One grows tired of the media's obsession with appearances, optics, how things look, and how they are perceived, all of which suggest that too many journalists are far too willing to buy into propaganda rather than do the hard work of focusing on policies and facts.
21
Yeah, yeah, Trump, Trump, Trump. Sure, the whole system is corrupt, now more than ever thanks to our pathetic Supreme Court. But, really, how naive are we supposed to be? Hillary is a product of and a participant in a corrupt system. There is really not point in denying it and sounding like an idiot. Does it matter? Obviously not in this election, where her chances of winning are over 90% (really, they are 100%). I've been wondering whether the Trump campaign is a put-up job; i.e., whether he is (knowingly or not) a Manchurian candidate not run by Putin, but one run by Hillary's allies. If not, then Hillary is, truly, the luckiest woman in the world.
2
The one relevant part here is _foreign_ donations. Americans donors buying access, is no worse than donors to a Super PAC buying access -- a bad practice, but absolutely not unique to HRC. But foreigners can't donate to U.S. elections, yet can to the Clinton foundation. So the foundation provided an influence-buying path that was otherwise foreclosed.
However, donations to the foundation are publicly recorded, so any favoritism to donors can be monitored. Is the Bahrain prince meeting really the worst there was? Did other Secretaries of State always refuse to meet with top officials of allied governments?
If another government curries favor with a U.S. president by helping his pet cause -- e.g. agrees to accept some Guantanamo detainees -- and is rewarded with access to the president, is that corruption? If the pet cause is to further global education, and the help is in the form of a donation to that cause, what's different?
However, donations to the foundation are publicly recorded, so any favoritism to donors can be monitored. Is the Bahrain prince meeting really the worst there was? Did other Secretaries of State always refuse to meet with top officials of allied governments?
If another government curries favor with a U.S. president by helping his pet cause -- e.g. agrees to accept some Guantanamo detainees -- and is rewarded with access to the president, is that corruption? If the pet cause is to further global education, and the help is in the form of a donation to that cause, what's different?
11
Of course there's no quo, but that doesn't stop Amnesty Don from fanning the non-flames of scandal. The millions of his followers love to hear him tear Clinton down; it gives them the chance to scream their rage, "Lock her up!"
Amnesty Don isn't going to win but there'll always be warm spots in the hearts of his followers as he attempts to delegitimize her presidency and undermine our political process. He'll be profiting from their ignorance for years to come.
I'd shout, "Shame!" but since has none it would be a waste of breath.
Amnesty Don isn't going to win but there'll always be warm spots in the hearts of his followers as he attempts to delegitimize her presidency and undermine our political process. He'll be profiting from their ignorance for years to come.
I'd shout, "Shame!" but since has none it would be a waste of breath.
18
There is a lot of misunderstanding due to Ms. Clinton's refusal to take news conferences for such an inexcusable length of time. The issue is not pay for play but rather why it appears she sold her position of Secretary of State for contributions to her charity--Note the charity received contributions from foreign countries who had their own people to care for. This gave foreign governments access and influence to the highest levels of decision making in the government--and how many individual contributors where simply foreign government straw men. The idea there was no benefit to Ms. Clinton is challenged by the simple fact that her campaign staff/advisers were salaried executives in the charity until she ran again. And as related, the speaking payments. She has the power to address it by simply speaking to the press--But she does not.
7
The lesson is clear: if you want a future in politics, don't try to help your fellow creatures on Earth by starting a charity.
32
Why does the Crown Prince of Bahrain need to give $32m to the foundation of a former US president of the US for an education program in his own country??..could it be the former president's wife was Sec'y of State? and always asssumed to be a potential US presidential candidate?
9
I want facts. I want the truth.
Instead, what I get is coverage of "optics" and "perception." CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, and yes, even the Times, areall a guilty of playing the "horse race game."
Fact: The Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain made a commitment of $32 million to the Clinton Global Initiative in September 2005. That’s 3 years before President Obama asked Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State.
Fact: None of the $32M went into the coffers of the Clinton Global Initiative. Every dime went toward the college education of Bahraini students.
Fact: Judicial Watch sounds like a non-partisan watchdog group. They are, in fact, a right-wing organization.
Perception is NOT reality. Perception is a tool some use to create their own reality. We need those who have access to the facts—and by extension the truth behind those facts—to share them with their readers, listeners and television audience.
Until that starts happening, we are all losers. And that's the real scandal.
Instead, what I get is coverage of "optics" and "perception." CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, and yes, even the Times, areall a guilty of playing the "horse race game."
Fact: The Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain made a commitment of $32 million to the Clinton Global Initiative in September 2005. That’s 3 years before President Obama asked Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State.
Fact: None of the $32M went into the coffers of the Clinton Global Initiative. Every dime went toward the college education of Bahraini students.
Fact: Judicial Watch sounds like a non-partisan watchdog group. They are, in fact, a right-wing organization.
Perception is NOT reality. Perception is a tool some use to create their own reality. We need those who have access to the facts—and by extension the truth behind those facts—to share them with their readers, listeners and television audience.
Until that starts happening, we are all losers. And that's the real scandal.
69
If it looks like a rose and smells like a rose, I do believe it is a rose. Bill Clinton received multi-millions of dollars honoraria for speeches after sponsors 'donated' millions to the Foundation and got 'face time' with S of S Hillary Clinton. Smell a rose there?
7
although this is a non-scandal, I would like to show why this and other mega-foundations only spend money overseas? The last I looked, women and children aren't doing that well here at home.
6
Imagine if you will that the Qatar or Bahrain rulers would want an audience with the secretary of state or even the President without making a donation, would they not get it? is that not the modus operandi of the state department? to meet with foreign rulers?
remember the days when 10,000 dollars would get you to spend the night in the Lincoln bedroom in the Whitehouse? is that too pay for play?
How many Republican Presidents, Senators, Governors or Congress person REFUSED an audience after they received a donation?
remember the days when 10,000 dollars would get you to spend the night in the Lincoln bedroom in the Whitehouse? is that too pay for play?
How many Republican Presidents, Senators, Governors or Congress person REFUSED an audience after they received a donation?
23
As a very senior citizen who has worked with peoples of all walks of life for many, many years, it astonishes me that the general public either suppresses their awareness or wishes to suppress it, of "how things work" in life in general.
Yet everyone who is in the workforce, or who has children, is aware of how extremely valuable and necessary "networking" is which when used successfully gets people favors, and more, such as jobs of all caliber and standing. Even someone wanting to become a licensed electrician or plumber these days, is better off if they know someone who knows someone, which doesn't assure success but certainly is an opening in the door to the possibility. And this goes on up the scale for all positions, contracts, etc. even often including social positions. It is the basic underlying principle in the relative, yet almost total rush to celebrity worship in our present day society.
So, what's different about people giving to the Clinton Foundation or any other group and hoping for something in return?
This paper tiger is certainly a set-up! Unfortunately, not enough have exposed the "emperor's clothes" phenomenon.
Yet everyone who is in the workforce, or who has children, is aware of how extremely valuable and necessary "networking" is which when used successfully gets people favors, and more, such as jobs of all caliber and standing. Even someone wanting to become a licensed electrician or plumber these days, is better off if they know someone who knows someone, which doesn't assure success but certainly is an opening in the door to the possibility. And this goes on up the scale for all positions, contracts, etc. even often including social positions. It is the basic underlying principle in the relative, yet almost total rush to celebrity worship in our present day society.
So, what's different about people giving to the Clinton Foundation or any other group and hoping for something in return?
This paper tiger is certainly a set-up! Unfortunately, not enough have exposed the "emperor's clothes" phenomenon.
36
"...The emails between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department have unveiled the political sausage-making machine everyone assumed was already there..."
___
“Laws are like sausages; it’s better not to see them being made. “
- Otto von Bismarck
For the sake of argument, assuming Hillary is elected and both she and Pres Clinton step down from their respective positions on the Board at The CGI and the Clinton Foundation itself would stop accepting foreign and corporate donations. Yet, it has already been reported that Chelsea will remain a Board member of the Clinton Health Access Initiative would continue to receive foreign and corporate donations.
What's not being discussed or mentioned is Chelsea's husband, Marc Mezvinsky, and reminding the public he's an Investment Banker and co-founder of of the hedge fund Eaglevale Partners. (wiki)
There's plenty of skepticism already...
___
“Laws are like sausages; it’s better not to see them being made. “
- Otto von Bismarck
For the sake of argument, assuming Hillary is elected and both she and Pres Clinton step down from their respective positions on the Board at The CGI and the Clinton Foundation itself would stop accepting foreign and corporate donations. Yet, it has already been reported that Chelsea will remain a Board member of the Clinton Health Access Initiative would continue to receive foreign and corporate donations.
What's not being discussed or mentioned is Chelsea's husband, Marc Mezvinsky, and reminding the public he's an Investment Banker and co-founder of of the hedge fund Eaglevale Partners. (wiki)
There's plenty of skepticism already...
3
Now that we are aware of nearly every single email that Hillary has ever written, and she is being criticized roundly by the entire media, can we get this kind of information from Donald? Why is the media hounding Hillary, but leaving Donald's business dealings alone, particularly when it comes to his income tax returns? Were there this kind of push on Donald's tax returns getting released, including confirmation from the IRS that it wouldn't affect an audit (or how to release them so they wouldn't), we'd be seeing the inner machinations of Donald's businesses. And shouldn't we if he wants to be our President? The same holds for the information about Trump University. Why has all that been dropped by the media?
I have never believed that the press is liberal, and the way Hillary is treated, compared to Donald, is convincing of that. Shame on the media.
I have never believed that the press is liberal, and the way Hillary is treated, compared to Donald, is convincing of that. Shame on the media.
14
FAR too much of this debate has revolved around where The Clinton Foundation gets its contributions but hardly anything is being said about what it does with them. The CF is one of the largest charitable foundations in the world, and it does a huge amount of good, especially in developing countries. Here's a link for anyone not so biased that they automatically assume anything connected with the Clintons must be crooked:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
And, yes, to do that good work, they were willing to take money from some shady characters. Mother Teresa did the same -- she accepted money from anyone who would contribute it.
Of course, Mother Teresa wasn't running for President, and politically, the CF was pretty dumb. OK, they were dumb, but that's not the same as the cesspool of corruption so many people are talking about.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
And, yes, to do that good work, they were willing to take money from some shady characters. Mother Teresa did the same -- she accepted money from anyone who would contribute it.
Of course, Mother Teresa wasn't running for President, and politically, the CF was pretty dumb. OK, they were dumb, but that's not the same as the cesspool of corruption so many people are talking about.
18
That "smoke machine" would be the Republican Party. No mystery there, except to Roller.
16
I am really trying to see what the impropriety was in the Clinton Foundation accepting donations from major governments. Of course some of these people were able to meet with former Secretary Clinton; there is going to be overlap. Honestly, if someone gave millions of dollars to a charitable foundation just so they can get access, I don't see what the big deal is. I don't think someone who received life-saving drugs and services through CGI cares all that much how these services were paid for. Besides, this is not news; lobbyists and their clients donate millions of dollars to a campaigns just to be able to get a meeting with a government representative, and it is completely legal. At least by donating to CGI, the money is going to help millions of people, not someone running for office. The bigger question is how money is used for influence within our own political system.
18
Where is the smoke coming from? From smoke machines operated by Hillary Clinton's political opponents and by the press, including this newspaper, who think that because they say so many negative things about Trump, as they must since that's all there is to say about him, then they need to say a comparable number of negative things about Clinton. What would a Secretary of State with presidential ambitions have to gain by shilling for a charitable organization from which she derives no personal financial gain? None.
18
Nobody is above the law. How many times do I have to say it?
—Obama (May 2016) about email investigation of Hillary Clinton
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said, “The success of our democracy depends on the rule of law, and there is no public official that is above the rule of law.”
The law seemed to be stretched to allow Hillary to escape the hand of the law many times in the past with contradictory excuses and lies without a hint of regret. She has a low opinion of the intelligence of the American people.
Barbra Streisand told Obama advisor David Axelrod, “I hate to say it, but people are stupid,”and that the president needs to talk to people in simpler terms.
It seemed he listened.
Hillary did as well.
Here's H.L. Mencken in 1926 with even better advice:
“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
Hillary apologized in September 2015 for her email infidelities, but at CNN’s town hall (June 2016) she seemed to retract it:
“I’m not willing to say it was an error in judgment because what—nothing that I did was wrong. It was not in any way prohibited.”
Jim Comey said it was.
This women will remain unrepentant for all the nefarious, corrupt, illegal, actions she has done—both in and out of office—that has damaged trust in our nation.
2
The comments hear provide strong validation of Ms. Roller's closing comments. Those who hate the Clintons find ample evidence of wrongdoing - no smoking gun needed. Those who love the Clintons see partisanship trumping (no pun....well, maybe a wee one) the good works of the Clinton Foundation. Those in the middle (and it's a very big middle) probably see it as another example of the Clintons' lack of concern for how their actions are perceived - not a good thing, but not a game breaker one way or the other.
The election is not going to turn on this issue.
The election is not going to turn on this issue.
2
ANOTHER nothing burger.
12
I'm curious. I haven't heard anything about Trump and his business relations should he become President. Would he completely disassociate himself from all of the Trump enterprises? Has there been any discussion on that?
8
Quote:
'Mr. Trump’s campaign has jumped on the story, calling the Clinton Foundation “the most corrupt enterprise in political history” — while neglecting to mention that his own foundation has given at least $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.'
Of course he gave her the bribe. He knows that she can be bought cheap.
'Mr. Trump’s campaign has jumped on the story, calling the Clinton Foundation “the most corrupt enterprise in political history” — while neglecting to mention that his own foundation has given at least $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.'
Of course he gave her the bribe. He knows that she can be bought cheap.
3
I agree with the conclusion that you will probably draw from this "controversy" reinforcement of what you already thought about Hillary and the Clintons, pro or con.
But I have an editorial/grammatical comment--How can the State Department be headed by the secretary of state? Shouldn't it be Secretary of State? Non-capitalization of the office subtly diminishes its authority and power. There are several uses of the term in the piece...
But I have an editorial/grammatical comment--How can the State Department be headed by the secretary of state? Shouldn't it be Secretary of State? Non-capitalization of the office subtly diminishes its authority and power. There are several uses of the term in the piece...
6
Emma, it used to be your job as a journalist to help inform the country about the difference between a real scandal and the appearance of one. Yet, here you are pushing propaganda. My only hope is that you feel disgusted by your efforts at so called balance.
19
From the article: "the Crown Prince of Bahrain — who had given $32 million to the Clinton Global Initiative for a Bahraini education program "
The Clinton Global Initiative is a meeting, not a charity. (1) The author likely meant The Clinton Foundation. (2)
Here is the list of people who have given more than $25 million to the Clinton foundation, as they have publicly disclosed. Note that the Crown Prince of Bahrain does not appear on this list. (3)
It's unclear where the author learned that the Crown Prince of Bahrain had given $32 million to the Clinton Foundation, as there appears to be no evidence of this.
1. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/about-us/cgi...
2. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about
3. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors
The Clinton Global Initiative is a meeting, not a charity. (1) The author likely meant The Clinton Foundation. (2)
Here is the list of people who have given more than $25 million to the Clinton foundation, as they have publicly disclosed. Note that the Crown Prince of Bahrain does not appear on this list. (3)
It's unclear where the author learned that the Crown Prince of Bahrain had given $32 million to the Clinton Foundation, as there appears to be no evidence of this.
1. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/about-us/cgi...
2. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about
3. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors
2
Grow up. $170 million is pocket change vs. $2 Billion. Listening to someone who supports your most laudable efforts and even opening a door to another is far from corruption. The beneficiary still has to plead his case and perform. If there is no "ill" gotten gain to the benefactor of the donation the complaints are nothing but more distractions from the real issues.
9
Were that Trump move as much money to the lowest income populations in the world as Bill & Hillary have! For a campaign unwilling to share tax data to complain of a Foundation's influence on policy is patently absurd! Does the Ford Foundation influence policy? Of course! And foundations exist to do what government either cannot or does not want to do.
Incidentally, the Clinton's do indeed benefit from donations to the Foundation - Bill's retirement isn't just a government check - but they deliver for those benefits multiple other public and nonprofit benefits, unlike Trump.
Incidentally, the Clinton's do indeed benefit from donations to the Foundation - Bill's retirement isn't just a government check - but they deliver for those benefits multiple other public and nonprofit benefits, unlike Trump.
4
It's a damned shame to shut down a charitable foundation doing good, much needed work in behalf of poor and vulnerable human beings just because a bunch of vultures with no virtue are making unfounded accusations of corruption.
20
It's telling that journalists here refuse to dig deeper into the Clinton Foundation's supposed "good works" rather than just reporting A ratings from Charity Watch as proof of effectiveness in implementing global development programs. Ratings from various agencies attached to the development world are often tied to donations or "admin fees" themselves. It's all a giant marketing racket. Talk to some implementing NGOs on the ground who are unconnected to these foundations. I guarantee you'll hear more of the truth about where most of the money goes. It goes to people flying around, staying in nice hotels, and theorizing about how to get more done as they snack on canapes and drink bottled water.
1
When I saw the headline about scandal, I thought it was an article about Anthony Weiner and his wife which is a story which the media has made a scandal.
Anyway, the questions I want answered about the Clintons and their foundation: 1) What favors they got or gave to Haiti during Mrs. Clinton's time as Secretary of State? Hillary and Bill have had a long relationship with the Caribbean nation going back to their honeymoon and their cosy relationship with former Haitian president Jean Bertrand Aristide.
There's a term in Haitian Creole "moun pa" whichmeans "my people" and signifies special treatment or privilege to one's spical people. Who were and are the Clintons' "moun pa"?
2) Why couldn't the crown price of Bahrain just fund the education project in his counytry without channelling it through the Clinton Foundation?
Anyway, the questions I want answered about the Clintons and their foundation: 1) What favors they got or gave to Haiti during Mrs. Clinton's time as Secretary of State? Hillary and Bill have had a long relationship with the Caribbean nation going back to their honeymoon and their cosy relationship with former Haitian president Jean Bertrand Aristide.
There's a term in Haitian Creole "moun pa" whichmeans "my people" and signifies special treatment or privilege to one's spical people. Who were and are the Clintons' "moun pa"?
2) Why couldn't the crown price of Bahrain just fund the education project in his counytry without channelling it through the Clinton Foundation?
5
It's disturbing to me that the constant attacks on Hillary Clinton and The Clinton Foundation in many ways are just too petty and pushed by political leanings.
The Clinton Foundation had done so much good in the world and saved many, many lives. Yet those who complain the most and look for constant wrong doing have probably never much of anything for others, but complain.
The Clinton Foundation had done so much good in the world and saved many, many lives. Yet those who complain the most and look for constant wrong doing have probably never much of anything for others, but complain.
13
Mr. Noble is right: It certainly "is human nature that one is influenced by those who are trying to help them"; it's called reciprocal altruism. He is correct to say that America needs campaign finance reform. As for Glenn Greenwald, who I don't take seriously, Saudi Arabia has been an American ally since the beginning of the Cold War. We needn't rehash the Friendly Tyrant problem here, though I see Greenwald wishes to pardon Sanders's worship of Latin America's socialists.
Name a single country, just one, in the Greater Middle East that can stand comparison in terms of human rights and freedoms, of whatever nature, with Western democracies. The Saudis know we disapprove of their treatment of women and homosexuals. But the fact is that all Muslim-majority countries, to differing degrees, are lacking in this area. When it's not a U.S. ally, the far Left says, "That's their culture. Stop your cultural imperialism!" When it is, they go crazy about it. However, Greenwald is right to say that defenders of Clinton, who cannot see even the slightest wrong in anything she does, are employing the same "there's no quid pro quo" argument that defenders of Citizens United use.
The world is messy. Sanders supporters seem to imagine that but for all the "corruption" we'd have better (by which they mean "socialist") policies. There isn't a massive conspiracy to keep the United States from adopting swell socialist policies. The problem is, those policies, to put it bluntly, suck.
Name a single country, just one, in the Greater Middle East that can stand comparison in terms of human rights and freedoms, of whatever nature, with Western democracies. The Saudis know we disapprove of their treatment of women and homosexuals. But the fact is that all Muslim-majority countries, to differing degrees, are lacking in this area. When it's not a U.S. ally, the far Left says, "That's their culture. Stop your cultural imperialism!" When it is, they go crazy about it. However, Greenwald is right to say that defenders of Clinton, who cannot see even the slightest wrong in anything she does, are employing the same "there's no quid pro quo" argument that defenders of Citizens United use.
The world is messy. Sanders supporters seem to imagine that but for all the "corruption" we'd have better (by which they mean "socialist") policies. There isn't a massive conspiracy to keep the United States from adopting swell socialist policies. The problem is, those policies, to put it bluntly, suck.
2
Perhaps all high level government officials should start their own foundations and do "good works" using a business model that charity navigator does not accept.
And their spouses and children can give speeches and they too can earn hundreds of millions of dollars.
See just smoke, right?
Hillary is corrupt and so is the foundation
And their spouses and children can give speeches and they too can earn hundreds of millions of dollars.
See just smoke, right?
Hillary is corrupt and so is the foundation
2
What nonsense! Nothing illegal found "so far", "perception problems", blah blah blah. Just repeating idiocies mouthed by an ignoramus like Trump is an insult. but to have the Globe, NYT, WaPo, USA Today, in a circle repeating what each other says as proof of their truthiness is beyond stupid. And repeating what the other big papers is the only thing of substance in this editorial. pathetic.
14
Why do so many defend the indefensible Hillary by pointing to an idiot named Trump? Have we come to the point where we'll put a criminal in office because the other criminal is worse?
How about this - as of today, all in DC must comply by the laws of the land. Insider trading investigations start tomorrow AM and end with the majority of Congress going to jail. Let's clean house!
How about this - as of today, all in DC must comply by the laws of the land. Insider trading investigations start tomorrow AM and end with the majority of Congress going to jail. Let's clean house!
3
This article seems to conflate campaign contributions with donations to a legitimate charity. Why? Moreover, the Clinton Foundation provides audited statements that show the Clintons receive no direct financial benefit. And on the contrary, are themselves donors The real scandal is the press and media letting themselves be led around by the Breitbart right again. The "Clinton Cash" folks are the same crowd who brought us the Planned Parenthood body parts hoax.
17
The Clintons seem to feel that they are "above" any concern for the appearance of impropriety - a red flag in my mind, but the liberal media seem content to give Hillary a pass on this.
As far as the "no quid pro quo" charade is concerned, politicians are quite comfortable with the high bar of having to prove a clear agreement between the donor and the politician - even the politicians who decry the Citizens United decision, quite hypocritically in my opinion. After all, claiming that the Citizens United decision degrades our democracy implies a quid pro quo - why is there proof needed to impugn Clinton but no proof needed to criticize the Supreme Court decision?
Until mind-reading technology is available, no "evidence" of a clear connection between "donations" and "political favors" can ever be made. However, people have a reasonable expectation that their political representatives are of the highest level of integrity.
Apparently, the politicians disagree, which is another reason why many find that the level of democracy in this country is quite low, esp a country like ours which produces such lofty rhetoric on the subject.
As far as the "no quid pro quo" charade is concerned, politicians are quite comfortable with the high bar of having to prove a clear agreement between the donor and the politician - even the politicians who decry the Citizens United decision, quite hypocritically in my opinion. After all, claiming that the Citizens United decision degrades our democracy implies a quid pro quo - why is there proof needed to impugn Clinton but no proof needed to criticize the Supreme Court decision?
Until mind-reading technology is available, no "evidence" of a clear connection between "donations" and "political favors" can ever be made. However, people have a reasonable expectation that their political representatives are of the highest level of integrity.
Apparently, the politicians disagree, which is another reason why many find that the level of democracy in this country is quite low, esp a country like ours which produces such lofty rhetoric on the subject.
5
But Miss Emma Roller the avoidance of even the appearance of impropriety is the fundamental ethical obligation of every lawyer. Mr. and Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton are thus perennially unethical lawyers who regularly by malice aforethought betray their professional obligations. In the American criminal justice system you are presumed innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
As former elected and selected public officials they should be held to the highest ethical standards. The idea that good intentions and good deeds can sanitize and sanctify corruption and criminality and evil is morally bankrupt. Lucifer and Judas had "good" intentions. And the road to Hades is well paved with good intentions.
A finding of not guilty is not equal to being presumed innocent. The Clinton's have been found not guilty. But they are not innocent.
As former elected and selected public officials they should be held to the highest ethical standards. The idea that good intentions and good deeds can sanitize and sanctify corruption and criminality and evil is morally bankrupt. Lucifer and Judas had "good" intentions. And the road to Hades is well paved with good intentions.
A finding of not guilty is not equal to being presumed innocent. The Clinton's have been found not guilty. But they are not innocent.
3
I think I get it.
"But even if nothing else is revealed, the current story seems off nonetheless. Or at least it’s allowed critics to say that the Clinton Foundation emails “look bad.”"
So don't do anything that your enemies can distort into a slander. Is that it?
Or maybe, have nothing to do with anyone you think is doing something good because you might be accused of showing favoritism towards them. Is that it?
Nonsense.
"But even if nothing else is revealed, the current story seems off nonetheless. Or at least it’s allowed critics to say that the Clinton Foundation emails “look bad.”"
So don't do anything that your enemies can distort into a slander. Is that it?
Or maybe, have nothing to do with anyone you think is doing something good because you might be accused of showing favoritism towards them. Is that it?
Nonsense.
5
A single question: If the shoe was on the other foot and it was the Bush Foundation doing this, would those that shrug this off as innocuous still do so?
Be honest with yourself. If the answer is yes, fair enough. If it would bother you then maybe you have to look within yourself and question your own bias.
Be honest with yourself. If the answer is yes, fair enough. If it would bother you then maybe you have to look within yourself and question your own bias.
1
So influential people, including wealthy people abroad, give money to the Clinton Foundation, and then they got to speak with Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State. No doubt. The same people had access to the Bushes, if for no other reason than because of their oil connections. Rich people have access to politicians. How they get that access varies, but I don't see anything nefarious in the Clinton Foundation, especially when it has been clearly demonstrated that no money went to the Clintons themselves. It has not even been demonstrated that any American policy was affected or directed by this access.
The real scandal of money in US politics, which apparently doesn't matter to the Republicans, is result of the Citizens United decision. Why? Because unlike the so-called "scandal" revolving around the Clinton Foundation, Citizens United made it possible for extremely wealthy people to directly shower politicians with largesse, and to do so without any transparency whatsoever. Directly to their political campaigns. No oversight. How much does a Republican Senator cost? Or a Congressman?
I know the Democrats benefit from this too, but this baby is a Republican monster. Talk about corruption in politics. It's not from this foundation.
The real scandal of money in US politics, which apparently doesn't matter to the Republicans, is result of the Citizens United decision. Why? Because unlike the so-called "scandal" revolving around the Clinton Foundation, Citizens United made it possible for extremely wealthy people to directly shower politicians with largesse, and to do so without any transparency whatsoever. Directly to their political campaigns. No oversight. How much does a Republican Senator cost? Or a Congressman?
I know the Democrats benefit from this too, but this baby is a Republican monster. Talk about corruption in politics. It's not from this foundation.
14
Let's see; how can I put this delicately - there would have to be strong evidence of ax murders before I would even think about not voting for Clinton. The choice before us right now is between the devil and a mischievous choir girl. Duh!!
4
Fantasy scenario -- Huma Abedin to Doug Band the first time he asked about access for a Clinton Foundation donor: "Sorry, Doug, but your donor will have to seek a meeting with the secretary on his own, through the usual official channels. Please don't come to us again on behalf of one of your donors."
And that would have put an end to it.
And that would have put an end to it.
6
I am so glad to read that being a contributor to the Clinton Foundation is not a requirement to get time with Hillary Clinton. Especially because I am nearly broke. Where do I send the letter to request time with her? I am all pumped up about this meeting.
6
When Senator Dole was running for president, and while he was Majority Leader in the Senate, his wife Elizabeth Dole was the paid CEO of the International Red Cross. Did he vet the people he met with, to make sure they had never given blood, donated to the Red Cross, or worked with it, before meeting with them? Did he ask heads of state and other government representatives of foreign countries if they had ever worked with, or received benefits from, the Red Cross, before agreeing to meet with them?
Once again, the Clinton double standard at work.
Once again, the Clinton double standard at work.
7
"Nearly 15,000 emails recovered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation from Mrs. Clinton’s private email server could be released just days before the election in November."
I assumed this was the GOP's plan all along. I can hardly wait to hear the shrieks of surprise from the media and the public when this incredibly obvious, democracy-ending scam succeeds.
I assumed this was the GOP's plan all along. I can hardly wait to hear the shrieks of surprise from the media and the public when this incredibly obvious, democracy-ending scam succeeds.
5
People who have money have always had greater access to those with political power. This is not an American phenomenon. It has been true everywhere for all time. The Clintons have done a pretty good - not great - job of trying to dampen that effect. They could do better, but let's not get overwrought.
3
If only there was as much to-do among the nattering nabobs of Republican negativity about the influence of campaign contributions.
4
Although this article studiously avoids mentioning it -- substantial evidence does, in fact, suggest the Clintons sold government favors in return for large donations to the Clinton Foundation and/or outrageous speaking fees. The number of times those who made such donations and payments got favors from Hillary's State Department that one would assume Hillary would have opposed on ideological or patriotic grounds is sufficiently large that is seems almost certain government favors were, in effect, sold by the Clintons.
If you don't believe me, read "Clinton Cash", a best selling book that provides such evidence, some of which has been released in collaborations with mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times, itself. A generally positive NYT book review can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/politics/new-book-clinton-cash-ques... .
If you don't have time to read the book, google "Clinton Cash Movie". This movie is obviously biased, as is indicated by the tacky visual effects it uses to try to subliminally bias the viewer against the Clintons, but it is largely narrated by Peter Schweizer, the author of "Clinton Cash", reciting findings contained in his well reviewed book.
If you read or watch either you will understand that Hillary's recent statement that "there is smoke, but no fire" regarding the Clinton Foundation is almost certainly a lie.
If you don't believe me, read "Clinton Cash", a best selling book that provides such evidence, some of which has been released in collaborations with mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times, itself. A generally positive NYT book review can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/politics/new-book-clinton-cash-ques... .
If you don't have time to read the book, google "Clinton Cash Movie". This movie is obviously biased, as is indicated by the tacky visual effects it uses to try to subliminally bias the viewer against the Clintons, but it is largely narrated by Peter Schweizer, the author of "Clinton Cash", reciting findings contained in his well reviewed book.
If you read or watch either you will understand that Hillary's recent statement that "there is smoke, but no fire" regarding the Clinton Foundation is almost certainly a lie.
3
A scandal is not a scandal { emailgate/Benghazi cover up/Fast and Furious, etc) when Liberals are the scandalizers. It immediately becomes a scandal {Valerie Plame, George Bush's firing of the U.S Attorneys, etc) involving Conservatives. That should make it simple enough for the majority of readers who prowl the pages of the NY Times.
1
A practical suggestion that just might address the perception that access to high government officials is restricted to the rich, powerful, and famous:
Reserve one day of meetings each year for normal citizens who would never make the cut. There must be dozens of requests every day. Sure, sometimes they will be flakes. Often all they want is personal intercession, the kind that people ask President Obama for in his famous five letters per day. Sometimes they will even ask questions a well-connected person would never dare, and even tell the official something he or she really ought to know.
Good idea? Thanks. I saw it on The West Wing.
Reserve one day of meetings each year for normal citizens who would never make the cut. There must be dozens of requests every day. Sure, sometimes they will be flakes. Often all they want is personal intercession, the kind that people ask President Obama for in his famous five letters per day. Sometimes they will even ask questions a well-connected person would never dare, and even tell the official something he or she really ought to know.
Good idea? Thanks. I saw it on The West Wing.
3
Good editorial for two reasons: 1.) A reminder that the Clintons will always bring down the level of public morality; 2.) the glimpse at the global elite should be a forewarning - is this where progressives really want to take us?
3
The Clintons are expert at doing anything they want as long as it is not blatantly illegal. The blurring of the lines of the Foundation and Clinton performance as Secretary of State, is but another example of the rules for them are totally different for us hoi polloi. And, in this case, this is endemic to the entire political system, which has always done 'pay for play'.
What this latest saga clearly demonstrates, that it is time to try to route out this political corruption, wherever it occurs, with the Clintons, congressmen, where pay for play is ingrained and tenacious. Hillary is like all the other corrupt politicians, i.e. enriching themselves with multiple ethic breaches, and unethical behavior, that very closely skirt the law, but never quite reach criminal activity.
So, if anyone is waiting for the email from Hillary to her Foundation, that says, "I will agree to the deal if you pay Bill Clinton $1 million to come over and ask some questions", don't hold your breath. There are other more subtle ways to get that message across which the Clintons have mastered.
Will it ever change? For me the only answer is basically Trump, although I am concerned that while he will not be corrupt like the 'anointed one' may be too loose a cannon.
What this latest saga clearly demonstrates, that it is time to try to route out this political corruption, wherever it occurs, with the Clintons, congressmen, where pay for play is ingrained and tenacious. Hillary is like all the other corrupt politicians, i.e. enriching themselves with multiple ethic breaches, and unethical behavior, that very closely skirt the law, but never quite reach criminal activity.
So, if anyone is waiting for the email from Hillary to her Foundation, that says, "I will agree to the deal if you pay Bill Clinton $1 million to come over and ask some questions", don't hold your breath. There are other more subtle ways to get that message across which the Clintons have mastered.
Will it ever change? For me the only answer is basically Trump, although I am concerned that while he will not be corrupt like the 'anointed one' may be too loose a cannon.
1
Politics,religion,money are inseparable. The article brings about an issue that is not touched upon,transparency. Narratives are important,so transparency makes a difference. The Trump (& Republican) Narratives are negative. The differences in foundations & philanthropy would change if transparency were there. The Trump Foundation & Mr. Trumps taxes would enlighten many as to the dark side of art of giving. Taking a name to benefit an individual,rather than any public entity. On the other hand is a family,with a name of some value, uses the name to benefit others than themselves. May boost the name,but does it benefit Others? Transparency would clear the air. At the debates,I would wish someone would ask Trump,no matter what the outcome of the election,will he release his taxes? Make it a demand to promise to do so. The Narratives of the Donald need to be debunked. He is making so many unfounded accusations towrds others,that are more applicable to himself. Let's take away the Teflon.
2
Clinton Foundation: Actual Non-Profit Charitable Organization that 90 percent of its donations on initiatives to promote the health of the poor and fight climate change etc.. Scandal is that Clinton meets with this donors to this largely altruistic cause.
Trump Institute: Fraudulent, Fake For-Profit University, described by its own employees as a scam to separate poor people from their money, encouraging them to max out credit cards for worthless courses, being sued by Government for numerous illegal business practices, called a fraudulent scheme from top to bottom by NY attorney general and many others. Scandal is that Trump bilked the poor out of their money by selling them worthless instruction of no actual value by lying and pretending he was selling his "real-estate secrets" when he had no involvement with the course and the school taught nothing, as unsealed documents reveal.
Wow! What a scandal for Clinton! If only the Clinton Foundation could have been more like the "Trump Wealth Initiative!"
Trump Institute: Fraudulent, Fake For-Profit University, described by its own employees as a scam to separate poor people from their money, encouraging them to max out credit cards for worthless courses, being sued by Government for numerous illegal business practices, called a fraudulent scheme from top to bottom by NY attorney general and many others. Scandal is that Trump bilked the poor out of their money by selling them worthless instruction of no actual value by lying and pretending he was selling his "real-estate secrets" when he had no involvement with the course and the school taught nothing, as unsealed documents reveal.
Wow! What a scandal for Clinton! If only the Clinton Foundation could have been more like the "Trump Wealth Initiative!"
15
The question that can not be answered is did the donors have to donate in order to have access to the State Department, in other words, no donation no meeting. Again, though, Mrs Clinton's behavior has raised questions about her ability to blur things or inability to see the fine line between clear and suspicious, more so since she had in mind to run for the presidency.
5
I have always disliked this notion of "perception of _______." Either ______ can be demonstrated with facts or is isn't there.
1
Got it. A foundation to which over 8 million people owe their lives should abandon these people to slowly die so the "Optics" are better. Somehow it is wrong for national leader to meet with our Secretary of State after going through official and unofficial channels. Should the Secretary of State not meet with leaders and diplomats? Are "Optcs" worth 8 million lives?
Meanwhile, NY Times gives a free pass to Kellyanne Conway, Trump's new campaign manager, and Steve Bannon, Trump's new campaign CEO, who were both employees of Robert Mercer, billionaire high-speed trading fund owner, and the largest donor to the Trump campaign. Conway ran Mercer's PAC for him, and Bannon ran Mercer's propaganda outlet: Breitbart. Not one peep out of the NY Times? So it is apparently OK for a racist who wants to get lower taxes for himself to buy an entire campaign and install his flunkies to run it?
Then, the NY Times repeats Conway's nonsense claim that the Clinton Foundation is the "most corrupt in history" without challenge?
False equivalence or something far worse?
Meanwhile, NY Times gives a free pass to Kellyanne Conway, Trump's new campaign manager, and Steve Bannon, Trump's new campaign CEO, who were both employees of Robert Mercer, billionaire high-speed trading fund owner, and the largest donor to the Trump campaign. Conway ran Mercer's PAC for him, and Bannon ran Mercer's propaganda outlet: Breitbart. Not one peep out of the NY Times? So it is apparently OK for a racist who wants to get lower taxes for himself to buy an entire campaign and install his flunkies to run it?
Then, the NY Times repeats Conway's nonsense claim that the Clinton Foundation is the "most corrupt in history" without challenge?
False equivalence or something far worse?
16
Really? So it's okay to buy access and whatever else? And what is illegal about your conspiracy theory? National leaders have no business running a charitable foundation while in office. That's common sense 101.
3
Will any one in the comment list today be able to figure out if there had been any "pay to play?" Please, if we are waiting for smoking gun emails where there is a neat ledger of monies paid to the Clinton Foundation and favors repaid via some methodology, its not going to happen. This is how wild conspiracy theories are made. Connections are made by actions taken or not taken by the perceived recipient and it gets out of control. Maybe this is why leaders, not politicians, have to be above suspicion. - you know, like Caesar's wife.
4
When is a scandal really a scandal? I'm not sure Emma Roller answered the question. In the case of Hillary Clinton, a scandal is a scandal the moment there is the slightest innunedo, whether the source is the NYT, the AP or Sean Hannity. The title of this article should read, [When covering Hillary Clinton] "Making Innuendo into a Scandal Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry".
6
It's a fact, a senior staffer from the Foundation called Ms. Abedin to arrange for a major donor to meet the Secretary of State and he got to. Clinton should have prohibited that kind of contact absolutely from the day she was sworn in. She didn't. It's a problem.
17
The message of the article perpetuates the media shame of false equivalence. Donald Trump's extensive scandals dominate the news, so in order to be "fair and balanced" there must an attempt to look at what Mrs. Clinton has done and find the "balance". The trouble is that the story about the AP story about the number of meetings she had with Foundation connected donors grossly under-reported the number of meetings she had with everyone else who filled up her calendar; there were hundreds, perhaps thousands, documented in the two years of calendars that have been publicly released. No one has yet to point to anything other than the "appearance of impropriety" as the result, but even there, what is the "impropriety" which "appears"? Is it mere access...without results? The article does correctly point out that, in the end, this may be no more of an evil which the Supreme Court failed to recognize in Citizens United. But to call this a scandal in a campaign against a man whose every word is scandalous is to do violence to the concept.
