has some merit how and why our government does what it does best.  Mike Gravel was on the money during the first debate, but ignored by the rest, it seems even Kucinich?

After the supreme court decides who will be president, what next?

Mrs o was on the board for her company, this comes down to if it is bad for OB it,s not news.

I seem to remember ....Buy American, lots of flags, lots of ads showing how Walmart was helping businesses stay open in America....Factories staying open all across America...because Walmarts was “BUYING AMERICAN”
Now...granted they changed, ...but in the beginning....WHO WOULD HAVE BEEN OPPOSED TO WALMARTS???
I can tolerate Hillery Haters...but get real....
Who knew when they (Walmart) started....what they would eventually become....

PatrickHenry/Cyrena:

Even if I believed every word of this SINGULAR article (and I believe some but not all), one of its unspoken assumptions is fallacious: that Obama will do any more to prosecute the crimes of the Bush family than Hillary would do.

Not likely.  Obama is beholden to his corporate controllers no less than Hillary is.  And even if Obama WERE more “independent” in some way, the people who TRULY “pull the strings” (the “shadow government” and the transnationals) would NEVER allow him to do any harm to the Bushes - even were he inclined to do so (which is not a given, since he has never suggested it).

Peace.

My lord Patrick Henry...this link leaves me speechless. (with goosebumps, and chills down my spine, and all the rest).

As tired as I am, I was riveted, and had to read this whole thing. As I did, all sorts of other things (information from over the years and recently) just all started to ‘connect’.

It’s downright creepy. I’m not kidding. This is so thoroughly researched, and every single bit of it can be independently corroborated from literally multiple other sources.

Damn!

Well, there’s stuff that hasn’t changed in over 40 years. And, somewhere in the background, ALWAYS...is the CIA...just like now. (hell, I’m creeped out just thinking about them, and what they’ve been doing for so long).

The Saudi connection goes back even further, though I suspect the Bushes have always been hooked up with them. Gee, I guess that’s why we’ve never tried to bring ‘democracy’ to the most repressive regime in the Middle East. It’s also the reason Saddam had to go. He was far too much of an independent nationalist for these heavy hitters.

Anyway, MANY of the same Saudi characters show up in an excellent book by Robert Vitalis, “America’s Kingdom” and I can’t remember the rest of the title, but I’m going to check it out again later. Many of the names. That’s a history/chronical of ARAMCO, which is basically how the Saudis were able to actually get to all of their oil. It hasn’t been all that long since the US bascially built the oil industry in Saudi Arabia.

And then, there’s ALL of this. And, I’m not even surprised. I mean, I’ve got the chills and all, but this really doesn’t even shock me. This is why we’ve been under a shadow government for these past 3 decades or longer, and didn’t know.

My God. If they get back in the White House, we’re goners.

OK, thanks. I guess we need to get the diagram in order.

^ is spot on.

Here is a good place to pick up some info on this.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/347

Yes, i really do think that Monsanto makes Halliburton look like the Salvation Army.  As you may remember, growing things (agriculture) is my line of work...so it is of great interest to me.

Monsanto is hell bent on fully controlling our means of food production...literally controlling it.  To eat is fundamental.  Warfare and tertiary oil production are, well, tertiary.

Monsanto is playing with forces that it cannot control, the dangers inherent in those forces make a nuclear plant oopsy look tame.  Monsanto (with the US government) holds the patent on the terminator gene.  It’s designed so that plants cannot produce viable seed.  Monsanto looks at as a way to eliminate their litigation budget.  That is, they won’t have to go around secretly testing crops for their patented markers and suing farmers.

When they released Bt crops, they assured everyone that it wouldn’t/couldn’t spread.  But it has, rapidly.  In fact, it’s showing up in Mexican corn well over 100 miles from any GMO plantings.  Worse, it’s showing up in the Mexican corn planted near wild corn (a traditional form of genetic modification...a little wild corn genetics improves disease resistence).  We may shortly find ourselves in a situation where all corn is Bt corn.  Currently, 90% of export bound corn tests positive (we don’t test corn for domestic consumption).

If terminator is put into use and it escapes like Bt has, humanity could - theoretically - lose a major cereal crop or two.  And it could happen in the span of not so many years.  Monsanto is blithely willing to unleash a force that could stop plant evolution in its tracks.  Imagine if, 20 years from now, there was no such thing as corn.

Halliburton doesn’t have that kind of power…

Well, since all the Hillary-bashers here are just waiting with bated breath for me (or any of my compadres) to weigh in here, I certainly don’t want to disappoint…

Nothing in this report ties Hillary to any particular Wal-Mart policy and, indeed, the only specifics that are given EXONERATE her from some of them.  I have already posted (more than once) that Hillary advocated strongly re environmental issues (which the reporter admits), but was unaware that she also advocated for women.  That little or nothing got DONE in the latter regard can hardly be blamed on her, since, as I also noted previously, (i) Hillary was the ONLY woman on a Board of some dozen or more people, (ii) she was nominated and elected to the Board over the PROTEST of Sam Walton (despite his coporately-kind words about her in the video, he HATED her), and (iii) the remainder of the Board were all Walton loyalists, so ANY ideas, suggestions, advocacy, etc. that she may have put forth would have met with almost unanimous rejection, unless there was a clear benefit to Sam Walton, the directors and the shareholders.

