kscarbel2

"The German auto maker doesn’t have engines tailored to the U.S. market yet, which it will now have to develop for Navistar" Clueless and incompetent reporting. Navistar's N11 and N13 are license-built versions of MAN's D2066 and D2676 engines. MAN is a subsidiary of Volkswagen Truck & Bus. All of the Scania (also a VW subsidiary) and MAN Euro-6 engines, can be easily adapted to EPA2010. The 15-litre MAN D38 (520 to 640hp) and 16.4-litre Scania V-8 (520 to 730hp) could be in the cards. This could be the death knell for Cummins in the U.S. truck market.

VW will take stake in Navistar to challenge Daimler in heavy trucks Automotive News / September 5, 2016 Volkswagen Group will take a 19.9 percent stake in U.S.-based Navistar International for around $16 per share as part of a partnership deal, a person familiar with the matter said on Monday. VW's commercial vehicles division is trying to build itself into a global truck manufacturer having absorbed Germany's MAN and Sweden's Scania. Navistar is looking for a technology partner to build engines that can meet tightening emissions rules. Navistar is seen as an attractive target for VW because it has a large North American dealer network, something the German automaker lacks. Andreas Renschler, head of Volkswagen commercial vehicles, has wanted to get a strategic foothold in North America as a way to challenge Daimler, his former employer. The deal will be announced as soon as Tuesday, sources said. Volkswagen declined to comment, while Navistar was not immediately available for comment. Navistar has a market value of around $1.15 billion and has been on the lookout for an engine partner since 2010 when it failed to get approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its heavy-duty diesel truck engine. VW has agreed to supply engines to Navistar in exchange for a stake in the truckmaker, one source told Reuters.

VW said to be taking stake in Navistar in engine supply deal Reuters / September 5, 2016 Volkswagen to take 19.9 percent stake in Navistar Volkswagen's trucks division is close to announcing a partnership with Lisle, Ill.-based rival Navistar International Corp., three sources told Reuters, in the latest example of a deal driven by emissions regulations. Volkswagen has agreed to supply engines to Navistar in exchange for a 19.9 percent stake in the truckmaker, one of the sources, who declined to be named, told Reuters. Volkswagen will pay around $16 per Navistar share or about 200 million euros ($223 million) in total, the source said. The deal will be announced as soon as Tuesday, the sources said. Volkswagen and Navistar declined to comment. The financial burden of developing next generation engines to meet new emissions standards is forcing several vehicle makers to pursue partnerships and technology deals. In May, Nissan took a 34 percent stake in Mitsubishi Motors, while in 2013, Aston Martin agreed to sell a 5 percent stake to Mercedes-Benz parent Daimler in exchange for delivering next generation engines and electronics that meet the latest emissions rules. Volkswagen's commercial vehicles division is trying to build itself into a global truck manufacturer having absorbed Germany's MAN and Sweden's Scania, while Navistar is looking for a technology partner to build engines that can meet ever more stringent emissions rules. For Volkswagen, Navistar is seen as an attractive target because it has a large North American dealer network, something the German company lacks. Navistar, which has a market value of around $1.15 billion, has been on the lookout for an engine partner since 2010 when it failed to get approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its heavy-duty diesel truck engine. The two companies have been in talks about a potential tie-up for years, but Volkswagen has been distracted for much of the past 12 months by a diesel emissions test cheating scandal that has seen several top management departures.