9
To answer your question; "Where, then, is the smoke coming from? A smoke machine?". Surely we all know exactly where the smoke is coming from. It's perfectly obvious that the smoke machine is Donald Trump. Of course, that doesn't prevent another article in today's NYT reporting on Trump's preposterous statement that Anthony Wiener is privy to information from Hillary Clinton's security briefings. Silly me, I thought from reading this article's headline, that it might actually try to examine the obligations and responsibilities involved when serious journalists decide what's news and what isn't. Indeed. when is a scandal really a scandal? It's clear that these journalists from the New York Times don't know.
4
What's the big deal here? If Mrs. Clinton sold secrets or nuclear material to our enemies, that would be a problem. But this is just harmless Tammany Hall, "you get the influence you can pay for" kind of stuff.
Read this great piece by Matt Yglesias on Colin Powell's foundation, which took Enron money and AT and T money while Powell's son was head of the FCC. But no press digging or attacks. Probably nothing there--just like with the Clinton Foundation, where the terrible things seem to be looking at someone's resume, or helping someone get a seat at an event--out of thousands of emails, that's all that comes out. But reporters like scandals, and don't like to say they "investigated" but didn't find anything.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/8/30/12690444/alma-powell-cl...
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/8/30/12690444/alma-powell-cl...
7
Excellent point: "Where, then, is the smoke coming from? A smoke machine?"
One watchdog charity group originally said there were issues. Later, the same organization said that the foundation's business was too complex to rate accurately. Can the New York Time's revisit this with Charity Navigator?
Read this for details from the horse's mouth: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=31...
And, why is it a given that the "foundation" or "CGI" has done the proportional amount of good that should be expected given its monetary and political advantages? Has it really?
Could it be that Doug Band and Bill Clinton chose "good works" as an area of low scrutiny and easily obscured spending to make money and provide a donor supported (free planes) lavish life of globetrotting? Could the Foundations be the smoke machine?
Great work, Emma Roller.
One watchdog charity group originally said there were issues. Later, the same organization said that the foundation's business was too complex to rate accurately. Can the New York Time's revisit this with Charity Navigator?
Read this for details from the horse's mouth: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=31...
And, why is it a given that the "foundation" or "CGI" has done the proportional amount of good that should be expected given its monetary and political advantages? Has it really?
Could it be that Doug Band and Bill Clinton chose "good works" as an area of low scrutiny and easily obscured spending to make money and provide a donor supported (free planes) lavish life of globetrotting? Could the Foundations be the smoke machine?
Great work, Emma Roller.
1
You want a scandal? Here's a scandal -- this piece begins with a factual setup that was proved to be false several days before this was published: "The crown prince of Bahrain gives millions of dollars to a charitable organization that is run by the family foundation of the secretary of state. Later, he asks for a meeting with the secretary of state, through both formal and informal channels. He gets it." Well, no -- he did not give millions of dollars to a charity run by the Clinton Foundation -- he gave the money to his own charity. http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/08/24/huge-media-failure-behind-la... The scandal is that the media herd-think is obsessed with perceptions and "does this look bad?" stories, and can't even be bothered to report the facts accurately. And now this is repeated in the New York Times as one of those "facts" that "everybody knows" to be true, when it isn't.
9
And then we could look into America's campaign financing.
Everyone is involved, everyone says it must change, and the result is.....?
It is a corrupt system that has been accepted.
Everyone is involved, everyone says it must change, and the result is.....?
It is a corrupt system that has been accepted.
This is the perfect issue for confusing (read misleading) low-information voters. They hear "Clintons" and "donors," and they assume that it's like monies given to politicians for campaigns or out-and-out bribes.
But those funds aren't going for campaigning or personal income. In fact, the Clintons put tens of millions of their personal funds into their charity. They get no tangible benefit from the Foundation other than the satisfaction of saving the lives of many children.
The bottom line is that twisting their altruism to make it sound bad is reprehensible, and those doing it should be ashamed of themselves.
But those funds aren't going for campaigning or personal income. In fact, the Clintons put tens of millions of their personal funds into their charity. They get no tangible benefit from the Foundation other than the satisfaction of saving the lives of many children.
The bottom line is that twisting their altruism to make it sound bad is reprehensible, and those doing it should be ashamed of themselves.
6
I understand that the Clinton's have not takes a salary although it appears that many of their circle including friends and employees have benefited financially. There was an article several years ago indicating that the Clinton's did avail themselves of transportation at the Foundations expense to the tune of millions of dollars a year. Should that have been recorded as taxable income or in lieu of salaries?
"Pay to play" is part of the unseemly side of politics. Is there any office holder in the whole US that does not participate in "Pay to play"? If so, that would be the exception, rather than the rule. Most all of the participants benefit directly by using the tactic to raise campaign contributions for their own political survival. The Clinton Foundation has, by all accounts, done some very good work. Charity Watch gives it an "A" rating, with just 12% going to overhead and 88% going to programs.
If "Pay to play" is scandalous when the proceeds are used to do good deeds, how much more scandalous is "Pay to play", when the money is used for far less noble purposes?
If "Pay to play" is scandalous when the proceeds are used to do good deeds, how much more scandalous is "Pay to play", when the money is used for far less noble purposes?
2
There are many comments about it's just the Clintons that get grief for corruption, not the Republicans e.g. the Bush/Saudi brotherhood (that's the Bush's term for their bond).
But the Bushes are the ultimate Capitalists and recognized as pro Big Business; there's honesty in that.
The problem with Hillary is she's is decidedly pro-Business but sells herself (falsely) as a politician for the people. Remember how closely she guards the transcripts of her highly paid speeches to Wall Street. It's her constant selling herself as something she is not that is at the root of her distrust. If the Bushes pretended to be liberal, it wouldn't work and neither is it working for Hillary.
As for Bill, he not only lies outright ("I didn't .... with that woman.") but he's so clever (" ...the meaning of is is.."). However, I liked his comment about not inhaling marijuana and found it useful, in a way. When someone asks if smoking is OK, I reply, "It's OK but don't exhale." This is to prevent my exposure to second hand smoke. So thanks, Bill for that.
But the Bushes are the ultimate Capitalists and recognized as pro Big Business; there's honesty in that.
The problem with Hillary is she's is decidedly pro-Business but sells herself (falsely) as a politician for the people. Remember how closely she guards the transcripts of her highly paid speeches to Wall Street. It's her constant selling herself as something she is not that is at the root of her distrust. If the Bushes pretended to be liberal, it wouldn't work and neither is it working for Hillary.
As for Bill, he not only lies outright ("I didn't .... with that woman.") but he's so clever (" ...the meaning of is is.."). However, I liked his comment about not inhaling marijuana and found it useful, in a way. When someone asks if smoking is OK, I reply, "It's OK but don't exhale." This is to prevent my exposure to second hand smoke. So thanks, Bill for that.
3
The Clinton Foundation is a conflict for HRC, but much less of a conflict than Trump's companies are for him. Unlike the Clinton foundation, Trump benefits directly from any money going to his companies. That is where the story is. Think the issue through instead of immediately chasing the Trump narrative whenever he blows the dog whistle.
Why isn't the NYT asking if Trump whether he will stop accepting any revenue from non-US citizens, if he is elected? Why doesn't he start now? How will the public know that even revenue from US citizens are not defacto bribes, or pay to play? What foreign countries or investors is Trump literally indebted to? To remove the potential for conflict, shouldn't he pay off that debt immediately? Will he disassociate from his companies completely and sell them or give them away to eliminate potential conflicts? Is he willing to do that? Even companies owned by his wife and children create conflicts. How is he going to eliminate those conflicts?
Why isn't the NYT asking if Trump whether he will stop accepting any revenue from non-US citizens, if he is elected? Why doesn't he start now? How will the public know that even revenue from US citizens are not defacto bribes, or pay to play? What foreign countries or investors is Trump literally indebted to? To remove the potential for conflict, shouldn't he pay off that debt immediately? Will he disassociate from his companies completely and sell them or give them away to eliminate potential conflicts? Is he willing to do that? Even companies owned by his wife and children create conflicts. How is he going to eliminate those conflicts?
7
As observed, most stories touching on political figures are essentially Rorschach tests that tell us more about the person who makes a comment than about the person or action under consideration. Unfortunately, we have lived for the past twenty plus years in an environment that prefers confrontation to collaboration and thoughtful analyses. I refer to what happens on discussion threads as rhetorical rugby in which the only purpose is to move the conversation closer to one's personal goal. In this case, as noted, for some the goal is proving Clinton is evil incarnate, for some the goal is proving her detractors are right wing crazies who don't deserve a hearing. I guess we'll just have to keep playing until folks conclude other means of conversation will be more fruitful. I hope I live that long... :-)
1
Interestingly, Trump himself is knee-deep in trading donation for access, although he was on the giving side. He bragged himself about donating and "getting access" to politicians that he was characterizing as "bad people", including HRC. And most notably, he donated to Chris Christie, whose administration in NJ promptly cancelled 35 million tax debt from a Trump company when Christie became governor of NJ. Ethically, the distinction is specious.
57
Good writing, if too front loaded on "scandal" rather than charity, which is the point of the Clinton Foundation.
One might note that these strictures are not applied to the Bushes or Trumps, and that there is no possible appearance of absence of scandal in Trump's dealings, quite the reverse.
However, it pries open the lid of the fundamental conflict of our time, and indeed of human survival, and demonstrates indirectly the deep harm that Trumpism (demagoguery, racism, blaming others for our problems) does to even the best of us.
My primary issue is climate change. With an expanding population and expanding needs/desires on a finite planet, it is absolutely necessary for us to work together for the common good. This means we must regard ourselves as members of one huge, complicated, difficult, diverse family, and try to help each other. The way we see difference doesn't require blindness but acceptance.
Even the best of us are capable darker thoughts and actions and give in to anger and blame.
But returning to topic, how we deal with money, the biggest culprits are Republicans since Reagan, and the Supreme Court with Citizens United (about an attack movie on Hillary Clinton, don't forget). The conflict between the more righteous progressives and those of us who have given in to working with the "system" is not one of goals but of means.
I think burning down the house leaves one homeless, but I acknowledge that with a system so broken, it does need a serious challenge.
One might note that these strictures are not applied to the Bushes or Trumps, and that there is no possible appearance of absence of scandal in Trump's dealings, quite the reverse.
However, it pries open the lid of the fundamental conflict of our time, and indeed of human survival, and demonstrates indirectly the deep harm that Trumpism (demagoguery, racism, blaming others for our problems) does to even the best of us.
My primary issue is climate change. With an expanding population and expanding needs/desires on a finite planet, it is absolutely necessary for us to work together for the common good. This means we must regard ourselves as members of one huge, complicated, difficult, diverse family, and try to help each other. The way we see difference doesn't require blindness but acceptance.
Even the best of us are capable darker thoughts and actions and give in to anger and blame.
But returning to topic, how we deal with money, the biggest culprits are Republicans since Reagan, and the Supreme Court with Citizens United (about an attack movie on Hillary Clinton, don't forget). The conflict between the more righteous progressives and those of us who have given in to working with the "system" is not one of goals but of means.
I think burning down the house leaves one homeless, but I acknowledge that with a system so broken, it does need a serious challenge.
7
When is ....... is...........is?
2
Why do the citizens of the US accept these false conspiracies? Could it be 20 years plus of propaganda against the Clintons? There is a segment of our population which has grown up not hearing anything but negatives about the Clintons.
Could it be that part of our population, I hate to say it, is gullible.
Could it be that part of our population, I hate to say it, is gullible.
8
Really? This is what the GOP and the rest of the fear mongers want us to focus on?
What utter rot and poppycock. Let's smear the Clintons _because_ their foundation does the work this government refuses to do on an international stage. Let's muddy the real water with enough gunk so maybe something might stick for a millisecond before it slides off. Keep spewing trash and, just like conspiracy theories, there are people out there who will believe you because they don't know any better.
No, Hillary isn't perfect, and neither is her husband, as the garbage-slingers continue to regurgitate. She has given her entire life to public service...and has the scars to prove it.
What, pray tell, has Donald Trump ever done for anyone other than himself and his self-aggrandizement?
Our country is far more important than that.
IMHO
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
What utter rot and poppycock. Let's smear the Clintons _because_ their foundation does the work this government refuses to do on an international stage. Let's muddy the real water with enough gunk so maybe something might stick for a millisecond before it slides off. Keep spewing trash and, just like conspiracy theories, there are people out there who will believe you because they don't know any better.
No, Hillary isn't perfect, and neither is her husband, as the garbage-slingers continue to regurgitate. She has given her entire life to public service...and has the scars to prove it.
What, pray tell, has Donald Trump ever done for anyone other than himself and his self-aggrandizement?
Our country is far more important than that.
IMHO
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
13
"...a coziness among global elites that the public rarely gets to see." That in itself is a bigger story than anything about the Clintons in particular. In mild rant mode, I'm going to say, the general public knows a huge amount about the private lives of celebrities from the world of entertainment and sports, and maybe the British royal family - but for some reason, when it comes to the actual power elites, there is very little real knowledge - at best there is a kind of paranoid awareness that lets us know what a phrase like "pulling back the curtains at Davos" is supposed to refer to. We have this sense of great powers behind the scenes, but we don't see much coverage of how it really works. So we end up with stupid conspiracy theories, and an unfocused resentment that lets a guy like DT pretend to speak for the "people"... Hey, here's a thought - wouldn't the NYT itself be well-positioned to start reporting on the behavior of the power elites? I'm picturing a section like the sports section, only it would be the ".01% section." Could be fascinating!
3
It is only a "scandal' if one believes in the once-important but now seemingly quaint notion that candidates and public officials must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. But in the post Citizens United era we live in, where politicians regularly take bribes relabeled as campaign contributions, and where Supreme Court justices accept honoraria from parties with cases before the Court, the overblown sense of indignation expressed over the Clinton Foundation seems like a farcical overreaction.
11
The solution is simple: give it to Bill Gates.
3
This has been discussed. The Gates Foundation is not set up to do direct work the way the Clinton Foundation does. Yes, they will have to figure out how to continue the good work they do, as clearly the same standards that applied to the Bushes can't be used here.
But it's not that simple: it's a big operation and lives depend on it, future, current, and past.
But it's not that simple: it's a big operation and lives depend on it, future, current, and past.
3
What truly would be fishy would be NOT finding many of the same individuals on the State Department meeting list and the Clinton Foundation donor list. Those interested in global issues are the same people who likely seek meetings with the State Department. If those lists needed to be mutually exclusive, that would impede the good work that many of these people hope to do.
People like Donald Trump don’t do good deeds without expecting quid pro quo, so naturally they don’t expect anyone else to either. Thankfully, the world isn’t full of Donald Trumps.
People like Donald Trump don’t do good deeds without expecting quid pro quo, so naturally they don’t expect anyone else to either. Thankfully, the world isn’t full of Donald Trumps.
12
There is no Clinton Foundation "scandal". There is nothing even the slightest bit unethical or unusual about anything in those emails. You people in the media need to do your jobs and report objective facts.
13
Emma Roller, the author, writes, "To belabor the metaphor: Where, then, is the smoke coming from? A smoke machine?" I would suggest she look in the mirror for an answer.
Of course, she's had lots of help, starting with her employer, the Times, with two HomePage articles running simultaneously yesterday about Huma Abedin separating from, her husband, Anthony Weiner -- one of them headlined that it was casting a cloud over the Clinton campaign -- busily trying to compete with supermarket tabloids. Naturally, that wasn't surprising after the Times used Mr. Scandal himself, Mark Sanford, write a column on Trump.
And, I wonder if Roller ever bothers listening to the highest paid (at $50 million/year) "smoke machine" in the country, Rush Limbaugh.
As I see it, the impending scandal here is the downward trajectory of the Times, as it dumbs down and sensationalizes much of its daily coverage, hoping its still excellent, Pulitzer quality investigative pieces will maintain its reputation.
Of course, she's had lots of help, starting with her employer, the Times, with two HomePage articles running simultaneously yesterday about Huma Abedin separating from, her husband, Anthony Weiner -- one of them headlined that it was casting a cloud over the Clinton campaign -- busily trying to compete with supermarket tabloids. Naturally, that wasn't surprising after the Times used Mr. Scandal himself, Mark Sanford, write a column on Trump.
And, I wonder if Roller ever bothers listening to the highest paid (at $50 million/year) "smoke machine" in the country, Rush Limbaugh.
As I see it, the impending scandal here is the downward trajectory of the Times, as it dumbs down and sensationalizes much of its daily coverage, hoping its still excellent, Pulitzer quality investigative pieces will maintain its reputation.
10
Can't the Clinton " smoke machine" compare or even exceed Limbaugh's?
Well, the NYTimes certainly has the cache to declare something a scandal just by making a big deal out of it. Congratulations NYTimes! You have successfully upheld the mysogynistic double standard that the Republicans and the Trump campaign have been pushing for. Where is the criticism of what Trump will do for money? Where is the investigation of Trump's foundation & its donors? Where is the outrage over Trump not being transparent with his wealth and where it comes from? When Trump accused Clinton of compromising national security because one of her aids' husband is a sleaze bag, where was the journalistic balance in pointing out that Trump had a campaign manager in the pocket of the Russians when he had his first national security briefing? Really. I am increasingly disgusted by the NY Times. I really thought you were better than this.
10
"But if you think the Clintons are fundamentally untrustworthy people, taking advantage of a flawed political system for their personal gain..." Perhaps I read the piece too quickly because I certainly missed the part where the writer identified exactly what that "personal gain" was.
16
It's perfectly reasonable to be dismayed by the amount of influence the wealthy and the powerful have in our government, and perfectly absurd to believe that the GOP in general and Donald Trump in particular will save you from it.
Oh, and it would be nice if folks would learn something about the history of the American government. No, kids, Jefferson and Washington et al were not just plain old broke folks.
Oh, and it would be nice if folks would learn something about the history of the American government. No, kids, Jefferson and Washington et al were not just plain old broke folks.
10
The Foundation was, and will never be, about Hillary. It's troubles only make sense when you understand the needs of a super-narcissist, who happens to be her husband.
Bill Clinton figured this out a long time ago, that he could remain in the spotlight indefinitely if his activities could be linked to benefits that were unquestioningly noble deeds for others. The difference between he and, say, Jimmy Carter with Habitat for Humanity, is one of degree. That degree, however, is where the question of impropriety and sleaze factor always lives. Make up your own mind on it, but don't reflexively defend a member of your team just because this is an election year.
Bill Clinton figured this out a long time ago, that he could remain in the spotlight indefinitely if his activities could be linked to benefits that were unquestioningly noble deeds for others. The difference between he and, say, Jimmy Carter with Habitat for Humanity, is one of degree. That degree, however, is where the question of impropriety and sleaze factor always lives. Make up your own mind on it, but don't reflexively defend a member of your team just because this is an election year.
5
Well said, Guss.
When a Republican with similar "flaws" eventually takes power, our New Silent Majority shan't be able to complain.
When a Republican with similar "flaws" eventually takes power, our New Silent Majority shan't be able to complain.
If the Clintons registered as Republicans and went to a Pharisaic Megachurch every Wednesday night, Sunday, and Sunday night, the Apoplectic Right would adopt Sharia Law and shift slightly to the right of Attila the Hun.
10
Congressional investigation of Clinton use of the White House Christmas card list, Benghazi Political Assassination Committee, Email Server Investigation, Clinton Foundation..and who knows what is next... The Republican Party has generated such a vacuum through its lack of ideas and principled leaders that they can only resort to manufactured "scandal" as their offense. It is this same vacuum that was filled by an ignorant racist named Donald Trump.
20
As an early member of MoveOn (created to defend Bill Clinton during the impeachment), I am saddened by the blind faith of Hill's supporters.
You should look into the reality behind the foundation.
Check Lanny Davis dealing in Honduras as indigenous rights leaders are murdered. (Bill also took Carlos Slim's son there for business.)
Check Frank Giustra's dealings in Columbia as union leaders are liquidated.
Both during Hill's tenure at the State Department.
The foundation's seed money came from a Kazakhstan mining deal (this country had received the lowest Freedom House rating at that time).
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/24/hillary-clinton-emails-and-...
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-07/the-billionaire-wh...
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/08/exclusive_hillary_clinton_sold_out_hondu...
You should look into the reality behind the foundation.
Check Lanny Davis dealing in Honduras as indigenous rights leaders are murdered. (Bill also took Carlos Slim's son there for business.)
Check Frank Giustra's dealings in Columbia as union leaders are liquidated.
Both during Hill's tenure at the State Department.
The foundation's seed money came from a Kazakhstan mining deal (this country had received the lowest Freedom House rating at that time).
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/09/24/hillary-clinton-emails-and-...
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-07/the-billionaire-wh...
http://www.salon.com/2015/06/08/exclusive_hillary_clinton_sold_out_hondu...
6
These days, with ordinary citizens being forced to raise money on Kickstarter to cover everytging from medical bills to art projects, most of us know that you will raise more money if you have friends with money. If your Facebook friends are basically well-off, it's no biggie to them to toss a hundred bucks away in exchange for a poster. Your less-well-off friends will hesitate as they dig into their wallets for an extra five bucks, but if they like you and support your cause, they try to give something. And who knows, they will probably have to turn around and do a Kickstarter some day, and would be grateful for your support in return.
Elevate this all to the international stage and you'll get an idea of how global fundraising works. Trump gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and as he claims, Ms. Clinton attended his daughter's wedding in return. They are now bitter political foes. Getting money from an acquaintance for your charitable cause is no guarantee of any future favoritism or friendship.
Elevate this all to the international stage and you'll get an idea of how global fundraising works. Trump gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and as he claims, Ms. Clinton attended his daughter's wedding in return. They are now bitter political foes. Getting money from an acquaintance for your charitable cause is no guarantee of any future favoritism or friendship.
8
Really?
During Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the president the Republican Party praises as an example of leadership and honesty; he secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran to obtain the release of several U.S. hostages. While President Ronald Reagan remained as a hero, Regan’s facilitator, Lieutenant General Oliver North’s life was destroyed.
In my opinion, The Clinton Foundation dealings with foreign dignitaries were “insignificant” in comparison to the Iran Contra Scandal. Now, the Republicans want to make a mountain out of a molehill. Just a reminder.
In my opinion, The Clinton Foundation dealings with foreign dignitaries were “insignificant” in comparison to the Iran Contra Scandal. Now, the Republicans want to make a mountain out of a molehill. Just a reminder.
14
What has happened to the concept of objective fact? In almost every story I see on this subject, everything is "perception" or "optics" or "smoke" that provides the basis for the "scandal." Isn't journalism about finding the relevant facts in a story and providing perspective to help interpret those facts? When did journalism become the "smoke machine"? The facts, if there at all are usually buried, as in, "There is (so far) no smoking gun email, no explicit evidence of pay-to-play or coordination between the State Department and the foundation. That could change of course:" Why does the fact that some people want to create a scandal from nothing not take precedence? Why is the story not, "Major news organization uses deceptive headline to create false impression disproved by their own reporting"?
13
I wish America would stop being naive. Politicians are so because they crave power, not because they altruistically wish to help their country. If that was their goal then they would have served, and few politicians have served in the military.
We should expect them to use, even abuse their power. We have to watch them, because some, like Weiner, will hurt people but others not so much. Who has Hillary hurt (cue the "Killary" crowd)?
Stop expecting politicians to be Gandhi. They are people who want power.
We should expect them to use, even abuse their power. We have to watch them, because some, like Weiner, will hurt people but others not so much. Who has Hillary hurt (cue the "Killary" crowd)?
Stop expecting politicians to be Gandhi. They are people who want power.
3
I'm sorry, maybe I missed the paragraph about Chelsea Clinton and her position with the Foundatiin. Does anyone know how much the Foundation pays her? I'm thinking close to a million.
5
Uh, nothing.
3
Very easy to find the answer (if you want to):
Do the Clintons receive any income or personal expense reimbursement from the Foundation?
No. President Clinton and Chelsea Clinton, who serve on the Board of Directors, do not take a salary from the Clinton Foundation and receive no funding from it. Secretary Clinton did not take a salary when she served on the Board of Directors.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/frequently-asked-questions
Do the Clintons receive any income or personal expense reimbursement from the Foundation?
No. President Clinton and Chelsea Clinton, who serve on the Board of Directors, do not take a salary from the Clinton Foundation and receive no funding from it. Secretary Clinton did not take a salary when she served on the Board of Directors.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/frequently-asked-questions
3
I have been unable to trace where the allegation that the Crown Prince of Bahrain gave $32 million to the Clinton Foundation originally came from. He is not mentioned at all in the original AP report linked from the article.
According to the Clinton Foundation's website, (1) the foundation started a program to raise money *for* the Crown Prince of Bharain's International Scholarship Foundation, which he founded in 1999. (2) According to the Clinton Foundation, the original fundraising target was $32 million, which was "significantly exceeded" as of April 2010.
The allegation that the Crown Prince donated $32 million *to* the Clinton Foundation I've seen on many right-wing sites, but it appears that in fact the Clinton Foundation raised $32 million *for* the Crown Prince's charity. I've seen this reversal of reality on many right-wing news sites, but I was a bit shocked to see it repeated unchallenged by the New York Times.
The author asks "Where, then, is the smoke coming from?" My answer would be: bad reporting.
1. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/commitments/...
2. http://www.cpisp.bh/
According to the Clinton Foundation's website, (1) the foundation started a program to raise money *for* the Crown Prince of Bharain's International Scholarship Foundation, which he founded in 1999. (2) According to the Clinton Foundation, the original fundraising target was $32 million, which was "significantly exceeded" as of April 2010.
The allegation that the Crown Prince donated $32 million *to* the Clinton Foundation I've seen on many right-wing sites, but it appears that in fact the Clinton Foundation raised $32 million *for* the Crown Prince's charity. I've seen this reversal of reality on many right-wing news sites, but I was a bit shocked to see it repeated unchallenged by the New York Times.
The author asks "Where, then, is the smoke coming from?" My answer would be: bad reporting.
1. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/clinton-global-initiative/commitments/...
2. http://www.cpisp.bh/
1
The right wing has gotten exactly what they want. They create scandals (especially when the Clintons are involved) and then the news media report on them (over and over and over again) and the supposed scandals start to sound real and become "real" for those whose interest is to believe them. The most distressing part of all is the way in which the media is complicit. They would rather repeat what others have said than to do their own investigations. If there's the whiff of fire, the media are fanning the flames.
4
You pay a Clinton, you get access. What else is new?
5
A scandal is only a scandal when the majority of the media elites decide that it is. In effect, this means that it is a scandal when it is a wrong-thinking person caught up in it. Clinton email reveals will not qualify. A right wing politician, or sympathizer getting a traffic ticker, very well might qualify.
This is why accusations of propaganda and bias are valid, no matter how many publications of the same media elites tell us otherwise.
This is why accusations of propaganda and bias are valid, no matter how many publications of the same media elites tell us otherwise.
There is no fire and there is no smoke - it is yet another totally manufactured right wing attach on the Clintons. So what if Saudi Arabia has a poor human rights record? If I were in charge I would say to countries - "before we agree to talk to you, you need to show that you are not as bad as we think you are - you can do that by making a sizeable donation to help people in need - once you do that, I'll pick up the phone." It is NOT a quid pro quo like everyone suggests because the Clintons do not benefit, even indirectly, from donations made to the foundation. Indeed, they themselves make regular donations. For there to be corruption there must be a direct qui pro quo. If ex-governor McDonald's direct acceptance of large gifts did not amount to criminal qui pro quo, then donations to an independent foundation with open books most certainly does not. The fact that even the news media refuses to see this simple legal fact shows the prejudice the Clinton's face.
3
Those wringing their hands over this do not worry as much as about the money pouring into political action committees or into lobbyist coffers. That is where the real pay to play action takes place. Those in that world must be laughing at the accusation that there is a "donate to a charity" to play component. While we are at it we should really be looking at the "loan me money" to play that corruption that Trump brings to the table. How many favors will he grant to make his debts (which are huge) go away?
4
Congressmen show favored access to their big donors...the Apoplectic Right's ability to compartmentalize and be devoid of any introspection, when it comes to the next POTUS, is truly incredible.
3
The Clintons are presumed guilty because questions have been raised. It's been going on since Whitewater. Their opponents raise the questions; the media cooperates by broadcasting those questions; nothing sinister is revealed; and it's on to the next "scandal". But questions have been raised yet again.
Consider the press's treatment of the foundation started by Colin Powell, which continued to operate while he was Secretary of State. As pointed out by Matthew Yglesias, the Powell foundation wasn't a story at all, because Powell was presumed innocent.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/8/30/12690444/alma-powell-cl...
Consider the press's treatment of the foundation started by Colin Powell, which continued to operate while he was Secretary of State. As pointed out by Matthew Yglesias, the Powell foundation wasn't a story at all, because Powell was presumed innocent.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/8/30/12690444/alma-powell-cl...
12
Broke when they left the Whitehouse, 110 million now? Pixie dust millions? At least Trump built something.
I feel that that the Clintons need to turn over the reins of this four star foundation CGI, which Charity Navigator and other charity watch groups give top gold ratings, to the VERY capable Melinda Gates.
Melinda is the force and know how of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and would run CGI with the utmost care AND drive.
Madame President Clinton and FDOTUS (First Dude? Gentleman? of The United States) Bill Clinton should be putting 100% attention into leadership of the free world.
Allow Chelsea Clinton to remain on the Board--but we don’t need any more perceived conflict from this power couple. I have donated what I can to the CGI since 2001. Not exactly on the Crown Prince’s level but CGI has done so much for impoverished women and children in third world countries.
We have actually seen a significant drop in infant and mother mortality and morbidity rates, increase in clean water, small business start-ups that have brought millions our of abject poverty! World Poverty has dropped from 41% to the low 20s in my generation. Yes there have been MAJOR strides in the lives of our global families and neighbors.
But just cut clean for now--we need 100% attention to the problems here in the USA and we MUST repair our working relationship with our third biggest trade market-Mexico! Gee thanks Lil donny!
CGI will continue to provide much needed relief to the third world.
Melinda is the force and know how of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and would run CGI with the utmost care AND drive.
Madame President Clinton and FDOTUS (First Dude? Gentleman? of The United States) Bill Clinton should be putting 100% attention into leadership of the free world.
Allow Chelsea Clinton to remain on the Board--but we don’t need any more perceived conflict from this power couple. I have donated what I can to the CGI since 2001. Not exactly on the Crown Prince’s level but CGI has done so much for impoverished women and children in third world countries.
We have actually seen a significant drop in infant and mother mortality and morbidity rates, increase in clean water, small business start-ups that have brought millions our of abject poverty! World Poverty has dropped from 41% to the low 20s in my generation. Yes there have been MAJOR strides in the lives of our global families and neighbors.
But just cut clean for now--we need 100% attention to the problems here in the USA and we MUST repair our working relationship with our third biggest trade market-Mexico! Gee thanks Lil donny!
CGI will continue to provide much needed relief to the third world.
5
"The Clinton foundation announced that if Mrs. Clinton was elected, it would stop accepting money from foreign and corporate donors", how is it that when Hillary Clinton was appointed as Secretary of State it didn't warrant the same action?
6
If you bothered to do your homework you would find out that there were separations at those times.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/08/23/1562841/-What-the-media-doesn-t...
"It is true that Saudi Arabia gave $10 million to the Foundation largely to help fund the Clinton Library (they also gave a similar amount to support the George W. Bush Presidential Library) but that they stopped giving anything while Clinton was Secretary of State. The Clinton Foundation lists its donors, which actually goes above and beyond legal requirements because charities don’t have to do that, but it doesn’t specify exactly when they gave in most cases, so many of the claims that they accepted foreign donations between 2008-2012 are not very well confirmed as noted by PolitiFact.
"Working backward from the numbers we have in hand, it seems fairly certain that Saudi Arabia gave about $10 million in the early 2000s, well before Clinton became secretary. That number would grow in 2014, but it didn’t double. That would be a 100 percent increase, and the foundation said the 2014 amount was a small fraction of the total."
"As a legal matter, Clinton was not a member of the foundation’s board until 2013, after she left the administration."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/08/23/1562841/-What-the-media-doesn-t...
"It is true that Saudi Arabia gave $10 million to the Foundation largely to help fund the Clinton Library (they also gave a similar amount to support the George W. Bush Presidential Library) but that they stopped giving anything while Clinton was Secretary of State. The Clinton Foundation lists its donors, which actually goes above and beyond legal requirements because charities don’t have to do that, but it doesn’t specify exactly when they gave in most cases, so many of the claims that they accepted foreign donations between 2008-2012 are not very well confirmed as noted by PolitiFact.
"Working backward from the numbers we have in hand, it seems fairly certain that Saudi Arabia gave about $10 million in the early 2000s, well before Clinton became secretary. That number would grow in 2014, but it didn’t double. That would be a 100 percent increase, and the foundation said the 2014 amount was a small fraction of the total."
"As a legal matter, Clinton was not a member of the foundation’s board until 2013, after she left the administration."
3
Apparently, a scandal is only a scandal if you are a Republican. According to the NYT, anything done by a Republican was done with malice aforethought, but if one is a Democrat, it was merely an error in judgement. These judgements are completely independent of whatever the evidence may be.
4
No matter which way you look at it's special interest money. No different than lobbying, except for the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation.
1
The real scandal is we have absolutely no clue how much the Trump organization has given to charitable causes because Trump refuses to release his tax returns? But we are shocked, shocked… that a Crown Prince of Bahrain, who had donated to the Clinton Foundation, wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State! It so happens that the United States has two major military facilities in the Kingdom of Bahrain; so pray tell who stands to benefit from this alleged, “pay for play?”
On January 17 2013, the Wall Street Journal reported, “An eye-popping 69% of Americans approve of the job she has done as the country’s top diplomat, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, with a scant 25% disapproving of her performance.”
Even Donald Trump is on record, saying on camera: “And how did she do as secretary of state? Probably above and beyond everybody else and everything else.”
So let’s get some perspective here on a scandal that is being manufactured during a presidential election cycle by a post-facto reading too much into emails that were seemingly innocuous at the time they were written.
The real scandal is that recent Republican ex-presidents have retired into a lap of luxury, whereas Democratic ex-presidents continue to do good by serving the poor and less fortunate, which we seem to relish and tear apart. It’s a shame!
On January 17 2013, the Wall Street Journal reported, “An eye-popping 69% of Americans approve of the job she has done as the country’s top diplomat, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, with a scant 25% disapproving of her performance.”
Even Donald Trump is on record, saying on camera: “And how did she do as secretary of state? Probably above and beyond everybody else and everything else.”
So let’s get some perspective here on a scandal that is being manufactured during a presidential election cycle by a post-facto reading too much into emails that were seemingly innocuous at the time they were written.
The real scandal is that recent Republican ex-presidents have retired into a lap of luxury, whereas Democratic ex-presidents continue to do good by serving the poor and less fortunate, which we seem to relish and tear apart. It’s a shame!
3
I wonder if the press has only the Clinton Foundation in its focus. I did not read much about Trumps business dealings, the open fraud committed, the more than 3,500 lawsuits of people that had the money to sue the guy and the many more that did not have the money and which he send towards bankruptcy? How will the Trump business operate? Will he concert the White House in a tacky Sadam Style gold-plated residence? What the press does not want to report about the Clinton foundation is that it is a charity and the Clinton's do not personally benefit. The crazy suggestions that the CF need to shut down and stop helping poor people around the world is not only frivolous but out of order.
2
On behalf of the vast left-wing conspiracy, the only reason in the world for the Clinton foundation and the US State department to share staff and contacts is corruption. Apparently the Clintons agree since they want to supposedly eliminate that in a Hillary presidency. Sometimes the perception of corruption is actual corruption.
4
A scandal is a scandal when it really is a scandal. It is not a scandal just because the opposing political party calls it a scandal. Of course it takes a little common sense to know this.
3
Mrs. Clinton has been around the world a few times in her career.
This is the odious Mr. Trump's first rodeo.
Those American's who wish to rely on a inexperienced braggart, naif, man without principles whose primary role model is himself should definitely vote for Mr. Trump.
This is the odious Mr. Trump's first rodeo.
Those American's who wish to rely on a inexperienced braggart, naif, man without principles whose primary role model is himself should definitely vote for Mr. Trump.
2
If it is Hillary involved it is really a scandal.
1
You are all kidding yourselves if you believe that the Clinton's don't benefits financially via the CFI. How much of that $2B has actually been spent helping those in need? Check out Jim Stewart's BloodSport, get your heads out of the sand.
3
Do the Clintons receive any income or personal expense reimbursement from the Foundation?
No. President Clinton and Chelsea Clinton, who serve on the Board of Directors, do not take a salary from the Clinton Foundation and receive no funding from it. Secretary Clinton did not take a salary when she served on the Board of Directors.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/frequently-asked-questionshttps:...
No. President Clinton and Chelsea Clinton, who serve on the Board of Directors, do not take a salary from the Clinton Foundation and receive no funding from it. Secretary Clinton did not take a salary when she served on the Board of Directors.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/frequently-asked-questionshttps:...
3
This is crazy!
So Mitch McConnell and the rest of congress who spend HOURS each day in raising campaign funds for their OWN war chests AND lunching with K ST lobbyists don’t ever use “Pay for Play?”
Complete hypocrites. The Koch Brothers supplying millions to congressional AND state office races don’t expect anything in return?
What about ultra-conservative, anti-establishment, aggressively anti-Clinton hedge-fund billionaire Robert Mercer, and his daughter Rebekah! The Mercers, who initially put $13.5 million into a PAC that supported Ted Cruz’s presidential bid, swung their support behind Trump after the Texas senator dropped out.
According to Bloomberg, Rebekah met with Ivanka Trump (the campaign’s de facto First Lady ) and her husband, Jared Kusher earlier this year to win over her family’s support.
The Mercers have been supplying Breitbart “News” Steve Bannon with millions of dollars to publish horrendous books such as “Clinton Cash” and now “Bush’s Bucks”--full of innuendos and flat out lies without legitimate sources.
Headlines such as “There’s No Hiring Bias against Women in Tech. They just suck at interviews.”
“World Health Organization Report: Trannies 49X Greater HIV Rate” (Sympathy also for Curt Schilling for open obscenities against transgender got him kicked out of ESPN.)
The Clinton Foundation actually HELPS the impoverished around the world--Bannon and the Mercers just foment HATE!
So Mitch McConnell and the rest of congress who spend HOURS each day in raising campaign funds for their OWN war chests AND lunching with K ST lobbyists don’t ever use “Pay for Play?”
Complete hypocrites. The Koch Brothers supplying millions to congressional AND state office races don’t expect anything in return?
What about ultra-conservative, anti-establishment, aggressively anti-Clinton hedge-fund billionaire Robert Mercer, and his daughter Rebekah! The Mercers, who initially put $13.5 million into a PAC that supported Ted Cruz’s presidential bid, swung their support behind Trump after the Texas senator dropped out.
According to Bloomberg, Rebekah met with Ivanka Trump (the campaign’s de facto First Lady ) and her husband, Jared Kusher earlier this year to win over her family’s support.
The Mercers have been supplying Breitbart “News” Steve Bannon with millions of dollars to publish horrendous books such as “Clinton Cash” and now “Bush’s Bucks”--full of innuendos and flat out lies without legitimate sources.
Headlines such as “There’s No Hiring Bias against Women in Tech. They just suck at interviews.”
“World Health Organization Report: Trannies 49X Greater HIV Rate” (Sympathy also for Curt Schilling for open obscenities against transgender got him kicked out of ESPN.)
The Clinton Foundation actually HELPS the impoverished around the world--Bannon and the Mercers just foment HATE!
3
When is a scandal really a scandal? Not here. You write: "To belabor the metaphor: Where, then, is the smoke coming from? A smoke machine?" Not to belabor the obvious, but it doesn't take much of a journalist to uncover the existence of the longest-lasting, most expensive smoke machine in the history of politics. That's what you _should_ be writing about instead of engaging in the NYT's passion for False Equivalence, tarring the candidate with wild accusations and distant removes.
