Weiner’s Wife Didn’t Disclose Consulting Work She Did While Serving in State Dept.

[alp227]

Source: New York Times

The State Department, under Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, created an arrangement for her longtime aide and confidante Huma Abedin to work for private clients as a consultant while serving as a top adviser in the department.

Ms. Abedin did not disclose the arrangement — or how much income she earned — on her financial report. It requires officials to make public any significant sources of income.

The disclosure of the agreement that Ms. Abedin made with the State Department comes as her husband, former Representative Anthony D. Weiner, a Democrat, prepares for a mayoral run in New York City. Politico reported the arrangement on Thursday afternoon.

Ms. Abedin declined a request for an interview, but the picture that emerges from interviews and records suggests a situation where the lines were blurred between Ms. Abedin’s work in the high echelons of one of the government’s most sensitive executive departments and her role as a Clinton family insider.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/nyregion/weiners-wife-huma-abedin-failed-to-disclose-consulting-work-done-while-a-state-dept-aide.html

[Politicalboi]

1. Now this, could be trouble

If only Hillary was The Dick Cheney.

"It is not clear what role Mrs. Clinton played in approving the arrangement. Some good-government groups have been critical of such situations, saying public employees’ loyalty should be solely to the public and their government work, rather than private firms and figures."

[AnnieBW]

2. Glenn Beck will be all over this

He'll claim that she did work for the Muslim Brotherhood or some nonsense.

Once again, it's not the wrongdoing, it's the coverup.

[MADem]

3. Let's see if this wasn't a charitable sort of consultation...in which case there would not be any

"significant sources of income." Or if the bulk of the income was made when she, herself, moved from the civil service rolls to a consultant capacity for State (in which case there's no reporting requirement).

A lot of supposition, but there's no proof of wrongdoing yet. There might be down the line.

[Psephos]

4. Agreed. Wait for the facts. n/t

[cali]

15. It was not.

and it doesn't look good:

<snip>

While continuing her work at the State Department, in the latter half of 2012, she also worked for Teneo, a strategic consulting firm, which was founded by Doug Band, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton. Teneo has advised corporate clients like Coca-Cola and MF Global, the collapsed brokerage firm run by Jon S. Corzine, a former governor of New Jersey.

<snip>

Furthermore, she may be in violation of the law: I have a hard time believing that she wasn't well paid for these gigs

Ms. Abedin did not disclose the arrangement — or how much income she earned — on her financial report. It requires officials to make public any significant sources of income. An adviser to Mrs. Clinton, Philippe Reines, said that Ms. Abedin was not obligated to do so.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/nyregion/weiners-wife-huma-abedin-failed-to-disclose-consulting-work-done-while-a-state-dept-aide.html?_r=0

[MADem]

22. That article is poorly written. Was she a State consultant or employee in the latter half of 2012?

If she was consulting at State at that point in time, there was no need to report and no law violation. The article DOES say that.

Also, the article doesn't reveal what the threshhold is for significant.

And the very snip you provided says that:

An adviser to Mrs. Clinton, Philippe Reines, said that Ms. Abedin was not obligated to do so.

Perhaps she wasn't obligated because the consulting she did privately occurred while she was placed on the consultant roles at State? And perhaps the 'pro bono' non-reportable consulting she did when she was an employee was for the charitable Clinton Foundation?

We're way too quick to try to nail people to the cross around here. The headline is insinuating, but it does not come out and say "Wrongdoing!" And after digging through the entire article, there's no proof in that, either. It just says "Gee, could be, dunno...."

[question everything]

5. She helped Ben Affleck when he did Argo (nt)

[Nye Bevan]

6. Meh. A few hundred thousand dollars at most. At least she didn't tweet her private parts (nt)

[cntrfthrs]

7. So?

[Half-Century Man]

8. Hillary, Hillary,,,,

This can be a serious problem. Conflicts of interests charges can be very damaging.

[SunSeeker]

9. She wasn't civil service at the time of the work; she was a consultant for Hillary.

From the New York Times article:

Ms. Abedin reached her new working arrangement in June 2012, when she returned from maternity leave, quietly leaving her position as deputy chief of staff and becoming a special government employee, which is essentially a consultant. A State Department official said that change freed her from the requirement that she disclose her private earnings for the rest of the year on her financial disclosure forms. Still, during that period, she continued to be identified publicly in news reports as Mrs. Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.

The Times does not state what laws were broken. Sounds like none were.

[BlueMTexpat]

11. Exactly - but facts do tend to

get in the way of GOP huffing and puffing. Not that facts actually change anything for them.

[BlueMTexpat]

10. Another tempest in a teapot that will

turn into Hurricane Katrina with US MSM complicity ...

[freshwest]

13. While the media lights this up, they ignore the sequester and the harm it is doing to Americans.

[Beacool]

20. I can almost hear Hannity already...............

[Skittles]

12. more egregious to be called WEINER'S WIFE

[graham4anything]

14. What, another hit piece smear from the NY times. Must be Tuesday.

The article right inside says there is no problem.

Don't they have money to pay a copyproof editor anymore? Shameful for a major paper to have such a careless error in it.
Is Jayson Blair still writing for them?

[Enrique]

23. what was the error

let me guess: you are going to respond with a long, incoherent, fake-crazy post that has nothing to do with the claim you made about this article. Meanwhile, your claim about the NYT will still be out there.

[rosesaylavee]

16. Certainly this will be as damaging to Weiner's campaign

as the revelation of Mrs. Clarence Thomas' unreported extra $700,000 did to his credibility. Remember when Clarence Thomas was called upon to explain all that and how there were Democratic hearings and such? Yeah, me neither.

[RILib]

17. crooked in both parties

You people making excuses for her and Hillary would be all over this is they were Repubs.

[eggplant]

18. You people? n/t

Are you sure you're in the right place?

[Beacool]

21. As per the NYT's article, she was a consultant at the time.

When Huma came back to the State Dept. last June from her maternity leave, she came back as a consultant. As such she was not required to report any other sources of income.

[Beacool]

19. Oh boy, here we go again.

The Repugs are going to say that it's all Hillary's fault. Everything wrong in the world right now is either Obama's fault or Hillary's. They sure fear her running in 2016, don't they?

[Enrique]

24. if people actually read they article

they will see it is very measured. It does not suggest any laws were broken. They talk to several ethics experts who don't like the arrangement but they are also measured in their criticism.

If this mild article gets people upset, then I guess the rule is: no negative reporting of Democrats allowed. Not that we didn't know long ago that that's the way some people think.