The Wall Street Journal / September 5, 2016 Volkswagen likely to pay about $16 a share for Navistar stake Volkswagen AG plans to buy a minority stake in Navistar International Corp. to provide a foothold in the U.S. and bolster its global truck-market aspirations, according to people familiar with the situation. The proposed transaction, which could be announced as early as Tuesday, comes as Navistar deals with the fallout from a run-in over emissions regulations and a declining market share that has left it trailing rivals in a North American commercial truck market wrestling with a slump. VW’s plan to pay roughly $200 million for a nearly 17% stake in Navistar signals that executives at the German auto maker feel confident enough to expand strategically in the U.S., even as they work through the fallout from a scandal over the rigging of emissions tests on many of VW’s most popular passenger cars. The scandal has cost VW nearly $20 billion so far, forcing the company to slash spending and put any big acquisition plans on hold. Lisle-Ill.-based Navistar is still trying to overcome its own emissions problems. The company agreed earlier this year to pay the Securities and Exchange Commission $7.5 million to settle charges it misled investors about its ability to comply with tougher U.S. standards on diesel engine exhaust beginning in 2010. Although Navistar neither admitted nor denied the charges, the company’s emissions strategy plunged it into a prolonged tailspin that has cost it hundreds of millions of dollars, halved its share of the U.S. heavy-duty truck market and wiped out about 80% of its market value over the past five years. VW has agreed to pay $16 a share for Navistar, a nearly 14% premium on Friday’s closing share price of $14.07, according to people familiar with the situation. Navistar had a market value of $1.2 billion at Friday’s close. In exchange, VW will get two seats on Navistar’s board. The two companies, which have been in on-again, off-again talks since early 2015, have agreed to cooperate on purchasing and developing new products, the people said. VW would be joining a board that already includes representatives of activist investors Carl Icahn and Mark Rachesky, who each control about 20% of the company. Mr. Icahn originally bought into Navistar as part of an attempt to combine it with specialty truck builder Oshkosh Corp. Navistar’s losses have driven its stock price well below what the activists paid for their shares. VW has long been rumored to be interested in Navistar. The German company is a powerhouse in the global truck market, particularly in Europe and Brazil, but doesn’t sell many large commercial trucks in the U.S. Rival Volvo AB produces trucks in the U.S. under the Mack brand, while Daimler AG owns Freightliner. Navistar draws most of its sales from the U.S., Canada and Mexico and has a limited overseas business, making it a potentially good fit for VW. Navistar also has a strong dealer network that provides service and replacement parts. Wolfsburg, Germany-based VW bundled its commercial vehicle businesses, including its European brands MAN and Scania, into a holding company in 2015. VW’s combined commercial vehicles businesses generated €34.5 billion ($38.6 billion) in revenue in 2015 and €1.7 billion in earnings before interest and taxes. VW is entering a North American truck market where demand has fallen off significantly after an elevated stretch of truck buying. Production of heavy-duty trucks this year is expected to fall by about one-third from last year’s near-term peak to about 200,000 vehicles. Trucking companies have pulled back on purchases after restocking their fleets with more fuel-efficient trucks in recent years. Navistar would likely receive a much-needed boost in truck and engine technology from VW. But even with Volkswagen’s deep pockets and commitment to growth, it could be difficult to quickly nurse Navistar back to financial and truck-market health. Navistar is saddled with about $5 billion in debt, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence, and is expected to report another loss this year. The company, which has a large unfunded pension liability, hasn’t consistently earned a profit in four years. Navistar recorded $10.1 billion in revenue for its fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2015 and a loss of $184 million. Navistar ranks fourth in the North America heavy-duty truck market with about 11% of retail sales. Market-leader Freightliner has about 40% of the market. In between are strong competitors Paccar Inc. —the maker of Peterbilt and Kenworth trucks—and Volvo. Navistar’s market share in heavy-duty trucks is about half the size it was five years ago. Customers abandoned Navistar’s trucks for competitors’ models when Navistar’s strategy for complying with the 2010 regulations on diesel engine emissions undermined the reliability of Navistar’s trucks and caused huge warranty-related expenses to fix the company’s engines. Navistar had attempted to develop a proprietary solution to comply with the tougher pollution-reduction standard, rather than using the same exhaust treatment technology as the rest of the truck and engine industry. VW’s wager on Navistar isn’t sure of success. The U.S. truck maker has lost a lot of ground over the past few years and it is uncertain whether the two companies will be able to align their corporate cultures to quickly improve the brand’s reputation and its products. The German auto maker doesn’t have engines tailored to the U.S. market yet, which it will now have to develop for Navistar. It is also unclear how Volkswagen will position Navistar in North America in relation to its main truck brands MAN and Scania. Daimler has the benefit of owning a U.S.-based engine subsidiary, Detroit Diesel, and has been able to incorporate improvements in fuel economy and performance from other Daimler engines into the Detroit brand, which is well known in the trucking industry.