2
"They are tone deaf". They aren't tone deaf they just make 28 million dollars a year and can't hear you. The details in this article weren't needed. You could have summed up your point in the five words: "That's just how politics work". Perhaps that is how they work for you but don't stymie Americans truly interested in transparency from their politicians.
3
Answer: When the NYT Editorial Board decides it has a good chance of trashing its opponent, while at the same time protecting its sacred cows, e.g., where are the stories about Bernie's cohorts still angry about the DNC trashing their candidate to favor the NYT-DNC favorite, the nasty details that happened along the way, the hand-written ledger Clinton Foundation entries while Secretary of State, and so forth?
A couple of good feature writers on the NYT staff could come up with a hundred Hillary scandal sheets--so much there to mine.
Nothing's changed in ten thousand years of human history. On with the current media sideshow. Obviously biased, or otherwise--the corruption goes on--to include the media.
A couple of good feature writers on the NYT staff could come up with a hundred Hillary scandal sheets--so much there to mine.
Nothing's changed in ten thousand years of human history. On with the current media sideshow. Obviously biased, or otherwise--the corruption goes on--to include the media.
4
I'm not sure who Emma Roller is and I can't figure out what her point of view is. I assume she wants to have a successful career and writes political commentary to that end. So, what I think she is saying that the so called "scandal" regarding Hillary Clinton is dependent on your past understanding, though Ms. Clinton has been an object of scrutiny by many observers not all of them objective.
So, if she is the target of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" that has sown distrust for decades, then if you distrust her, there is scandal. Yet if you understand that she is a victim of this conspiracy then there is no scandal. Uh, so what did we learn from this opinion piece? Nada! So why is the NYTimes publishing it?
You see, finding out what is really going on, would require something more factual or don't bother publishing it. Here are the questions:
1. Is there truth to the claim that the Clinton Foundation does exceptional good work, without siphoning off funds to managers? and thus gets an A+ Rating?
2. While at the State Department was there any evidence of corruption ie Quid pro Quo, that would allow some foreign leader to get something from State that would not otherwise be possible?
3. Did Clinton get rich by being part of the Foundation?
4. Is there evidence of a Republican conspiracy to besmirch Ms. Clinton's reputation?
Can't someone in the press answer these questions straight?
So, if she is the target of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" that has sown distrust for decades, then if you distrust her, there is scandal. Yet if you understand that she is a victim of this conspiracy then there is no scandal. Uh, so what did we learn from this opinion piece? Nada! So why is the NYTimes publishing it?
You see, finding out what is really going on, would require something more factual or don't bother publishing it. Here are the questions:
1. Is there truth to the claim that the Clinton Foundation does exceptional good work, without siphoning off funds to managers? and thus gets an A+ Rating?
2. While at the State Department was there any evidence of corruption ie Quid pro Quo, that would allow some foreign leader to get something from State that would not otherwise be possible?
3. Did Clinton get rich by being part of the Foundation?
4. Is there evidence of a Republican conspiracy to besmirch Ms. Clinton's reputation?
Can't someone in the press answer these questions straight?
2
Of course the donation were bribes. What else could they be?
Saudi Arabia "donated" $10-25M to the Clinton Foundation. Do you really think the Saudis give a hoot about the Foundation's stated mission "to improve the lives of people around the world"? Obviousness not. Their donations were intended to buy influence with a Secretary who very obviously had plans to be President. They succeeded.
In total, the Clinton Foundation hauled in over $40 million from the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Brunei, and Oman - the very nations that Crooked Hillary blasts for allowing human rights abuses, particularly against women and homosexuals.
So of course these donations were bribes. Doesn't take a genius to figure it out. But it does take blinders to ignore it.
Saudi Arabia "donated" $10-25M to the Clinton Foundation. Do you really think the Saudis give a hoot about the Foundation's stated mission "to improve the lives of people around the world"? Obviousness not. Their donations were intended to buy influence with a Secretary who very obviously had plans to be President. They succeeded.
In total, the Clinton Foundation hauled in over $40 million from the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Brunei, and Oman - the very nations that Crooked Hillary blasts for allowing human rights abuses, particularly against women and homosexuals.
So of course these donations were bribes. Doesn't take a genius to figure it out. But it does take blinders to ignore it.
6
Ok, so the effect of donating lots of money to the CF is to "get blasted" for your human rights violations? Yeah, THAT sounds like a successfu "bribe."
3
Saudi Arabia and Qatar have "abysmal human rights records toward women and gay citizens " not because they donate to Clinton foundation. The cause is Islam and it's belief system, and also we have ignored the issue for decades for geopolitical reasons and oil, long before the foundation was set up.
Perception of impropriety is not a good thing only if the reason for it is reasonable.
Perception of impropriety is not a good thing only if the reason for it is reasonable.
1
Watergate will remain as the most significant political scandal of the last half century, simply because it had the most dramatic impact on our culture. An entire generation became disenchanted with the realities of political corruption. That generation has distrusted politicians for the whole of their adult lives.
Yet, Richard Nixon's corruption seems child's play in comparison to Mrs. Clinton. Nixon was a dislikeable jerk, personally. He had ugly opinions and distrusted most people. In the end, he was taken down for illegally using his office to cover up a botched breaking and entering case. he had no friends to save him.
Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, has now been caught, multiple time, lying and or fabricating stories and untruths to cover for everything from simple failures in leadership to systematically selling influence to the highest bidders. Remember Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D)? He went to jail for suggesting a number that would buy Barrack Obama's empty Senate seat.
Yet, due to the popularity of the Clinton "brand", chances are she'll get a way with it. Smiles, well-choreographed fake laughs, and some partisan commentary on MSNBC or from the floor of the Senate and the whole thing will go away, being successfully labeled a "non-scandal."
I hate Donald Trump, but right now "Crooked Hillary" seems more correct than hyperbole name-calling.
Yet, Richard Nixon's corruption seems child's play in comparison to Mrs. Clinton. Nixon was a dislikeable jerk, personally. He had ugly opinions and distrusted most people. In the end, he was taken down for illegally using his office to cover up a botched breaking and entering case. he had no friends to save him.
Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, has now been caught, multiple time, lying and or fabricating stories and untruths to cover for everything from simple failures in leadership to systematically selling influence to the highest bidders. Remember Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D)? He went to jail for suggesting a number that would buy Barrack Obama's empty Senate seat.
Yet, due to the popularity of the Clinton "brand", chances are she'll get a way with it. Smiles, well-choreographed fake laughs, and some partisan commentary on MSNBC or from the floor of the Senate and the whole thing will go away, being successfully labeled a "non-scandal."
I hate Donald Trump, but right now "Crooked Hillary" seems more correct than hyperbole name-calling.
6
"Yet, Richard Nixon's corruption seems child's play in comparison to Mrs. Clinton"
And what about Iran/Contra, the erasure of millions of emails by GW Bush and friends from the public record, the manufactured WMD lies...yet more childs play?
And what about Iran/Contra, the erasure of millions of emails by GW Bush and friends from the public record, the manufactured WMD lies...yet more childs play?
4
This "new scandal" is a big nothing. Media has to have headlines, and the really important investigative reporting (a la Woodward/Bernstein) doesn't seem to exist much any more -- excepting the Spotlight team at the Boston Globe. While I blame the corporation aspect of media that is focused on the bottom line and our increasing obsession with immediacy for much of the problem, the media could do much better if it used a little restraint and got all the facts to flesh out a story before the headlines that reflect only smoke instead of actual flames.
4
The final paragraph offers a sharp dichotomy about how this information will be perceived by people of different political lenses, but I don't think it's accurate. I want to believe in Hillary so badly - I am terrified of a world where Donald Trump is the president. But the Clintons should understand politics and perception better than anyone else in the world - so why can't they predict and pre-empt these controversies? And, if it's a Republican conspiracy - why do the Obamas not suffer from this - there has been zero hint of any scandal with this presidency. I will vote for Hillary, but I hope she will wise up.
3
Well, there you have it.
The standard resounding defense of the Clintons. "There is no evidence." We can't see for the smoke, but we won't believe there is a fire until our pants flame up.
Hillary is pretty certain she destroyed all the evidence. Except for maybe the copies that the Russians, Chinese, Israelis, Germans, Iranians, Wikileaks, etc. still have.
When the evidence comes out, and it will, we will then hear that this is old news.
The standard resounding defense of the Clintons. "There is no evidence." We can't see for the smoke, but we won't believe there is a fire until our pants flame up.
Hillary is pretty certain she destroyed all the evidence. Except for maybe the copies that the Russians, Chinese, Israelis, Germans, Iranians, Wikileaks, etc. still have.
When the evidence comes out, and it will, we will then hear that this is old news.
5
There is nothing here. The Clinton Foundation, according to reliable sources as you report, use their resources wisely and efficiently to do good. All the rest is "smoke and mirrors" courtesy the big right-wing conspiracy apparatus. Please get of the Clinton bashing train and take a look at the various Trump potential scandals (taxes, Russians, etc) and stop this farce.
Hillary will win and she will be a great president in spite all this smoke - so there.
Hillary will win and she will be a great president in spite all this smoke - so there.
9
So for a Liberal to get elected in the U.S. , there have to be cutbacks for poor communities in foreign countries?
6
Private meetings with donors? If I were giving $32M I'd want to know something about the foundation operation and programs. I'd want to meet with the foundation president. $32M for helping refugees, providing clean water, medical services and development programs, etc.. Who cares where the money comes from as long as there was no quid pro quo? Lives were saved and communities became more resilient.
5
There is absolutely no place in this world where stature and/or money don't open doors that are closed to the rest of us.
I don't talk to my boss's boss, and certainly not to the CEO of the company where I work - I can't even send an email! I don't get to go backstage at concerts and meet the big name performers either. I don't belong to the board, so I have very little influence on my public library either.
Where's the beef?
I don't talk to my boss's boss, and certainly not to the CEO of the company where I work - I can't even send an email! I don't get to go backstage at concerts and meet the big name performers either. I don't belong to the board, so I have very little influence on my public library either.
Where's the beef?
3
I applaud the former and future presidents Clinton for the good work of the Clinton foundation and plead with them to disregard the chatter from the Trump camp and keep raising funds for charity. Mt trump clearly does not understand the need for similar initiative having never took an step to help anyone other then himself. It is sign of the bad times when a casino operator is criticizing those who raise money to treat poor children with AIDS.
7
Dear members of the press,
The public databases are readily available, so please do a little research and then publish the following 4 columns of information:
Column 1: Name of politician/Cabinet member in office from Jan 2009 - Jan 2013
Column 2: Name of private contributor/donor and amount given and date given
Column 3: Date(s) of meeting(s) between politician and donor
Column 4: Legislation or government action sponsored by politician for benefit of donor
What will we see? All 435 members of the House and 100 Senators will be listed in column 1 and will have multiple donors listed in columns 2 and 3. Many of them will have sponsored legislation in column 4.
Hillary Clinton will be listed in column 1 as a Cabinet member from 2009-2013. Column 3 will list 85 private contributors to the Clinton Foundation who Hillary Clinton met with while Secretary of State. I have yet to find a report of how many will be listed in Column 2 as having contributed while Clinton was Secretary of State, prior to when they could have known she would become Secretary of State. And Column 4 will be blank - no evidence has been reported of a quid pro quo by Clinton
The public databases are readily available, so please do a little research and then publish the following 4 columns of information:
Column 1: Name of politician/Cabinet member in office from Jan 2009 - Jan 2013
Column 2: Name of private contributor/donor and amount given and date given
Column 3: Date(s) of meeting(s) between politician and donor
Column 4: Legislation or government action sponsored by politician for benefit of donor
What will we see? All 435 members of the House and 100 Senators will be listed in column 1 and will have multiple donors listed in columns 2 and 3. Many of them will have sponsored legislation in column 4.
Hillary Clinton will be listed in column 1 as a Cabinet member from 2009-2013. Column 3 will list 85 private contributors to the Clinton Foundation who Hillary Clinton met with while Secretary of State. I have yet to find a report of how many will be listed in Column 2 as having contributed while Clinton was Secretary of State, prior to when they could have known she would become Secretary of State. And Column 4 will be blank - no evidence has been reported of a quid pro quo by Clinton
6
It is hilarious to me that the most popular post for this article is one suggesting that, now, someone go back and look at the Bush Foundation records. Presumably, this is because someone believes it is unfair to criticize Mrs. Clinton for blatant influence peddling.
The Democrats are counting on such subterfuge to deflect attention away from the issue at hand, which is, influence peddling by the CURRENT candidate. They encourage their supporters to ignore Mrs. Clinton's documented history of deflection, evasion, half-truths, and barely-legal behavior - and focus on "the other guy".
Well, guess what. Our author put her finger on the real issue, which is, the elitists are currently fighting for their lives. They have been thrown out by the Republicans - thus Trump - but the Democrats have been successful in crushing anyone who threatens their entrenched elite.
That's the real scandal. Mrs. Clinton wears their banner of disdain-for-the-common-person with pride. She rails against the vast right wing conspiracy, yet simultaneously denying that a vast left wing conspiracy could be anything more than a myth. I guess she means the same right wing conspiracy that was proven correct about her husbands trysts with White House interns.
That she hasn't been pilloried by the press amazes me; I remember Watergate. It's astounding that the press has been cowered by the Clinton machine, again. Or is it because so many media companies, have also contributed to the Clinton Foundation...
The Democrats are counting on such subterfuge to deflect attention away from the issue at hand, which is, influence peddling by the CURRENT candidate. They encourage their supporters to ignore Mrs. Clinton's documented history of deflection, evasion, half-truths, and barely-legal behavior - and focus on "the other guy".
Well, guess what. Our author put her finger on the real issue, which is, the elitists are currently fighting for their lives. They have been thrown out by the Republicans - thus Trump - but the Democrats have been successful in crushing anyone who threatens their entrenched elite.
That's the real scandal. Mrs. Clinton wears their banner of disdain-for-the-common-person with pride. She rails against the vast right wing conspiracy, yet simultaneously denying that a vast left wing conspiracy could be anything more than a myth. I guess she means the same right wing conspiracy that was proven correct about her husbands trysts with White House interns.
That she hasn't been pilloried by the press amazes me; I remember Watergate. It's astounding that the press has been cowered by the Clinton machine, again. Or is it because so many media companies, have also contributed to the Clinton Foundation...
3
Unfortunately, the majority of the American people need to grow up. The fact is, depending upon which industry one is involved within, everybody knows everybody else. Yes, some people give with the hope of receiving a favor, but merely meeting with someone, doesn't change his or her mind about the other nor does it mean what is received is actually a benefit. Sometimes, meeting with folks allows one to do a better job for the USA.
4
"If you can bring yourself to care about this semi-obscure (by Clinton standards) controversy..." The Clintons have standards?
2
"That’s a hard sell for many voters. (To belabor the metaphor: Where, then, is the smoke coming from? A smoke machine?)"
Yes, a smoke machine called the Republican party.
Yes, a smoke machine called the Republican party.
7
The Clintons are both liars, by trade, deceptive by nature and self-serving servants of oligarchs. They protect the 1% and pretend to care about everybody else. They have no real respect for women or people of color or the working class around the globe. They are willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent women and children if it means more profits for large donors to their foundation or for the special interests they have aligned themselves with to secure political power.
3
The Clinton Foundation'w work benefits millions of people. Winding it down will not shut down the rumor-mongers and conspiracy junkies in Washington. If it is shut down the money will go away and be spent on summer palaces and super yachts instead of the charity work done by the Clinton Foudation. The best thing is to boldly say there is nothing questionable there and wait for the news media to get bored and start yammering about something else.
6
I understand that perception is a double edged sword in the public’s mind. Except that in the case of the Clinton Foundation there is a tremendous amount of collateral damage by “putting it into mothballs”. There are millions of recipients of aid that are impacted.
This is not like shutting down a Super PAC that colors outside the lines. Yes, there is a perception of possible impropriety. I’m shocked, shocked to hear it.
The solution to a headache is not to chop off your head.
This is not like shutting down a Super PAC that colors outside the lines. Yes, there is a perception of possible impropriety. I’m shocked, shocked to hear it.
The solution to a headache is not to chop off your head.
5
My favorite comment from the Clinton sympathizers: "everyone at that level does it". Really? That's the best you have got? The Bush family is/was corrupt, Donald Trump is a terrible person by any metric, but why does any of that excuse the grotesque way in which the Clinton's operate. By all means, vote for them (her) but do so honestly. Admit to yourselves that your candidate is not someone you'd want in your own family, that she is out for herself and her family and that's about it.
6
The prince might well have arranged his meeting without the donation. But it is always well to avoid unfortunate appearances and Mrs. Clinton should immediately separate herself from any involvement in foundation business. In fact, given her aspirations, she should have done so long ago. Maintaining the tie risks the perception that one can "pay to play." And of course now it's more than a risk: It's way the way people think of her -- if not outright dishonest then clumsy in avoiding the appearance. When she wins in November, it will have to do less with her real virtues than the monstrous alternative.
5
Several commenters attempt to equate Hillary's situation with the common practice of donors giving money to political campaigns. But there are very significant differences between the two.
For one, ELECTED officials have to raise money to fund campaigns. It is expected that they will hold fundraisers and meet with donors. On the other hand, UNELECTED officials are prohibited from accepting donations and are required to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
Further, because ELECTED officials are expected to raise money for their campaigns, their fundraising activity is also regulated by campaign finance laws, as well as unwritten rules regarding what is proper and what crosses the line. Commenters here might think that politicians flaunt those laws and rules, but I suspect many were more than happy to watch Tom Delay, Bob McDonnell, and others exiled from politics for engaging in activity that crossed or came close to crossing the line of acceptable activity. For UNLECTED officials, of course, there are no similar rules because UNELECTED officials do not have to fundraise, and are prohibited from doing so.
Again, the comparisons between what Clinton did as SOS and elected officials' fundraising activities is a false equivalence and really ought to highlight the impropriety of what Clinton did if one is willing to view the situation impartially.
For one, ELECTED officials have to raise money to fund campaigns. It is expected that they will hold fundraisers and meet with donors. On the other hand, UNELECTED officials are prohibited from accepting donations and are required to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
Further, because ELECTED officials are expected to raise money for their campaigns, their fundraising activity is also regulated by campaign finance laws, as well as unwritten rules regarding what is proper and what crosses the line. Commenters here might think that politicians flaunt those laws and rules, but I suspect many were more than happy to watch Tom Delay, Bob McDonnell, and others exiled from politics for engaging in activity that crossed or came close to crossing the line of acceptable activity. For UNLECTED officials, of course, there are no similar rules because UNELECTED officials do not have to fundraise, and are prohibited from doing so.
Again, the comparisons between what Clinton did as SOS and elected officials' fundraising activities is a false equivalence and really ought to highlight the impropriety of what Clinton did if one is willing to view the situation impartially.
5
I'm not crazy about the proliferation of private foundations aimed at doing good overseas. While they can target specific health and humanitarian problems that need attention, they amount to intervention in foreign affairs by private interests that are not subject to the democratic processes of government, and could foster personal agendas at odds with U.S. foreign policy.
Still, given that foundations exist, for better or worse, the question arises as to what benefit a family like the Clintons derives from creating one. Their motives in setting it up may include, besides wanting to use their fame and influence for good causes, and to enhance the family's image, a wish to direct attention to pet projects. Several Clintons sit on the board of directors and probably have an important say in where the foundation's activities are directed. Besides the simple satisfaction of doing good, they gain from being recognized as humanitarians, but they do not directly control the foundation, nor do they derive financial benefit from it. Unless it can be demonstrated that Hilary Clinton makes money from the Clinton Foundation, I suggest that charges of corruption or influence peddling to contributors are simply a red herring. More to the point would be to investigate what those who pay her astronomical lecture fees - paid not to her foundation but directly to her - get in return for adding to her personal fortune.
Still, given that foundations exist, for better or worse, the question arises as to what benefit a family like the Clintons derives from creating one. Their motives in setting it up may include, besides wanting to use their fame and influence for good causes, and to enhance the family's image, a wish to direct attention to pet projects. Several Clintons sit on the board of directors and probably have an important say in where the foundation's activities are directed. Besides the simple satisfaction of doing good, they gain from being recognized as humanitarians, but they do not directly control the foundation, nor do they derive financial benefit from it. Unless it can be demonstrated that Hilary Clinton makes money from the Clinton Foundation, I suggest that charges of corruption or influence peddling to contributors are simply a red herring. More to the point would be to investigate what those who pay her astronomical lecture fees - paid not to her foundation but directly to her - get in return for adding to her personal fortune.
2
If Mrs. Clinton has nothing to hide, and is playing completely above board, why would she not want voters to know that? She could stop taking money, put what she has in a trust or other entity, and resume her foundation work later.
How many people have said, "I don't trust her or her husband"? Many voters won't vote for HRC because of that feeling they have about her. This is a very widely help perception.
Or perhaps she's very certain she'll be elected anyway.
How many people have said, "I don't trust her or her husband"? Many voters won't vote for HRC because of that feeling they have about her. This is a very widely help perception.
Or perhaps she's very certain she'll be elected anyway.
2
When is a non-scandal really a scandal? When news organizations use standards such as "the current story seems off" or innuendo such as "[t]here is (so far) no smoking gun email" to perpetuate a fake scandal ginned up by a candidate's political opponents.
12
Or when the "seriousness of the charges" outweighs the lack of evidence?
If it wasn't for double standards, Democrats would have no standards.
If it wasn't for double standards, Democrats would have no standards.
1
Doesn't anyone recognize the same strategy at play behind the Clinton Foundation stories as was used so effectively against John Kerry. Take the best example of your opponent's strong character and try to turn it into a negative trait through a series of speculative attacks. With John Kerry, he was swift-boated and had his patriotism and heroism tarnished by a well funded band of Republican agitators. Now the Republicans are trying to turn the Clinton Foundation into some sort of evil empire when it has done so much good in the world. Let's not fall for this swift-boat strategy again. It is up to all of us to applaud the Clintons for their work with the Clinton Foundation and not apologize for being founders of a great organization. Let's take back the narrative. Let's encourage the journalists to report on all of the great programs the Clinton Foundation supports and stop adding up trivial emails. Isn't the State Department supposed to work with international charities to ensure coordination of effort around the world?
13
This is actually a pretty good analogy. Because Kerry was "swift boated" by the men who served with him because they were appalled that the man who launched his political career by going before Congress and testifying (not entirely truthfully) about the supposed atrocities committed by his fellow servicemen, denigrated their service, and denounced their efforts ... then sought to tout his own service as an election credential.
So yes, it is a good analogy. But at least Hillary is smart enough not to actually tout the Foundation as a reason to vote for her. Better to try and ignore it and focus on her opponent instead because the last thing she wants is MORE scrutiny in that corrupt organization!
So yes, it is a good analogy. But at least Hillary is smart enough not to actually tout the Foundation as a reason to vote for her. Better to try and ignore it and focus on her opponent instead because the last thing she wants is MORE scrutiny in that corrupt organization!
3
This foundation is bold, and I admire their good works.
Ethical: Fascinating, gutsy and ingenious, because here it's about our leading political family taking-in donations openly for worthy causes.
Legality: apparently the pertaining complex law is gray, and arguing over interpretive words and clauses is for those with sharp minds whom enjoy
doing so.
Bottom line, your editorial is also convincing to me, who justifies the foundation.
Ethical: Fascinating, gutsy and ingenious, because here it's about our leading political family taking-in donations openly for worthy causes.
Legality: apparently the pertaining complex law is gray, and arguing over interpretive words and clauses is for those with sharp minds whom enjoy
doing so.
Bottom line, your editorial is also convincing to me, who justifies the foundation.
The fake scandals from the GOP will continue as they try to distract from the disaster of Trump, who is the most dangerous candidate in presidential history (I'm a journalist who writes about this). If you agree, please share this documented list of reasons to support Clinton, read by 13,016: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/open-letter-sanders-supporters-scott-s-sm...
6
A Hollywood journalist who doesn't like Trump. How surprising.
You consider Trump dangerous because you don't like the way he speaks, but Hillary has admitted to being reckless with national security. She definitely did not provide sufficient security in Benghazi, even though she had plenty of resources. But this is not dangerous?
Hillary can't even do a press conference. How can she run this country?
You consider Trump dangerous because you don't like the way he speaks, but Hillary has admitted to being reckless with national security. She definitely did not provide sufficient security in Benghazi, even though she had plenty of resources. But this is not dangerous?
Hillary can't even do a press conference. How can she run this country?
3
Thank you, utterly!
1
At the end of this column, you finally get to the truth - which I had previously found elsewhere, although not easily - Mrs. Clinton "had 1,700 meetings with world leaders during her time at the State Department - meaning that the 85 meetings she had with foundation donors make up 5 percent of her total meetings." This is hardly the revolving door of supplicants visiting Mrs. Clinton and receiving favors because of their donations to the the Clinton foundation. In fact, many of the 85 did not have a direct connection to the foundation. Their money was donated to other organizations that LATER supported the Clinton foundation.
Good Lord. Not only is there no fire here. There's not even any smoke!
Good Lord. Not only is there no fire here. There's not even any smoke!
22
I think if the Clintons were to cure cancer ... the apoplectic American Right would see something nefarious in it.
17
The most disturbing aspect of this article is that Ms. Roller never attempts to define what a conflict of interest is, let alone provide any evidence of such.
This is not only intellectually sloppy, it is a dereliction of a journalist's responsibility to avoid uncritically repeating slanders.
This is not only intellectually sloppy, it is a dereliction of a journalist's responsibility to avoid uncritically repeating slanders.
12
Gasp! Oh the horror of it all. There is gambling going on in Casablanca.
If ya can't find some dirt on the Clintons then just make some up. That is the history of theirs and the right wing media's dance these last few decades.
I can imagine some modern Rasputin back in 1990 warning the vast right wing conspiracy that "these Clintons are going to be a real problem in the future so we must stop them now." The obsession the right wing movers and shakers have about them is just mind blowing.
I seem to remember about 50 people from the Reagan administration were indicted on one charge or another. There is that little thing in 2003 about the illegal invasion and war in Iraq started by bush ii and cheney the lesser. And the war crimes trials We the People were so looking forward to.
But nooooo.....the focus is on a foundation that takes from the rich and gives to the poor. ALL OVER THE WORLD.
If the Clintons are as bad, as corrupt, as venal as they have been portrayed all these years without being indicted and convicted then they are the most successful criminals in the history of mankind.
If not then they might be the most feared liberals to the vast right wing conspiracy and We the People should take some delight in that.
If ya can't find some dirt on the Clintons then just make some up. That is the history of theirs and the right wing media's dance these last few decades.
I can imagine some modern Rasputin back in 1990 warning the vast right wing conspiracy that "these Clintons are going to be a real problem in the future so we must stop them now." The obsession the right wing movers and shakers have about them is just mind blowing.
I seem to remember about 50 people from the Reagan administration were indicted on one charge or another. There is that little thing in 2003 about the illegal invasion and war in Iraq started by bush ii and cheney the lesser. And the war crimes trials We the People were so looking forward to.
But nooooo.....the focus is on a foundation that takes from the rich and gives to the poor. ALL OVER THE WORLD.
If the Clintons are as bad, as corrupt, as venal as they have been portrayed all these years without being indicted and convicted then they are the most successful criminals in the history of mankind.
If not then they might be the most feared liberals to the vast right wing conspiracy and We the People should take some delight in that.
16
Wow, you must be one of those liberal critical thinkers. Louis Renault was corrupt as hell, as that scene from the movie shows. Your analogy shows that Hillary supporters know she's corrupt as hell and are fine with it, because it's Hillary. Hillary supporters, A-OK with corruption.
3
If the Clintons were to reveal that they exercize it wood be seen as evidence that they need rehabilitation.
9
Hillary Clinton is the first, and will be the only, Watergate-era reformer who will ever stand as a major party nominee for President. For those who believe that money shouldn't equal power (and vice versa), and secrecy shouldn't override transparency, there will never be another person forged in the crucible of our worst moment (aside from secession) who can actually take charge and take this country off its slow slide to kleptocracy and decay.
Sadly, ever since she left the service of the House Committee on the Judiciary, when Hillary has had the chance to follow the path of reform, she has consistently chosen the Nixon way. She cannot resist easy money that is obviously ethically compromised (whether from cattle trading futures, Wal-Mart, taking White House property, millions in speaking fees for her and her husband, in his case while she was in office). She constantly chooses obfuscation, deception and outright concealment (Whitewater files, health care reform task forces, Secretary of State emails). She is vindictive and will use her power to oppress those who oppose her (Bill's other women, Travelgate).
Hillary is the worst kind of liar - a hypocrite - and she does it over and over and over.
Anyone who thinks that Hillary will be any more true to her professed ideals will be as disappointed as they are in Bill's accomplishments in welfare reform, criminal sentencing, the death penalty and regime change. Maybe Chelsea will get it right in 2040?
Sadly, ever since she left the service of the House Committee on the Judiciary, when Hillary has had the chance to follow the path of reform, she has consistently chosen the Nixon way. She cannot resist easy money that is obviously ethically compromised (whether from cattle trading futures, Wal-Mart, taking White House property, millions in speaking fees for her and her husband, in his case while she was in office). She constantly chooses obfuscation, deception and outright concealment (Whitewater files, health care reform task forces, Secretary of State emails). She is vindictive and will use her power to oppress those who oppose her (Bill's other women, Travelgate).
Hillary is the worst kind of liar - a hypocrite - and she does it over and over and over.
Anyone who thinks that Hillary will be any more true to her professed ideals will be as disappointed as they are in Bill's accomplishments in welfare reform, criminal sentencing, the death penalty and regime change. Maybe Chelsea will get it right in 2040?
5
Sorry, but perception is everything.
1
No, it's reallly not. Perception can be skewed. How about truth and honesty?
We've seen where the emphasis on perception has gotten us. After twenty years of constant mudslinging and trial by innuendo, it's gotten us a woman who will always be viewed as tainted, with precious little if any evidence of wrong-doing. So much for relying on perception.
We've seen where the emphasis on perception has gotten us. After twenty years of constant mudslinging and trial by innuendo, it's gotten us a woman who will always be viewed as tainted, with precious little if any evidence of wrong-doing. So much for relying on perception.
1
Is getting money from Bahrain to help eradicate polio in Africa such a bad thing.Just how did Ms. Clinton benefit?Using the stater Department to raise money from other countries to combat really big problems in the world such as the spread of infectious diseases is a good idea.Probably more useful than talking to Putin.Let's not forget that neither of the Clintons made any money personally. I wish the same could be said about the Koch money going to congress.
3
Perception is reality. Regardless of the opinion of any of us, it looks bad. Especially when combined with Hillary's vow to not do any of this type of thing while she was Secretary.
Clinton's can't help themselves when it comes to looking shady. It's almost like they are drawn to the drama and excitement of doing some illicit.
That character flaw by itself should cause alarm for many.
Clinton's can't help themselves when it comes to looking shady. It's almost like they are drawn to the drama and excitement of doing some illicit.
That character flaw by itself should cause alarm for many.
Refusing all donations to private charities from rich people, who may someday want something in return, would put an end to private charities. Picking on the Clintons for their nefarious behavior is all about politics.
6
One would think that The Crown Prince of Bahrain would not have a hard time obtaining an interview with a high ranking member of the United States Department of State.
Was said Crown Prince required to make a 32 million dollar contribution in advance of said interview, and who would have said this to him ?
If this is what happened, would it be a case of both extortion and bribery ?
Was said Crown Prince required to make a 32 million dollar contribution in advance of said interview, and who would have said this to him ?
If this is what happened, would it be a case of both extortion and bribery ?
Don't do anything until Eric Trump disbands his foundation.
3
The Clinton Foundation is not a business. It is a non-profit charity. The Clintons do not draw even a salary from it. Its major donors and work are a matter of public record.
If, nevertheless, it is argued that the Foundation should be treated like a business interest should Hillary Clinton be elected President, there is no reason to treat it as worse than a business, insisting it be put in trust now, anymore than than there is reason to insist candidate Trump put his decidedly business interests in trust now.
Assume the worst about the multi-millionaire Clintons one pleases. One cannot make the case that they are somehow more venal in pursuing their financial interests, regardless the consequences to American workers and taxpayers, than billionaire Donald J. Trump, who brags about it.
It is a strange turn of affairs we have reached where a non-profit charity that declares its donors is regarded as more of an ethical challenge than the for-profit businesses of a candidate who refuses to release even his tax returns.
It is the same strange turn of affairs in which the unprecedented treasure trove of Clinton and associate email released to date, voluntarily and independently by the FBI, is regarded as "(so far) ... no explicit evidence of pay-to-play or coordination between the State Department and the foundation" rather than what it is on its face: strong evidence of no systematic pay-to-play or coordination. The presumption and standards of guilt here are astounding.
If, nevertheless, it is argued that the Foundation should be treated like a business interest should Hillary Clinton be elected President, there is no reason to treat it as worse than a business, insisting it be put in trust now, anymore than than there is reason to insist candidate Trump put his decidedly business interests in trust now.
Assume the worst about the multi-millionaire Clintons one pleases. One cannot make the case that they are somehow more venal in pursuing their financial interests, regardless the consequences to American workers and taxpayers, than billionaire Donald J. Trump, who brags about it.
It is a strange turn of affairs we have reached where a non-profit charity that declares its donors is regarded as more of an ethical challenge than the for-profit businesses of a candidate who refuses to release even his tax returns.
It is the same strange turn of affairs in which the unprecedented treasure trove of Clinton and associate email released to date, voluntarily and independently by the FBI, is regarded as "(so far) ... no explicit evidence of pay-to-play or coordination between the State Department and the foundation" rather than what it is on its face: strong evidence of no systematic pay-to-play or coordination. The presumption and standards of guilt here are astounding.
6
"For personal gain" is where, exactly? So the Clinton's can be more famous? An ex-President using his considerable skills to raise money that clearly goes to tackling important global issues? Wisps of smoke, at best.
3
The same people who embrace Trump's 'art of the deal' and respect the savvy maneuvers of a rich businessman, act shocked & dismayed at the realpolitik of the Clinton Foundation.
Trump's financial sleight of hand (bankruptcy escapes, stiffing workman, charging ordinary folks tuition for nothing, etc.) has solely filled his coffers. If he got rich cheating & tax evasion but not breaking the law--he's a Winner !
But in the public sector, where the goal is doing good (not personal welath accumulation)- raising funds suddenly becomes a matter of religious purity.
Hogwash.
Without any true quid pro quo-- no evidence of a policy initiated through the State Dept in response to meetings that served the special interests of donors- then there is no fire and only the smoke blown out of Trumpster smearmeisters.
Trump's financial sleight of hand (bankruptcy escapes, stiffing workman, charging ordinary folks tuition for nothing, etc.) has solely filled his coffers. If he got rich cheating & tax evasion but not breaking the law--he's a Winner !
But in the public sector, where the goal is doing good (not personal welath accumulation)- raising funds suddenly becomes a matter of religious purity.
Hogwash.
Without any true quid pro quo-- no evidence of a policy initiated through the State Dept in response to meetings that served the special interests of donors- then there is no fire and only the smoke blown out of Trumpster smearmeisters.
1
How is this different from the corporate lobbying that goes on daily with Congress???
Also I would love it, if even once, some mediaite would challange to ask Trump or his minions: What are the next three most corrupt enterprises in political history"? Would love to see the way that's handled.
Also I would love it, if even once, some mediaite would challange to ask Trump or his minions: What are the next three most corrupt enterprises in political history"? Would love to see the way that's handled.
1
I will tell you what is scandalous. The NYTimes again unable to give this story its due.
Ms. Clinton ran the Sec. of State office as a personal operation. She had her aides paid by us the taxpayers as well as the foundation and private foundation linked businesses. She kept her correspondence as Sec. of State on her own personal email server. She deleted any email she deemed necessary. She surrounded herself with sycophants and did not hire an inspector general to oversee the operations. She lied to the public when asked about this set up repeatedly. She has given speeches for obscene amounts of money, yet can not share with the public what was in these so called speeches.
She was in collusion with the DNC through her minions to rig the primary so to give her advantages over her opponents. She has a horrible trail of death and destruction left behind as Sec. of State. She is running against a straw man created by the media, who is so clearly unelectable that its truly a charade. Best of all, people are bending over backwards to justify not having her answer questions in a press conference, letting her run out the clock.
The NYTimes is still not sure there is a scandal?
This is as bad as the Iraq war, once again the NYTimes is pushing propaganda for its sponsors. It will not have a pretty ending, and again it will be the citizens of this country left to pay the bills.
Ms. Clinton ran the Sec. of State office as a personal operation. She had her aides paid by us the taxpayers as well as the foundation and private foundation linked businesses. She kept her correspondence as Sec. of State on her own personal email server. She deleted any email she deemed necessary. She surrounded herself with sycophants and did not hire an inspector general to oversee the operations. She lied to the public when asked about this set up repeatedly. She has given speeches for obscene amounts of money, yet can not share with the public what was in these so called speeches.
She was in collusion with the DNC through her minions to rig the primary so to give her advantages over her opponents. She has a horrible trail of death and destruction left behind as Sec. of State. She is running against a straw man created by the media, who is so clearly unelectable that its truly a charade. Best of all, people are bending over backwards to justify not having her answer questions in a press conference, letting her run out the clock.
The NYTimes is still not sure there is a scandal?
This is as bad as the Iraq war, once again the NYTimes is pushing propaganda for its sponsors. It will not have a pretty ending, and again it will be the citizens of this country left to pay the bills.
8
Another issue being judged by a double standard.
Please find me wealthy people in high places who don't exert influence or benefit from the privilege of their wealth and access.
How many students at Harvard, Yale, Princeton are there because of well connected relatives?
How many people have high paying corporate Board positions because they run in those circles?
All of these placements yield further privilege, access, wealth.
Of course, the Secretary of State met with other heads of state. The existence of the Clinton Foundation wasn't the driving force.
No smoking gun, at all, Emma! Show me the evidence of pay-for-play which you admitted hasn't turned up yet.
Please find me wealthy people in high places who don't exert influence or benefit from the privilege of their wealth and access.
How many students at Harvard, Yale, Princeton are there because of well connected relatives?
How many people have high paying corporate Board positions because they run in those circles?
All of these placements yield further privilege, access, wealth.
Of course, the Secretary of State met with other heads of state. The existence of the Clinton Foundation wasn't the driving force.
No smoking gun, at all, Emma! Show me the evidence of pay-for-play which you admitted hasn't turned up yet.
4
Double standard? So two wrongs make a right? Everybody's doing it? Smoking guns are for criminal cases. Foul odors are enough in politics.
15
So, David, just to make you happy, Hillary Clinton should give no money through their foundation, make no money from the fact that she has government experience, make no money whatsoever as a private citizen? She should shun all the people she has worked with over the years, shun all heads of state she has met, have no contact whatsoever with anyone of any wealth or influence? How in the world do you think that would make her better at her job? How do you think people persuade other people to do things? Let's see, build relationships, understand each others' interests, learn how different parts of the whole work together. In the business world this is called resume building and networking, but if Hillary Clinton does it, it's called corruption. Yes, that's a double standard.
3
Since I lived in Little Rock and knew many of the players, I knew the Whitewater stories were false when they were printed. I had forgotten about Travelgate, so I went back and read some of the stories. Turns out that when the Clintons moved in to the White House the travel office was a mess with no financial accounting and benefits for favored members of the press. A bunch of people got fired. Most got hired back to other jobs. The director was indicted, but not convicted, since it did not appear he had stolen the funds he commingled with his personal funds. The controversy came down to Hillary's role. (You wonder how the story would have played if the new administration had ignored corrupt activity.) More time was spent investigating Hillary's actions in a perfectly legal action--perhaps heavy handed, but legal--than was spent on investigating Reagan's deal to keep the hostages in Iran until after the 1980 election that likely involved treason. That's been the story of Hillary's dealing with the press. No matter what she does, it is going to be a scandal, and she's going to be a liar. Given the work the Clinton Foundation has done and is doing, the press response would be loud applause if anyone other than Hillary were involved.