I have sat on corporate boards, so I know how they work.  And I can just imagine what would have happened if Hillary had (and we do not know that she DIDN’T) brought up the union issue: she would have been immediately voted down, if not laughed at.  What would you have had her do: resign?  In my experience on boards, I may have vehemently disagreed with a particular policy, but I may have felt that the overall policies of the company were good, and I would only have resigned if, on balance, I felt the company was on the wrong track or its policies were slanted heavily toward the unethical or immoral.

Indeed, this report essentially validates what I have been saying about the Hillary Wal-Mart connection since I got here: that she DID in fact attempt to advocate for certain issues (environment, women), but knew that she had “choose her battles” carefully, given her sole woman status and the rabid Walton loyalty of the other directors.

This is why I believe (and there is nothing in the report to gainsay it) that Hillary may well have either planned to address the union issue but did not, knowing that she had to pick her battles carefully, or did in fact address the union issue, only to be immediately and roundly voted down.

I have never seen anything nefarious or sinister re Hillary’s time on the Wal-Mart board, and this report does nothing to change that belief.

Peace.

Good idea blueshift. Anybody wanna volunteer to make a chart or some sort of diagram? I figure each ‘entity’ can have their own line in their assigned color. The Clinton’s can be the red line. (bright red I think)

And oh...JS has connected Delta Pine, (or Pine Delta..whatever they are) to Monsanto! Yep...some major evil doers. I had no idea.

So, whoever does the chart/diagram should include them as well. Ya’ll can decide which colors everybody else should be.

I think maybe a really putrid yellowish/greenish/grey for the bushies....like slime or vomit.

Dang Jackpine, the plot THICKENS!! Monsanto TOO?!

Holy Shit! I had no idea! (not surprised though).

But, awful as Monsanto is, do ya really think they make Halliburton look like the Salvation Army, or is that just a tad bit of an exaggeration?

(I’m just enjoying your literary skills)

Meantime, blueshift is right. We need a flow chart or some other diagram to be able to see all of these all of these connections in their full complexity. Maybe we could make each entity a different color, (the Clinton’s could be bright red) and then we’d be able to see how they all weave together, and how the Clintons manage to be a part of the whole nasty bag of shit. I’m particularly interested in the Bush-Saudi connection. (at least I think that one guy is a Saudi..the one who’s name starts with a B)

Now I was just reading that Nancy Pelosi is planning to veto or something, this latest trade deal that Bush has all worked out with the Columbians. (we’ll see how THAT goes, since she hasn’t been able to do anything else of any significance). I’m wondering if that was the same one Mark Penn has been working up for so long, at least until the Columbians fired him last week. So, that means he lost his job with THEM, and of course they pretended to demote him on his job as Hillary’s chief campaign person/strategist/whatever, even though he hasn’t really gone anywhere. It’s all about the loyalty and all, and he and the Clintons go back a ways.

Gee, better than a soap opera.

Oh, by the way, bert and Maani are hanging out over on the bash-Obama-for-considering-an-alternative- public-campaign-financing-deal for the General election. They’re talking about how he’s broken his ‘pledge’ and on and on. Same old rhetorical smear/slander. In short, he’s obviously re-considering the whole thing, which I expected him to do, based on pure pragmatism, and because what he’s been doing so far, works so much better.

Now of course we didn’t really expect them to show up HERE. Then again, I wouldn’t put it past ‘em. Be interesting to read that.

Nope, I’m not “wishin’ ‘em up” or anything, but it would be entertaining to see how they could possibly try to spin this stuff.

Yep, we already had information on the subject, and it is non-comparative. So, I guess it wasn’t all that good a time to mention it, since it’s OLD non-news.

More complex than pre-mil, pre-trip apocalypse fantasies....at least those guys know to illustrate these hard to believe connections with charts.

It’s a pretty unequal comparison to discuss someone on the board of directors of Wal-Mart in the same seat as someone whose company sold to Wal-Mart. I have information on the subject, and it’s a non-comparative issue.

This might be a good time to mention that Michelle Barack also had a connection to Wal-Mart. She was a director on the board of Tree House Foods whose biggest customer was Wal-Mart. She held this position from 2005 until 2008 She resigned 8 days after Barack made the statement that he wouldn’t shop at K-Mart.

You can google Michelle Obama Wal-Mart and get more information on this subject.

It’s all just a big tangle-web of corruption, and these Clintonistas have the nerve to question why we are so skeptical of her! Notice how when Hillary speaks in these videos, she sounds much more authentic than when she makes her stump speeches this campaign.

I thank you so much for discussing this information, js!

Oh, where are bert, Maani, et al to tell us why Wal-Mart is good for America, or how Clinton was secretly against them the whole time.  Where are they to prove Outraged wrong...that the Clintons would never, ever, ever do anything shady...they certainly wouldn’t associate with the Bushes.