Donald Trump on Monday refused to rule out granting legal status to undocumented immigrants who remain in the United States, breaking with an immigration proposal he laid out just last week. Asked Monday whether he could rule out a pathway to legal status for undocumented immigrants, Trump declined. "I'm not ruling out anything," Trump said. "We're going to make that decision into the future." Last week in Phoenix, Trump said undocumented [illegal] immigrants seeking legal status would "have one route and one route only: to return home and apply for reentry like everybody else.

The change in regulations made the use of COEs in the U.S. unattractive. If the opposite had occurred, we'd see mostly COEs on America's roads today. Both the US and the rest of the world want their roads to last longer by controlling truck load distribution. But the US uses a means opposite of the rest of the world. We should allow 3-axle trailers and 97,000lb (44-ton) loads. The COE is more efficient than a conventional in mainstream applications. If we could carry more, in many cases, there would be fewer trips, which reduced road wear and congestion as well.

Yanmar engines are legends in the marine segment.

Some of the John Deere lawn mowers and lawn tractor do/did use Kawasaki engines. Selling cheap throw-away MTD-produced John Deere-branded lawnmowers at Home Depot/Lowes was a huge mistake. It devalued the brand.

Kubota makes a versatile lawn tractor.

Back in the day, half the trucks that Mack sold were COEs. Back then, many thought the COEs, the F-model, Cruise-Liner and Ultra-Liner were for the real, professional drivers. Of course, if your COE had the Mack V-8, that nailed it. To each his own, but I'd rather drive a COE over a conventional any day of the week. I can "wear" an F-model like my favorite pair of gloves, whereas the Super-Liner is clumsy with its long nose and wheelbase that kills maneuverability. If you grew up within the confines of the R/U/DM cab, the F-model cab felt incredibly spacious. And the Cruise-Liner cab, my gosh, if you'd previously driven R-models, felt huge! I've never understood those drivers who sit on the floor.

. . .

Owner/Driver / September 5, 2016 Trucks built across the last eight years affected by brake issues Volvo Group Australia has recalled 6,909 trucks across the Titan, Granite, Super-Liner, Metro-Liner, and Trident over brake pedal issues. According to an Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) notice, the defects could render the trucks’ service brakes inoperable. "Potential failure of the split pin, used to secure the brake pedal clevis pin, may cause the clevis pin to come loose, possibly causing the brake pedal to fall to the floor rendering the service brakes inoperable," the notice says. "If the service brakes become inoperable, there is the potential to cause an accident and/or injury to the user or others." The affected vehicles were sold nationally between 4 January 2008 and 15 January 2016. VGA says "consumers should contact their closest authorised VGA repairing dealer and book their vehicle in for repair as soon as possible." The huge recall is the third by the brand since June. The first affected Granite and Trident models from 2011 to 2014 and the second impacted the 2015 truck range. Related reading - http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/46574-2015-mack-australia-truck-range-recalled/#comment-343521

Radical Islamist handed 10-year jail term in Australia The Guardian / September 4, 2016 A Melbourne teenager who plotted to behead a police officer in an Anzac Day terror attack will spend at least seven and a half years in prison. Sevdet Ramadan Besim, now 19, pleaded guilty to a single terror-related charge over his 2015 plan to run down an officer and behead him in a rampage that would ultimately end in the teenager’s own death. Besim was handed a 10-year jail sentence in the Victorian supreme court on Monday and must serve at least seven and a half before he is eligible for parole. Justice Michael Croucher said Besim’s planned “putrid act” was aimed at advancing violent jihad, intimidating the government and striking fear into hearts of the wider community. The murder plot would also terrify every law enforcement officer in the country and their loved ones, he said. “To the vast majority of the community, it’s unfathomable an 18-year-old boy planned to kill a law enforcement officer, to crash into him with a car and then behead him with a knife,” Croucher said. Besim chose Anzac Day to “make sure the dogs remember this as well as there fallen heros [sic]”. He said he was “ready to fight these dogs on there [sic] doorstep”. “I’d love to take out some cops,” Besim said in online chats with a UK teenager, where he discussed his deadly ideas. “I was gonna meet with them then take some heads ahaha.” The court heard Besim was radicalised by older, influential extremists he met at the now defunct Al-Furqan Islamic Centre, including senior Islamic State recruiter Neil Prakash. He was also greatly affected by the 2014 death of his friend Numan Haider and became alienated from mainstream society. Haider, 18, was shot dead outside Endeavour Hills police station after stabbing two counter-terrorism officers. Besim was with him in the hours before the attack. Corrections Victoria found a hand-drawn Islamic State flag in his jail cell last September as well as a collection of newspaper clippings about violent jihadis fighting overseas. One of the articles referred to Australian terrorist Khaled Sharrouf, who gained infamy after his young son was pictured holding a severed head. Croucher said he was not persuaded Besim had rejected his radical beliefs, and protection of the community was an important consideration. “I’m not persuaded to accept ... he has in fact renounced violent jihadism.” Besim pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to do an act in preparation for or planning a terror act. The charge carries a sentence of life imprisonment. Besim blew kisses to a large group of supporters as he was led from the dock. .