6
Being 71 years old, I won't live long enough to know what historians say about this campaign season and the aftermath of it. Then again, maybe there won't be any historians as we currently know them, maybe humans will be living in caves or under rocks or be nonexistent. Let's hope this whole episode is just a half-hour situation comedy that will be cancelled very soon.
2
Unfortunately the historians in the future will have no way to figure out what happened during these times given all the misinformation being circulated. How will they ever determine what the truth really was?
Perhaps this spells the end of "History" as we know it and the start of "Guess-story".
Perhaps this spells the end of "History" as we know it and the start of "Guess-story".
1
What is a scandal is the degree to which the press focuses on and scrutinizes anything about the Clintons but doesn't equally demand explanations for shady business with the Trumps. It's fraud and an abuse of Constitutional responsibilities of the press. Furthermore, reporting all idiotic partisan commentary that Trump spits out about Ms. Clinton as news is a violation of campaign contribution rules. Trump is getting the gift of free broadcast time from the national media. Trump and his fast-talking campaign manager should have to PAY when their partisan attacks are being broadcast as news instead of political ads. The news may be something about the Foundation or emails, but Trump's reactions and attacks are partisan advertising - not news. News would be reactions from knowledgeable experts - political and social...not the other candidate or his team or a news reporter like this one. The news about Trump is his law suits for RICO and possible involvement with foreign government interference in the US elections, but Ms. Clinton's reactions should be made in paid advertising.
4
It would have been helpful if you listed the specific works of the Foundation and how the 2 billion funded each. I ever there was a situation where the"ends justify the means" -- the Clinton Foundation fits the bill with its good and noble works. On the other hand, with the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court, it is perfectly permissible for politicians to seek donations for there own survival in office. Of course those who donate have no intention seeking access or special considerations. How hypocritical can we get!
1
It would have been nice to see exactly who is getting what, but the NYT won't do that because it would expose the fact that only 10-15% of "donations" actually go to any charitable work.
1
Mr. Minassian said, “Global development work takes global engagement”
That's it, folks............and Clinton has a wealth of global contacts. What else is new?
That's it, folks............and Clinton has a wealth of global contacts. What else is new?
It's been very easy for the right wing to manufacture perceptions of impropriety. They've been doing it for decades. Reality, not so much. F
2
The disingenuousness of other politicians who criticize (especially those who advocate for non stringent campaign finance refirm) Mrs Clinton is they take money every day for their campaign. Does someone who donates 3 dollars have as much access as someone who donates millions?
Scandal--when a US VP's former company is awarded an $8B non-competitive government contract (Cheney/Halliburton).
Scandal--when a SOS/candidate for POTUS and a former POTUS set up a charitable foundation and grant special access to large foreign donors.
Writers and commenters alike have the duty as citizens and voters to see corruption in government and demand that it is extinguished no matter which party is the perpetrator.
Scandal--when a SOS/candidate for POTUS and a former POTUS set up a charitable foundation and grant special access to large foreign donors.
Writers and commenters alike have the duty as citizens and voters to see corruption in government and demand that it is extinguished no matter which party is the perpetrator.
2
Whipping up a scandal where none exists betrays this writer's ignorance of non-profit fundraising and management, as well as fundamental human nature.
Speaking as someone who has worked in non-profits for years, of course the donors whose work, mission, and values align with your own are going to be the ones most likely to ask for - and be granted - a meeting with the org's leaders.
There has been no evidence to date that any donor said to Clinton, "Meet with us and we'll give you money". They had already donated in the past, then asked for a meeting and assistance, one or both of which were often not granted.
That's what any non-profit manager would have done, and the emails show Clinton made sound decisions. Help an athlete with a criminal past? No way. Meet with a crown prince? Of course. She'd have done the same if they weren't donors, as would any smart manager or Secretary of State in her shoes.
The only way to fully avoid this apparent conflict of interest would have been to never have a foundation at all, and I for one believe the world is a better place because of the good the Clinton Foundation has done.
Should Clinton immediately separate herself from the Foundation? Yes. Because as this writer shows, some journalists are so out of touch with how the real world functions that they will create a scandal where none exists.
Speaking as someone who has worked in non-profits for years, of course the donors whose work, mission, and values align with your own are going to be the ones most likely to ask for - and be granted - a meeting with the org's leaders.
There has been no evidence to date that any donor said to Clinton, "Meet with us and we'll give you money". They had already donated in the past, then asked for a meeting and assistance, one or both of which were often not granted.
That's what any non-profit manager would have done, and the emails show Clinton made sound decisions. Help an athlete with a criminal past? No way. Meet with a crown prince? Of course. She'd have done the same if they weren't donors, as would any smart manager or Secretary of State in her shoes.
The only way to fully avoid this apparent conflict of interest would have been to never have a foundation at all, and I for one believe the world is a better place because of the good the Clinton Foundation has done.
Should Clinton immediately separate herself from the Foundation? Yes. Because as this writer shows, some journalists are so out of touch with how the real world functions that they will create a scandal where none exists.
The smoke, Ms. Roller, comes from the overheated imaginations of the Republican smear machine. They have been hugely successful at setting the terms of our political discourse, at least when it comes to the Clintons, for more than twenty years. Its latest iteration is in the unexamined assumption that the Weiner sexting episode casts a shadow over the Clinton campaign. Just why is that? Because Trump has been hyperventilating about the possibility that Abedin passed along classified informatio, which Weiner then passed along to the recipient of his texts. There is no evidence for this--none. No one is talking about it except for Trump. But because he has said it all of a sudden there is a "shadow" over the campaign--abetted by the headline in today's NYT article.
If you want to know why the CF is a scandal, you need look no further. The damage done by the right-wing slanders is incalculable. As Matt Yglesias points out, Colin Powell had a foundation that operated much like the Clinton Foundation during his years as SoS, and no one blinked. Why? Because Pwell is a saint? No. Because he is a Republican.
If you want to know why the CF is a scandal, you need look no further. The damage done by the right-wing slanders is incalculable. As Matt Yglesias points out, Colin Powell had a foundation that operated much like the Clinton Foundation during his years as SoS, and no one blinked. Why? Because Pwell is a saint? No. Because he is a Republican.
4
1/2 of the 150+ who officially met with Clinton while she was SOS donated the the Clinton Foundation. Nothing wrong with that? Find that ratio of giving with any other high ranking govt official who has or had a non-profit foundation.
No questioning of WHY the crown prince of Bahrain gives millions of dollars to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation? Because he's philanthropic? Any evidence that he's given to other charities?
No questioning of WHY the crown prince of Bahrain gives millions of dollars to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation? Because he's philanthropic? Any evidence that he's given to other charities?
1
So there is no smoking gun, though there seems to be smoke, which is probably coming from a smoke machine. It's a nothing-burger that should nevertheless be moth-balled, because"the simple suggestion of corruption can be as damaging as real corruption to a candidate’s reputation." What does history have to say? If she floats, she's guilty.
2
Emma - there are none so blind as those who will not see. And, perhaps in your case, - there are none so blind as those who cannot see.
1
The elephant in the room is the question why Hillary Clinton intentionally worked to hide these work-related emails from FOIA requests and the American public.
These communications had NOTHING to do with Hillary's yoga routine or Chelsea's wedding. Having read them now, we know why Hillary maintained a personal email server for her work related communications. She knew none of this business intermingling State with the Clinton Foundation would look good. Yet, she spun lie after lie to Congress, and the American people.
Her efforts to hide it and then lie about it says more about her character than the corruption of mingling State Dept. business with the Clinton Foundation.
These communications had NOTHING to do with Hillary's yoga routine or Chelsea's wedding. Having read them now, we know why Hillary maintained a personal email server for her work related communications. She knew none of this business intermingling State with the Clinton Foundation would look good. Yet, she spun lie after lie to Congress, and the American people.
Her efforts to hide it and then lie about it says more about her character than the corruption of mingling State Dept. business with the Clinton Foundation.
3
The Clinton Foundation may create good for millions of poor people, but its primary purpose has been to create wealth for the Clinton family and friends. That is the real perception of the issue.
Why?
In many respects, the foundation is just another form of lobbying structure, both in terms of the access to power & influence that it affords its contributors, but also to the wealth creation opportunities it provides the Clinton family members and their friends.
Clearly, the compensation paid to the members of the Clinton family for running the non profit organization must be scrutinized. Not just their immediate compensation, but also any derivative compensation they may receive from the people, organizations both domestic and abroad that contribute to the Foundation.
The access to the American government power structure to lobby the cause of the domestic or foreign contributor cannot be denied.
All that said, for whatever logic that pervades the American electorate, the Supreme Court and the American government (at all levels), the lobbyist industry is an accepted fact of life. Those people who occupy elected offices, certainly at the state and national level, expect to become wealthy and leverage their positions to attain that wealth.
The best that can be said about the Clinton Foundation is that the poor receive the monetary benefits of this lobby just as the corporations and special interests benefit from the more traditional lobbying structures.
Why?
In many respects, the foundation is just another form of lobbying structure, both in terms of the access to power & influence that it affords its contributors, but also to the wealth creation opportunities it provides the Clinton family members and their friends.
Clearly, the compensation paid to the members of the Clinton family for running the non profit organization must be scrutinized. Not just their immediate compensation, but also any derivative compensation they may receive from the people, organizations both domestic and abroad that contribute to the Foundation.
The access to the American government power structure to lobby the cause of the domestic or foreign contributor cannot be denied.
All that said, for whatever logic that pervades the American electorate, the Supreme Court and the American government (at all levels), the lobbyist industry is an accepted fact of life. Those people who occupy elected offices, certainly at the state and national level, expect to become wealthy and leverage their positions to attain that wealth.
The best that can be said about the Clinton Foundation is that the poor receive the monetary benefits of this lobby just as the corporations and special interests benefit from the more traditional lobbying structures.
1
Yes, it is often difficult to figure where to draw the line is between normal politics and shmoozing with actual corruption and conflicts of interest. I suppose if the day comes where we see Hillary either having to resign in disgrace a la Richard Nixon or being fitted for an orange jump suit at Allenwood, we'll know this hard to define line was crossed.
If "fire" means an email or recording in which a Clinton lackey explicitly agrees to grant a favor in exchange for cash, we will never have fire, and of course the burden of proof is never that high. It used to be that quid plus quo equals a smoking gun. Now suddenly we have to prove the pro? C'mon.
As for the Foundation itself, the Clinton's themselves may not have taken salaries, but they benefited personally in a big way. The Foundation pays for their office, their lavish travel, and their hotel accommodations, and it provides the network for the Clintons line up speaking engagements ... through which they accrued a staggering $100+ million in about 15 years. And perhaps most importantly, it employs a staff of Clinton political lackeys, who otherwise have no qualifications for running a charitable organization, in between elections.
All of these smoking guns would have led to a public shaming of ANY Republican long before the latest email revelations which show unfettered access to the State Department by the Foundation working on behalf of donors. ANY attempt to excuse Hillary at this point reveals a complete lack of impartiality in the speaker.
As for the Foundation itself, the Clinton's themselves may not have taken salaries, but they benefited personally in a big way. The Foundation pays for their office, their lavish travel, and their hotel accommodations, and it provides the network for the Clintons line up speaking engagements ... through which they accrued a staggering $100+ million in about 15 years. And perhaps most importantly, it employs a staff of Clinton political lackeys, who otherwise have no qualifications for running a charitable organization, in between elections.
All of these smoking guns would have led to a public shaming of ANY Republican long before the latest email revelations which show unfettered access to the State Department by the Foundation working on behalf of donors. ANY attempt to excuse Hillary at this point reveals a complete lack of impartiality in the speaker.
2
Does this ring a bell on what a scandal is ?
How about this for a scandal and destruction of government property ...
Clinton and her staff were definitely outside State Department data destruction rules when they deleted relatively recent emails. Federal data retention policies are very different than the private sector. Pretty much everything must be retained forever.
In the case of the Secretary of State, everything is turned over to the Records Service Center at the end of the Secretary’s tenure or sooner if necessary. Then they are transferred to Washington National Records Center when they reach 5 years old. And finally they’re transferred to the National Archives when they reach 30 years old, where they are kept forever.
Beyond the inappropriate erasure itself, using a program/erasure tool put Clinton and her staffers into a far worse predicament because it gave lawmakers and regulators the perception that Clinton’s team intentionally tried to do something wrong or bypass proper data destruction procedures. And because the program/erasure tool provided no proof that the data was permanently erased, there hasn’t been any way for Clinton’s staff to defend why the method was used and data that was removed that was part of an audit trail.
How about this for a scandal and destruction of government property ...
Clinton and her staff were definitely outside State Department data destruction rules when they deleted relatively recent emails. Federal data retention policies are very different than the private sector. Pretty much everything must be retained forever.
In the case of the Secretary of State, everything is turned over to the Records Service Center at the end of the Secretary’s tenure or sooner if necessary. Then they are transferred to Washington National Records Center when they reach 5 years old. And finally they’re transferred to the National Archives when they reach 30 years old, where they are kept forever.
Beyond the inappropriate erasure itself, using a program/erasure tool put Clinton and her staffers into a far worse predicament because it gave lawmakers and regulators the perception that Clinton’s team intentionally tried to do something wrong or bypass proper data destruction procedures. And because the program/erasure tool provided no proof that the data was permanently erased, there hasn’t been any way for Clinton’s staff to defend why the method was used and data that was removed that was part of an audit trail.
3
And where are the Bush administration's 5 million deleted emails?
1
Shayladane:
Is Bush running for president?
Is Bush running for president?
3
More interesting is not to frame issue in terms of "scandal," but ask ourselves what our government is going to be like when run by a bunch of Clinton Incorporated Corporate types. Yes, infinitely better than Trump, but with the appointment of Ken Salazar as transition chief, writing is on the wall -- while the planet burns, biodiversity goes extinct and the biggest U.S. export (and taxes for it) are perpetual warmaking -- the Clinton administration will be the old guard. Their enemy will (unchanged since the 80's) Russia, their villian will be Iran (unchanged since the 80's), and their new villian will be China or Syria's Assad. Don't forget, 50% of all your tax money is going to support all these wars abroad. That's why there isn't any left for things we need at hold, or if you want lower taxes, the reason you can't have them.
1
The biggest corrupt play for pay scheme in history and little miss Emma claims there is nothing there. Just another "progressive" Clinton sycophant.
1
Sigh. It's become apparent to me if one is a woman or a minority one must sit in a closed room with plain walls until one actually takes up the banner to run. At which point the other side will say they are completely unprepared for the job.
Why isn't anyone carrying on about Donald Trumps "foundation"? It appears, at least on the surface to be as shady as they come. Money given directly for favors. No it wasn't political, but does anyone really think moving to the political arena would stop that behavior?
I'd like to think we are so rigorous with HRC because we actually imagine she'll win. But the real truth seems to be if you are a woman or minority you just plain can't be trusted. Where as if you are a white man anything you do is just peachy.
Why isn't anyone carrying on about Donald Trumps "foundation"? It appears, at least on the surface to be as shady as they come. Money given directly for favors. No it wasn't political, but does anyone really think moving to the political arena would stop that behavior?
I'd like to think we are so rigorous with HRC because we actually imagine she'll win. But the real truth seems to be if you are a woman or minority you just plain can't be trusted. Where as if you are a white man anything you do is just peachy.
2
"The Clinton family has never taken a salary from the foundation." The Foundation has an A rating.
So this Foundation is admittedly doing good works helping people, but it is corrupt to accept donations for the purposes of helping other people. Because: Clintons.
The Clintons raised more money to help other people than Jimmy Carter. Somehow, some way, that only further proves the Clintons' corruption -- not that, well, the Clintons were able to do more to help other people.
I must be biased to see this as a nothing burger.
So this Foundation is admittedly doing good works helping people, but it is corrupt to accept donations for the purposes of helping other people. Because: Clintons.
The Clintons raised more money to help other people than Jimmy Carter. Somehow, some way, that only further proves the Clintons' corruption -- not that, well, the Clintons were able to do more to help other people.
I must be biased to see this as a nothing burger.
6
Scandals are rightfully the target of legal and journalistic investigations but are exploited as political weapons regardless of their veracity. Distorting reality is the powerful tool used by those who benefit from perpetrating a scandal. Donald Trump and his minions are very good at that as they are at entertainment and everyone is entertained by a scandal.
1
The way the NYTs covers Hillary scandals they are the equivalent of paid presstitutes writing pro-hillary propaganda. When NYT enemy, Guiliani, tried for an illegal third term, the NYT threw a hissy-fit. However, when fellow Tribesman and Elitist the Dictator Mikey Bloomberg wanted a third term, the NYT bent over and kissed his ring. Or to paraphrase some folks on the street years ago, 'If we had to have an illegal third term of Bloomberg, why couldn't we have had an illegal third term of Guiliani instead." The answer: The pigs at the NYT wear the right suits and know the 'rules.' The Clinton's are a paragon of virtue and everything they do is fine, of course. We will remember the example of the Clintons and emulate their ways as often as possible; and when the Times complain please have your hack presstitute writers bookmark this article so we can all save our breath.
Does Emma Roller have family on Clinton's staff?
Does Emma Roller have family on Clinton's staff?
2
"And sometimes, the simple suggestion of corruption can be as damaging as real corruption to a candidate’s reputation."
The issue is NOT "a candidate's reputation" --- it's public confidence in the integrity of our government.
It's the same as the issue of the "avoidance of the appearance of impropriety" under the American Bar Association's Model Code of Professional Responsibility, which is only indirectly related to maintaining a lawyer's reputation, in furtherance of the ACTUAL goal of maintaining the integrity of the judicial system:
"CANON 9 - A Lawyer Should Avoid Even the Appearance of Professional Impropriety
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
EC 9-6 Every lawyer owes a solemn duty to uphold the integrity and honor of his profession; to encourage respect for the law and for the courts and the judges thereof; to observe the Code of Professional Responsibility; *** to conduct himself so as to reflect credit on the legal profession and to inspire the confidence, respect, and trust of his clients and of the public; and to strive to avoid not only professional impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety."
Mrs. Clinton is both irrelevant and expendable, and her personal reputation is negligible, when viewed in the larger, more important perspective of maintaining public confidence in our government (not that any of her supporters seem to get that).
The issue is NOT "a candidate's reputation" --- it's public confidence in the integrity of our government.
It's the same as the issue of the "avoidance of the appearance of impropriety" under the American Bar Association's Model Code of Professional Responsibility, which is only indirectly related to maintaining a lawyer's reputation, in furtherance of the ACTUAL goal of maintaining the integrity of the judicial system:
"CANON 9 - A Lawyer Should Avoid Even the Appearance of Professional Impropriety
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
EC 9-6 Every lawyer owes a solemn duty to uphold the integrity and honor of his profession; to encourage respect for the law and for the courts and the judges thereof; to observe the Code of Professional Responsibility; *** to conduct himself so as to reflect credit on the legal profession and to inspire the confidence, respect, and trust of his clients and of the public; and to strive to avoid not only professional impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety."
Mrs. Clinton is both irrelevant and expendable, and her personal reputation is negligible, when viewed in the larger, more important perspective of maintaining public confidence in our government (not that any of her supporters seem to get that).
3
The real problem is that Hillary tried to hide the e-mails. If she turned over the e-mails timely we would not be having this discussion...at least right now.
Hillary is paying the price of grouping yoga lessons with the Foundation.
A non issue becomes questionable because of her lack of transparency.
Hillary is paying the price of grouping yoga lessons with the Foundation.
A non issue becomes questionable because of her lack of transparency.
1
She not only did not turn over some 30K emails. her team of lawyers and IT people used deletion techniques that would not be rational if these emails dealt with the simple things she claimed. Sadly what has been exposed is that Justice is no longer blind. Richard Nixon was run out of town for running much the same kind of paranoid operation that she did. While there was never any proof that Nixon orchestrated the break-in, he obviously was involved in the cover-up. And lets not forget where the break-in occurred+ democrat headquarters at Watergate. That became a national scandal. By comparison to alleged activities by Clinton, his was a prank. No national security issues were involved. And we know from Comey's testimony that there were other than yoga lessons and wedding plans that were deleted.
1
messy lives and the makings of sausages.
perhaps one of the advantages of the current over-exaggerated reliance on our never-ending news-cycles is that a lot more of nothing relevant will be made known.
the muck-raking should continue...
it has, after all, a life-form all of its own.
besides, someday, a real squishy kernel may be discovered.
perspective:
yes, it is often difficult to discern,
but practice should make all things somewhat clearer.
by all the means at our disposal:
let us examine the emails,
the text messages,
the social media postings,
the silence imposed upon the news-conference-clamorers,
the shoutings,
the associations,
all of the connections and entanglements.
in-the-end:
if a person likes and choses sausage,
they accept the process by which it comes to be.
those that do not can never be satisfied by any process of any kind.
from a too-distant past:
please keep those cards and letters coming
and reduce the desire to see and assume evil in all people...
some of course, just not always.
Though muted, this hack job on Secretary Clinton has enough code words to make dogs all over the country bark uncontrollably at the nothingness that beckons them.
2
Yes. The smoke is coming from a smoke machine, which the news media has done nothing to repair.
2
Here's the genius of Donald Trump. He has scandal after scandal on a weekly if not daily, basis. So many, in fact, that we forget the earlier ones. (Who remembers him bragging about giving to veteran's charities when he actually did not.) But poor Hilary Clinton's are far less numerous so that the news media focuses on each individual scandal thus making them appear far worse. Not to mention, that with most of hers we have to ask, "When Is a Scandal Really a Scandal?".
It's the money that make's it news. no money, no news.
I'm still waiting for that investigation of the trump foundation which he appears to use as his own personal slush fund.
The smoke about the Clintons comes from the right wing with a big assist from the media. You should do an investigation into who is providing the smoke. I'm sure Bannon's Government Accountability Institute is part of it. Parts of the Koch network are bound to be involved. Yes there has been a right wing conspiracy against the Clintons for many years. There' no doubt about that.
Who else could go through as many investigations and accusations as the Clintons and come out clean? Let's do a thorough investigation of Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan.
We know Trump's behaviour is far from normal. We should be getting a physician to check him for Alzheimers (his dad had Alzheimers) and attention deficit disorder and a psychiatrist to tell us if he is a psychopath. He certainly displays all the characteristics of it.
The smoke about the Clintons comes from the right wing with a big assist from the media. You should do an investigation into who is providing the smoke. I'm sure Bannon's Government Accountability Institute is part of it. Parts of the Koch network are bound to be involved. Yes there has been a right wing conspiracy against the Clintons for many years. There' no doubt about that.
Who else could go through as many investigations and accusations as the Clintons and come out clean? Let's do a thorough investigation of Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan.
We know Trump's behaviour is far from normal. We should be getting a physician to check him for Alzheimers (his dad had Alzheimers) and attention deficit disorder and a psychiatrist to tell us if he is a psychopath. He certainly displays all the characteristics of it.
This is how the 1% roll. The rest of us shouldn't worry our pretty (but poor) heads about it.
1
That is a hilarious heading. When is a scandal really a scandal with the Clintons? Never! Not as far as the MSM is concerned.
2
Thank you for telling us, sort of, that the king has no clothes. Put any other name than Clinton in the Foundation and the DOJ would be pursuing a RICO investigation.
1
I wonder if this article would even have been written without Glenn Greenwald's work in the Intercept? Americans seeking to become informed would do well to start replacing their reliance on entertainers, comedians and essay writers by accessing the primary sources of real investigative reporters, which are rare in mainstream media.
2
"It can be hard to know whether a donation is idealistic or transactional...There is (so far) no smoking gun email, no explicit evidence of pay-to-play or coordination between the State Department and the foundation."
The Clintons are lawyers and set it up this way on purpose. They know how to confuse matters enough to argue they way they do about almost everything.
The Clintons are lawyers and set it up this way on purpose. They know how to confuse matters enough to argue they way they do about almost everything.
1
How should we perceive Trump's relationship with Robert Mercer? How should we perceive Trump's relationship with Russian and Chinese loaners to his businesses? Oh wait! We don't have his tax returns.
1
More context...more specifics...let's not allow the very real 'vast right wing conspiracy' to preclude facts:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/293507-seven-ways-the-clinton-found...
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/293507-seven-ways-the-clinton-found...
1
Well, we don't see anything about Benghazi in the media any more, Now, maybe we'll stop hearing about her email. This new non-scandal should supplant the older non-scandals being dumped on us incessantly.
c'mon guys. Enough is enough.
c'mon guys. Enough is enough.
"They way things are" seems to be the general consensus. We should all just accept that the alignment of the wealthy and the politically connected is how it's always been, so what's the big deal? The big deal is that a society based on equality should strive to do better than our past. What if the medical profession, science, engineering, etc. accepted "that's the way things are?" We'd still be dying polio. We need to expect and demand better.
A pox on both Trump and HRC for wallowing in the fetid cesspool of unethical behavior. Even my man Bernie is not immune. I support HRC because at least the HRC cesspool does not have ignorance, stupidity, and psychosis mixed in.
A pox on both Trump and HRC for wallowing in the fetid cesspool of unethical behavior. Even my man Bernie is not immune. I support HRC because at least the HRC cesspool does not have ignorance, stupidity, and psychosis mixed in.
It's pretty simple: be transparent. If the prince of Bahrain gives you money, make it public. Make your meeting with him public. Don't hide it and then, when someone hacks your emails and publishes the information, say "all smoke and no fire".
When you do stuff in secret, stuff involving billions of dollars and meetings with powerful people, people suspect you are hiding something. Shouldn't that be obvious?
When you do stuff in secret, stuff involving billions of dollars and meetings with powerful people, people suspect you are hiding something. Shouldn't that be obvious?
2
The donation and the meeting were a matter of public record. The media did not scream bloody murder when they occurred. The email released provided evidence of one of several channels through which this otherwise appropriate meeting between a Secretary of State and a foreign Crown Prince was set up. You are assuming a level of secrecy that did not exist and calling for "obvious" transparency where it already did. Ask yourself why, on what evidence other than a presumption fostered for decades for partisan political advantage and echoed rather indiscriminately by the media to sell copy and garner eyeballs.
The one crime of which the Clintons are guilty is Bill Clinton lying about his affairs and, what is not a crime, his wife trying her hardest to believe her husband and the father of their child. Do you, would you, confess your indiscretions to your spouse and to the world? If we look into our own hearts and our own past, I think we can and have already given them a pass on this one. It is hardly evidence of rampant, unprincipled venality in all other matters.
The one crime of which the Clintons are guilty is Bill Clinton lying about his affairs and, what is not a crime, his wife trying her hardest to believe her husband and the father of their child. Do you, would you, confess your indiscretions to your spouse and to the world? If we look into our own hearts and our own past, I think we can and have already given them a pass on this one. It is hardly evidence of rampant, unprincipled venality in all other matters.
Competitive candidates leaders obviously avoid taking inappropriate actions, but great candidates go one step further - they avoid the perception of such inappropriateness.
Recommended course of action:
1) encourage the foundation to dedicate itself to the betterment of Americans - Louisiana flood victims, inhabitants of coal country, inner city education, etc
2) cut all ties between HRC, Bill, AND their family with the foundation. Perhaps give it to the Gates or another less political fund.
Recommended course of action:
1) encourage the foundation to dedicate itself to the betterment of Americans - Louisiana flood victims, inhabitants of coal country, inner city education, etc
2) cut all ties between HRC, Bill, AND their family with the foundation. Perhaps give it to the Gates or another less political fund.
1
While we all know that money buys access, and that our political system is rife with money, it is more than unseemly, if fact it more than unethical, for The Clintons to maintain a foundations while seeking the office of the presidency.
They must sever all ties, now, and put the foundation into truly independent hands.
They must sever all ties, now, and put the foundation into truly independent hands.
2
The essential question is - Was policy enacted or changed by the State Department because of the contributions to the Clinton Foundation by large donors from foreign countries?
Sure some donors met with Sec. Clinton, but I haven't seen any proof or read anything to the effect that the State department enacted or changed policy as a direct result of a meeting by a foreign donor with Mrs. Clinton.
Sure some donors met with Sec. Clinton, but I haven't seen any proof or read anything to the effect that the State department enacted or changed policy as a direct result of a meeting by a foreign donor with Mrs. Clinton.
"When is a Scandal Really a Scandal?" I think that depends on what the definition of is, is!
1
Why on earth is there any question about meeting with foreign leader? She met with the crown prince of bahrain as secretary of state. Sounds reasonable to me. Once again there is no scandal. Just like no benghazi scandal and no email scandal. The only scandal is the media and the treatment of Hillary. Now the times says weiner's sickness casts a cloud over the campaign. What are you talking about. trump doesn't need fx or bitebart, he has the NY Times.
The NY Times and the media have a responsibility to report of the positive aspects of the Clinton foundation and avoid the rumors started no doubt by some aspect of the right wing. If the opposition to Hilary has only got rumors as there justification for holding power an educated population and the media need to step up. NYT please do a report on this great foundation and while you at it lets dispel some of these other myths. Your best article this month was on Hilarys 12 toes (actually 11 but I thought another ridiculous rumor could be started). And how bout an article on Trumps charities or lack of.
1
Ah, The New York Times, out to justify, defend and white knight their elected queen, no matter what.
Why are you so enamored of this person? was your love and devotion to her worth loosing your credibility forever?
Your true devotion to her has costed you millions on lost revenue, falling circulation, cancelled subscriptions, and you are the laughing stock of the newsworld. Fox News was always bad, CNN was always slanted, inTouch was always trash, but that was known as such.
You used to be the ne-plus ultra, the standard of the world to follow. Yet you are new nothing but a rag, defending her every action, no matter how much credibility you lose each day. Nowadays, you are as honest as those you used to criticize.
Why?
Why are you so enamored of this person? was your love and devotion to her worth loosing your credibility forever?
Your true devotion to her has costed you millions on lost revenue, falling circulation, cancelled subscriptions, and you are the laughing stock of the newsworld. Fox News was always bad, CNN was always slanted, inTouch was always trash, but that was known as such.
You used to be the ne-plus ultra, the standard of the world to follow. Yet you are new nothing but a rag, defending her every action, no matter how much credibility you lose each day. Nowadays, you are as honest as those you used to criticize.
Why?
2
All the smoke around the Clintons is "second-hand" smoke generated from the right wing smokers. Just follow the money and you will find the smoke billowing out from the GOP's incendiary falsehoods-tank (aka Think-Tank).
Perhaps one of the 15,000 e-mails the FBI recovered will include one from Trump demanding something in return for his $100,000 "contribution" or it might be one that Hillary might recall deleting. Hint, hint. We need to investigate Trump's e-mails.
To paraphrase the USA Today's editorial board comment, perhaps “The only way to eliminate the odor surrounding the 'Trump Business' is to wind it down and put it in mothballs” so there is no wheeling and dealing from the Oval office.
Perhaps one of the 15,000 e-mails the FBI recovered will include one from Trump demanding something in return for his $100,000 "contribution" or it might be one that Hillary might recall deleting. Hint, hint. We need to investigate Trump's e-mails.
To paraphrase the USA Today's editorial board comment, perhaps “The only way to eliminate the odor surrounding the 'Trump Business' is to wind it down and put it in mothballs” so there is no wheeling and dealing from the Oval office.
2 things:
1) Hillary ought to cut ties NOW with the Foundation just to put the issue to rest
2) The ruckus over the Foundation is a phony political issue. Simply put, there's no "there," there. The Foundation does great work and it's utterly ludicrous to believe Hillary bent State Department policy to favor donors. If there's an email proving wrongdoing, fine. But we're not going to see one - because it does not exist.
1) Hillary ought to cut ties NOW with the Foundation just to put the issue to rest
2) The ruckus over the Foundation is a phony political issue. Simply put, there's no "there," there. The Foundation does great work and it's utterly ludicrous to believe Hillary bent State Department policy to favor donors. If there's an email proving wrongdoing, fine. But we're not going to see one - because it does not exist.
1
If there is no there there, let the foundation open its books to the "light of day"
Let's see who was on the payroll of the foundation, and what was there function. Let's see what the "administration" expenses were. Explain how the "donations" from stockholders of Uranium One were not put on the books until an investigation was started? How many other contributions were not booked. Answers to these will make most of the objections go away.
Let's see who was on the payroll of the foundation, and what was there function. Let's see what the "administration" expenses were. Explain how the "donations" from stockholders of Uranium One were not put on the books until an investigation was started? How many other contributions were not booked. Answers to these will make most of the objections go away.
1
Oh, come on, Ms. Roller. Your story was informative and sensible enough until the last paragraph where you sum it up with this odd "oh my god" swerve:
"These emails reveal a coziness among global elites that the public rarely gets to see. It’s like being teleported to Davos and getting a peek at how the other 1 percent lives. Once you draw back the curtain, it’s hard not to recoil."
Recoil? Really, Ms. Roller? As you pointed out in the article, those at the top in business, in politics, talk to each other. Part of the job. You making it sound like the world is an evil place because those at the top talk to each other is doing a disservice to the reading public. Presumably the thinking public will see through this attention-seeking ploy. This isn't journalism. It's info-stainment.
"These emails reveal a coziness among global elites that the public rarely gets to see. It’s like being teleported to Davos and getting a peek at how the other 1 percent lives. Once you draw back the curtain, it’s hard not to recoil."
Recoil? Really, Ms. Roller? As you pointed out in the article, those at the top in business, in politics, talk to each other. Part of the job. You making it sound like the world is an evil place because those at the top talk to each other is doing a disservice to the reading public. Presumably the thinking public will see through this attention-seeking ploy. This isn't journalism. It's info-stainment.
1
Aside from the corruption and potential illegality, this latest scandal also reveals massive hypocrisy. Hillary Clinton has been one of the loudest advocates for campaign finance reform, for cutting off 501(c)(3)s, and for getting "secret" foreign money out of the US political process. Yet the Foundation courted foreign money, which it funneled into a Canadian subsidiary during the Clinton SOS years to avoid disclosing that the Foundation was doing the exact think Hillary promised Obama the Foundation would not do. AND THEN, she gave the Foundation director unfettered access to at least her top aides (and almost certainly her as well) so he could provide access to Hillary for top Foundation donors, both domestic and foreign.
The hypocrisy is so rich you could cut it with a knife. But since it's the Clintons, we're just supposed to focus on whether what they did was actually illegal. Scratch that, we're supposed to focus on whether the FBI or Justice are actually willing to prosecute the illegality.
Thought test to the Clinton defenders: imagine George W. Bush did all of this while president. Would he have been impeached, or would he have been forced to resign long before it got to that?
The hypocrisy is so rich you could cut it with a knife. But since it's the Clintons, we're just supposed to focus on whether what they did was actually illegal. Scratch that, we're supposed to focus on whether the FBI or Justice are actually willing to prosecute the illegality.
Thought test to the Clinton defenders: imagine George W. Bush did all of this while president. Would he have been impeached, or would he have been forced to resign long before it got to that?
3
I was an executive for a medical device company which was famous world wide for over a century. We, along with the rest of the industry, entertained scientist customers at conventions and meetings many times during a given year for the explicit purpose of receiving their business. The institutions who employed these scientists probably realized that we were seeking to influence their scientists to buy our products because of our entertaining them. It was reasonable for them to have this impression. This is business as usual, world wide, and often the methods to gain business go way beyond just providing a meal. Anyone who thinks that politics is not just another venue for the same game is truly naive. The Clintons are truly very smart people and I have no doubt that that they know the rules of the "game". Are they capable of committing the trick of deflating footballs that was alleged to have been done by Tom Brady? I think so. Does that cause me pause before I cast my vote for Hillary. Not one bit. The alternative to Hillary is just too unacceptable in the world of Putin, for example. I trust her art of the "deal" better.
3
This is just another made up distraction and I am very sick of the double standard imposed upon HRC.
Like the email server so called scandal- there is not one real charge of a problem or harm that came from this. It's another example of propaganda aimed at character assassination. The meeting granted to the Crown Prince of Bahrain was done through normal diplomatic channels. Moreover, was anything done by the State Dept. on behalf of the Crown Prince as a result of his donation? There is nothing there. Why shouldn't a charity take money from a rich person? The Clintons do not personally gain from the foundation not do they even take a salary.
When you can even make the statement ( let alone prove it) that an actual favor was done by HRC as a result of the donation- then I will pay attention. But there has not even been an accusation- just a vague smear that the Clinton foundation was pay to play by that paragon of virtue DT and his paid minions. There is no depth too low for DT to sink to- no limit to the sleaze.
Speaking of sleaze- where is Trump's tax return?
Like the email server so called scandal- there is not one real charge of a problem or harm that came from this. It's another example of propaganda aimed at character assassination. The meeting granted to the Crown Prince of Bahrain was done through normal diplomatic channels. Moreover, was anything done by the State Dept. on behalf of the Crown Prince as a result of his donation? There is nothing there. Why shouldn't a charity take money from a rich person? The Clintons do not personally gain from the foundation not do they even take a salary.
When you can even make the statement ( let alone prove it) that an actual favor was done by HRC as a result of the donation- then I will pay attention. But there has not even been an accusation- just a vague smear that the Clinton foundation was pay to play by that paragon of virtue DT and his paid minions. There is no depth too low for DT to sink to- no limit to the sleaze.
Speaking of sleaze- where is Trump's tax return?
3
What ever happened to the "appearance of impropriety" standard. It seems to have disappeared with the rise of the Clintons. I recall Dick Nixon being excoriated over a dog , Checkers , anyone?
(To belabor the metaphor: Where, then, is the smoke coming from? A smoke machine?)
Surely you are not suggesting that the American Right Wing does nothing more than blow smoke up the gullible?
Oh, wait,
You're not stupid.
Of course you know that.
As the comercial says, it's what they are.
Surely you are not suggesting that the American Right Wing does nothing more than blow smoke up the gullible?
Oh, wait,
You're not stupid.
Of course you know that.
As the comercial says, it's what they are.
2
Yes, there is a smoke machine. It's used for theatrical purposes in the theater, as well as in politics. And yes, there is a coziness amount the global elites, just as there is among the business elites of multinational corporations and of corporations in general. Yes, there is coziness among people of the same profession meeting in professional associations. And yes, on a smaller scale the same coziness exists among church leaders and union leaders. It's human nature to develop that coziness. It's unreasonable to expect that the world works any differently in a global charitable foundation or in the State Department charged with diplomatic relations.
52
Ms. Roller you say, "The rules that apply to private citizens are much different from the rules (written or unwritten) that we apply to presidential candidates. And sometimes, the simple suggestion of corruption can be as damaging as real corruption to a candidate’s reputation."
Yes, rules written and unwritten. For instance, it was BIG, nasty news about who the Clinton's invited to stay at the White House while he was President but we didn't hear a peep about the cozy relationship between the Bush dynasty and the Bin Laden clan. Let's have some real news and stop promoting meaningless witch hunts against the Clinton family - all three of them.
Yes, rules written and unwritten. For instance, it was BIG, nasty news about who the Clinton's invited to stay at the White House while he was President but we didn't hear a peep about the cozy relationship between the Bush dynasty and the Bin Laden clan. Let's have some real news and stop promoting meaningless witch hunts against the Clinton family - all three of them.
8
Her critics, who wish to disparage her for {Republican] political advantage, have suggested that she and Bill have profited personally from these donations. There has never been any evidence that the money went toward anything other than charitable causes, and indeed, the foundation has THE best reputation worldwide for the percentage of contributions which were actually applied toward their intended purpose! My question to those critics would be: SO WHAT if they were granted an audience for giving money that saved countless lives? An audience doesn't mean anything more than that the Secretary listened to their problem/complaint!