And who owns Delta Pine & Land?  Why Monsanto does...Monsanto, the folks who brought you Agent Orange, dioxin, Bt corn, and many others.  Monsanto, the company that Hillary Clinton once called a “Democratic company”.  Monsanto, who employs Mark Penn as one of its chief PR reps.  Monsanto, who gave Sen Clinton her rural/agricultural adviser.  Monsanto, who sues farmers because their GMO crops naturally cross pollinated with the defendant’s crops.  Monsanto, who is busy trying to patent all of the food you need to eat and privatize the water you need to drink.

Monsanto makes Halliburton look like the Salvation Army, and one candidate is firmly in their back pocket.

Thanks as usual Outraged. I’d been aware of much of this, (particularly the Rose Law Firm connection to Harken/GW Bush and Bakhsh. There’s still a bunch more I was unaware of.

HOWEVER, can I just say that for some totally ideological and ‘sixth sense’ reason, I swear I have hated Arkansas and Little Rock, and anyone associated with either/or, for over 20 decades. No, not for the standard common-sense reasons, (like this?), but just a ‘6th sense’.

Yep, during my many years of travel, I’d go 100’s of miles out of my way to avoid that place. It’s just plain damn creepy.

(Apologies to anyone from Arkansas who has avoided the plague of the place, and managed to not be - just plain creepy) Actually, I do know ONE person, who is an overwhelmingly great guy. ONE!

It is highly unlikely progressives are voting for Clinton.  Remember, the republicans are “signing up” to vote for her.

Whoops...!  Article link:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& aid=3082

“The Curious History of Delta & Pine Land

Delta & Pine Land is a company that, despite the pine in its name, has deep roots. Founded in 1888, it has its headquarters at One Cotton Row in Scott, Mississippi, nestled between Goat Island and Choktaw Bar Island on the Mississippi River, near the Arkansas border. However, the people running things at Delta Pine are anything but your typical Mississippi black-dirt cotton farmers.”
*****

“The role of the US Government in backing and financing Delta & Pine Land’s decades of Terminator research is even more revealing. As Kissinger said back in the 1970’s, ‘Control the oil and you can control entire Continents. Control food and you control people…”
*****

“Arkansas Politics and D&PL;The largest shareholder in D&PL;is the Stephens Group of Little Rock, Arkansas. Here is where things become interesting indeed.
*****

“The Stephens Group prides itself on being the nation’s largest investment bank outside Wall Street, based, of all places, in little ol’ Little Rock, in hillbilly land, Arkansas, one of the poorest states in the United States. Stephens Inc. is also one of the biggest institutional shareholders in 30 large multinationals including the Arkansas based firms Tyson Food, the world’s largest chicken industrial factory operation and the infamous Arkansas giant, Wal-Mart.”
*****

“BCCI and Jackson Stephens, chairman of the Stephens Group of Arkansas were well known to one another. Stephens Group board member, Jon E.M. Jacoby, today Chairman of Delta & Pine Land, and still a Vice Director of The Stephens Group, was a very senior, trusted member of the Stephens’ inside circle for more than 35 years.

Jackson Stephens’ Stephens Group financially staked Sam Walton when he started Wal-Mart in 1970. Stephens also financed Tyson Foods to become the agribusiness global giant it is today. Jon Jacoby, as senior executive of the Stephens Group, had arranged the 1970 Wal-Mart deal. Jon E.M. Jacoby and Jackson Stephens went way back.”
*****

“Stephens Group, Tyson Farms and Other Arkansas Fairy Tales
A tangled web of relations links the Stephens Group and Delta & Pine Land of Scott, Mississippi with another satellite in the agribusiness orbit of the influential Stephens Group. The Stephens Group is also linked intimately with Arkansas-based Tyson Foods, the US’ largest agribusiness processor of industrialized chicken meat, and arguably one of its most unsanitary ones.”
*****

“1977
Hillary Rodham Clinton joins the Rose Law Firm. Jackson Stephens joins with former Carter administration budget director Bert Lance and a group of Mideast investors--later identified as key figures in the corrupt Bank of Credit & Commerce International--in an unsuccessful attempt to acquire Financial General Bankshares in Washington, D.C”
*****

“The Rose law firm was the house law firm of Jackson Stephens’ Stephens Group investment bank in Little Rock. To be the corporate law firm of the Stephens Group was no casual affair. It implied a deep trust relationship and perhaps more. As one crony of Jackson Stephens put it at that time, ‘Jackson Stephens? He’s the man who owns Arkansas.’

The head of the prestigious Rose law firm in Little Rock in those days was C. Joseph Giroir jr. In 1977 Giroir hired a young lawyer named Hillary Clinton to work for Rose. It was all one cozy Arkansas-Indonesia family back then.

The Wall Street Journal commentary on the Clinton years had the following entry for 1987, as Clinton was still Arkansas Governor:

1987:
Officials at investment giant Stephens Inc., including longtime Clinton friend, David Edwards, take steps to rescue Harken Energy, a struggling Texas oil company with George W. Bush on its board. Over the next three years, Mr. Edwards brings BCCI-linked investors and advisers into Harken deals. One of them, Abdullah Bakhsh, purchases $10 million in shares of Stephens-dominated Worthen Bank.”

>I encourage everyone to read this article.