Commercial Motor TV - sponsored by DAF Trucks / September 2, 2016 .

The video looks great..........the audio sounds terrible. Why the use of loud obnoxious "bang your head" music, rather than a respected voice like Steve Brooks talking you thru the introduction ?

Kenworth Truck Company Press Release / September 2, 2016 .

Kenworth Truck Company Press Release / September 2, 2016 . .

Fleet Owner / September 2, 2016 Meritor has expanded its MFS Series of front non-drive axles to include a deep-drop axle option. “Our MFS Series already offers linehaul and vocational fleets a wide range of options, and the deep-drop feature represents an expansion that will help customers spec their vehicles,” said Joe Muscedere, general manager, Front Drivetrain. The option, which includes deep axle drops of 4.76 and 5 in., is ideal for auto hauling and refuse applications where lower vehicle ride heights are needed, according to Muscedere. The deep-drop axle, which includes a new universal knuckle compatible with Meritor EX+ air disc brakes and Q+ drum brakes, improves brake serviceability and vehicle packaging, he added. “The deep-drop axle design complements the MFS Series product line, which is known for its proven durability, superior vehicle control and longer lifetime,” Muscedere said. The axle features a one-piece forged knuckle design for improved reliability and longer service life. MFS Series axles also optimize performance such as sharper wheel cut to increase maneuverability. The deep-drop MFS non-drive steer axle is available in standard and wide track with gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) of 13,000 to 14,600 and 18,000 to 22,800 lbs.

Heavy Duty Trucking / September 2, 2016 Component supplier Accuride has entered into an agreement to be acquired by Crestview Partners, a New York-based private equity firm. Accuride’s board of directors unanimously approved the Crestview buy out and agreed to recommend that shareholders should vote to adopt the merger agreement. The company will be given a customary 35 day period during which it is allowed to solicit alternative proposals. The acquisition is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2016. Accuride will operate as an independent business within Crestview’s portfolio of companies. Accuride also recently sold Brillion Iron Works, a subsidiary of Metaldyne Performance Group, a provider of powertrain and suspension components. “Accuride will serve as a platform for further growth and consolidation in the global wheels and wheel-end sectors as we expand to serve our customers’ needs worldwide,” said Rick Dauch, president and CEO of Accuride. “We are confident that under Crestview’s stewardship, Accuride will receive the resources and support needed to realize our vision of becoming the premier supplier of wheel-end system solutions to the global commercial vehicle industry.”

http://www.gerhartmachinery.com/about/gerharts-all-mack-truck-event/

Trump "would find it very, very difficult to throw out a family that has been here for 15 years and they have three children, two of whom are citizens. That is not the kind of America he wants." Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani On Sunday, Giuliani said that all 10 of Trump's immigration policies are largely directed only toward "criminal" illegal immigrants. [Apparently, they don't view entering the U.S. illegally as being a crime. I do.] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First of all, in my vision, any children born to illegal immigrants in the United States should NOT be granted citizenship. Second, that any illegal immigrants can remain in the United States without being caught for 15 years is not only damning regarding the will and capabilities of U.S. authorities, but also begs the question of whether or not it is intentional.