2
Dear MS Roller, Have you ever heard of Mr. Rajiv K. Fernando? He's the one who donated a whole boat-load of money to the Clinton Foundation and then - miraculously - he was appointed to the International Security Advisory Board (IASB) which deals with highly technical and sensitive nuclear proliferation issues among others. He was of absolutely no use whatsoever to the board and his appointment came as a surprise to all the rest of the members. Perhaps he got the coffee and donuts.
Nothing to see here, folks? Only if you have partisan blinders on.
Nothing to see here, folks? Only if you have partisan blinders on.
6
Today is a boring news day, so why not? Keep fanning those flames of (the appearance) of scandal.
1
Clearly their is only one reason to do this, buying influence from a well connected former and a potentially future president: "Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, the Crown Prince of Bahrain — who had given $32 million to the Clinton Global Initiative for a Bahraini education program" instead of donating the money internally in his own country.
2
The New York Times picks in the comments section are more informative than this piece by Emma Roller. She seems to imply that where there is smoke there must be fire. If she wanted to write about this why doesn't she look at what some others in the comment section have pointed out. Through all of this I think about how our congress is bought and paid for by special interest (i.e. the Republicans and the NRA; coal and oil companies and voting against clean air and water and energy.) I've agreed with almost all the comments here. It is true that the Republicans could never gin up anything on President Obama but he is rare indeed in the annals of politics. If you want to see pay for play, put Trump in office.
4
Here is why this is a non-issue. The Clinton foundation is a 501 (c) (3) non-profit. I was the executive director of 3 such non-profits and they are, if not the most, one of the most transparent types of non-profit. Anyone can go on line and find their 990 tax return! The can't hide their donors like the non-profit PACs & other groups. It defies logic that our two most politically hunted figures would engage in illegal acts in the operations of Their non-profit! These are not stupid people! They know that ANYTHING they do or say will be used against them. Yet, the media treats each new "scandal" as legitimate by & gives them voice BEFORE investigating. Journalists don't conduct real investigations today. They take sound bytes from the Trump, Sen. Grassley, Sen. Gowdy, & all the other right wing weasels and run with it.
Does everyone have amnesia? Rep. Kevin McCarthy let the proverbial cat out of the bag when he announced to reporters that the purpose of the Benghazi investigations was to prevent her from becoming president.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that people with the most resources have relationships with those of similar stature. They all have power & privilege which people of lesser resources do not have. These are not necessarily a bad things. It's just the way things have been since human history began. Well they aren't bad, if you believe in reality. No matter what type of economy or government, some people have more than others. Give it a rest!
Does everyone have amnesia? Rep. Kevin McCarthy let the proverbial cat out of the bag when he announced to reporters that the purpose of the Benghazi investigations was to prevent her from becoming president.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that people with the most resources have relationships with those of similar stature. They all have power & privilege which people of lesser resources do not have. These are not necessarily a bad things. It's just the way things have been since human history began. Well they aren't bad, if you believe in reality. No matter what type of economy or government, some people have more than others. Give it a rest!
6
"Rhapsody For Blue"
I have rhapsodized
How he has capitalized
On the pain and suffering of others
Truth plainly misapplied
Falsehoods metastasized
Even attacking Gold Star mothers
Pressed on a binary choice
I can only offer one voice
And to me the decision is obvious
Your choice is up to you
But I will rhapsodize for blue
And hope he's relegated to anonymous
I have rhapsodized
How he has capitalized
On the pain and suffering of others
Truth plainly misapplied
Falsehoods metastasized
Even attacking Gold Star mothers
Pressed on a binary choice
I can only offer one voice
And to me the decision is obvious
Your choice is up to you
But I will rhapsodize for blue
And hope he's relegated to anonymous
3
"When Is a Scandal Really a Scandal?"
When the person at the center of what could be a scandal is too arrogant to realize that in politics, especially in politics on a world scale, the appearance of impropriety, the gross negligence, the lying is enough to rightfully dissuade voters.
When the person at the center of what could be a scandal is too arrogant to realize that in politics, especially in politics on a world scale, the appearance of impropriety, the gross negligence, the lying is enough to rightfully dissuade voters.
4
My problem is, I don't really see the difference between this and the access bought by campaign contributions, at every level of US elected government, and the media rarely goes ape over that form of let's-agree-not-to-call-it-bribery unless sex is involved.
5
My elementary-school teacher often said, "Avoid the appearance of evil." The Clintons seem never to have learned that lesson.
22
You can't avoid the appearance of evil when anything you do is translated into "evil" by a smoke machine solely dedicated to that purpose.
1
Its how the game is played. Nothings wrong with it. In fact its actually works pretty well.
Barb was the mayor. She also owned a flower shop. I owned a clinic. Barb's flower shop was not my flower shop of choice. It was too uptown. But, as my business grew I needed to enlarge my public profile so I wanted to be seen going into Barbs uptown shop. Barb appreciated my business and provided great customer service. I never asked Barb for favors nor she of me. But, we did build up trust between us.
Barb asked me to serve on the cites budget community. Why? Because she trusted me. I often donated to causes Barb backed and contributed to her annual fundraiser for her foundation. Why? Because she was good at doing good for others, so I knew the money went to good causes.
Hillary's profile is global. Its gigantic. Its totally normal for people to want to donate to her foundation. She is also extremely talented and doing good for others.
Barb was the mayor. She also owned a flower shop. I owned a clinic. Barb's flower shop was not my flower shop of choice. It was too uptown. But, as my business grew I needed to enlarge my public profile so I wanted to be seen going into Barbs uptown shop. Barb appreciated my business and provided great customer service. I never asked Barb for favors nor she of me. But, we did build up trust between us.
Barb asked me to serve on the cites budget community. Why? Because she trusted me. I often donated to causes Barb backed and contributed to her annual fundraiser for her foundation. Why? Because she was good at doing good for others, so I knew the money went to good causes.
Hillary's profile is global. Its gigantic. Its totally normal for people to want to donate to her foundation. She is also extremely talented and doing good for others.
7
Of course, Tom, you're buying real flowers at retail, not favors at billionaire prices. That's the same, right?
3
We looked at arms contracts during Hillary's term as SOS. Some of the biggest donors had miniscule deals. Some who gave nothing saw their arms deals triple or quadruple in size. We looked at other deals, ones where the Pentagon wasn't probably the decider, but maybe State had more influence. Same. No correlation between being a donor and having a benefit - no quid pro quo in any logical assessment. But, if the Times and MS Roller want to talk about 84 meetings with people who really ought to have had access (after all, what the heck do we have a State Department or embassies all over the world for if not to facilitate cooperation, understanding, communication, business, mutual endeavors related to health, education, safety, etc etc) out of the thousands of people who had access, then knock yourself out.
Then do some real reporting. Do the kind of research we did. Quid pro quo is discoverable. When Bob Dole was shilling for his political donors at ADM and Koch et al it showed up in bills directing billions in tax credits to their companies (e.g. ADM controlled 60% of ethanol production, picked up $2 Billion of $3.5 Billion Dole arranged in ethanol tax credits.) Do some real research, then write. Or you may end up another Maureen Dowd, and that would be a waste.
Then do some real reporting. Do the kind of research we did. Quid pro quo is discoverable. When Bob Dole was shilling for his political donors at ADM and Koch et al it showed up in bills directing billions in tax credits to their companies (e.g. ADM controlled 60% of ethanol production, picked up $2 Billion of $3.5 Billion Dole arranged in ethanol tax credits.) Do some real research, then write. Or you may end up another Maureen Dowd, and that would be a waste.
6
Interesting comment--but some references to "the kind of research" you did would certainly help. Please publish your results and references used.
Thanks
Thanks
While both of the Clintons are smart, neither is wise.
6
I would appreciate one or more of you experts could give me a clear explanation of how this is significantly different from the time-honored and common practice of lobbyists showing up in congressional offices to get bills (often of their own writing) passed and providing campaign funds or other gifts.
2
hilarious to watch the nyt falling all over itself in an effort to place this story as something other than abysmal. fail. it is abysmal, and by any objective standard, the cronyism, corruption, and inside ball practiced for decades by the clinton is disturbing. but don't count on our feckless media to say that directly. they're too busy supplicating to powerful interests to work on our behalf…..
3
Sub-see Kardas post above; your posting indicates that you might be a sucker for the Kochs
2
I find it both ironic and disingenuous that many of the same politicians who have received financial support from the Koch brothers are among those now accusing the Clinton Foundation of pay for play.
8
Right, only Democrats must be held to standards so high that no living person could or should meet. It was Bill upon whom limitations were placed, one violation of which was the acceptance of money from the government of Algeria for earthquake relief the the country of Haiti, and every penny went to Haiti. Since one the limitations was that no NEW foreign governments could donate, this was a violation. Start screaming. Continue ignoring Chene and the enrichment of Halliburton. The Clintons should turn this around by clarifying again and again in the simplest terms, how the foundation works. Or put the same conditions on all politicians. Ha!
3
My question is, would this be a controversy if it was not the Clinton's or she was not running for president? People in power have access that is the world we live in. I would expect the Secretary of State to consider meeting with a leader of another country upon request under most circumstances. There is no smoking gun.
2
So now we have a pledge about what the Clinton Foundation won't do after she is elected. Would that be different in some way to the pledge about the Foundation she gave the President before being appointed Secretary of State? If you have to gave deep thought to semantics and what the meaning of the word "is" is then you really can't put much stock in such things.
The really unfortunate part of the story is the post of Secretary of State being bartered to the Clintons in a political bargain to begin with. We need experienced diplomats in that role and we've been given politicians. As a result this administration has gotten what could be expected, ethical lapses and secrecy.
Perhaps nothing Ms. Clinton has done has met the technical definition of criminal misconduct, but why must she constantly creep right up to the line? We deserve better.
The really unfortunate part of the story is the post of Secretary of State being bartered to the Clintons in a political bargain to begin with. We need experienced diplomats in that role and we've been given politicians. As a result this administration has gotten what could be expected, ethical lapses and secrecy.
Perhaps nothing Ms. Clinton has done has met the technical definition of criminal misconduct, but why must she constantly creep right up to the line? We deserve better.
4
Trump?
Wouldn't it have been easier for Hillary to have just gone back to trading cattle futures if the Clintons needed the money? The underlying issue here is that both Bill and Hillary figured all along they were by far the best and brightest, so why weren't they also rich? The Clintons have done all they could since leaving the White House to fix that problem, so they're awfully sorry if they've created a "perception problem" for us mere mortals.
4
To answer the writer's rhetorical question, the smoke is coming from the smoke machine that the hard right uses and has used for decades against any any and all democrats who pose a threat to their hold on the country. The Clintons have been their chief target because they have withstood the attacks better and longer than any other Democrat.
Sure, the AP did the story, but they did so in response to the smoke created and repeated ad nauseum in right-wing media by operatives financed and spurred on by psycho-billionaires.
Sure, the AP did the story, but they did so in response to the smoke created and repeated ad nauseum in right-wing media by operatives financed and spurred on by psycho-billionaires.
7
Thank the lawd they are leaving the esteemed Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter out of this...........
The hate-mongers now need to leave the Clintons to do their brand of philanthropy.
The hate-mongers now need to leave the Clintons to do their brand of philanthropy.
1
Let me see if I have this straight: Our elected representatives openly solicit millions of dollars in campaign contributions from private interests, who are then granted special access to our sitting elected officials, and we do not call it a scandal. Yet this Clinton Foundation story somehow IS a scandal. Someone please tell me how this makes sense.
12
"These emails reveal a coziness among global elites that the public rarely gets to see." Therein lies the real scandal. That coziness is surely very widespread (who is cozier with the Saudi's than the Bush family, for example?) and because no one else wants to face the same fire, the boys stand back and let HRC take the flack. How do you spell C-O-W-A-R-D-I-C-E? Just like I did, I'll bet. "Coziness among global elites" is indeed a problem for democracy, but it is not new, and it is not Hillary Clinton's problem. It belongs to all of us.
2
This whole story is just despicable. The Republicans have nothing to offer nor have they accomplished anything worthwhile in the last 24 years to help anybody or solve any of the country's problems. So now what do they do as a political strategy besides calling HRC names; they create another phony scandal and this time with the goal of shutting down a charitable organization that has helped millions of impoverished children and adults globally with health, hunger, and education. And the NY Times jumps on board of this absurd labeling of "scandal". The real story is the successes of the Clinton foundation and the good it does and how many people will be hurt if it is abandoned because of the sheepish media and the Republicans calling it a scandal instead of an unprecedented succesfull act of altruism and good will created by a former American President.
8
This is all so naive and stupid. Hillary Clinton is no more corrupt than ANY of our US and state public servants.
Does anyone NOT understand that ALL of our politicians are entirely corrupt, and that corruption is entirely legal under our campaign contribution laws? Does anyone NOT understand that these campaign contribution laws - or lack of laws, really - were championed and put in place by the Republican party whose members have the most to benefit from their much wealthier and more self-interested donor base?
And, in the Hillary-specific context, does anyone think the Crown Prince of Bahrain could NOT otherwise get a meeting with any US Secretary of State? How great that for whatever reason he felt like it was a good idea to donate $32 million to a program for Bahraini education. How great that Hillary was able to use her influence and position, as well as her and Bill's creativity and effort, to make sure a Bahraini educational project was there to accept the funds. Doesn't anyone understand that the "influence" flows the other way -- that as world leaders, Hillary and Bill are convincing other leaders to take action for global good?
THIS is why I want Hillary for president: that if her idea of "using" her political capital is to encourage the wealthy and the powerful to donate money to create good in the world, I'm with HER!
Does anyone NOT understand that ALL of our politicians are entirely corrupt, and that corruption is entirely legal under our campaign contribution laws? Does anyone NOT understand that these campaign contribution laws - or lack of laws, really - were championed and put in place by the Republican party whose members have the most to benefit from their much wealthier and more self-interested donor base?
And, in the Hillary-specific context, does anyone think the Crown Prince of Bahrain could NOT otherwise get a meeting with any US Secretary of State? How great that for whatever reason he felt like it was a good idea to donate $32 million to a program for Bahraini education. How great that Hillary was able to use her influence and position, as well as her and Bill's creativity and effort, to make sure a Bahraini educational project was there to accept the funds. Doesn't anyone understand that the "influence" flows the other way -- that as world leaders, Hillary and Bill are convincing other leaders to take action for global good?
THIS is why I want Hillary for president: that if her idea of "using" her political capital is to encourage the wealthy and the powerful to donate money to create good in the world, I'm with HER!
6
Trump and Clinton have made no contributions to my well being in any way and I can say categorically they have no access to me whatsoever.
3
The Clinton foundation separates millions from billionaires, and dictators and redistributes it to the poorest and neediest around the globe, mostly in Africa. However HIllary helped facilitate this, if this is 'corruption', then by God I wish we had more of it.
189
Conflict of interest has no meaning in your world. They gave 9 million of 132 million for projects, for the only year they provided records of.
1
Not so, Raj Shah, Charity Watch gives it an A rating, with 88% of funds going to programs in the fiscal year ending Dec 2014. Look it up!
Aren't you leaving out what the billionaires and dictators got in return? Since you decided to support Clinton no matter what, will you then say they got nothing in return, that Hillary talked them into simply making a donation? Even if leftists are foolish on this point, why should people in the political middle ape you?
1
I apologize for my prior comment after reading the "girl scout cookie" analogies.
All the Saudis were doing was buying between $10-$25 million of thin mints from the Clintons and coincidentally were involved in negotiating a $60 billion plus arms deal with the U.S. The FACT the State Dept. must approve the deal is just irrelevant. It is crazy to believe the Saudis were not just interested in buying the thin mints and even gave one thought to the arms deal. Obviously, the two are unrelated.
It's scandalous how people believe corporations, wealthy businessmen, Middle East dictators, donate money for any but the most virtuous of reasons. From this point forward, unless I see an email stating the donation is intended to buy influence, or have the politician advocate a specific policy, I won't care. Because it is stupid to believe lobbyists and other special donors ever give money as a "thank you," to buy influence, or push a politician in a specific direction.
We all know that my call to my Senator is responded to with the same sense of urgency as a call from a large donor. We are all treated the same and our policy preferences are on an equal footing.
Boy have I been wrong for all these years believing Dems who claimed money is a corrupting influence. Obviously, they were wrong and are finally admitting so.
All the Saudis were doing was buying between $10-$25 million of thin mints from the Clintons and coincidentally were involved in negotiating a $60 billion plus arms deal with the U.S. The FACT the State Dept. must approve the deal is just irrelevant. It is crazy to believe the Saudis were not just interested in buying the thin mints and even gave one thought to the arms deal. Obviously, the two are unrelated.
It's scandalous how people believe corporations, wealthy businessmen, Middle East dictators, donate money for any but the most virtuous of reasons. From this point forward, unless I see an email stating the donation is intended to buy influence, or have the politician advocate a specific policy, I won't care. Because it is stupid to believe lobbyists and other special donors ever give money as a "thank you," to buy influence, or push a politician in a specific direction.
We all know that my call to my Senator is responded to with the same sense of urgency as a call from a large donor. We are all treated the same and our policy preferences are on an equal footing.
Boy have I been wrong for all these years believing Dems who claimed money is a corrupting influence. Obviously, they were wrong and are finally admitting so.
5
What's worse receiving money from foreign country's to support a charitable foundation, under circumstances where the money and donors are information made readily available to the public; or receiving secret loans from Russian oligarchs (the friends of Vladimir Putin) to keep your business enterprise out of bankruptcy and then refusing to divulge your tax returns?
12
They routed the foreign donations through their Canadian entity to hide where they actually came from.
You are dreaming if you think Hillary and the Clinton Foundation have in any way been transparent about who donates to them.
If everything is above board, why try to hide it? The question answers itself.
You are dreaming if you think Hillary and the Clinton Foundation have in any way been transparent about who donates to them.
If everything is above board, why try to hide it? The question answers itself.
1
Believing corporations, lobbyists, foreign governments and wealthy donors donate money to politicians without expectation of a return is fantasy. "Pay to play" is not controversial and until Hillary was nominated Dems roundly criticized Republicans for catering to their big money donors.
Dems also criticized Citizens United for its narrow definition of corruption requiring proof of a quid pro quo. Dems rightly argued that money influences politicians in many other ways and a proving quid pro quo is virtually impossible. Once again, anyone who believes money is contributed for virtuous reasons to politicians is crazy.
The Clinton Foundation has taken in hundreds of millions from dictatorial Middle Eastern Governments, shady businessmen and corporations with direct interests tied to the State Dept. Does anyone really believe the Saudis donated ten million to the Foundation because they want to address AIDS, decrease income/wealth inequality or bolster women's rights? No. They did so because they didn't want the State Dept. to nix a huge arms deal.
Would you ever appear before a judge who has received donations or personal contributions from your opponent? Would a judge ever seriously argue that taking tens of millions from corporations, or people appearing before her court would not effect her rulings? Of course not.
"Pay to play"--Hillary is trying to make this an antiquated concept.
Dems also criticized Citizens United for its narrow definition of corruption requiring proof of a quid pro quo. Dems rightly argued that money influences politicians in many other ways and a proving quid pro quo is virtually impossible. Once again, anyone who believes money is contributed for virtuous reasons to politicians is crazy.
The Clinton Foundation has taken in hundreds of millions from dictatorial Middle Eastern Governments, shady businessmen and corporations with direct interests tied to the State Dept. Does anyone really believe the Saudis donated ten million to the Foundation because they want to address AIDS, decrease income/wealth inequality or bolster women's rights? No. They did so because they didn't want the State Dept. to nix a huge arms deal.
Would you ever appear before a judge who has received donations or personal contributions from your opponent? Would a judge ever seriously argue that taking tens of millions from corporations, or people appearing before her court would not effect her rulings? Of course not.
"Pay to play"--Hillary is trying to make this an antiquated concept.
5
Every one of those countries you are objecting to is considered an American ally. Why would you assume they would have o donate to a private charitable foundation to get attention from the US Government? I dislike the idea of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, etc. being considered allies, but don't ignore the number one reason---it's all about the oil!
2
At least the so called Clintonian "corruption" accomplishes good in the world.
Can't say the same for the completely lying, cheating Trump.
Can't say the same for the completely lying, cheating Trump.
2
"The most corrupt enterprise in political history"?
Not by a long way - Congress wins the gold medal for that. When are they going to start releasing details of every meeting they have with donors or their lobbyists?
Not by a long way - Congress wins the gold medal for that. When are they going to start releasing details of every meeting they have with donors or their lobbyists?
8
Hmmm. Corrupt. Let's talk about Watergate-- properly prosecuted. Let's discuss The Pentagon Papers-- managed properly. The GOP witch hunt on the Clinton Presidency-- result impeachment for --gasp-- having extra marital sex and --gasp- lying about it!!!. The Iran Contra Affair-- corruption on a monumental scale. Impeachment? Nah, no sex involved. Now swept under the rug of history. The election coup that gave us President Bush-- oh move on folks. Same guy taking us into a war of choice by LYING to us. Oh skip it-- it was such fun rattling the sabers before the true extent of the fiasco was known, no sense looking back. I could go on. But Ms. Roller wants to get Trump elected to the presidency-- a crook in spades or at least seriously shady-- instead of the qualified, though flawed HRC? What has gone wrong in all the years since 1973? Where is the balance, the proper perspective of our 4th estate?
I want to see one of two things: either well-documented evidence that any meeting Sec. Clinton had with a Clinton Foundation donor resulted in some nefarious favor granted by the U.S. government; or I want the Times to have a shred of integrity and stop the innuendo, the Clinton-bashing based on what amounts to gossip.
Shutting down the foundation, as the Globe seems to think would be a good idea, would remove from around ten million people access to affordable AIDS medicines, as well as help in many other ways for people around the world. This is so typically American: little non-scandals are more important than the lives of anyone elsewhere, especially people of color in other countries. I feel disgusted this morning by this suggestion.
I go to other news organizations to get the deeper stories, like about how the GOP has made Hillary Clinton a project for almost 40 years to destroy her, beginning with her having kept her own name while married and using her Harvard law degree to work helping children and families instead of staying home and being a nice little first lady of Arkansas. I have to say I'm incredibly disappointed by pieces like this one that seek to destroy based on finger pointing and not on documented facts. If there's something real here, report it. If not, get off the bandwagon.
Ms. Roller, you're doing a great job destroying the candidate the Times has endorsed. I may be congratulating you in November for helping to elect Donald Trump.
Shutting down the foundation, as the Globe seems to think would be a good idea, would remove from around ten million people access to affordable AIDS medicines, as well as help in many other ways for people around the world. This is so typically American: little non-scandals are more important than the lives of anyone elsewhere, especially people of color in other countries. I feel disgusted this morning by this suggestion.
I go to other news organizations to get the deeper stories, like about how the GOP has made Hillary Clinton a project for almost 40 years to destroy her, beginning with her having kept her own name while married and using her Harvard law degree to work helping children and families instead of staying home and being a nice little first lady of Arkansas. I have to say I'm incredibly disappointed by pieces like this one that seek to destroy based on finger pointing and not on documented facts. If there's something real here, report it. If not, get off the bandwagon.
Ms. Roller, you're doing a great job destroying the candidate the Times has endorsed. I may be congratulating you in November for helping to elect Donald Trump.
12
According to today's NYT Editorial, "an arrangement that allowed Huma Abedin, her deputy chief of staff at the State Department and now vice chairwoman of her campaign, to be paid simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation and Teneo, a consulting firm run by Doug Band, the former adviser to Mr. Clinton who helped create the foundation — and who sent emails to Ms. Abedin seeking favors for foundation donors."
Ms. Roller, is this a scandal or not? It depends largely on whom is your paymaster, doesn't it? The number of people who make charges without justification are offset by those who provide defenses without merit, perhaps indicating that psychic income is also at issue. Reading the other comments can make one laugh if one has a penchant for low comedy - or cry if one has higher expectations from the "greatest show on earth."
Ms. Roller, is this a scandal or not? It depends largely on whom is your paymaster, doesn't it? The number of people who make charges without justification are offset by those who provide defenses without merit, perhaps indicating that psychic income is also at issue. Reading the other comments can make one laugh if one has a penchant for low comedy - or cry if one has higher expectations from the "greatest show on earth."
1
Abedin was no longer deputy chief, she was an hourly employee at State, under their 'special employee status' category, and consulting for Teneo as well, with a new baby and working partly from home for the 6 month period of overlapping employers. With HRC planning to leave State end of 2012, Abedin was transitioning into other work w/ Teneo and CF. She is reported to be able, hard-working, smart, loyal. Probably a good hire.
1
The relationship between the Clinton Foundation and its donors is precisely the relationship between politicians and their donors. So those who dislike the former should equally dislike the latter. But where are the Republicans screaming for financial campaign reform? And, similarly where are the Democrats? The plain truth is that we all endorse this behavior. Maybe it is only abhorrent when its our ox that is being gored.
5
Access to donors looks sleazy. It is, however, the system.
Ask any Republican screaming about this if they will flat out pledge not to even meet with anyone who donates to their campaign.
See how many agree, and see how many traditional donors decide to no longer contribute.
Ask any Republican screaming about this if they will flat out pledge not to even meet with anyone who donates to their campaign.
See how many agree, and see how many traditional donors decide to no longer contribute.
4
No one seems to ask: Should HRC's State Department have banned access to the Secretary of State just because the person donated to the Clinton Foundation?
Sorry Elie Wiesel, you canot meet with the SoS because you were a bad boy and donated to the Clinton Foundation. Really?
Sorry Elie Wiesel, you canot meet with the SoS because you were a bad boy and donated to the Clinton Foundation. Really?
11
Move along folks, nothing to see here, nothing at all, unless you are interested in corrupt journalism.
Roller writes;"If you think the Clintons have been the victims of a decades-long coordinated attack by Republicans," We know, and so do you Roller.
What congress person or senator does not take meetings with donors? Or visit with foreign heads of state and business people? And by the way guess who played a major roll in writing the ACA, guess who wrote much of the TPP? Can you say A. L. E. C. Get it together Roller.
This article cast a shadow over the NYTs. Emma Roller and her editor.
They seriously need to get their heads straitened out.
Roller, next time focus on the real issue, "the optics" and provide links to the emails you write about.
Roller writes;"If you think the Clintons have been the victims of a decades-long coordinated attack by Republicans," We know, and so do you Roller.
What congress person or senator does not take meetings with donors? Or visit with foreign heads of state and business people? And by the way guess who played a major roll in writing the ACA, guess who wrote much of the TPP? Can you say A. L. E. C. Get it together Roller.
This article cast a shadow over the NYTs. Emma Roller and her editor.
They seriously need to get their heads straitened out.
Roller, next time focus on the real issue, "the optics" and provide links to the emails you write about.
11
You forgot that Hillary had a written agreement with Obama that she would not do anything that advantages Clinton Foundation donors as Secretary of State. Hillary is a woman of her word, unless she can get paid.
1
Clinton controversy after controversy. How did you folks imagine that she was more electable than Bernie?
4
because our right wing swing states in our crazy electoral college system could not have allowed a self-described democratic socialist to win, that's why. The barriers would have been insurmountable. Not saying it's right, just true.
We're past that. Either get on this cause, or you help to elect America's first tyrant.
It is sad when thousands of commenters (actual people) make more sense than the media, who are being paid for their analysis do. The pack mentality of the press has been at work for years against Clinton, and it looks like it will not change in any time soon. Much easier to talk about a case of "access" and go back to their parties and cocktails than take a stab at actually talking about the work the foundation does. After all, all of their friends agree. Must be true.
Didn't see the press out there when Libby Dole ran the Red Cross with one of the highest administrative costs of any charity. Or the various library foundations. Granted, that was years ago. But the press has only gotten worse and more lazy lazy lazy.
Coverage of this has been nothing short of disgusting. And who will benefit more from a Trump presidency than MSM. Guaranteed copy for years. And EASY copy. No stress on their social life. Who cares if the rest of the world suffers. They will have plenty to write about.
Didn't see the press out there when Libby Dole ran the Red Cross with one of the highest administrative costs of any charity. Or the various library foundations. Granted, that was years ago. But the press has only gotten worse and more lazy lazy lazy.
Coverage of this has been nothing short of disgusting. And who will benefit more from a Trump presidency than MSM. Guaranteed copy for years. And EASY copy. No stress on their social life. Who cares if the rest of the world suffers. They will have plenty to write about.
15
Is it shocking that members of the ruling classes have access to people with power? If they didn't, this would imply that the US is in the midst of a revolutionary overthrow of the ruling classes. But we aren't.
What we need to ask is whether the people with power are affiliated with a faction of the ruling classes that can do things for the sake of the well-being of society as a whole. Clinton meets that test; Republicans do not.
What we need to ask is whether the people with power are affiliated with a faction of the ruling classes that can do things for the sake of the well-being of society as a whole. Clinton meets that test; Republicans do not.
9
Mrs. Clinton has been held to a higher and unfair standard for the past 25 years. I don't expect that to change.
11
I would like to see someone compare the benefits of government connections to the Clinton Foundation to the benefits from the government -- via tax breaks and bankruptcy laws -- to the Trump Organization.
Then, let's do a second chart showing the amount of money handed out by the Clinton Foundation and the resulting global benefits versus the benefits to society of Trump's alleged charitable contributions.
And while we're at it, let's do a tally of how much Trump has cost taxpayers through his various legal actions against government entities, and how that money could have been used instead to benefit the public good. Then let's calculate the total of funds he has withheld from honest contractors and other small businesses, and estimate how that money, if paid, could have added to various local economies. And let's also estimate how much money Trump has collected from his campaign contributors and has funneled back to his children and his various businesses.
Should I stop here or would you like me to go on?
Then, let's do a second chart showing the amount of money handed out by the Clinton Foundation and the resulting global benefits versus the benefits to society of Trump's alleged charitable contributions.
And while we're at it, let's do a tally of how much Trump has cost taxpayers through his various legal actions against government entities, and how that money could have been used instead to benefit the public good. Then let's calculate the total of funds he has withheld from honest contractors and other small businesses, and estimate how that money, if paid, could have added to various local economies. And let's also estimate how much money Trump has collected from his campaign contributors and has funneled back to his children and his various businesses.
Should I stop here or would you like me to go on?
15
Anyone who has every been involved in any form of fund raising, including selling girl scouts' cookies to your neighbors, know that social contact is the key, more important than the cause. If a donor, no matter large or small, ask questions or perhaps have a follow up request, the proper etiquette in each case is to pass on the request, even if one know that the request will go no where!!
If you don't believe it, just think about what usually happens if you were to ask for a raise or some special work arrangement to your immediate supervisors. Any one with any management training will always say that someone up the chain deny granting the raise. It is never your immediate boss who deny the request. The only time the boss will actually say no is if the company is so small that there are no layers of management.
If you don't believe it, just think about what usually happens if you were to ask for a raise or some special work arrangement to your immediate supervisors. Any one with any management training will always say that someone up the chain deny granting the raise. It is never your immediate boss who deny the request. The only time the boss will actually say no is if the company is so small that there are no layers of management.
4
You are the manager at a local bank. Your daughter is selling girl scout cookies and you ask your family friends to buy some. A few do.
A year or two later an old friend who had bought 4 boxes makes an appointment to come see you at your bank. He chats for a while, then asks for a home equity loan. You give him an application form; he applies (and, as it happens, is turned down).
Corruption! Pay to play! You ought to be fired!
Not.
A year or two later an old friend who had bought 4 boxes makes an appointment to come see you at your bank. He chats for a while, then asks for a home equity loan. You give him an application form; he applies (and, as it happens, is turned down).
Corruption! Pay to play! You ought to be fired!
Not.
7
Q: When Is a Scandal Really a Scandal?
A: When it is done by the other side
A: When it is done by the other side
74
As I have said before if we are going to scrutinize Clinton's e mails literally for years and still keep looking when we have found nothing illegal let's be fair and make sure Trump releases his tax returns before the election, really answers questions about the ongoing fraud investigation of Trump University and reveals all about his business dealings with Russian oligarchs, ties to Paul Manafort his ex campaign manager and why does he like Putin so much? Does Trump stand to make millions off shady Russian business deals if he gets elected President? I think that's something that should be investigated too.
4
At the minimum, these emails show a carelessness that has marked Hillary Clinton political career. They also hint at a level of moral confusion that places political ambition ahead of doing good works. The fact that she is willing to limit who contributes to this charity when she becomes President tells us what her priorities are and perhaps that the charity was more a means to an end than an end in it self. While no laws have been broken, the situation does not suggest a wholesome relationship between the former Secretary of State and her charity's fund raising.
1
Count me as one who believes that the charitable donations to the Foundation are, at least so far, a 'big nothing-burger.'
Now, the big checks for closed-door speeches? The incredibly imprudent decision on her email servers and the less than transparent response to subpoenas? And the stupidity with which she has handled the months-long outcry concerning the emails (the "one-device" defense)? All that stuff is much more concerning.
Now, the big checks for closed-door speeches? The incredibly imprudent decision on her email servers and the less than transparent response to subpoenas? And the stupidity with which she has handled the months-long outcry concerning the emails (the "one-device" defense)? All that stuff is much more concerning.
1
The last sentence is this article pretty much says it all. I find some of the comments that suggest, in essence, that others were worse so the Clintons are okay to be patently offensive. We should not permit our elected officials and those who are close to them to operate on the wrong side of the line but never so far that they cannot jump back in a hurry. That is the wrong message to send not only to our own people but to the world.
3
As if we did not know it already, the engines of the world are run on money, power and greed. The masses really are a sideshow but are a necessity for the elites to be able to retain power in this democracy. The masses are offered all sorts of promises and concerns on how their lives will be better after electing their most promising elite candidate. This election has exposed the sleazy side of politics that revolve in a separate universe from the lives of the masses they are supposed to represent. We have two sleazy candidates to choose from. I am not supporting either one.
1
Nothing with the Clintons is either simple or staightforward. Prior to Hillary, has ANY Secretary of State had a family foundation like hers? Of course not.
As for the claim that the Clintons derived no financial benefit from it, there's the matter of the adjusted gross income for the last two years adding up to $38 million ($28 million in 2014 and $10 million in 2015). Well, could Roller get granular about the source of such great riches?
The bottom line is a sense of family entitlement, to boldly go where no cabinet member has gone before, including taking large sums from appalling governments like Saudi Arabia. And all of Hillary's well compensated speechifying came at a time when she KNEW she was going to run for President.
This should be the most one sided Presidential campaign in history, given that her opponent is an unhinged, disinhibited know nothing narcissistic boob, but her ability to allow him to stay close based on her own shaky ethics and decision making process just makes my teeth hurt. From now to November is going to be one ugly migraine.
As for the claim that the Clintons derived no financial benefit from it, there's the matter of the adjusted gross income for the last two years adding up to $38 million ($28 million in 2014 and $10 million in 2015). Well, could Roller get granular about the source of such great riches?
The bottom line is a sense of family entitlement, to boldly go where no cabinet member has gone before, including taking large sums from appalling governments like Saudi Arabia. And all of Hillary's well compensated speechifying came at a time when she KNEW she was going to run for President.
This should be the most one sided Presidential campaign in history, given that her opponent is an unhinged, disinhibited know nothing narcissistic boob, but her ability to allow him to stay close based on her own shaky ethics and decision making process just makes my teeth hurt. From now to November is going to be one ugly migraine.
4
Trump bought a Florida property for $40 million and sold it to a Russian oligarch for $100 million. Trump mentioned this on air recently.
Not only was there money laundering involved, The Russian and his capitalist crony paid to play in a potential Trump administration.
Not only was there money laundering involved, The Russian and his capitalist crony paid to play in a potential Trump administration.
2
One commenter wrote in an accusatory manner that no other Secretary of State has had a family foundation. Well, no other Sec of State was married to a former president! I hate to state the obvious but really. Bill decided that the best way to use his world-wide fame and influence was to start a foundation. What a terrible thing to do. And it's very successful and much of the money was donated by wealthy people-how suspicious! Clinton haters will never get it that Bill and Hillary married and stayed married because they share a common vision. They wanted to use their drive and considerable intelligence to make a difference in the world and since they weren't born into wealth their most likely avenue was thru government service. Yes their marriage barely survived his cheating but it did survive and together they are effecting chg on a global level. Emily Roller included in her unoriginal list of Republican talking points a brief mention, more of an aside really, that the Foundation has reportedly done much good work. That's it. She doesn't tell us any details as if the good it's
accomplished is unimportant. The Clinton Foundation was not estb on the sly. It was known about during her entire tenure as SOS so why all the hullabaloo now during the campaign? Sorry Clinton haters. There is no there there.
accomplished is unimportant. The Clinton Foundation was not estb on the sly. It was known about during her entire tenure as SOS so why all the hullabaloo now during the campaign? Sorry Clinton haters. There is no there there.
1
Seriously? We're going all "shocked, shocked" because a sitting secretary of state took a meeting with the Crown Prince of Bahrain? I would be much more concerned if Secretary Clinton had refused to meet with him.
None of the Clintons gets a dime from the Clinton Foundation, or from any of its donors. The donations go to very important and worthy charitable efforts.
Even if it were true that Secretary Clinton "sold" meetings for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, are we seriously going to contend that feeding, immunizing and educating millions of children isn't worth our secretary of state's time?
Nobody minded when George H. W. Bush started an international charitable foundation while he was still in the White House, and nobody minded when Bob Dole ran for president while his wife was president of the Red Cross. This is a scandal only because Trump said it is, and because the media - first and foremost Fox, CNN and MSNBC - didn't bother to do any investigation (or even any real thinking) before they started a full week of relentlessly accusatory interviews.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
None of the Clintons gets a dime from the Clinton Foundation, or from any of its donors. The donations go to very important and worthy charitable efforts.
Even if it were true that Secretary Clinton "sold" meetings for contributions to the Clinton Foundation, are we seriously going to contend that feeding, immunizing and educating millions of children isn't worth our secretary of state's time?
Nobody minded when George H. W. Bush started an international charitable foundation while he was still in the White House, and nobody minded when Bob Dole ran for president while his wife was president of the Red Cross. This is a scandal only because Trump said it is, and because the media - first and foremost Fox, CNN and MSNBC - didn't bother to do any investigation (or even any real thinking) before they started a full week of relentlessly accusatory interviews.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
16
You can count me in the sick-of-hearing-contrived-accusations-of-wrongdoing-that-have-gone-nowhere-for-over-25-years group. Practically all of the negative publicity concerning the Clintons is the result of calculated and relentless right-wing attacks, and press complicity. It hasn't helped that fans of Bernie Sanders latched onto many of the Crooked Hillary memes, happy to find ammunition against their real perceived enemy, the Democratic Party.
Regarding the current issue, pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, the accusations are trash. Pay-for-play? The tortured connect-the-dots routines I've seen in regard to this amount to calling it pay-for-play if I were to contribute money to a hospital with a wing named after my surgeon, and then expecting a better outcome from my surgery.
Meanwhile, Mr. Trump lies like a rug, reverses course at random, and speaks in word salad on a daily basis, staffs his campaign with Russian agents, KKK wannabes, and inveterate grifters, talks about dating his daughter, mimics people with disabilities, scares the bejesus out of our allies, encourages violence, and courts white supremacists. But it's a 'scandal' that the Clintons are fighting AIDS worldwide on a huge scale. Puh-leez...
Regarding the current issue, pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, the accusations are trash. Pay-for-play? The tortured connect-the-dots routines I've seen in regard to this amount to calling it pay-for-play if I were to contribute money to a hospital with a wing named after my surgeon, and then expecting a better outcome from my surgery.
Meanwhile, Mr. Trump lies like a rug, reverses course at random, and speaks in word salad on a daily basis, staffs his campaign with Russian agents, KKK wannabes, and inveterate grifters, talks about dating his daughter, mimics people with disabilities, scares the bejesus out of our allies, encourages violence, and courts white supremacists. But it's a 'scandal' that the Clintons are fighting AIDS worldwide on a huge scale. Puh-leez...
19
And won't release his tax returns, and get away with it, though HRC released theirs months ago.
1
Indeed; also, I forgot to mention funneling millions in campaign cash to his own companies.
I'm not HRC's number one fan, but modern politics = influence peddling.
If the Clinton Foundation is guilty of anything, it's guilty of operating like any other international organization. Doesn't make it right, of course.
There are rational reasons not to dig HRC (champion of the status quo, hawkish, incrementalist, etc.). Too much time/energy/ink/gasbagging is spent on the irrational stuff.
If the Clinton Foundation is guilty of anything, it's guilty of operating like any other international organization. Doesn't make it right, of course.
There are rational reasons not to dig HRC (champion of the status quo, hawkish, incrementalist, etc.). Too much time/energy/ink/gasbagging is spent on the irrational stuff.
2
There is nothing here to discover except the usual way politics works.
1
Spoken like a true Hillary true believer. Here. Try this one out for size:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-a...
Talk about suspicious ties to Russia in the Trump camp.
But this is Hillary. Who'll save the Republic from fascism in November. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-a...
Talk about suspicious ties to Russia in the Trump camp.
But this is Hillary. Who'll save the Republic from fascism in November. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.
2
I usually find Ms. Roller's articles insightful. This one felt like click-bait since the question in the headline is never addressed, unless saying anything is s scandal if the media reports it as such counts as an answer. Otherwise, the fact that some people have more power and influence than others is hardly news. At root, it seems to me, the only thing that's scandalous here is that Secretary Clinton, a woman, somehow became a member of the "old boy's club"!
Corruption is about using public goods for personal enrichment. Until someone can show me how the Clinton's were personally enriched by their role in the foundation, beyond the personal satisfaction and goodwill generated by doing good for others, this is clearly not a scandal. When is a scandal not a scandal? When it's a scurrilous attack on another person's integrity enabled by a sensationalist and compliant media. Now, that's an answer to Ms. Roller's question that adds a bit of fire to all her smoke.
Corruption is about using public goods for personal enrichment. Until someone can show me how the Clinton's were personally enriched by their role in the foundation, beyond the personal satisfaction and goodwill generated by doing good for others, this is clearly not a scandal. When is a scandal not a scandal? When it's a scurrilous attack on another person's integrity enabled by a sensationalist and compliant media. Now, that's an answer to Ms. Roller's question that adds a bit of fire to all her smoke.
7
OK, I get it.
Mrs Clinton is better than Donald Trump for the country, but...
The words: "what were you thinking?", "duh", "held to a higher standard", "tone-deaf", "perception is reality", "Jesse Jackson-style shakedown", etc. come to mind.
A major part of voters' frustration with this election cycle is both candidate's seeming lack of sound judgement. One of them is bad enough, but both of them?
Pathetic.
Mrs Clinton is better than Donald Trump for the country, but...
The words: "what were you thinking?", "duh", "held to a higher standard", "tone-deaf", "perception is reality", "Jesse Jackson-style shakedown", etc. come to mind.
A major part of voters' frustration with this election cycle is both candidate's seeming lack of sound judgement. One of them is bad enough, but both of them?
Pathetic.
2
" ... Where, then, is the smoke coming from? A smoke machine?" Yes, exactly. The "perception" problem is largely produced, and massively magnified by politicians and press who cannot fathom that not everyone behaves the way that they would.
2
I'm astounded by accusations hurled at Secretary Clinton because she met with donors, with no showing of wrongdoing. Here we have "perception".
In Donald Trump you have fraud, bankruptcies, con games, refusal to rent to blacks, overt bigotry, connections to the mob, debt held by China and Russia, and you are making "perception" the big story of the day. What is wrong at the times that you are giving Trump a pass?
In Donald Trump you have fraud, bankruptcies, con games, refusal to rent to blacks, overt bigotry, connections to the mob, debt held by China and Russia, and you are making "perception" the big story of the day. What is wrong at the times that you are giving Trump a pass?
5
"To belabor the metaphor: Where, then, is the smoke coming from? A smoke machine?"
That's certainly the most likely explanation these days. ("Whitewater! Vincent Foster! BENGHAZI!!!")
That's certainly the most likely explanation these days. ("Whitewater! Vincent Foster! BENGHAZI!!!")
7
It's not clear why the Times chose to publish this. It's a rehash of everything that has already been said. The whole issue is phony. No one is corrupted by soliciting money for genuine charity. It is plausible that anyone would treat a country differently because it made a charitable contribution? I don't think so.
1
NEWS FLASH:
Rich people get more access to politicians!
Rich people who give money get even more access!
There are a number of laws written that support only rich people!
This is SOP and has been going on for at least a century.
Rich people get more access to politicians!
Rich people who give money get even more access!
There are a number of laws written that support only rich people!
This is SOP and has been going on for at least a century.
4
Clinton is an attorney (Yale Law School and all that). The ABA Canons of Ethics prescribe that 'an attorney shall avoid the appearance of impropriety.' Her behavior is pretty clearly a violation of that Canon.
3
Like it or not the very choice of the Foundation name starts a bad ball rolling..
Why the Clinton Foundation? Why not the Joe Blow Foundation or the Foundation for Good Works etc? Because....the Clintons benefit...not monetarily Im sure but emotionally .
So youve got the foundation benefitting them yet they maintain positions of power and influence due to Public status(unlike entities like the Gates Foundation etc).....An obvious and intrinsic conflict of interest.
Face it..the Clintons are wanting their cake and to eat it too; they want it both ways.
IMHO its time to recognize the Foundation was a bad idea to begin with and stanch the bleeding
Why the Clinton Foundation? Why not the Joe Blow Foundation or the Foundation for Good Works etc? Because....the Clintons benefit...not monetarily Im sure but emotionally .
So youve got the foundation benefitting them yet they maintain positions of power and influence due to Public status(unlike entities like the Gates Foundation etc).....An obvious and intrinsic conflict of interest.
Face it..the Clintons are wanting their cake and to eat it too; they want it both ways.
IMHO its time to recognize the Foundation was a bad idea to begin with and stanch the bleeding
Clinton-world, impeachment proceedings are to be expected.
1
Two major cynical changes in my life based on this illuminating past year:
1) I will never listen to another speech because it turns out that speakers are all corrupt liars who are just there to get paid, and
2) I will never give another donation now that I've found out that every charity is just a front for peddling influence.
All these years I thought I was participating in making the world a better place, and it turns out I was the only one not getting a lil sumthin' on the side. Great,America. Just Great.
1) I will never listen to another speech because it turns out that speakers are all corrupt liars who are just there to get paid, and
2) I will never give another donation now that I've found out that every charity is just a front for peddling influence.
All these years I thought I was participating in making the world a better place, and it turns out I was the only one not getting a lil sumthin' on the side. Great,America. Just Great.
2
" I want to be in the room where it happens. " - A. Burr
1
"Rich people simply have more influence in American politics than not-rich people do." This is hardy unique to the American "system" nor to the present century or indeed the last 50 centuries. If you want to make the case that there is corruption you really do need to find the THING that was done only for the money given to EXACTLY the person who did it. The secretary of state holding a meeting with a head of state does not qualify in any way. BTW Isn't extracting large amounts of cash from plutocrats for charity just the "compassionate conservative" thing George was on about as well as the main plan by the right for what should replace the entire welfare state?
2
A politician is a person with a record, because he or she has a history.
Hillary R. Clinton has a record of making decisions that matter.
Donald does not. What record in private industry, like bankruptcies and giving to charity is not good. His choices of people to run his campaign is bad.
What will the Donald do if elected president. Unknown because he does not have a record. We have to take his word for it, and often his word is unclear.
Republicans have insisted that we open politics to big money. They have taken full advantage of this. they are taking full advantage of this now. How ever when Democrats take advantage of this in self defence, they cry bloody murder.
Hillary R. Clinton has a record of making decisions that matter.
Donald does not. What record in private industry, like bankruptcies and giving to charity is not good. His choices of people to run his campaign is bad.
What will the Donald do if elected president. Unknown because he does not have a record. We have to take his word for it, and often his word is unclear.
Republicans have insisted that we open politics to big money. They have taken full advantage of this. they are taking full advantage of this now. How ever when Democrats take advantage of this in self defence, they cry bloody murder.
2
I am one of those who knows that the Clintons have been the victims of decades long coordinated attacks by Republicans. And it appears it will continue until they are completely out of the public eye. But luckily for America, the Clintons are not cowards, they do not run from unsubstantiated tweets by a man who has ripped off decent Americans for decades. We need some balance in the media. There are so many scandals in Trump's past and nobody is even reporting on them The only things that seem to be an important scandal start with the word EMAIL, or are hacked by some Russian organization or come from some off the wall tweet that Trump dreams up and sends without a second thought to the repercussions. I still have hopes that the debates will bring out the real candidates, but to me the Trump followers already know just how low a human being he is and dont seem to mind.
4
There are no scandals anymore. It's a word only tossed out to attack something or someone you hate. Standard operating procedure.
To clarify: real scandals do exist: Watergate, Iran-Contra, Bush's Iraq invasion, Trump, and the looting of the treasury by the 1% since Reagan.
Other "scandals" are "middle school" gossip and pointlessness for the rubes.
To clarify: real scandals do exist: Watergate, Iran-Contra, Bush's Iraq invasion, Trump, and the looting of the treasury by the 1% since Reagan.
Other "scandals" are "middle school" gossip and pointlessness for the rubes.
2
Well written article. When running for president perception definitely counts and there likely should have been a more effective wall between the workings of the Clinton Foundation & the State Department. However it is ludicrous to paint this, as Trump has done, as pay to play.
1
Several commenters here have stated or implied what commenter, James Lee of TX, states explicitly: "..... but the mere appearance of impropriety in a case where the government official derives no personal benefit from her alleged behavior should disqualify no one from seeking elective office."
This, l think is a very shortsighted view that also badly understates the current high level of sophistication of the Clinton's approach to the influence pedaling game. Willfully blinding ourselves to the warning of wrongdoing that is implicit in actions that have the "appearance of conflict of interest", serves to habituate the public to these practices until it becomes possible to slip real "pay to play" into the mix all unnoticed. This suggests a corollary to Murphy's Law, to wit: "If the door is left open for a thing to be done, inevitably, it will be done."
This, l think is a very shortsighted view that also badly understates the current high level of sophistication of the Clinton's approach to the influence pedaling game. Willfully blinding ourselves to the warning of wrongdoing that is implicit in actions that have the "appearance of conflict of interest", serves to habituate the public to these practices until it becomes possible to slip real "pay to play" into the mix all unnoticed. This suggests a corollary to Murphy's Law, to wit: "If the door is left open for a thing to be done, inevitably, it will be done."
1
Everyone in Congress spends a part of his or her day telephoning or meeting with people with money begging for contributions. It’s done from non government building near the Capitol.
If someone wrote one of these politicians a check for $100,000, you bet his calls are answered. That’s the way it happens in American politics and the GOP insists that it remains so. Reelection is their patriotic duty above all others. How come so many people in Congress became millionaires in office or were millionaires and who wanted to make the laws.
We have a party funded by billionaires, and right wing foundations and the NRA which keeps score. By the standards that Trump applies to the Clinton Foundation, which does more good works than the GOP ever did, the GOP is the most corrupt organization in the nation’s history.
Where is that smoke coming from? It comes from the biggest liar and megalomanic since Adolph Hitler. If Hitler were alive today in American politics he would be a Trump insider and member of the alt right. And Hitler actually wrote his own book, no ghost writers needed.
Here is some history to consider: Which Americans financed Hitler’s rise to power and in some instances until WW2 began? The same groups who for so many years supported the GOP and still do, among them the Bush’s and the Walker’s and the big oil and chemical companies. IMB made the arrest if the Jews quite efficient. Google it.
If someone wrote one of these politicians a check for $100,000, you bet his calls are answered. That’s the way it happens in American politics and the GOP insists that it remains so. Reelection is their patriotic duty above all others. How come so many people in Congress became millionaires in office or were millionaires and who wanted to make the laws.
We have a party funded by billionaires, and right wing foundations and the NRA which keeps score. By the standards that Trump applies to the Clinton Foundation, which does more good works than the GOP ever did, the GOP is the most corrupt organization in the nation’s history.
Where is that smoke coming from? It comes from the biggest liar and megalomanic since Adolph Hitler. If Hitler were alive today in American politics he would be a Trump insider and member of the alt right. And Hitler actually wrote his own book, no ghost writers needed.
Here is some history to consider: Which Americans financed Hitler’s rise to power and in some instances until WW2 began? The same groups who for so many years supported the GOP and still do, among them the Bush’s and the Walker’s and the big oil and chemical companies. IMB made the arrest if the Jews quite efficient. Google it.
2
"Where, then, is the smoke coming from? A smoke machine?"
Yes!!! The Republican smoke machine.
Yes!!! The Republican smoke machine.
4
Hasbro needs to update the game monopoly with a Clinton Cash edition. The object of the game is to travel the world accumulating millions in personal wealth by selling government access and favors to wealthy globalist corporations, organizations and individuals while avoiding but occasionally having to donate $50 to the community chest.
Hillary Rotten Clinton, The candidate of Goldman Sachs!
Hillary Rotten Clinton, The candidate of Goldman Sachs!
1
The smell test...
-Does the Foundation do good work benefiting the world community, the poor and vulnerable worldwide? --YES (to the tune of a couple of $billion)
-Do the Clinton's get money from the Foundation? --NO
-Are there any contributors who gained access to individuals that otherwise were undeserving of access? --POSSIBLY A SMALL NUMBER?
-Is there any evidence that access has unduly benefited a cause or influenced a decision? --NO, BUT IT COULD BE THE CASE
-Other than 'appearances' has any harm been done? --NO
-If it had not been the Clinton Foundation but another would we be talking about this? --NO
-Will the problem persist if Clinton is elected? --NO
-Are the people complaining the loudest motivated primarily by campaign politics? --YES.
Appearances matter but the good done by the Clinton Foundation smells awfully good compared to the hyped up odors. And when you add to this the fact that Congress and politicians everywhere make their living and fund their campaigns by providing access and pandering to vested interests this debate degenerates into an exercise of extreme hypocrisy. One need only look at the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding the former VA Governor who received expensive presents and loans for 'access' to know that no laws were broken and appearances are in the eye of the often highly politicized beholder.
-Does the Foundation do good work benefiting the world community, the poor and vulnerable worldwide? --YES (to the tune of a couple of $billion)
-Do the Clinton's get money from the Foundation? --NO
-Are there any contributors who gained access to individuals that otherwise were undeserving of access? --POSSIBLY A SMALL NUMBER?
-Is there any evidence that access has unduly benefited a cause or influenced a decision? --NO, BUT IT COULD BE THE CASE
-Other than 'appearances' has any harm been done? --NO
-If it had not been the Clinton Foundation but another would we be talking about this? --NO
-Will the problem persist if Clinton is elected? --NO
-Are the people complaining the loudest motivated primarily by campaign politics? --YES.
Appearances matter but the good done by the Clinton Foundation smells awfully good compared to the hyped up odors. And when you add to this the fact that Congress and politicians everywhere make their living and fund their campaigns by providing access and pandering to vested interests this debate degenerates into an exercise of extreme hypocrisy. One need only look at the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding the former VA Governor who received expensive presents and loans for 'access' to know that no laws were broken and appearances are in the eye of the often highly politicized beholder.
3
Bill and Hillary are treated differently. Under the Clinton Rules:
1 Anything and everything is to be construed to be a scandal until proven otherwise in the court of public opinion, or, ideally, a court of law.
2 Even if NOTHING is wrong, the public airing of the scandal is sufficient to label Bill and Hillary Clinton's behavior improper.
2A) Public discussion proves Hillary untrustworthy, even if Politifacts repeatedly shows her to be the most honest candidate in the race.
2B) The scandal NEVER dies. 5,10,20,30 years later, websites on the Right will claim the whole of the scandal -- none of which may have ever happened -- is true.
3 It is always to be presumed and assumed that Hillary Clinton is acting in bad faith. Hard evidence that proves otherwise is to be ignored.
3A If evidence is ever acknowledged in a newspaper, it is in a one inch correction box in the middle of a local news page after running on the front page in headlines.
3B No apology to the Clintons is ever offerred in any form of media anywhere by news organization and/or columnists. Maureen Dowd has just been doing her job.
3C The media at all levels and all sides expect the Clintons to treat them with great graciousness and hospitality, no matter what.
4 Everything Hillary does is fake and is only for political benefit.
5 Hillary Clinton must NEVER, EVER be given the benefit of the doubt.
.
1 Anything and everything is to be construed to be a scandal until proven otherwise in the court of public opinion, or, ideally, a court of law.
2 Even if NOTHING is wrong, the public airing of the scandal is sufficient to label Bill and Hillary Clinton's behavior improper.
2A) Public discussion proves Hillary untrustworthy, even if Politifacts repeatedly shows her to be the most honest candidate in the race.
2B) The scandal NEVER dies. 5,10,20,30 years later, websites on the Right will claim the whole of the scandal -- none of which may have ever happened -- is true.
3 It is always to be presumed and assumed that Hillary Clinton is acting in bad faith. Hard evidence that proves otherwise is to be ignored.
3A If evidence is ever acknowledged in a newspaper, it is in a one inch correction box in the middle of a local news page after running on the front page in headlines.
3B No apology to the Clintons is ever offerred in any form of media anywhere by news organization and/or columnists. Maureen Dowd has just been doing her job.
3C The media at all levels and all sides expect the Clintons to treat them with great graciousness and hospitality, no matter what.
4 Everything Hillary does is fake and is only for political benefit.
5 Hillary Clinton must NEVER, EVER be given the benefit of the doubt.
.
8
The only way for capable people to avoid the appearance of "smoke" in our current political climate is to get out of politics. That would leave us with only Trump and his sort.
4
Ms Roller's column is titled: "When Is a Scandal Really a Scandal?"
The answer, as Ms Roller should have written, is pretty clear. When a politician or the politician's family members profit from something personally that is strictly forbidden. But the Clintons don't get paid by the Clinton Foundation. They have no equity interest. No funds are diverted into Ms Clinton's campaign fund. So how in the world can the Times and Ms Roller pretend as if this is a scandal?
I can understand the Republican Party and their propaganda machine pretending as if the clinton Foundation is a source of corruption. But the New York Times should know better.
Scandal? Nonsense.
The answer, as Ms Roller should have written, is pretty clear. When a politician or the politician's family members profit from something personally that is strictly forbidden. But the Clintons don't get paid by the Clinton Foundation. They have no equity interest. No funds are diverted into Ms Clinton's campaign fund. So how in the world can the Times and Ms Roller pretend as if this is a scandal?
I can understand the Republican Party and their propaganda machine pretending as if the clinton Foundation is a source of corruption. But the New York Times should know better.
Scandal? Nonsense.
8
Yes, the idea that the Crown Prince of Bahrain needed to give a donation to get access to the U.S. Secretary of State is mind boggling in it's stupidity.
4
I'm sure the Clintons weren't even aware that he had donated. Maybe.
1
I am simply skeptical of gulf state leaders' philanthropic intentions, that's all...
2
Seeing as Trump's campaign has a masterful use of deflection, to draw attention away from the paucity of their ideas and act like 5th graders, I'm going to do the same:
What about Trump's pay-to-play with his Mafia ties which enriched him while bankrupting other companies? Lyin' Trump says he doesn't have any ties with Russia, but it's obvious, as some are saying, that he's trying to cover up foreign influence on his campaign. Sad!
What about Trump's pay-to-play with his Mafia ties which enriched him while bankrupting other companies? Lyin' Trump says he doesn't have any ties with Russia, but it's obvious, as some are saying, that he's trying to cover up foreign influence on his campaign. Sad!
5
Is there anyone in the national media with sufficient integrity to recognize that this is yet another in a bottomless cesspool of bile and phony scandal-mongering trafficked by the entire amoral GOTP crowd of frauds and charlatans? The double standards here are breathtaking: not only is there rank sexism and misogyny when it comes to HRC, but, as is true with Huma Abedin now, everything their respective spouses did was entirely their fault, but the same glaring spotlight has yet to be cast upon Donald Drumpf. What about his tax returns? His absurd "medical" letter? What about his shady business dealings, multiple bankruptcies, con games, failed initiatives, his own gift to the Clinton Foundation (did he really think he wasn't "paying to play" for something?), his huge debts to Chinese, Russian and German banks? How typical that this grotesquely ignorant, stunningly incompetent boor of a man who lies every moment of every day skates away without disclosing anything at all about himself, while he vilifies HRC for the sick perversions of Huma Abedin's husband, and falsely trumpets that people "had paid access" to the former Secretary of State! The national press, NYT included, as often as not simply parrots these twisted lies, with neither nuance nor sufficient analysis. The Clintons have made mistakes, to be sure - but nothing - nothing - remotely compares to the appalling prospect of a Drumpf Presidency. Enough is enough, for heaven's sake!
13
When are the media going to stop just reprinting slams agaist Hillary and start investigating the Trump empire? It makes me sick to see the publicity Trump gets without spending a dime and all that is printed about Hillary is about alleged scandals.
A few commenters have also said the Trump Foundation, his university, his stiffing of contractors, his "deals" etc. could use closer scrutiny.
Why so much ink about unproven assertions from right-wing "think tanks" and the like? That is not news or reporting in my book.
A few commenters have also said the Trump Foundation, his university, his stiffing of contractors, his "deals" etc. could use closer scrutiny.
Why so much ink about unproven assertions from right-wing "think tanks" and the like? That is not news or reporting in my book.
4
For more than a decade, the Republican Party has spent more time dreaming up make-believe scandals than it has formulating policy proposals. They provide us with nothing whatsoever to vote "FOR" and instead try to motivate voters by giving them imaginary "evils" to vote "AGAINST." The GOP claims to be ideologically "conservative." In practice, their brand of "conservatism" has virtually nothing to do with ideas or solutions and is instead personified by "great thinkers" like Paul LePage, Louie Gohmert or David Duke. Most Americans want nothing to do with that brand of "conservatism!"
6
So the solution to a problem of what people perceive to be a conflict of interest is to shut down a foundation that is actually helping real people all of the world? The absurdity of the world we live has become too much. I'm pretty sure the Crown Prince of Bahrain would have gotten a meeting with the Sec of State without the donation. And if this foundation is the "most corrupt political enterprise in political history," why isn't there any hard proof of that?
Considering how many people seem to have devoted their entire lives to taking Clinton down before the election, if there was something really fishy going on, it would have been found already. But all they have discovered is that the foundations finances are in order, and some donors got meetings with Clinton while she was Sec of State. Well how dare she do her job and help others at the same time?
Considering how many people seem to have devoted their entire lives to taking Clinton down before the election, if there was something really fishy going on, it would have been found already. But all they have discovered is that the foundations finances are in order, and some donors got meetings with Clinton while she was Sec of State. Well how dare she do her job and help others at the same time?
8
The public's negative view of the Clinton's ethics stems from their perennial skirting of the rules and ethics involved in good governance,
Case in point: big business donors to the foundation paid big speaking fees to President Clinton, so even though the family has not taken a salary from the foundation they have profited.
Let's not forget that this is a Presidential couple that thought is was a good idea to sell nights in the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House for fundraising.
The Clinton's have created this perception of dishonesty and lack of ethics through their own actions. It will continue to dog Hillary Clinton, not because of a vast right wing conspiracy, but because that is who she is - a dissembler, borderline and often outright liar, and someone who thinks the rules just don't apply to her.
Case in point: big business donors to the foundation paid big speaking fees to President Clinton, so even though the family has not taken a salary from the foundation they have profited.
Let's not forget that this is a Presidential couple that thought is was a good idea to sell nights in the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House for fundraising.
The Clinton's have created this perception of dishonesty and lack of ethics through their own actions. It will continue to dog Hillary Clinton, not because of a vast right wing conspiracy, but because that is who she is - a dissembler, borderline and often outright liar, and someone who thinks the rules just don't apply to her.
32
Colin Powell made $6,000,000 in his first year out of State Dept on the speaker circuit, $6,000,000 on a book deal. Rice was paid on the same scale per speech as Powell, Clinton, Bush a bit less, etc. What's the big deal? An organization having an annual event hires the biggest draw. They really don't pay to hear some no-body with no experience. It's that simple. Bill never turned down an offer. He was paying off Hillary's campaign debts to the tune of $20 million. Look at their tax returns. The expanded version shows who paid them for speeches. Then get over it. The Bakers, Dairy and Deli associations had a great turn-out!
4
ALL the Republicans since WW2 have skirted rules for good governance far, far more than the Clintons ever have. SOP for Ike, Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes was to do far worse, far more often, for MUCH MORE MONEY. For example, adjusted for inflation, Reagan was paid a lot more for his speeches when he left the Presidency than Bill and Hillary. Ike's estate at Gettysburg was a gift from grateful Republicans.
3
1. I would like to know in more detail how was this donated Clinton Foundation money used, how much of Clinton Foundation money goes to administrative costs rather than charitable projects, and what are the good works of the Clinton Foundation?
All the media coverage has been negative. Emma Roller alludes to positive things the Foundation does, what are they? A wealthy prince donates a large amount of money, then wants to talk to H.R.C. about an educational program in his country. So?
2. Is there any firm proof of influence peddling and corruption yet? If you take a medical malpractice case to court, you must prove harm was done. Admittedly, there is a perception that contributions to the Clinton foundation (foreign or otherwise) COULD have resulted in special treatment or favors for the donors. What harm has been done?
Trump, of course, will go no farther than accusing Hillary of corruption. It fits his narrative, which may have no basis in reality, but his implications fit the Republican narrative that the Clintons are self-serving and about the law. Trump's own business record, however, is full of harm being done to investors, workers, students, cities & towns.
To combat the demonization of the Clinton Foundation, the Foundation needs to tout its good works, like the Carter Foundation and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And it needs to put some kind of a firewall in place where Hillary and Bill (and Chelsea) are put in a blind trust situation if H. is POTUS.
All the media coverage has been negative. Emma Roller alludes to positive things the Foundation does, what are they? A wealthy prince donates a large amount of money, then wants to talk to H.R.C. about an educational program in his country. So?
2. Is there any firm proof of influence peddling and corruption yet? If you take a medical malpractice case to court, you must prove harm was done. Admittedly, there is a perception that contributions to the Clinton foundation (foreign or otherwise) COULD have resulted in special treatment or favors for the donors. What harm has been done?
Trump, of course, will go no farther than accusing Hillary of corruption. It fits his narrative, which may have no basis in reality, but his implications fit the Republican narrative that the Clintons are self-serving and about the law. Trump's own business record, however, is full of harm being done to investors, workers, students, cities & towns.
To combat the demonization of the Clinton Foundation, the Foundation needs to tout its good works, like the Carter Foundation and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. And it needs to put some kind of a firewall in place where Hillary and Bill (and Chelsea) are put in a blind trust situation if H. is POTUS.
I think this piece gets it right. In the case of the Clinton Foundation there is no real evidence that a meeting with Secretary Clinton and any of the State donors might not have taken place regardless; that's part of the job of the Secretary of State after all. There is no evidence I've seen that US policy was affected, or favors granted to anyone beyond a meeting. Good or bad this is, however, universally how politics works right now. I am unaware of any politician, virtually all of them, that wouldn't grant a meeting with their large campaign donors and the quid pro quo in this situation seems more directly linked to potential conflict. I think we all have an opinion about whether this system has a broad and in my view negative impact on our politics. But unless and until all campaign financing is either made public or at least dollar limits by individuals and no corporate donations put in place this will be the system everyone lives and works with. In addition it would help if strict laws regarding access for politicians and staffers who leave politics and go into lobbying were put in place. Am I dreaming? Probably, but my vote will be for Hillary Clinton who I believe is far more likely to nominate supreme court justices and support legislation that would bring some balance back. Donald Trump exists in a system where everything is equated with money and knows zero about public service.
2
"Where, then, is the smoke coming from? A smoke machine?"
Yes, Virginia, there is a big smoke machine operating to defame the Clintons. It has created the narrative that somehow they are untrustworthy. The news media work overtime to reinforce that narrative.
That coziness among global elites is real enough. So is the possibility that "something" might be going on when donors get access to the Secretary of State.
The problem with that is that we have given up using our government as a primary source of global projects to help address global problems. "We" have decided that private philanthropy is better than taxes for funding humanitarian assistance.
I think the Clintons are as "trustworthy" as any politicians. The Secretary of State is supposed to be involved in international affairs. That the Crown Prince of Bahrain was both a donor and was granted a meeting with Mrs. Clinton is, in fact, almost the very definition of a "nothing burger."
I don't doubt that some contributors to the Clinton Foundation had nefarious reason for making those contributions. That is also true of people who make contributions to political campaigns. Unless we are prepared to allocate other funds or otherwise curb the need for money, the choice is to accept the "optics" or not to have the funding.
I wonder who the 85 people were. I've not seen a list of the names. There have been a few names put out there who may have been on the list and they sound pretty innocuous.
Yes, Virginia, there is a big smoke machine operating to defame the Clintons. It has created the narrative that somehow they are untrustworthy. The news media work overtime to reinforce that narrative.
That coziness among global elites is real enough. So is the possibility that "something" might be going on when donors get access to the Secretary of State.
The problem with that is that we have given up using our government as a primary source of global projects to help address global problems. "We" have decided that private philanthropy is better than taxes for funding humanitarian assistance.
I think the Clintons are as "trustworthy" as any politicians. The Secretary of State is supposed to be involved in international affairs. That the Crown Prince of Bahrain was both a donor and was granted a meeting with Mrs. Clinton is, in fact, almost the very definition of a "nothing burger."
I don't doubt that some contributors to the Clinton Foundation had nefarious reason for making those contributions. That is also true of people who make contributions to political campaigns. Unless we are prepared to allocate other funds or otherwise curb the need for money, the choice is to accept the "optics" or not to have the funding.
I wonder who the 85 people were. I've not seen a list of the names. There have been a few names put out there who may have been on the list and they sound pretty innocuous.
4
The word "scandal" has been deployed so much by the media with regard to Secretary Clinton that the word has become meaningless, except, of course, to impugn the integrity of an eminently qualified political candidate and to provide "evidence" as to why she is so "disliked." There appears no place for introspection in terms of the media's responsibility in creating an environment where public perception mirrors "journalistic" fabrication.
The latest "discovery" here is that "there is a coziness among global elites." Groundbreaking.
And, positively "scandalous."
This relentless media gaze on Hillary obscures the real and tangible scandal of the Republican frontrunner, who has espoused political assassination, deportation, identification cards for Muslims, carpet bombing of massively populated cities in the Middle East, among other egregious
"policy" goals.
Mr. Trump, who has been demonstrably racist and sexist, now sits poised, a few percentage points away from winning an election in the ostensible "outsider" pose.
By seeing scandal around every turn with Secretary Clinton, you have made it so.
The latest "discovery" here is that "there is a coziness among global elites." Groundbreaking.
And, positively "scandalous."
This relentless media gaze on Hillary obscures the real and tangible scandal of the Republican frontrunner, who has espoused political assassination, deportation, identification cards for Muslims, carpet bombing of massively populated cities in the Middle East, among other egregious
"policy" goals.
Mr. Trump, who has been demonstrably racist and sexist, now sits poised, a few percentage points away from winning an election in the ostensible "outsider" pose.
By seeing scandal around every turn with Secretary Clinton, you have made it so.
3
It is difficult to think that any great wealth, whether that of the Clinton or Trump families came and comes about with the smell of roses permeating the bundles of cash.
Money from its inception begins to accumulate dirt on its long and winding path to the incinerator and one has to be truly naive to think everyone who handles large amounts of it isn't smudged in some way.
When multi millionaires speak in almost begrudging tones of offering a minimum wage of less than $15/hr in the United States in this day and age and expect applause from the recipients of this largesse we should all know there is something not exactly fresh in the air and the path they travel not exactly straight.
It is often noted that money should be removed from politics in which case there would be no reason to enter politics.
Money from its inception begins to accumulate dirt on its long and winding path to the incinerator and one has to be truly naive to think everyone who handles large amounts of it isn't smudged in some way.
When multi millionaires speak in almost begrudging tones of offering a minimum wage of less than $15/hr in the United States in this day and age and expect applause from the recipients of this largesse we should all know there is something not exactly fresh in the air and the path they travel not exactly straight.
It is often noted that money should be removed from politics in which case there would be no reason to enter politics.
The Clinton Foundation is a unique institution, centered on a unique individual, Bill Clinton, former President of the United States. It philanthropic innovation is to combine private individual and corporate philanthropic dollars, with influence on governments, to do obvious good through public-private collaborations—e.g., lowering drug prices for distribution in poor countries. The Foundation's _speciality_ is to identify _harmonies_ (not conflicts) of interest between public and private parties, for humanitarian ends. Of course the Clintons talk with all kinds of potential donors, and a great deal of good is accomplished, including saving millions of lives (no exaggeration).
"Perceptions" of skulduggery are not _evidence_ of the same. Until evidence is found—and arranging meetings is not evidence of malfeasance—the job of journalists is to illuminate baseless speculations and accusations for what they are, and to keep digging for incriminating evidence. Just repeating political gossip is in this case neither smoke nor fire, but eyesight problems.
"Perceptions" of skulduggery are not _evidence_ of the same. Until evidence is found—and arranging meetings is not evidence of malfeasance—the job of journalists is to illuminate baseless speculations and accusations for what they are, and to keep digging for incriminating evidence. Just repeating political gossip is in this case neither smoke nor fire, but eyesight problems.
3
Money speaks. Money and power are lovers at first sight, no matter how conflicted it may seem to others. That money wins favors is uncontrovertible, as Clinton and Trump do know intimately. Further, we all are corruptible, especially if in a position of power; and what remains to be discussed is our price. An obvious example is the power the N.R.A. and gun lobby have on republicans in Congress, cowed into submission to do N.R.A.'s bidding, no matter how controversial and against the wishes of the majority in supporting the unsupportable, the indiscriminate selling of guns, and the 30,000 dead each year as a result. If you think that to be atrocious, look at the 'wise men' in the Supreme Court approving 'Citizens United' and allowing 'dirty' money to flow into political campaigns, corrupting our democracy and the value of each citizen's vote...by buying elections. In brief then, both presidential candidates are flawed; the question is, can they recover enough trust so to uphold the constitution and serve their countrymen fairly? All being equal, the vote ought to go to the one knowlegeable of the facts and willing to work with others, and not to the one trashing decency and common sense, and fanning fear and hate and division at each turn, a vulgar bully undeserving of our attention.
1
While the work of the Clinton Foundation may be worthwhile around the world, with a bit of planning and anticipation this perception of a conflict of interest could have been avoided had all three Clintons' resigned the Foundation during her stint as Secretary of State. Surely the Clinton camp must've known the vast right wing conspiracy would exploit this to their advantage. That this had not been done calls into question a lack of long term political vision by the Clintons .
1
Like it or not. Politics and business depend and thrive on relationships between leaders.
The individual voter has a very remote relationship with the leaders; 1 vote per person. Perhaps it meets the politician in a rally and perhaps shake hands.
Political donors accentuate that relationship through money.
It is a simple filtering process by which people gain access. I have zero chance to meet a president unless I have the fortitude to commit some heroic act that gets attention. The person with funds by definition has power to influence my vote. Naturally the person with funds gets access.
This is the way the system works, like it or not. For some reasons many folks hold the Clintons to a different standard than the Trumps or anybody else.
The fact is: If a politician fails to court a donor, then a politician will cease to be a politician because it does not have the funds to "buy" the votes. (I use the word "buy" as a shorthand for advertising and campaigning.)
The individual voter has a very remote relationship with the leaders; 1 vote per person. Perhaps it meets the politician in a rally and perhaps shake hands.
Political donors accentuate that relationship through money.
It is a simple filtering process by which people gain access. I have zero chance to meet a president unless I have the fortitude to commit some heroic act that gets attention. The person with funds by definition has power to influence my vote. Naturally the person with funds gets access.
This is the way the system works, like it or not. For some reasons many folks hold the Clintons to a different standard than the Trumps or anybody else.
The fact is: If a politician fails to court a donor, then a politician will cease to be a politician because it does not have the funds to "buy" the votes. (I use the word "buy" as a shorthand for advertising and campaigning.)
2
The paranoid narrative demands that one meeting, one donation, one email is all that is needed to "turn" a person, regardless of reputation, forever. This is the right's interpretation of the Bill/Loretta Lynch meeting, James Comey and the no indictment decision, and of course, the Clinton Foundation.
Most people have never held any position of leadership in a large organization, and since they do not understand how it works on the higher levels, they simply project their own suspicious fears and anxiety onto those in power. Once in awhile they might get it right, but not as often as they think.
Most people have never held any position of leadership in a large organization, and since they do not understand how it works on the higher levels, they simply project their own suspicious fears and anxiety onto those in power. Once in awhile they might get it right, but not as often as they think.
4
I applaud the Clintons for using thier status to build a charitable foundation, taking no profit from it while working incredibly hard for it. I see no conflict of interest even if after meeting with a donor should she would follow through on a suggestion made by the donor. The donation might have had some influence on the perception of the donor as it should or it just might be a good thing to do or something of little consequence. Let's reserve scandal for the fact that donors can give away such large sums for such little return.
1
There are those who will never believe the Clintons could ever do wrong. I suppose even if they confessed to wrong they would be cheered. Of course that will never happen.
The Clintons are too smart and savvy to allow a glaring perception problem. Really they just don't have to worry about accountability. Flaunting this situation in the face of those who should make them accountable is disgusting.
Why would Mr. Obama require her to sign a promise not to do these things as a condition of her nomination? Why would she promise then do it anyway?
There was a time when we wanted honorable, trustworthy, and honest leaders. That obviously is way down the list when these two are the candidates. Trump is a narcissist and a loud mouth. Of course he's not a politician and may be the best hope of shaking up the insanely corrupt and greedy inhabitants of D.C. Hillary is a politician and simply lies her way through. She says she is a champion of women yet in her senate office where she made the decisions about her budget she paid women less than men. Really? Her lies and deceit follow her and have for decades. She simply is not a good leader. Too many first hand accounts reveal her as a snob and hateful to those she feels inferior. Those accounts go back to her days as first lady of Arkansas. She has a political record. Why isn't she espousing that? Is it because it shows no accomplishment?
The only honorable candidate for either party was Kasich.
The Clintons are too smart and savvy to allow a glaring perception problem. Really they just don't have to worry about accountability. Flaunting this situation in the face of those who should make them accountable is disgusting.
Why would Mr. Obama require her to sign a promise not to do these things as a condition of her nomination? Why would she promise then do it anyway?
There was a time when we wanted honorable, trustworthy, and honest leaders. That obviously is way down the list when these two are the candidates. Trump is a narcissist and a loud mouth. Of course he's not a politician and may be the best hope of shaking up the insanely corrupt and greedy inhabitants of D.C. Hillary is a politician and simply lies her way through. She says she is a champion of women yet in her senate office where she made the decisions about her budget she paid women less than men. Really? Her lies and deceit follow her and have for decades. She simply is not a good leader. Too many first hand accounts reveal her as a snob and hateful to those she feels inferior. Those accounts go back to her days as first lady of Arkansas. She has a political record. Why isn't she espousing that? Is it because it shows no accomplishment?
The only honorable candidate for either party was Kasich.
1
Three quarters through this story the writer finally gets the point. If money buys you access, once you're in the room many things can happen. But the real story is that money just seems to follow the Clinton's around.
Whether land deals in Arkansas or a $1,000 investment in cattle futures that suddenly turned into a $100,000 windfall, the Clinton's just seem to amass wealth in their role as public servants, far above others.
Sometimes the money is clear and above board, like their multi-million dollar book deals. But sometimes, like Hillary's Wall Street speeches it raises questions. Some of Bill's 250k speeches have been reported on and they are remarkable only because of their ordinariness. So why pay a former president that kind of money for so little?