From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer David Graham, The Atlantic / September 2, 2016 The FBI has released its report into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, providing the most detailed account yet of why and how she used the system. In a classic Friday news dump, the FBI on Friday afternoon released the results of its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and private email address. Unsurprisingly, the findings track closely with what FBI Director James Comey said when he announced the findings in July. The report, released in two chunks, offers the most complete narrative of Clinton’s email system. But they do offer a few of what a computer technician quoted in the investigation might refer to as “oh shit” moments. The original “oh shit” moment concerned an out-of-date server that was housed at a facility in New Jersey. In December 2014, Clinton aide Cheryl Mills asked someone to delete the old messages. Apparently he didn’t do so. Then, in March 2015, The New York Times reported the existence of the email setup. The next day, a House committee on Benghazi requested the preservation of any records. Despite that, an unnamed staffer, realizing he had not followed Mills’s instructions, deleted anyway: View note Mills and Clinton said they were unaware of the move. Unawareness is a common thread throughout the report. Clinton seemed to have only a faint understanding of the process of classification and what was and was not classified, nor was she apparently trained when she joined State from the U.S. Senate: View note She also said she was unaware of the requirement that she turn over her emails when she left office, which she said might be due in part to a concussion she suffered in 2012: View note Some of the classified messages in Clinton’s emails dealt with “SAP,” special access programs, generally believed to be a reference to drone strikes carried out by the U.S. overseas. Through a peculiarity of classification, these strokes are widely known about and reported on, but the government still treats them as a secret. Some of Clinton’s discussions involved material that had been reported in the public but still was technically classified. On the one hand, that seems pointless, but on the other hand Clinton told FBI investigators she understood the importance of SAP secrecy. In another case, Clinton said staffers were handcuffed by the lack of a protocol for discussing classified information at holidays when people were traveling, meaning aides had to “communicate in code or do the best you could to convey the information.” Former Secretary of State Colin Powell doesn’t come off well in the report. While Clinton said she had already planned to use a private email address, some advice that he gave her seemed geared to circumventing public-records laws: View note Many of Clinton’s aides apparently had no understanding of the fact that Clinton—and in some cases the aides themselves—were using a private email server. Clinton used a remarkable 13 mobile devices to access her email account, including eight separate BlackBerrys during her time as secretary of state. None of the 13 could be located for inspection, her lawyers said. (Clinton apparently often got new BlackBerrys and then decided she liked the old ones better.) She also used five iPads to access her account. In sum, the report portrays Clinton as generally unaware: unschooled in the rules of classification and not especially concerned about getting trained; but also technologically dependent on aides in the way that many 60-something executives likely are, with little understanding of how the technology they use every day fundamentally works. Reading the report, it’s surprising that more classified information was not accidentally sent than the FBI found. One important remaining question is whether Clinton’s server and email were ever hacked. When Comey announced the findings he stated, in essence, that they had found no direct evidence; that they would not expect to find such evidence; and that there was good reason to suspect she might have been hacked. The report fleshes that out. There were numerous failed attempts, which Clinton aide Bryan Pagliano knew about because they appeared as failed login attempts. Pagliano considered but did not implement security protections like a virtual private network or two-step verification. There was an onslaught of attempts after the Times story first publicly revealed the server, once again none of them apparently successful. There were also several cases of what sound like standard phishing and spear-phishing attempts, where Clinton and others received malicious messages with dangerous links. In one of the more peculiar notes, the FBI reports that an email address belonging to a staffer was compromised by someone using Tor, a software that allows masking and anonymity: View note It’s too soon to know what sort of effect the FBI report could have on Clinton’s presidential campaign. It certainly does not paint a flattering view of Clinton, but it also mostly fleshes out information that was widely known about her email system. The emails represent something of a classic Clinton scandal. Although the House investigation turned up no evidence of wrongdoing on her part with respect to the attacks themselves, it was during that inquiry that her private-email use became public. This is a pattern with the Clinton family, which has been in the public spotlight since Bill Clinton’s first run for office, in 1974: Something that appears potentially scandalous on its face turns out to be innocuous, but an investigation into it reveals different questionable behavior. The canonical case is Whitewater, a failed real-estate investment