Some of Hillary and Bill's speeches resulted in figures close to 500k. These are pop concert figures, not dinner honorariums. So what makes their appreance so valuable to banks, brokerage houses and fortune 500 corporations?
We give our former presidents a generous pension of $197,000 a year plus a small staff. So when Bill left the White House the Clinton's were hardly 'broke' as Hillary claimed. Now they have a net worth estimated at 130 million.
So from a modest background in public service the Clintons have now joined the millionaires club. One can't hardly wonder what the price of that membership was and who ultimately paid it. The foundation is just one piece of a very clouded picture.
Whether land deals in Arkansas or a $1,000 investment in cattle futures that suddenly turned into a $100,000 windfall, the Clinton's just seem to amass wealth in their role as public servants, far above others.
Sometimes the money is clear and above board, like their multi-million dollar book deals. But sometimes, like Hillary's Wall Street speeches it raises questions. Some of Bill's 250k speeches have been reported on and they are remarkable only because of their ordinariness. So why pay a former president that kind of money for so little?
Some of Hillary and Bill's speeches resulted in figures close to 500k. These are pop concert figures, not dinner honorariums. So what makes their appreance so valuable to banks, brokerage houses and fortune 500 corporations?
We give our former presidents a generous pension of $197,000 a year plus a small staff. So when Bill left the White House the Clinton's were hardly 'broke' as Hillary claimed. Now they have a net worth estimated at 130 million.
So from a modest background in public service the Clintons have now joined the millionaires club. One can't hardly wonder what the price of that membership was and who ultimately paid it. The foundation is just one piece of a very clouded picture.
6
"Some of Bill's 250k speeches have been reported on and they are remarkable only because of their ordinariness. So why pay a former president that kind of money for so little?"
Well, probably because paying Bill $250K is a bargain compared to paying $1 to W for his ramblings.
Well, probably because paying Bill $250K is a bargain compared to paying $1 to W for his ramblings.
2
The key point here seems to be that money buys access, which is more or less "okay" for a Senator's campaign fund but not okay for a Secretary of State. The comparison is shaky, though. Contributions to a political campaign directly benefit the recipient: a personal gift to forward the interests of both the giver *and* the receiver.
Assuming that donations to the Clinton Foundation were, in some cases, motivated by the desire to gain access to the Secretary of State, there's no quid for the quo. Ms. Clinton didn't personally benefit from the gifts. The benefit went to the recipients of the Foundation's generosity.
The author here asks "where, then, is the smoke coming from?", admittedly "belabor(ing) the metaphor". That question very nearly answers itself. The smoke comes from her opponents... the same kind of folks who've been stalking her for over 20 years of public service. One can put hot coals into a pile of wet leaves and make all the smoke you'd want, but with no fire. That particular metaphor describes the smoldering anger of Ms. Clinton's opponents, motivated by a sustained hatred that's hard to understand.
Assuming that donations to the Clinton Foundation were, in some cases, motivated by the desire to gain access to the Secretary of State, there's no quid for the quo. Ms. Clinton didn't personally benefit from the gifts. The benefit went to the recipients of the Foundation's generosity.
The author here asks "where, then, is the smoke coming from?", admittedly "belabor(ing) the metaphor". That question very nearly answers itself. The smoke comes from her opponents... the same kind of folks who've been stalking her for over 20 years of public service. One can put hot coals into a pile of wet leaves and make all the smoke you'd want, but with no fire. That particular metaphor describes the smoldering anger of Ms. Clinton's opponents, motivated by a sustained hatred that's hard to understand.
3
"That particular metaphor describes the smoldering anger of Ms. Clinton's opponents, motivated by a sustained hatred that's hard to understand."
Not so hard to understand, really. The GOP (especially the far right) simply loathes individuals that own them at every turn. The Clintons and President Obama have eaten their lunch time and time again, and it drives them to distraction.
They must get pretty tired of all the effort, because they have had the thankless task of doing the same thing, in reverse, to try to salvage the tarnished legacies of Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 -- hacks, one and all.
Not so hard to understand, really. The GOP (especially the far right) simply loathes individuals that own them at every turn. The Clintons and President Obama have eaten their lunch time and time again, and it drives them to distraction.
They must get pretty tired of all the effort, because they have had the thankless task of doing the same thing, in reverse, to try to salvage the tarnished legacies of Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 -- hacks, one and all.
2
Decades of GOP investigations, $millions of taxpayer money spent, and zero actionable evidence. Now, we see investigations of the Clintons, but no one else, no GOP organizations, not even equivalent Dem ones, the very definition of "Clinton Rules".
GOP persecution for decades works. The press just eats it up, regardless of facts or fairness.
As far as I am concerned, Hillary Clinton is one of the cleanest politicians on the face of the earth, based on facts, as vetted by the GOP over decades.
GOP persecution for decades works. The press just eats it up, regardless of facts or fairness.
As far as I am concerned, Hillary Clinton is one of the cleanest politicians on the face of the earth, based on facts, as vetted by the GOP over decades.
6
"Rich people simply have more influence in American politics than not-rich people do"
Please anyone, name for me a system of government in any country at any time in history where this is not true. There is no legislating money out of politics - past, present or future. The best we can hope for is pure transparency.
I find it revealing that it seems the issue most anti-Clinton people have with this story is not the meetings with wealthy, influential individuals foreign and domestic. There is no way around that if a Secretary of State is doing her job. It's that several billion dollars of good works in the form of healthcare, education and human rights was deployed possibly in exchange for a meeting or 'access'. If the foundation hadn't taken a dime and none of the work was done - which has been independently rated as highly regarded in every way - this would all be fine. It's as if the act of doing good with the influence is worse than granting the access, which every politician since the founding fathers has granted. Show me one instance where Secretary Clinton changed a policy because of a donation and this is a story. Until then, it is a distraction from dozens of real issues we should be debating in a Pesidential election.
Please anyone, name for me a system of government in any country at any time in history where this is not true. There is no legislating money out of politics - past, present or future. The best we can hope for is pure transparency.
I find it revealing that it seems the issue most anti-Clinton people have with this story is not the meetings with wealthy, influential individuals foreign and domestic. There is no way around that if a Secretary of State is doing her job. It's that several billion dollars of good works in the form of healthcare, education and human rights was deployed possibly in exchange for a meeting or 'access'. If the foundation hadn't taken a dime and none of the work was done - which has been independently rated as highly regarded in every way - this would all be fine. It's as if the act of doing good with the influence is worse than granting the access, which every politician since the founding fathers has granted. Show me one instance where Secretary Clinton changed a policy because of a donation and this is a story. Until then, it is a distraction from dozens of real issues we should be debating in a Pesidential election.
4
"Once you draw back the curtain, it's hard not to recoil". Ms. Roller certainly tips her hand here. What is she recoiling from? Some people would give their teeth to be able to be such an influence for good in the world. Others would be only too pleased to have a seat at the table of power. Some spend their whole lives trying to get there. Is Ms. Roller recoiling from the sausage making of getting things done? One of the reasons the Clinton pragmatism is appealing is that it delivers in the real world. Actions happen. The potentate that suppresses human rights in X country, gives money that advances the health of the poorest elsewhere. Should his or her money be taken? This dilemma is reflective of what it means to live in the modern world. To pretend otherwise is naive. Hillary Clinton caught on tape in the spring at a Black Lives Matter event said something like this: I don't believe in changing people's hearts and minds, I believe in changing laws and allocating funding. This view illustrates the the thinking of a hard worker in the political arena. e-mails, Vince Foster, sex scandals, Whitewater, Travelgate, and all the PUBLIC money that went in to the long investigations is what I recoil from. The Clintons or any politician worth his or her salt staying in the arena year after year with their personal lives and ethics continually and publicly questioned seems to be an unfortunate testament to accomplishment in the 21st century.
6
What the Trump campaign has accomplished is to give power to code words that imply corruption or other scandal worthy actions without the necessity to prove misbehaviour or its consequences. The code word "email" scandal has come to mean real danger to national security from Sec. Clinton despite any proof being offered that the 3 eventually classified emails had negative consequences for national security. That the majority of Trump supporters and a significant number of other voters believe Sec. Clinton faces prison for her "email" actions is proof that voters' perceptions can be manipulated by misinformation told over and over again without proof demanded by media.
The same is true of the current Clinton Foundation controversy. Voters who in their own lives expect the benefits of who they are in their towns or jobs to get them out of traffic violations or illegal dumping or DUI events are ranting against the access to meeting with Sec Clinton that donors to the Clinton Foundation seem to have. It has not been necessary to prove what benefit that access meant for the donor or whether the money donated to the Clinton Foundation for recognized "good works" was spent by the Clintons on fancy cars, clothes, vacations, off-shore accounts. No, just an email saying Sec. Clinton met with a donor who happened to be a prominent official has been deem sufficient to be a "scandal"
Do the Clintons make money from donors as Trump has from his campaign donors? No proof so far.
The same is true of the current Clinton Foundation controversy. Voters who in their own lives expect the benefits of who they are in their towns or jobs to get them out of traffic violations or illegal dumping or DUI events are ranting against the access to meeting with Sec Clinton that donors to the Clinton Foundation seem to have. It has not been necessary to prove what benefit that access meant for the donor or whether the money donated to the Clinton Foundation for recognized "good works" was spent by the Clintons on fancy cars, clothes, vacations, off-shore accounts. No, just an email saying Sec. Clinton met with a donor who happened to be a prominent official has been deem sufficient to be a "scandal"
Do the Clintons make money from donors as Trump has from his campaign donors? No proof so far.
4
We know how much money the Donald is making from his campaign funds since almost all the spaces he "rents" are owned by him and he has quadrupled the rent rates! He probably also pays himself for the use of his plane. And I bet he deducts all the costs of his various homes as well as his and his wife's clothing as business expenses.
2
Too bad this article did not develop its last point rather than trace shallow debates about corruption. What makes Clinton problematic is not the extent to which she may or may not be corrupt (how could any successful person today not be, to some extent?). Rather it is her evident inability to challenge the intersection of power and wealth that operates in ways that are undermining the well being of most people, fueling actual and possible military violence at levels of great cruelty, and allowing the plant to become unsustainable for humans and many other species. We need to understand better how even well-intentioned politicians serve this process.
The Clinton Foundation and hence Bill and Hillary Clinton accepted donations to the Foundation from almost anyone, regardless of whether the donors were good, bad or ugly, and I have little doubt that some donors looked upon their donations as a key to the doorway of access to Hillary Clinton while she was US Secretary of State. On the flip side, however, would the less than good donors have been so offended if their donations were rejected that it would have had adverse effects upon US relations with certain countries? Probably so.... So, in the end the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons would be damned if they did or if they did not, even if it was they who put themselves in that position. In addition, I do not hear the anti-Clintonites raising any objections to the pay for play contributions by US corporations under the Citizens United case, which is just another example of the Republican/conservative/Tea Party/alt-right hypocrisy. Finally, while Hillary Clinton may come with political baggage, the Clinton Foundation's two billion dollars raised and expended over the years surpasses by far the rather stingy an miserly charitable donations by Tantrum Trump.
6
This manufactured Clinton Foundation "scandal" is the latest chapter from the Republican Party playbook to undermine and smear Democratic candidates. "Swiftboating" Kerry's distinguished war record, attacking Vietnam veteran triple amputee Max Cleland's war record, Whitewater investigations, Vincent Foster suicide investigations, Monica Lewinsky impeachment investigations, phony Benghazi investigations, hyped up email "scandals," "birther" investigations.
Knowingly repeating endless lies and accusations amplified by the MSM is a propaganda technique to distract voters from the disastrous past and proposed Republican plans and policies that have led to unnecessary wars, financial meltdowns, poisoned air and water and deaths and financial ruin of Americans from inadequate access to modern healthcare.
Republicans knowingly "message" these false claims to the less informed voter who will conclude that "where there's smoke, there must be fire."
Hillary Clinton has been more thoroughly vetted and investigated than any other American politician in our nation's history.
Every Republican should look in the mirror and ask "have you no shame?"
Knowingly repeating endless lies and accusations amplified by the MSM is a propaganda technique to distract voters from the disastrous past and proposed Republican plans and policies that have led to unnecessary wars, financial meltdowns, poisoned air and water and deaths and financial ruin of Americans from inadequate access to modern healthcare.
Republicans knowingly "message" these false claims to the less informed voter who will conclude that "where there's smoke, there must be fire."
Hillary Clinton has been more thoroughly vetted and investigated than any other American politician in our nation's history.
Every Republican should look in the mirror and ask "have you no shame?"
10
Really? The quid pro quo defense? The Clintons have always asserted a special exception to our nation's ethical principles. They say all of those complicated rules and regulations are for designed for bad people; not good people like us. And when they are caught ignoring the rules, they say we broke the silly little rule, but we didn't do anything wrong. There was no quid pro quo.
For the record, we have rules against secret meetings between politically appointed prosecutors and the subjects of their investigations because we don't want to be forced to trust them that they were only discussing grandchildren. We require public officials to use official systems because we want to be able to see what they are doing; not simply take their word. The ethics laws are designed so that we don't have to trust politicians. In fact, they are designed to prohibit certain payments and relationships because we don't trust them.
Bill Clinton is the greatest "machine" politician of our time. Even Obama, who despises the Clintons, was afraid to govern without Bill's networks, contacts and systems of influence. The Clinton machine runs on favors and reciprocity. The Foundation was purpose-built to globalize and formalize the machine and position Hillary for her presidential campaign. It provided a seemingly benign reason for the payments and meetings. Who could possibly want something like that operating within the State Department, or worse yet the White House?
For the record, we have rules against secret meetings between politically appointed prosecutors and the subjects of their investigations because we don't want to be forced to trust them that they were only discussing grandchildren. We require public officials to use official systems because we want to be able to see what they are doing; not simply take their word. The ethics laws are designed so that we don't have to trust politicians. In fact, they are designed to prohibit certain payments and relationships because we don't trust them.
Bill Clinton is the greatest "machine" politician of our time. Even Obama, who despises the Clintons, was afraid to govern without Bill's networks, contacts and systems of influence. The Clinton machine runs on favors and reciprocity. The Foundation was purpose-built to globalize and formalize the machine and position Hillary for her presidential campaign. It provided a seemingly benign reason for the payments and meetings. Who could possibly want something like that operating within the State Department, or worse yet the White House?
4
FDR, while President in the 1940s founded the National Foundation March of Dimes to raise private money to fund research into the discovery of a vaccine to prevent polio and methods to treat the disease which at the time was the most serious public health threat. Was it a scandal that FDR himself was afflicted with polio ? Was it a scandal that he appointed his son as executive of the Foundation ? Was money diverted to university research programs with favorable ties to the FDR administration ? Perhaps, but most Americans were thankful for FDR's leadership in the successful eradication of polio in our country. Perhaps the Clinton Foundation should unveil its achieved accomplishments around the world.
130
And Mussolini made the trains run on time.
What's your point? Forget the rule of law, per our political convenience.
What's your point? Forget the rule of law, per our political convenience.
3
Having spent an entire academic career studying these issues, I have to say that most of the public discussion of the Clinton Foundation issue tends to over-complicate the issue. What motives people have, or who did or didn't do what in a quid-pro-quo fashion, are largely beside the point.
Conflict of interest is a *situation*, not an action or a state of mind. If one's personal interests run contrary to the interests one is supposed to serve in a job -- in this instance, those of the nation via its foreign policy -- then that person is in a conflict of interest. Mrs. Clinton, unfortunately (I plan to vote for her and cannot even contemplate the idea of The Real Estate Developer as President) fits that description.
The notion that that is just the way wealthy and powerful people live their lives may well be true, but it isn't a defense. Access and connections are valuable, and marketable, commodities at that level, and people at that level are willing to pay for it.
The whole situation is so unfortunate, and was so avoidable...
Conflict of interest is a *situation*, not an action or a state of mind. If one's personal interests run contrary to the interests one is supposed to serve in a job -- in this instance, those of the nation via its foreign policy -- then that person is in a conflict of interest. Mrs. Clinton, unfortunately (I plan to vote for her and cannot even contemplate the idea of The Real Estate Developer as President) fits that description.
The notion that that is just the way wealthy and powerful people live their lives may well be true, but it isn't a defense. Access and connections are valuable, and marketable, commodities at that level, and people at that level are willing to pay for it.
The whole situation is so unfortunate, and was so avoidable...
46
Vote 3rd party. You don't have to pick a corrupt oligarch.
I don't see how the Clinton Foundation is a "personal interest" of Hillary Clinton. The Clinton Foundation is an independent nonprofit organization whose assets are dedicated to charitable causes. Hillary Clinton does not benefit personally from contributions to the Foundation. A contribution to her presidential campaign does benefit her personally, but that's the way we've decided to do our political business in these United States, at least so far.
1
If you have been, or have become, a wealthy, politically connected, person it is to be expected that your friends will also be wealthy, politically connected people. it is not “strange” that Trump and Clinton attended each others social events and contributed to each others charities; that is their world.
After he retired, Clinton looked for the best way to use his personal and political assets to improve life for underserved people around the world and started the foundation. Should Hillary have neglected her opportunity to use her talents to serve because he was raising money for the foundation he founded? Should they both have chosen to become hermits to avoid scandal.
Admittedly, once she is President, the foundation will become an issue; NOT because it will be a vehicle for others to influence her but because she (and likely he) will be expected to use all their resources to do all the good they can via the U. S. Government, and not via the foundation. I would hope that after she retires, the foundation will be able to be reassembled and continue its good work.
In a world where billions of people live in need, and we praise artists and sports figures for using their talents to improve peoples’ lives, why are we criticizing the Clintons for doing the same?
After he retired, Clinton looked for the best way to use his personal and political assets to improve life for underserved people around the world and started the foundation. Should Hillary have neglected her opportunity to use her talents to serve because he was raising money for the foundation he founded? Should they both have chosen to become hermits to avoid scandal.
Admittedly, once she is President, the foundation will become an issue; NOT because it will be a vehicle for others to influence her but because she (and likely he) will be expected to use all their resources to do all the good they can via the U. S. Government, and not via the foundation. I would hope that after she retires, the foundation will be able to be reassembled and continue its good work.
In a world where billions of people live in need, and we praise artists and sports figures for using their talents to improve peoples’ lives, why are we criticizing the Clintons for doing the same?
1
It is a shame to think that the Clinton Foundation will have to close its doors if Hillary becomes President. Calling the Clinton foundation corrupt is just another way in which Trump is grasping at straws trying to find something that sticks on Clinton. The Republicans used similar techniques to derail the Presidency of John Kerry -- powerfully suggesting that his purple heart was somehow a blot on his record rather than something we should have taken pride in.
You can't blame Trump and his gang for trying, but you can blame the American public for not being able to decipher right from wrong in the case of the Clinton Foundation and in the case of John Kerry's Purple Heart.
You can't blame Trump and his gang for trying, but you can blame the American public for not being able to decipher right from wrong in the case of the Clinton Foundation and in the case of John Kerry's Purple Heart.
5
Articles like this are what make many people who might consider public office stop. Every small infraction, action, statement, donation, whatever, by family, by the person running, by their friends, is fodder for the media machine. Something is always rotten in the state of Denmark or Maine, or Texas, or New York, or wherever. Political candidates are not allowed to have private lives, make mistakes, change their opinions, learn and grow, or do anything without being suspected of trying to get away with something. If we want to discourage good people from public office we've done a good job.
Look at what we had running for the GOP nomination: a group of second rate junior party members whose sole contribution to the race was how many names they could call each other. And look at who the nominee is: a bully with a loudmouth who isn't fit to shine shoes much less sit in the Oval Office. If we want competent people to run for any level of elected positions in America perhaps we need to think about how we treat them. In many ways these positions are thankless. But we do ourselves a huge disservice when we drag everything out time and time again.
Look at what we had running for the GOP nomination: a group of second rate junior party members whose sole contribution to the race was how many names they could call each other. And look at who the nominee is: a bully with a loudmouth who isn't fit to shine shoes much less sit in the Oval Office. If we want competent people to run for any level of elected positions in America perhaps we need to think about how we treat them. In many ways these positions are thankless. But we do ourselves a huge disservice when we drag everything out time and time again.
4
"If you think the Clintons have been the victims of a decades-long coordinated attack by Republicans..."? This is presented as if it is a partisan perception. It's just a plain fact that they have been, just as Obama has been under a coordinated attack since he took office. To treat these attacks as mere perception rather than fact shames the pages of the Times. It is trivially easy to document the coordinated attacks. Look in your own archives.
19
Wow, money gets you access. I am shocked. SHOCKED. Where were all the conservative concerns when the conservative majority on the US Supreme Court handed down the Citizens United decision that blew out campaign finance restrictions. Let's look at the campaign donation books of politicians of both parties and nominated figures and see who also were granted greater access including meetings or bills considered. Yes for the average citizen the idea of money equaling political influence is nothing new and problematic. But this is how our system works. If the media is going to finally pay attention to the money equals access issue, let's look at the whole system and hold everyone accountable. Maybe then we might get some real change.
12
It only took me a few minutes of going through the Clinton's joint income tax returns for the past nine years, freely available for anyone to see on Hillary Clinton's website, to discover that not one dollar from the Clinton Foundation has been paid to either Bill or Hillary Clinton. In fact, they jointly donated one million dollars to the foundation in 2015. So much for Donald Trump's claim that the Clintons are "lining their pockets" with Clinton Foundation donations.
Having the Clintons' tax returns available to examine debunked one of Trump's biggest talking points. I wonder what other Trump lies would be exposed if Trump had the guts to make his own tax returns public.
Having the Clintons' tax returns available to examine debunked one of Trump's biggest talking points. I wonder what other Trump lies would be exposed if Trump had the guts to make his own tax returns public.
25
Wow, you actually believe, that by reviewing their tax returns, that the Clintons have not profited by the Foundation? Talk about progressive naïveté
3
There are countless ways to "benefit" from such a Foundation, besides a direct salary.
I don't understand why the Clinton Foundation is an issue but the Trump Foundation isn't.
Seems pretty straight-forward to me.
The Clinton Foundation actually donates to and FUNDS charitable operations and organizations around the globe. The Clintons don't waste much time promoting themselves as wonderful people for this charity.
On the other hand, the Trump Foundation doesn't seem to fund much of anything and only with excessive prodding does Donald Trump reluctantly make the donations he long ago promised, usually less than he promised, and then loudly brags about it. And, it seems, when it spends money, like the Trump campaign, it hires Trump properties and Trump companies, thereby pouring those charitable donations into.....Trump's pockets.
My goodness! A charity that actually ENGAGES in charity and doesn't pay its founders a dime! How horrible! Don't you MUCH prefer a billionaire's charity that funnels its expenditures into the billionaire's bank account?
Seems pretty straight-forward to me.
The Clinton Foundation actually donates to and FUNDS charitable operations and organizations around the globe. The Clintons don't waste much time promoting themselves as wonderful people for this charity.
On the other hand, the Trump Foundation doesn't seem to fund much of anything and only with excessive prodding does Donald Trump reluctantly make the donations he long ago promised, usually less than he promised, and then loudly brags about it. And, it seems, when it spends money, like the Trump campaign, it hires Trump properties and Trump companies, thereby pouring those charitable donations into.....Trump's pockets.
My goodness! A charity that actually ENGAGES in charity and doesn't pay its founders a dime! How horrible! Don't you MUCH prefer a billionaire's charity that funnels its expenditures into the billionaire's bank account?
17
It sounds like a short cut past the usual lobbying and the money goes to fight poverty and suffering. And while that was not the Foundation's design, it is the outcome in a world of politics. However, this use should not thwart the original goals of raising monies to do good. Influence will be bought, it is naive to think otherwise; in this manner the price is in charity.
2
"When Is a Scandal Really a Scandal?"
Silly question.
When you get caught, of course.
When you cannot understand the consternation because you have been doing business in this manner for years.
When you leave the WH "broke."
When even the Times writes about itin an editorial and advises the co-mingling of public service and private fund-raising should end.
When the matter is preceded by running a private internet server in your basement upon which pass national security matters and you blame it all on....Colin Powell.
When your husband just happens to be on the tarmac at the same time as the attorney general and he visits for a while to discuss his grandchildren and golf while the AG is making a decision as to whether to indict Hill or her staff for violating several US laws criminalizing, as FBI director Comey put it,"extremely negligent" conduct.
Or, a scandal is really a scandal only if your presidential opponent is not a progressive or down with the left wing of the Dem party. That explains why Al Sharpton, the racialist hustler who so enthralled NYC in his Tawana Brawley days, is still receiving medals from President Obama.
Now, I hope this answers the question.
Silly question.
When you get caught, of course.
When you cannot understand the consternation because you have been doing business in this manner for years.
When you leave the WH "broke."
When even the Times writes about itin an editorial and advises the co-mingling of public service and private fund-raising should end.
When the matter is preceded by running a private internet server in your basement upon which pass national security matters and you blame it all on....Colin Powell.
When your husband just happens to be on the tarmac at the same time as the attorney general and he visits for a while to discuss his grandchildren and golf while the AG is making a decision as to whether to indict Hill or her staff for violating several US laws criminalizing, as FBI director Comey put it,"extremely negligent" conduct.
Or, a scandal is really a scandal only if your presidential opponent is not a progressive or down with the left wing of the Dem party. That explains why Al Sharpton, the racialist hustler who so enthralled NYC in his Tawana Brawley days, is still receiving medals from President Obama.
Now, I hope this answers the question.
10
You mean.....when Fox"News" and the usual right-wing haters say so?
1
So do people think that Clinton would not meet the crown prince of Bahrain if there wasn't a donation? Or that the thousands of other people she met as secretary were slipping her a few bucks? Of course there is a big overlap between the people she meets and the people who donate. These people are rich and famous.
6
Hillary Clinton is The Clinton Foundation.
If you are "with her" you are with the foundation. You eagerly accept foreign money, influence peddling, and pay to play. Accept your warts and call them beauty marks, this is who you are.
If you are "with her" you are with the foundation. You eagerly accept foreign money, influence peddling, and pay to play. Accept your warts and call them beauty marks, this is who you are.
6
and they should be proud of the great things that the CHARITABLE FOUNDATION has done. The Clintons don't get a drop of money from the foundation, it's not some personal piggy bank. You really wouldn't get much cheritable work done without donations.
2
I'm in the "decades long attack group." The right has hated the Clintons for years. When Hillary's elected, they will set their hair on fire and then rip it out.
Tell me what Senators and Representatives do with their time besides fund raising- they meet with constituents who have given them money.
Trump acts like this money goes into their bank account. He knows better, but lying is more comfortable and useful for him than the truth.
The Clintons don't help with their "perception" problem. Yes their foundation does good works and should continue, But the Clintons gotta get out. It can still function without them, but Bill will need another hobby.
For Clinton supporters, these "scandals" don't make any impression. The right has called scandal so many times, and all amount to very little. But Faux News viewers believe them all. Being in a political party that is so angry and hateful, doesn't give much hope for electing one of their own.
Could they have found a more flawed candidate? That's hard to imagine.
Tell me what Senators and Representatives do with their time besides fund raising- they meet with constituents who have given them money.
Trump acts like this money goes into their bank account. He knows better, but lying is more comfortable and useful for him than the truth.
The Clintons don't help with their "perception" problem. Yes their foundation does good works and should continue, But the Clintons gotta get out. It can still function without them, but Bill will need another hobby.
For Clinton supporters, these "scandals" don't make any impression. The right has called scandal so many times, and all amount to very little. But Faux News viewers believe them all. Being in a political party that is so angry and hateful, doesn't give much hope for electing one of their own.
Could they have found a more flawed candidate? That's hard to imagine.
6
There is fire...
The State Department put Rajiv K. Fernando on the International Security Advisory Board after he donated large sums of money to the Clinton Foundation. He had absolutely no experience in the area and there was no reason for the State Department to give him this job if not for his donations. After the press started questioning it he immediately quit the position.
Then there is the Uranium case...long...NYT had a piece on it as has other news agencies.
Then there are multiple cases involving companies that have donated money and/or hired Bill Clinton to speak (paid up to $750,000) and then afterwards received positive State Department rulings.
And lets not forget the money funneling agency they setup in Canada. In Canada by law you can't release donor names. So the Clinton's created a shell organization that took in money from who knows where and then funneled that money into the foundation. This makes it impossible to trace where the money came from. They did this on purpose to hide donor information. That's not proof of a crime but it is evidence of a cover-up.
When they say there is no smoking gun what they mean is that there is nothing in writing (so far at least) that says "For $$$ I will give you XXX". The Clinton's have been too smart for that.
The State Department put Rajiv K. Fernando on the International Security Advisory Board after he donated large sums of money to the Clinton Foundation. He had absolutely no experience in the area and there was no reason for the State Department to give him this job if not for his donations. After the press started questioning it he immediately quit the position.
Then there is the Uranium case...long...NYT had a piece on it as has other news agencies.
Then there are multiple cases involving companies that have donated money and/or hired Bill Clinton to speak (paid up to $750,000) and then afterwards received positive State Department rulings.
And lets not forget the money funneling agency they setup in Canada. In Canada by law you can't release donor names. So the Clinton's created a shell organization that took in money from who knows where and then funneled that money into the foundation. This makes it impossible to trace where the money came from. They did this on purpose to hide donor information. That's not proof of a crime but it is evidence of a cover-up.
When they say there is no smoking gun what they mean is that there is nothing in writing (so far at least) that says "For $$$ I will give you XXX". The Clinton's have been too smart for that.
9
When IS a scandal a scandal?
When, whether deservedly or not, its every nuance is repeated ad nauseam and the next time some peripheral item comes to light it's treated as "breaking news" for the next 48 hours. In other words, when it's kept before the public so that even the most innocuous transaction comes across as sinister.
Contrast the difference between the constant Clinton Foundation coverage and the rare and spotty reporting of Trump's dealings with his contractors, employees and clients and with the Mob.
When, whether deservedly or not, its every nuance is repeated ad nauseam and the next time some peripheral item comes to light it's treated as "breaking news" for the next 48 hours. In other words, when it's kept before the public so that even the most innocuous transaction comes across as sinister.
Contrast the difference between the constant Clinton Foundation coverage and the rare and spotty reporting of Trump's dealings with his contractors, employees and clients and with the Mob.
15
There's smoke?! Is that smoke another smoke-screen hiding Republican arsonists trying to burn down Hillary's candidacy? Well okay, let's err on the side of caution and continue to look for a fire, but if we're going to do that shouldn't we be just a little bit concerned by the glowing 535 foot high blaze that has in fact been burning on capital hill? Do we think lobbyists contribute to congressional campaigns because they want to serve the public's interests? When representatives spend more than half their time raising campaign funds, do we believe they wont give their attention to big donors? If we're concerned about the influence of money in politics shouldn't we impeach a little over half of the justices on the Supreme Court?
Look for a new special House committee to hold emergency hearings in October on the Clinton Foundation. Look for the House to call for a Justice Department investigation of the Clinton Foundation and Secretary Clinton. The arsonists on capital hill don't want you to see them setting the fires, they want you to see them screaming "FIRE!". Just saying.
Look for a new special House committee to hold emergency hearings in October on the Clinton Foundation. Look for the House to call for a Justice Department investigation of the Clinton Foundation and Secretary Clinton. The arsonists on capital hill don't want you to see them setting the fires, they want you to see them screaming "FIRE!". Just saying.
12
"The Clinton family has never taken a salary from the foundation." Is that true ? Someone please tell me. And if it is, is the word "salary" a feint to disguise other non-salary payments to family, e.g., transportation, lodging, etc. ? And what about payments to their minions ? Really don't know...just asking.
3
Look at the Clintons' tax returns. They are available online.
Did Donald Trump take money from mobsters or the Russians? Look at his tax re... oh. Never mind.
Did Donald Trump take money from mobsters or the Russians? Look at his tax re... oh. Never mind.
2
The information is available. The Clintons have not received a penny from the foundation. The foundation gets the highest ratings from all charitable watchdog groups.
1
It's the height of hypocrisy for Republican lawmakers. who spend most of their days raising money and brazenly meet with donors as a matter of routine to discuss how laws can be written to benefit them, to point fingers at Hillary Clinton. The Clinton family gets no money from the foundation as a review of the foundation's mandatory filings makes clear. The foundation exists to do good works for needy people around the world. The Republicans would have you believe that easy access to a Republican's ear by an Exxon lobbyist is ethical, at the same time as a foundation donor's access to Hillary Clinton's ear is "crooked." I'm amazed and appalled that so much of the public and the press refuses to see this for what it is--pure character assassination by people who attack someone trying to do good while having absolutely no character themselves.
13
in this long long article, there is *one specific example*
how about 3 or 4, instead of all the useless opinion punditry from "experts"
or, if you can't for some odd reason, give us 3 or 4 examples, how about links ?
CDS, imo
PS buried n the specific example: a Bahrani prince gives the clinton foundation money for ....a education program in Bahrain ???? wierd on its face; why can't the prince do this directly ? we need overpaid american aid workers to run this ? whiskey tango foxtrot
how about 3 or 4, instead of all the useless opinion punditry from "experts"
or, if you can't for some odd reason, give us 3 or 4 examples, how about links ?
CDS, imo
PS buried n the specific example: a Bahrani prince gives the clinton foundation money for ....a education program in Bahrain ???? wierd on its face; why can't the prince do this directly ? we need overpaid american aid workers to run this ? whiskey tango foxtrot
3
The education program in Bahrain is a Clinton Foundation program, not a Bahraini government program. Thus, in order to support the program, the donation has to be made to the foundation.
Moreover, aid workers are not overpaid; most are grossly underpaid for the work they do as they could earn far more in the for-profit sector.
Moreover, aid workers are not overpaid; most are grossly underpaid for the work they do as they could earn far more in the for-profit sector.
2
It may be that there is no organization existing in Bahrain for this work. And on what grounds do you claim American aid workers are overpaid?
1
The Clintons are masters of misconceptions. They never seem to get the adage, " If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, ..." They can never see any problems or personal fault with all the imbroglios they are involved in.For smart people, they can sure be pretty obtuse.
Maybe someday they will wake up and see the duck in the mirror.
Maybe someday they will wake up and see the duck in the mirror.
2
There is a reason why I do not understand why this is considered a scandal; it has been well-known forever that people with money have access to power that the rest of us don't. Yes, it is unfortunate and is undemocratic. But how is this different from the things that go on everyday with political leaders when they give hearing to people who have a lot of money or hold powerful positions outside of government?
5
I don't see the difference between the accepted practice of making a contribution to a politician's campaign fund and getting access in return. This happens all the time. Yet because it's the Clintons there's that hint of scandal drummed up and fanned by the Conservative press. Enough already! Let's get on to talking/debating about the real issues facing this country....climate disruption, jobs, our failing infrastructure and education system, how to fix Obamacare, etc.
185
This article speaks to why the Clintons will never address fundamental change in our country: they are already in bed with those blocking change.
27
Yes, and when is a "rotten egg" the same as a "fresh egg"!?
2
I recognize that the appearance matters, but I've been very disappointed in the media for always burying statements like the following:
"The Clinton family has never taken a salary from the foundation. The watchdog group Charity Watch awarded the foundation an A rating for its financial management. It’s hard to quarrel with the legitimate good works the foundation has done in the developing world."
I see people talking about the "personal enrichment" of the Clintons and acting as if the Foundation were a money-making scheme. On CNN, when a Clinton spokesman attempted to articulate how the foundation was different, from, say, running casinos, he was shut down by the interviewer.
I already know that nobody in power cares about my problems and everybody in power cares about the supposed problems of the rich. So I'm continually simmering with outrage over that. But to me there are worlds between taking money from foreign entities and corporations for AIDS programs or other "do-gooding", and then providing them with the attention that they'd get anyway, and having your for-profit business entangled with the Russian oligarchs.
I agree that the Clintons must sharply distance themselves from their foundation, but really, would it speak better of them if after Bill's presidency they had used his prestige and connections in for-profit ventures? And why is this a bigger story than the massive conflicts of interest Trump's business holdings would represent should he be elected?
"The Clinton family has never taken a salary from the foundation. The watchdog group Charity Watch awarded the foundation an A rating for its financial management. It’s hard to quarrel with the legitimate good works the foundation has done in the developing world."
I see people talking about the "personal enrichment" of the Clintons and acting as if the Foundation were a money-making scheme. On CNN, when a Clinton spokesman attempted to articulate how the foundation was different, from, say, running casinos, he was shut down by the interviewer.
I already know that nobody in power cares about my problems and everybody in power cares about the supposed problems of the rich. So I'm continually simmering with outrage over that. But to me there are worlds between taking money from foreign entities and corporations for AIDS programs or other "do-gooding", and then providing them with the attention that they'd get anyway, and having your for-profit business entangled with the Russian oligarchs.
I agree that the Clintons must sharply distance themselves from their foundation, but really, would it speak better of them if after Bill's presidency they had used his prestige and connections in for-profit ventures? And why is this a bigger story than the massive conflicts of interest Trump's business holdings would represent should he be elected?
22
It is a given that American interests are aided by our government. No one criticizes governmental agencies when Boeing, for example, asks our ambassador to intervene with a foreign government to put through a deal.
The Clinton Foundation operates mostly overseas and it is absolutely necessary for it to get the permission and cooperation of countries in which it operates.
Take the following example mentioned in the article, " the Crown Prince of Bahrain — who had given $32 million to the Clinton Global Initiative for a Bahraini education program — and was granted a meeting with Mrs. Clinton. "
Why shouldn't Clinton speak with a person who has a direct authority to make the program possible, both from a financial and an operational point of view.
It's understandable that political operatives grab all possible rhetorical devices to attack their opponents, but it is another thing to follow them.
Now, for a reality check. Politics, here and everywhere, is based on the mutual support of leaders and those who sustain them. Oil producers, farmers, automobile workers all support, by vote and money, those who vote for their economic interests. This symbiosis is operative in every human activity. It is proper to condemn those who profit personally from this relationship, but it is also important not to promote false perceptions.
The Clinton Foundation operates mostly overseas and it is absolutely necessary for it to get the permission and cooperation of countries in which it operates.
Take the following example mentioned in the article, " the Crown Prince of Bahrain — who had given $32 million to the Clinton Global Initiative for a Bahraini education program — and was granted a meeting with Mrs. Clinton. "
Why shouldn't Clinton speak with a person who has a direct authority to make the program possible, both from a financial and an operational point of view.
It's understandable that political operatives grab all possible rhetorical devices to attack their opponents, but it is another thing to follow them.
Now, for a reality check. Politics, here and everywhere, is based on the mutual support of leaders and those who sustain them. Oil producers, farmers, automobile workers all support, by vote and money, those who vote for their economic interests. This symbiosis is operative in every human activity. It is proper to condemn those who profit personally from this relationship, but it is also important not to promote false perceptions.
38
When is a scandal really a scandal? Its not a Scandal when Mark Sanford lied to the people of South Carolina. He's back in Congress. It's not a scandal when Scott Desjarlais had sex with his patients and forced abortions on women he impregnated. He's in Congress having run on "family values" and anti-abortion. It's not a scandal when Donald Trump discusses his penis on the campaign trail. It is a scandal with Elliot Spitzer patronized a prostitute down to slut shaming a later romantic interest cost her a job and driving him from office. It is a scandal when Anthony Weiner sextexts driving him from office.
It is, unfortunately, that nature of things that were I to make a large contribution to a foundation that I would naturally get to meet with its leaders and they would use whatever influence they might have to introduce me to others. Sheldon Adelson, who opposed and opposes President Obama could, very likely, get Obama personally on the phone and have a meeting with him. Ditto Rupert Murdoch, Michael Bloomberg, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., Jaime Dimon, et.al. Its simply how life works
It is, unfortunately, that nature of things that were I to make a large contribution to a foundation that I would naturally get to meet with its leaders and they would use whatever influence they might have to introduce me to others. Sheldon Adelson, who opposed and opposes President Obama could, very likely, get Obama personally on the phone and have a meeting with him. Ditto Rupert Murdoch, Michael Bloomberg, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., Jaime Dimon, et.al. Its simply how life works
64
It's all scandals, all the way down, including the Clintons.