Bill and Hillary Clinton made in 1978. Although no inquiry ever produced evidence of wrongdoing, investigations ultimately led to President Clinton’s impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice. With Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee for president, every Clinton scandal—from Whitewater to the State Department emails—will be under the microscope. (No other American politicians—even ones as corrupt as Richard Nixon, or as hated by partisans as George W. Bush—have fostered the creation of a permanent multimillion-dollar cottage industry devoted to attacking them.) Keeping track of each controversy, where it came from, and how serious it is, is no small task, so here’s a primer. We’ll update it as new information emerges. The Clintons’ Private Email Server What? During the course of the Benghazi investigation, New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt learned Clinton had used a personal email account while secretary of state. It turned out she had also been using a private server, located at a house in New York. The result was that Clinton and her staff decided which emails to turn over to the State Department as public records and which to withhold; they say they then destroyed the ones they had designated as personal. When? 2009-2013, during Clinton’s term as secretary. Who? Hillary Clinton; Bill Clinton; top aides including Huma Abedin How serious is it? Very serious. A May report from the State Department inspector general is harshly critical of Clinton’s email approach, but Loretta Lynch announced on July 6 that the Justice Department would not pursue criminal charges, removing the threat of an indictment that could be fatal to her campaign. But the scandal will remain a millstone around her neck forever. Comey’s damning comments about her conduct—“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information”—will reverberate throughout the campaign. Also unresolved is the question of whether Clinton’s server was hacked. You can read the FBI report here. Clinton’s State Department Emails What? Setting aside the question of the Clintons’ private email server, what’s actually in the emails that Clinton did turn over to State? While some of the emails related to Benghazi have been released, there are plenty of others covered by public-records laws that are still in the process of being vetted for release. When? 2009-2013 How serious is it? Serious. While the contents of emails revealed so far has been more eyerolly than scandalous, the bigger problem is the revelation that dozens of email chains contained information that was classified at some level. Meanwhile, some emails remain to be seen. The State Department, under court order, is slowly releasing the emails she turned over, but there are other emails that she didn’t turn over, which have surfaced through court battles. State also says the FBI found 30 emails related to the Benghazi attacks that Clinton did not turn over. Benghazi What? On September 11, 2012, attackers overran a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Since then, Republicans have charged that Hillary Clinton failed to adequately protect U.S. installations or that she attempted to spin the attacks as spontaneous when she knew they were planned terrorist operations. She testifies for the first time on October 22. When? September 11, 2012-present How serious is it? With the June 28 release of the House committee investigating Benghazi, this issue is receding. That report criticized security preparations at the American facility in Benghazi as well as stations elsewhere, but it produced no smoking guns or new accusations about things Clinton could have done the night of the attacks. Although some conservatives will likely continue to assail her, the biggest damage is likely to be iterative—the highly damaging private-email story was revealed during the course of the House inquiry. In late August, the State Department announced that the FBI had found 30 new emails related to Benghazi that Clinton did not hand over. The content is as yet unknown, but the revelation will extend the story. Conflicts of Interest in Foggy Bottom What? Before becoming Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills worked for Clinton on an unpaid basis for four months while also working for New York University, in which capacity she negotiated on the school’s behalf with the government of Abu Dhabi, where it was building a campus. In June 2012, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin’s status at State changed to “special government employee,” allowing her to also work for Teneo, a consulting firm run by Bill Clinton’s former right-hand man. She also earned money from the Clinton Foundation and was paid directly by Hillary Clinton. In a separate case, ABC News reports that a top Clinton Foundation donor named Rajiv Fernando was placed on State’s International Security Advisory Board. Fernando appeared significantly less qualified than many of his colleagues, and was appointed at the behest of the secretary’s office. Internal emails show that State staff first sought to cover for Clinton, and then Fernando resigned two days after ABC’s inquiries. Judicial Watch released documents that show Doug Band, a Foundation official, trying to put a donor in touch with a State Department expert on Lebanon and to get someone a job at Foggy Bottom. Who? Both Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin are among Clinton’s longest-serving and closest aides. Abedin remains involved in her campaign (and she’s also married to Anthony Weiner). When? January 2009-February 2013 How serious is it? This is arcane stuff, to be sure. There are questions about conflict of interest—such as whether Teneo clients might have benefited from special treatment by the State Department while Abedin worked for both. To a great extent, this is just an extension of the tangle of conflicts presented by the Clinton Foundation and the many overlapping roles of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Sidney Blumenthal What? A former journalist, Blumenthal was a top aide in the second term of the Bill Clinton administration and helped on messaging during the bad old days. He served as an adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, and when she took over the State Department, she sought to hire Blumenthal. Obama aides, apparently still smarting over his role in attacks on candidate Obama, refused the request, so Clinton just sought out his counsel informally. At the same time, Blumenthal was drawing a check from the Clinton Foundation. When? 2009-2013 How serious is it? Only mildly. Some of the damage is already done. Blumenthal was apparently the source of the idea that the Benghazi attacks were spontaneous, a notion that proved incorrect and provided a political bludgeon against Clinton and Obama. He also advised the secretary on a wide range of other issues, from Northern Ireland to China, and passed along analysis from his son Max, a staunch critic of the Israeli government (and conservative bête noire). But emails released so far show even Clinton’s top foreign-policy guru, Jake Sullivan, rejecting Blumenthal’s analysis, raising questions about her judgment in trusting him. The Speeches What? Since Bill Clinton left the White House in 2001, both Clintons have made millions of dollars for giving speeches. When? 2001-present Who? Hillary Clinton; Bill Clinton; Chelsea Clinton How serious is it? Intermittently dangerous. It has a tendency to flare up, then die down. Senator Bernie Sanders made it a useful attack against her in early 2016, suggesting that by speaking to banks like Goldman Sachs, she was compromised. There have been calls for Clinton to release the transcripts of her speeches, which she was declined to do, saying if every other candidate does, she will too. For the Clintons, who left the White House up to their ears in legal debt, lucrative speeches—mostly by the former president—proved to be an effective way of rebuilding wealth. They have also been an effective magnet for prying questions. Where did Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton speak? How did they decide how much to charge? What did they say? How did they decide which speeches would be given on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, with fees going to the charity, and which would be treated as personal income? Are there cases of conflicts of interest or quid pro quos—for example, speaking gigs for Bill Clinton on behalf of clients who had business before the State Department? The Clinton Foundation What? Bill Clinton’s foundation was actually established in 1997, but after leaving the White House it became his primary vehicle for … well, everything. With projects ranging from public health to elephant-poaching protection and small-business assistance to child development, the foundation is a huge global player with several prominent offshoots. In 2013, following Hillary Clinton’s departure as secretary of State, it was renamed the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. When? 1997-present Who? Bill Clinton; Hillary Clinton; Chelsea Clinton, etc. How serious is it? If the Clinton Foundation’s strength is President Clinton’s endless intellectual omnivorousness, its weakness is the distractibility and lack of interest in detail that sometimes come with it. On a philanthropic level, the foundation gets decent ratings from outside review groups, though critics charge that it’s too diffuse to do much good, that the money has not always achieved what it was intended to, and that in some cases the money doesn’t seem to have achieved its intended purpose. The foundation made errors in its tax returns it has to correct. Overall, however, the essential questions about the Clinton Foundation come down to two, related issues. The first is the seemingly unavoidable conflicts of interest: How did the Clintons’ charitable work intersect with their for-profit speeches? How did their speeches intersect with Hillary Clinton’s work at the State Department? Were there quid-pro-quos involving U.S. policy? Did the foundation steer money improperly to for-profit companies owned by friends? The second, connected question is about disclosure. When Clinton became secretary, she agreed that the foundation would make certain disclosures, which it’s now clear it didn’t always do. And the looming questions about Clinton’s State Department emails make it harder to answer those questions. The Bad Old Days What is it? Since the Clintons have a long history of controversies, there are any number of past scandals that continue to float around, especially in conservative media: Whitewater. Troopergate. Paula Jones. Monica Lewinsky. Travelgate. Vince Foster’s suicide. Juanita Broaddrick. When? 1975-2001 Who? Bill Clinton; Hillary Clinton; a brigade of supporting characters How serious is it? The conventional wisdom is that they’re not terribly dangerous. Some are wholly spurious (Foster). Others (Lewinsky, Whitewater) have been so exhaustively investigated it’s hard to imagine them doing much further damage to Hillary Clinton’s standing. In fact, the Lewinsky scandal famously boosted her public approval ratings. But the January 2016 resurfacing of Juanita Broaddrick’s rape allegations offers a test case to see whether the conventional wisdom is truly wise—or just conventional. On May 23, Donald Trump released a video prominently highlighting Broaddrick’s accusation.