RRRR hulk smash!!!
RRRR hulk smash!!!
2
Pay-to-play originated with the Tom Delay gang in the Dubya years, and Delay's little black book, reinforced by GOPers' K-Street project - in all the shmoozing that goes on at Sec. State levels, and global NGO levels, it has not been shown where Clinton influenced things to benefit some mover and shaker in a way that was counter to the interests of U.S. policy.
A question needs to answered: " What do Americans think the Sec. State does as part of their daily U.S. duties, and whom do Americans think Sec. State hangs out with ? "
There is an entire industry in America that exists to promote networking; why do people think hob-nobbing and shmoozing don't go on at government's (and society's) highest levels ?
Besides, the FBI had charge of the 14,000+ emails they just turned over to State, and if the FBI had found anything in those emails, Director Comey would have told Congress when he reported to them - for all we know, 50% of those emails may be duplicates of what's already been released.
A question needs to answered: " What do Americans think the Sec. State does as part of their daily U.S. duties, and whom do Americans think Sec. State hangs out with ? "
There is an entire industry in America that exists to promote networking; why do people think hob-nobbing and shmoozing don't go on at government's (and society's) highest levels ?
Besides, the FBI had charge of the 14,000+ emails they just turned over to State, and if the FBI had found anything in those emails, Director Comey would have told Congress when he reported to them - for all we know, 50% of those emails may be duplicates of what's already been released.
48
You are kidding right? Corruption in our government started way before Delay. The Internet just makes it more difficult to get away with it.
Both parties have a long history of this in many forms.
Both parties have a long history of this in many forms.
1
mrs - Merely talking about the way GOP'ers have ineptly tried to recycle a term that defined their own well documented corruption that cost them their House majority in '06.
2
Intelligence and thoughtfulness aside, I would still rather vote for the scandalous presidential candidate who has a record of doing good their entire career than a scandalous candidate who only seems to have a record of greed. If Trump has a record of generosity, I hope he will consider divulging it prior to my going to the polls. Otherwise, I'm with her.
490
Unfortunately, those are the choices the system has dealt us this year: choose the lesser of two evils.
You describe Hillary just as acurrately as you do Trump. Can you name one good thing Hillary has done? Not what she says she did. What three is proof she did. I defy anyone to name one thing she has done for the greater good.
1
ALL or Trump's golf courses provide free parking between midnight and 6 AM. Rest assured, if and when anyone does park in the lot during those hours, he will claim it as a charitable contribution.
It would have served Emma's audience had she, at least in passing, mentioned the tens of millions of dollars the Clinton's have directly earned for the behind the door speeches she has given to some of the very corporate interest groups she is now railing against. For someone who is considered a pretty bland speaker, hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour seems a bit extreme don't you think? This does not take into account the hundreds of millions of dollars her campaign has brought in for fund raisers. I'm pretty sure that unless I ponied up tens of thousands and put on my best suit, I would not have a seat at her table. If perception is important then I think we should consider the fact that where there is smoke there is almost certainly fire.
17
To suggest that the first lady, secretary of state and senator will be considered as a speaker only on the "charisma" of her speech and not the content is just the kind of ridiculous statements that surround cries of corruption.
She gets those fees because of what she's done in her life and what's she's seen.
She gets those fees because of what she's done in her life and what's she's seen.
57
As opposed to? You can sit at Trump's table? Obama's? Matt Damon's? Eli Manning's? I mean, hello? Is is just because she is a woman and can't, in your mind, commandeer respect for a woman regarding anything other than looks and a Hooter girl personality?
2
I'd be willing to bet my meager salary that if Debbie was offered 250K to make a speech she would do it.
I would.
I would.
2
This is a very nice job by Ms. Roller that fairly and accurately analyzes the facts and issues surrounding this matter. The Clinton Global Initiative and the Foundation that supports it was set up to leverage the powerful and wealthy contacts the Clintons had developed from their years in public life toward needed charitable and developmental projects that governments themselves were either unable or unwilling to take on themselves. There is an element of cynical acceptance of "the way things get done" that undergirds both the Initiative and the Foundation. However, both do tremendous good in the world that quite possibly would not or ever get done otherwise, it is an A plus-rated charity, and the Clintons draw no monetary compensation from them--as Ms. Roller points out. But there also is the larger question (at least in my personal opinion): Do what amount to mere "appearances" that look unseemly to some or even many--given the stark reality of the way things DO actually work in the world, merit the actual dismantling of such a socially beneficial institution simply to assuage our discomfort with those appearances. In other words, which is the greater good (or the larger evil, if you prefer)?
30
Best I can tell, this article never got to the point being asked in the headline.
Dear Journalism...in 2016, it's no longer necessary to spend multiple paragraphs recounting the history of most issues. You can simply link to that history for those unfamiliar with it. This allows you to get to your point much more quickly. Please take note.
Dear Journalism...in 2016, it's no longer necessary to spend multiple paragraphs recounting the history of most issues. You can simply link to that history for those unfamiliar with it. This allows you to get to your point much more quickly. Please take note.
10
I take issue. This was a well thought out article and concisely summarizes the issue in a fair way. Jumping from link to link takes away from continuity in my opinion.
1
In what world is the Crown Prince of Bahrain considered a private citizen. He is the monarch in waiting, of a hereditary monarchy. His country is the home port of the United States 5th Fleet, and is integral to our strategic relationships in the Gulf region. I saw a report on NBC where Chuck Todd lumped in Oman, and Quatar as well. The implication being that a SecState would not have met with them, but for the Clinton Foundation money.
It would be a lot easier for them to get a meeting, by telling us they have decided to abrogate our basing treaties with them.
There is nothing here. The AP spent a ton of time and money, and came up with nothing, so spin innuendo as fact . No one is investigating the Points of Light Foundation or the two presidential libraries run by the Bush family, who take SECRET donations, from foreign entities, and don't report on any of it. Double standard much?
It would be a lot easier for them to get a meeting, by telling us they have decided to abrogate our basing treaties with them.
There is nothing here. The AP spent a ton of time and money, and came up with nothing, so spin innuendo as fact . No one is investigating the Points of Light Foundation or the two presidential libraries run by the Bush family, who take SECRET donations, from foreign entities, and don't report on any of it. Double standard much?
76
It's a Nothing Burger, of course, with a side of cold fries! What the AP did not tell us -- and what we cannot determine for ourselves because the AP refuses to release the names -- is what percentage of the 85 are PUBLIC FIGURES, who would likely have had access for that very reason. The AP is guilty, at the very least, of shoddy and irresponsible journalism -- if not willingly contributing to the quarter century campaign of character assassination against Hillary Clinton by political enemies motivated, not by anything like "truth"or "justice," but by fear of the fatal damage Clinton would do to their precious political schemes. The AP's irresponsibility was on full display in Editor Kathleen Carroll's pathetic excuses for a story that is inexcusable.
2
I just gave 50 dollars to the Trump/Pence campaign. My rich neighbor just gave 1 million. Whose going to get that lunch with Trump?
7
Why would someone give a million dollars to eat at McDonald's?
2
All I can say.....good luck keeping that lunch down!
2
I thought foreign donations to American political campaigns was illegal. But we know Donald Trump not only solicited campaign donations from government officials in England, Scotland and Australia, he also brought over a Brit to campaign for him. And now you are confessing to donations from Canadian citizens?
2
Every day they are in D.C. our Congressmen and women now spend hours in small phone banks off Capitol Hill calling wealthy donors. The other hours of the day are apparently spent figuring out what else can possibly be subpoenaed from the State Department. The hypocrisy is nauseating, especially in view of the the absence of any sign of quid pro quo on the part of Mrs. Clinton.
63
This "Foundation" story is ridiculous. Let's assume (and it really is an ASSUMPTION) that Hillary Clinton gave access o people who donated to the Foundation. So what? Pay for play...or bribery...or corruption...or whatever you want to call it requires that Clinton receive a monetary benefit or thing of value in exchange for the access given. (Even todays Supreme Court seems to think that is ok) Where is the money? The benefit? It was paid to a charity. The Foundation was not being used as the Clintons personal piggy bank, it is real and doing things with the money. That is it. Worst case scenario. Trump ADMITS that he paid off public officials...he points to it as a matter of pride! But he is not corrupt? Please. Me thinks I smell a double standard here. personally, if they are both involved in the corrupt system of government we have, I will go with the one who does NOT have white supremacists on the campaign payroll.
69
There is an old newsroom axiom(joke), which says, "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story." The Republicans do it better than any newsman ever did. It's what they are doing now. They are vacant any kind of decency and think, as always, that the White House is their birthright and Democrats should only be caretakers, who bend to the minority's will and then get out of the way. As the Donald is so fond os saying, "People are talking about it, not me but people."
Can we survive another 70 plus days of this?
Can we survive another 70 plus days of this?
42
"[The Republicans] think, as always, that the White House is their birthright and Democrats should only be caretakers, who bend to the minority's will and then get out of the way."
What they actually see Democrats in the White House as is trespassers, I think.
What they actually see Democrats in the White House as is trespassers, I think.
2
Hard to think of a better diplomatic ploy than to persuade foreign parties to fund philanthropic enterprises. Through the foundation the Clintons have established friendly, working relationships with numerous international brokers of influence. Surely this is to the country's advantage. Talk about a gift horse.
35
Right on!
The Clinton Foundation is universally acknowledged to do good work throughout the world, the Clintons don't make any money from it, and there has never been any evidence of pay-to-play or quid pro quo in any way shape or form. That's the scandal. Got it.
61
The scandal is the conflict of interest. There is no doubt it occurred.
5
The real scandal is that Bernie lost, Sibhan, isn't i?
2
Lisa: Water under the bridge at this point.
3
"But if you think the Clintons are fundamentally untrustworthy people, taking advantage of a flawed political system for their personal gain, the latest revelations will serve only to reinforce that idea."
In that sentence lies the heart of the matter. If Hillary had any "personal gain" there should be real outrage. The gain here is not for Hillary but for literally millions of people around the world helped by foundation programs.
Is it really morally superior to take NRA and Koch brothers money and then cry out "climate science is fake" and "we need more guns".
In that sentence lies the heart of the matter. If Hillary had any "personal gain" there should be real outrage. The gain here is not for Hillary but for literally millions of people around the world helped by foundation programs.
Is it really morally superior to take NRA and Koch brothers money and then cry out "climate science is fake" and "we need more guns".
73
There is an excellent, unbiased resource available for those who would like to know more about the Clinton email controversy and the Clinton Foundation. This is Paul Thompson's archive of articles and information on these subjects. They are offered in chronological order, they are searchable, and there are also factual overview summaries. Both these subjects are too large to summarize in an opinion column, and they are hugely important to our grasp of election issues. http://www.thompsontimeline.com/
1
I've seen an entire blue state (RI) brought down by systematic and pervasive Democratic corruption (with a few Repubs thrown in for good measure), and left to marinate in its own mess with no way out. What's striking at times is the disingeneousness of some who are finally caught who insist that they didn't even realize that they did anything wrong. You name it - bribery, pay to play, embezzlement, cushy jobs and preferential treatment for contracts and permits for donors, double dipping, and so much more - that's how corruption becomes normalized, when it's seen as just the way business is done. Think that can't happen to other states? To the Democratic party, especially when the fish rots from the head?
7
If you have no credible information that the Clinton Foundation, which has an A rating is corrupt, one can only assume that you believe unsubstantiated smears are facts. That's unfortunate.
1
The Clinton Foundation, rivaling even the better known Bill Gates Foundation, has wholly worthwhile and highly effective programs to combat disease and injustice. Wealthy philanthropists who give to such causes are commonly influential and political figures within their own countries. Hillary Clinton was a hard working Secretary of State with years of rubbing shoulders with these kingpins. The emails and international deals to which the anti-Hillary forces refer expose nothing but the natural and unavoidable overlap of a relatively small world of major players. So what?
157
Not one of these recent news hatchet jobs have put in perspective what you have stated so well and succinctly.
2
When the US Congress brings a halt to their pay for play schemes then I will take a closer look at the Clinton's. Obscene amounts of money now being collected by Congressmen and nefarious groups to run attack ad after attack ad on opponents does nothing to increase the political stature of the U.S. making us look foolish.
30
It's a public, not a private family foundation.
12
Of course it's corrupt. Of course it's influence-peddling. This whole "debate" is utterly ridiculous. Political corruption has become so normalized that partisans especially (like the commenters here) can't even recognize it anymore, or even if they do, they can't assign it to their "team" because they're the good guys in the white hats. The media is so compromised by their own interests that they have to turn it into a big drama, instead of the simple sleaze that it is.
Money, connections, jobs, corporate investment opportunities, weapons sales for Bahrain after they pile money on Bill and the CGI. Friends, business associates, golfing buddies - a big whirlpool of common interests, relationships and business thrown in with an array of semi charitable endeavors - this is the world they live in and it's corrupt and rotten. They're billion dollar CGI is certainly a rare bird of it's kind, taking political connections, money, influence, money and access to a whole new level.
Yes, it's corrupt. The rot is right out there for anyone to see - but nowadays, with so much of that right out there in the open, people don't really care. Corporate profit at private expense, greed, the connected getting away with crimes that the rest of us couldn't - it's all become so routine, people are so anesthetized to the whole thing - that when they see Obama golfing again with his pal from UBS, UBS gets off the hook through HRC, UBS gives CGI $ - well, it's just friends being friends.
Money, connections, jobs, corporate investment opportunities, weapons sales for Bahrain after they pile money on Bill and the CGI. Friends, business associates, golfing buddies - a big whirlpool of common interests, relationships and business thrown in with an array of semi charitable endeavors - this is the world they live in and it's corrupt and rotten. They're billion dollar CGI is certainly a rare bird of it's kind, taking political connections, money, influence, money and access to a whole new level.
Yes, it's corrupt. The rot is right out there for anyone to see - but nowadays, with so much of that right out there in the open, people don't really care. Corporate profit at private expense, greed, the connected getting away with crimes that the rest of us couldn't - it's all become so routine, people are so anesthetized to the whole thing - that when they see Obama golfing again with his pal from UBS, UBS gets off the hook through HRC, UBS gives CGI $ - well, it's just friends being friends.
7
Republicans have been shouting from the rooftops that money is speech (George Will regularly makes that explicit claim) and that restrictions on donations to politicians are inhibiting their first amendment rights of free speech. Then Roberts, Scalia et al codified that formulation into law. So now they are upset that people "talk" to the Clinton's in a more indirect way than by just giving the campaign or candidate money? Spare me.
31
Ha ha ha. Our pathetic attempts at democracy are so cute. Is that what the Clintons are trying to say?
6
Let us now hoist SCOTUS upon its own petard. Where's the quid pro quo? Goods or services rendered upon payment - um, donations? Can't find any? Well, then, ipso facto no corruption. Case dismissed.
22
I'm gonna go with "nothing-burger"
24
Emma-"The Clinton Foundation revelations — what we know of them so far — hinge on appearances. There is (so far) no smoking gun email, no explicit evidence of pay-to-play or coordination between the State Department and the foundation"
But let's just keep investigating away with tax payer money. Just another Benghazi. Why no countless investigations on how Trump uses his charity money to buy himself items from other charities? According to google not a single mention in the NY Times. Where are the multiple articles of his stiffing of small businesses, workers, his hiring of illegals, his manufacture of products in third world slave wage countries? The multiple articles hammering him on his quadrupling the rent of his campaign "offices" to line his own pockets? Instead we have to follow links from posters to the latest Trump doings since the NY Times sees no reason to report his ongoing abuses. We get maybe a small mention then move onto the latest regurgitated ad-nauseum Clinton scandal. Trump is largely ignored. One story if we're lucky, not the constant deluge of innuendo stories, with little evidence of any wrongdoing, that we read about Clinton on a daily basis. I hope all of the complicit media is happy with the results when Trump wins the election and then goes on to destroy all the gains this country has achieved and possibly starts World War III through his ignorance and arrogance. It's too bad that the rest of us average Joes will suffer most from the fall-out.
But let's just keep investigating away with tax payer money. Just another Benghazi. Why no countless investigations on how Trump uses his charity money to buy himself items from other charities? According to google not a single mention in the NY Times. Where are the multiple articles of his stiffing of small businesses, workers, his hiring of illegals, his manufacture of products in third world slave wage countries? The multiple articles hammering him on his quadrupling the rent of his campaign "offices" to line his own pockets? Instead we have to follow links from posters to the latest Trump doings since the NY Times sees no reason to report his ongoing abuses. We get maybe a small mention then move onto the latest regurgitated ad-nauseum Clinton scandal. Trump is largely ignored. One story if we're lucky, not the constant deluge of innuendo stories, with little evidence of any wrongdoing, that we read about Clinton on a daily basis. I hope all of the complicit media is happy with the results when Trump wins the election and then goes on to destroy all the gains this country has achieved and possibly starts World War III through his ignorance and arrogance. It's too bad that the rest of us average Joes will suffer most from the fall-out.
309
An easy investigative piece that the Times could do is to expose ever blatant lie that Trump has told to the American people during his despicable candidacy.
1
I don't think Trump is going to win the election. My concern is that Hilary is going to be the least effective president in history because Congress will start impeaching her before she even takes the oath of office.
1
"Trump is largely ignored. One story if we're lucky, not the constant deluge of innuendo stories, with little evidence of any wrongdoing, that we read about Clinton on a daily basis."
It seems as though the venerable NYT is bending over backwards to show that it is not in Secretary Clinton's corner, as constantly bleated by the right. Sad.
It seems as though the venerable NYT is bending over backwards to show that it is not in Secretary Clinton's corner, as constantly bleated by the right. Sad.
1
The Bush family has oil dealings with the Saudis for years, including W's little corrupt dealings in Texas just before he become president.
A group of Saudis get on a plane and fly them into the World Trade Center.
The next day W Bush gets a private plane to fly Saudis out of the country when the air traffic system in this country is shut down. No conflict of interest here, and no investigations by the house. Strange. No?
A scandal is only a scandal when it involves a Clinton. Not when it involves Bush-Saudi oil money.
A group of Saudis get on a plane and fly them into the World Trade Center.
The next day W Bush gets a private plane to fly Saudis out of the country when the air traffic system in this country is shut down. No conflict of interest here, and no investigations by the house. Strange. No?
A scandal is only a scandal when it involves a Clinton. Not when it involves Bush-Saudi oil money.
620
Hey, look! Everybody's doing it! (Does that somehow make it okay for the Clintons?)
1
IOKIYAR
No, Tom. The point is the Bushes ACTUALLY did it and no one investigated. Clinton has been thoroughly investigated for 25 years and no one has found anything she did. Just because no one investigated a Bush doesn't mean there wasn't corruption. And just because Clinton was investigated doesn't mean there was; Trey spent $4mm and couldn't find anything. The Clintons don't take a salary and more than 80% of funds to go causes, better than many charities. I'm sorry, but that's not really how corruption works.
3
Here is my simple question: under what conditions would the *Crown Prince* of Bahrain *not* be given a meeting with the Secretary of State? He is the freaking *Crown* Prince. That means he is the First Deputy Prime Minister and the Supreme Commander of the Bahrain Defense Force. And we are to accept that a meeting with the U.S. Secretary of State is an example of "pay to play" because "lot's of people perceive it that way"? Completely outrageous that he should have a meeting ...
Would it not be worse if all access was denied on the basis of "perception" (in who's eyes I might ask?) simply because someone donated money to an organization that gets very high marks for meeting its mission?
And to answer the question raised in the article: "Where, then, is the smoke coming from? A smoke machine?"
Precisely. A smoke machine, funded by all the usual suspects (Judicial Watch, first among equals, with the Koch's, the Club For Growth ... and Luettgen at the grass roots level ... geez he loves that green check mark ...)
This "scandal" is manufactured nonsense just as the "extremely careless" ex-judicial posturing from Comey about the mail server. It is *very* disturbing how much of this story is discussing "perception" instead of elucidating actual reality. When is a "scandal" a scandal? When it is based on *actual* transgressions of *actual* law (like breaking *actual* anti-discrimination laws ... as just a randomly chosen example...)
Otherwise it is just a partisan hatchet job.
Would it not be worse if all access was denied on the basis of "perception" (in who's eyes I might ask?) simply because someone donated money to an organization that gets very high marks for meeting its mission?
And to answer the question raised in the article: "Where, then, is the smoke coming from? A smoke machine?"
Precisely. A smoke machine, funded by all the usual suspects (Judicial Watch, first among equals, with the Koch's, the Club For Growth ... and Luettgen at the grass roots level ... geez he loves that green check mark ...)
This "scandal" is manufactured nonsense just as the "extremely careless" ex-judicial posturing from Comey about the mail server. It is *very* disturbing how much of this story is discussing "perception" instead of elucidating actual reality. When is a "scandal" a scandal? When it is based on *actual* transgressions of *actual* law (like breaking *actual* anti-discrimination laws ... as just a randomly chosen example...)
Otherwise it is just a partisan hatchet job.
691
Exactly. And the money he gave was for a Bahrain program. The AP story also used her advocating for Mohmmed Yunnis winner of the nobel prize and development world darling. They cited her introducing the head of he kennedy center as sec of state at a kennedy center event because "she'd sat next to his wife".
It only counts if she wouldn't have done any of this otherwise. It is simply insane.
It only counts if she wouldn't have done any of this otherwise. It is simply insane.
14
The crown prince of Bahrain wanted to meet with SOS Clinton in 2009.
He went through normal diplomatic channels but didn't get anywhere.
So Doug Band, a friend of Bill Clinton's, who helped start the Clinton Foundation, emailed Huma Abedin about setting up a meeting. Band said the crown prince was "a good friend of ours."
Abedin replied that she'd know about the prince seeking a meeting, but that SOS Clinton didn't want to commit to one.
Two days later, Abedin emailed Brand that the prince was on the schedule.
That's one example.
He went through normal diplomatic channels but didn't get anywhere.
So Doug Band, a friend of Bill Clinton's, who helped start the Clinton Foundation, emailed Huma Abedin about setting up a meeting. Band said the crown prince was "a good friend of ours."
Abedin replied that she'd know about the prince seeking a meeting, but that SOS Clinton didn't want to commit to one.
Two days later, Abedin emailed Brand that the prince was on the schedule.
That's one example.
4
Example of what? And you are privy to these "facts" exactly how? But you can't be bothered with real facts.
I get it now.
I get it now.
1
My frustration with all of these stories about the Clinton Foundation "scandal" is summarized in the opening paragraph of this piece. This paragraph implies a quid pro quo between donations to the foundation and a meeting with the Crown Prince. But I ask, wouldn't the Crown Prince of Bahrain, important US ally, home of the US fleet, noted abuser of human rights, get a meeting with the US Secretary of State anyway? Would it have taken any more than a phone call from his people to her people? If that's the case, how is there any quid pro quo in the donation?
18
Give it up Roller.
Hillary told us they were "broke" when they left the WH, in fact they were "in debt". A 501 is a very clever way to bury unearned income, and avoid personal income tax.
By law, they only file in summary format, nobody has to know the details. Perfect!
When selected by Obama as Secretary of State, she was told the foundation needs some "separation" from State, in fact she signed a pledge. And then she ignored him. She then also ignored the private e-mail, Freedom of Information Act thing. Why?
You Ms. Roller have no idea where the money came from, and where it went, and what it was for.......unless you sit of the Foundation Board, and even in that case, there are many "expenses" you have no knowledge of.
To make things worst, two State Department employees, yes, government workers, were simultaneously on the Foundation Board. In fact, Madam Secretary was also a Government worker. And apparently she was spending a lot of her time e-mailing yoga and cup cake recipes....on our dime.
Hillary told us they were "broke" when they left the WH, in fact they were "in debt". A 501 is a very clever way to bury unearned income, and avoid personal income tax.
By law, they only file in summary format, nobody has to know the details. Perfect!
When selected by Obama as Secretary of State, she was told the foundation needs some "separation" from State, in fact she signed a pledge. And then she ignored him. She then also ignored the private e-mail, Freedom of Information Act thing. Why?
You Ms. Roller have no idea where the money came from, and where it went, and what it was for.......unless you sit of the Foundation Board, and even in that case, there are many "expenses" you have no knowledge of.
To make things worst, two State Department employees, yes, government workers, were simultaneously on the Foundation Board. In fact, Madam Secretary was also a Government worker. And apparently she was spending a lot of her time e-mailing yoga and cup cake recipes....on our dime.
6
And so operates the Republican smoke machine. You want to know the Clinton Foundation finances, @hawk? Take the trouble to Google it!
2
Even the President is not required to work 24/7, although he comes close to it as he is available even when on the golf course during his vacation. George W. spent 1/3 of his presidency "cutting brush" at his ranch in Texas. How dare he have done that on "our dime>"
2
I find in the objections of the Trump campaign and its dwindling band of allies to the Clinton Foundation an echo of the brouhaha about Planned Parenthood. In the political haymaking the aims and accomplishments of the organization - which are overwhelmingly beneficial to the poor, the sick, and the disadvantaged - are lost upon the public. As to the question of whether a fire is the source of the smoke, let's not forget that the Republicans are operating a smoke machine.
15
"That’s a hard sell for many voters. (To belabor the metaphor: Where, then, is the smoke coming from? A smoke machine?) For now, there is no visible conflagration."
The GOP and the right- wing Clinton haters have had a smoke machine running for many years.
The GOP and the right- wing Clinton haters have had a smoke machine running for many years.
18
Where does the smoke come from? Your were right, the smoke machine that has been working to smear the Clintons any way they can for decades. When is a scandal a scandal? Whenever the press plays into the hands of the smoke machine, re-blowing that smoke and then blowing it out of proportion.
17
"To belabor the metaphor: Where, then, is the smoke coming from? A smoke machine?"
Exactly right. Have a look at the history of Judicial Watch. Google will help.
Exactly right. Have a look at the history of Judicial Watch. Google will help.
22
This is a scary and smart article. Thank you.
And I do not plan to reread it.
Though I should.
And I do not plan to reread it.
Though I should.
In the current zeitgeist of anti-elitism and rejection of privilege, the Clinton Foundation's personnel structure is the apotheosis of the cronyism that the prevailing national mood abhors. It has been an employment agency for numerous ex Clinton and administration staff members, who are paid six figure salaries, and have life time jobs, paid for by charitable donations. The perception of impropriety, self entitlement, and the amorphous taint of Faulknerian, self induced unseemliness, which haunts the Clintons, requires an immediate cessation of any Clinton family member's activity with foundation for the duration of the campaign, and any Clinton presidency.
4
Charity Watch reports that 88% of money raised by Clinton foundation goes to the programs they support, and only 12% goes to admin. This is a robust figure, and directly counters the nonsense you're attempting to spin here.
4
The entire Clinton Foundation "scandal" seems to have been manufactured out of thin air and the NYT editorial board needs a tutorial in ethics law. I don't know of any ethics or anti-corruption law that would treat a contribution to a charity associated with a candidate as a gift to the candidate -- much less a bribe. Since funds donated to the Clinton Foundation didn't go to the Clintons, the most you can say is that the donors earned some goodwill with the Clintons by contributing to the foundation. You don't even need to look for a quid pro quo since endearing yourself to a politician isn't a "gift" to begin with. It is amazing that otherwise smart people --including the NYT editorial board -- feel a need to jump on the scandal train when there has been no evidence the Clinton's personally benefitted from donations to the Foundation.
14
"No evidence"? Since nearly everything that Ms Clinton has said so far has turned out to be a lie and she has helped matters further by destroying half of her e-mails of her time as Secretary of State, why aren't you calling for a Special Prosecutor? Evidence is there, it just requires someone with integrity to dig for it.
4
And you know for sure that the destroyed emails were official state department ones exactly how?
Oh, that's right - you don't. You just believe the right wing rumor mill with nothing to back it up.
Integrity indeed.
Oh, that's right - you don't. You just believe the right wing rumor mill with nothing to back it up.
Integrity indeed.
2
The average congressman spends nearly 2/3 of their time attending fundraisers and making phone calls to solicit contributions to fund their re-elections. Personal face time is granted to those who contribute regularly. All that money buys influence, but does no good. Taxpayers who are actually paying the congressional salaries come into focus only when our votes are needed. Money contributed to the Clinton Foundation does a lot of good for a multitude of people who cannot buy influence. So which one is the problem?
506
Mrs. Clinton is a lawyer. Surely she knows what the Code of Professional Responsibility says about conflicts of interest. In that context, the 'appearance' of impropriety is paramount.
I'm a Clinton supporter in this election. I firmly believe Donald Trump is a menace; and loathe the GOP's decades-long effort to paint Hillary Clinton as not merely 'untrustworthy,' but criminal.
However, one does have to ask, why are the Clintons as tone deaf as they appear to be? Yes, the Clinton Foundation appears to be doing good works. No, it does not seem to be an influence peddling organization or a means of funneling money into the Clintons' pockets.
But any small private law firm or other professional partnership will invariably have a simple rule to avoid an 'appearance of unfairness': partners shall not solicit contributions to their favorite charitable causes, political candidates, or for any other reason, from their associates and staff. There is a simple reason for the rule: the partners are the employer and cannot be perceived to use their power to coerce employees to contribute to their pet projects. Nor should employees appear to curry favor by contributing.
Pretty simple. So why on earth could Mr. & Ms. Clinton not see that? Why, instead, do they seem to go out of their way to create grist for the right wing rumor and scandal mill?
When under the microscope, you don't drop your trousers and moon the folks on the other end of the microscope, knowing they mean harm.
I'm a Clinton supporter in this election. I firmly believe Donald Trump is a menace; and loathe the GOP's decades-long effort to paint Hillary Clinton as not merely 'untrustworthy,' but criminal.
However, one does have to ask, why are the Clintons as tone deaf as they appear to be? Yes, the Clinton Foundation appears to be doing good works. No, it does not seem to be an influence peddling organization or a means of funneling money into the Clintons' pockets.
But any small private law firm or other professional partnership will invariably have a simple rule to avoid an 'appearance of unfairness': partners shall not solicit contributions to their favorite charitable causes, political candidates, or for any other reason, from their associates and staff. There is a simple reason for the rule: the partners are the employer and cannot be perceived to use their power to coerce employees to contribute to their pet projects. Nor should employees appear to curry favor by contributing.
Pretty simple. So why on earth could Mr. & Ms. Clinton not see that? Why, instead, do they seem to go out of their way to create grist for the right wing rumor and scandal mill?
When under the microscope, you don't drop your trousers and moon the folks on the other end of the microscope, knowing they mean harm.
5
the Clintons don't go out of their way to create "grist for the right wing rumor mill". This right wing propaganda machine goes out of it's way and the boundries of truth and ethics to attack and demonize the Clintons and all things liberal. Even cheering for the failure of President Obama and the government as a political strategy. The real story here is the Republicans with nothing else to offer, now have resorted to a record breaking low, trying to shut down a charity that helps millions of impoverished people here and globally as a political strategy, and the media is buying into it and enabling it.
3
What members their staffs and business associates were solicited for donations? In a law firm, associates usually mean other lawyers in the firm. My husband was an attorney and I'm sure somewhere along the way we were inited to fund raisers for charity by his partners or other attorneys he knew. What is the big deal. When the former Republican governor of Virginia appealed his conviction for taking gifts for "Pay to Play" he was exonerated because the Court claimed they saw no clear connection. Amazing how many the right wing can make up out of "whole cloth" when it comes to Democrats.
I have read speculation that after so many years of unfounded propaganda attacks she just does what she wants to do knowing that she is going to get attacked for something no matter what. And what we are talking about here with the foundation and the emails seems to be nothing unethical but rather a very slightly cutting of bureaucratic corners. Out of 100,000 emails something like 100 were found to be classified and if you know anything about classified materials, the content of those emails was probably laughably benign. The foundation stuff seems like the same.
2
Perceptions are not facts. The missteps of the Clintons are relevant. However, I wonder what benefit or access Mr. Trump and the hundreds of other wealthy donors got from their donations to the Clinton Foundation.
5
Public Foundations doing work in Culture, Religion, Education, Civil Rights, Science and Public Health have been America's answer to the world that chooses government to handle these things as a part of society and culture. Like private prisons, private infrastructure, hospitals, schools, large cultural activities and scientific research in Space and Medicine , we have found that the market imperative for surplus (profit) is at odds with the extremes costs of these essential parts of a civilized society.
Being unwilling to fund them through the government, we choose to fund them through donations from the wealthy who get to choose what they will support as a result of their wealth in the marketplace.
The Clinton Public Foundation has filled a hole in the fabric of these public domains and their relationship with the global network. What do you propose as an alternative? REH
Being unwilling to fund them through the government, we choose to fund them through donations from the wealthy who get to choose what they will support as a result of their wealth in the marketplace.
The Clinton Public Foundation has filled a hole in the fabric of these public domains and their relationship with the global network. What do you propose as an alternative? REH
11
The problem for many of us unenthusiastic Clinton supporters is one of political savvy. For years, Clinton has been aware, quite correctly, of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that plagues her. This does exist; it has been focused on Pres. Obama for the last 8 years, and now is back on Sec. Clinton. It is unprincipled, and oriented solely to produce gains for the Republican party no matter what consequences it may have for the country.
So, in light of this, how has Sec. Clinton adjusted her behavior in ways that are not detrimental to her policy views but would protect against the inevitable attacks? Hardly at all, it seems.
The Clintons (all three of them) should commit to a complete transfer of their Foundation to another non-profit group in the event of her election. They have been slow in doing so. Sec. Clinton should have been acutely aware from her first day as Sec. of State that anything that could be used against her (including e-mails) would be used against her. Not much recognition of that, it seems. No immediate apology for the private server, nor any tailored efforts to put all aspects of the e-mail issues quickly behind her.
These are silly, nonsensical issues, of course, but it is silly and nonsensical that Sec. Clinton did not see them coming and deal with them head-on and proactively (if not in advance).
So, in light of this, how has Sec. Clinton adjusted her behavior in ways that are not detrimental to her policy views but would protect against the inevitable attacks? Hardly at all, it seems.
The Clintons (all three of them) should commit to a complete transfer of their Foundation to another non-profit group in the event of her election. They have been slow in doing so. Sec. Clinton should have been acutely aware from her first day as Sec. of State that anything that could be used against her (including e-mails) would be used against her. Not much recognition of that, it seems. No immediate apology for the private server, nor any tailored efforts to put all aspects of the e-mail issues quickly behind her.
These are silly, nonsensical issues, of course, but it is silly and nonsensical that Sec. Clinton did not see them coming and deal with them head-on and proactively (if not in advance).
3
Perhaps a researcher or reporter from the NYT should investigate the Bush Foundation which continued to operate during the political careers of both George W. and Jeb Bush. Perhaps there are phone calls or memos (the more archaic versions of email) from those years granting access to the "family" members.
Those who make donations frequently request meetings. Mostly, those requests are granted. This does not mean that policies were changed or influenced. It simply means that a major donor wanted to talk about how donations were used and how the programs that donor invested in were progressing.
The trouble with this reporting, like much of what is slung at Secretary Clinton and her family, is that it simply panders to the theme and story-lines concocted by the archconservative media.
Just go to the foundation and nonprofit watchdogs to find out about foundations. One statement on a major network that was terribly underplayed is that while the Clinton Foundation donors are all listed (as they should be), the Bush donors were not listed. Hmmm -- wonder if there's a story there.
In addition, if I remember correctly, the ratio of monies used for programs to administrative costs in the Clinton Foundation, is roughly 80 percent to 20 percent -- that's exactly as it should be; it is, in fact, what most nonprofits strive for.
Here's a challenge: now investigate the Trump and Bush foundations and publish all their donors, memos to and from donors, and phone call records.
Those who make donations frequently request meetings. Mostly, those requests are granted. This does not mean that policies were changed or influenced. It simply means that a major donor wanted to talk about how donations were used and how the programs that donor invested in were progressing.
The trouble with this reporting, like much of what is slung at Secretary Clinton and her family, is that it simply panders to the theme and story-lines concocted by the archconservative media.
Just go to the foundation and nonprofit watchdogs to find out about foundations. One statement on a major network that was terribly underplayed is that while the Clinton Foundation donors are all listed (as they should be), the Bush donors were not listed. Hmmm -- wonder if there's a story there.
In addition, if I remember correctly, the ratio of monies used for programs to administrative costs in the Clinton Foundation, is roughly 80 percent to 20 percent -- that's exactly as it should be; it is, in fact, what most nonprofits strive for.
Here's a challenge: now investigate the Trump and Bush foundations and publish all their donors, memos to and from donors, and phone call records.
734
Trump has a foundation?? Seems so unlike him.
1
It's actually 88 percent to 12 percent, way better than most top philanthropic foundations.
3
"Those who make donations frequently request meetings ... to talk about how donations were used and how the programs that donor invested in were progressing." But in the case of the Clinton Foundation, donors requested meetings not with the head of the foundation, but with the Secretary of State. If you think they were discussing how the donations were being used, I've got a bridge you might be interested in buying.
How about the problem of reality: pay to play?
3
I don't understand the position of Mrs Clinton's supporters in much of this. There is no question that the foundation has done many good things around the world. It also seems pretty clear that the Clinton's have engaged in influence-peddling on a pretty grand scale. There can be a discussion on how wide-spread that activity is and whether or not it is acceptable. However,that it happened and is part of our current political system seems clear. Whether it is a scandal, or not, seems to depend on who reports on it and how they report. Or, in other words, we seem to be relying on our media, and based on recent demonstrations of a lack of objectivity in these pages ad elsewhere, a frightening and discouraging thought, if society cares!
10
But there isn't a evidence of large scale influence peddling, that is what will explain her supporters to you (like myself).
AP fudged the number for starters.. And included people in it who obviously would have had her attention with or without, like the Crown Prince of Bahrain, like Mohammed Yunnis. When someone asked for a favor that might be seen wrong, they were told it it and the favor didn't happen.
That's not influencing peddling on a grand scale. It isn't even proof of any.
AP fudged the number for starters.. And included people in it who obviously would have had her attention with or without, like the Crown Prince of Bahrain, like Mohammed Yunnis. When someone asked for a favor that might be seen wrong, they were told it it and the favor didn't happen.
That's not influencing peddling on a grand scale. It isn't even proof of any.
6
As part of Clinton's confirmation hearing, a bi-partisan Memorandum of Understanding was developed to specifically address potential conflict of interest.
President Obama approved of the limitations set forth as a condition of her appointment.
Clinton then proceeded to ignore most, if not all of the limitations.
That's the point. There is no disputing this.
President Obama approved of the limitations set forth as a condition of her appointment.
Clinton then proceeded to ignore most, if not all of the limitations.
That's the point. There is no disputing this.
22
Really? Please cite how specifically. So far, nothing illegal has been discovered.
4
Right, only Democrats must be held to standards so high that no living person could or should meet. It was Bill upon whom limitations were placed, one violation of which was the acceptance of money from the government of Algeria for earthquake relief the the country of Haiti, and every penny went to Haiti. Since one the limitations was that no NEW foreign governments could donate, this was a violation.
3
@Siobhan: You and Mark Thomason just keep beating that same old tin drum. Feel the Bern...anyone?
2
The Clinton Foundation 'scandal' is the youngest brother of the Monica Lewinsky erection 'scandal' and the Benghazi 'scandal' and 1st cousins with the Hillary email 'scandal' and the Birther Conspiracy.
All of these artificial scandals are proudly Made In The USA by the very real vast right-wing conspiracy that hasn't had a constructive idea in 36 years, but is happy to traffic in character assassination for a living.
By far and away, the biggest scandal this election year is that the Republican billionaire standard bearer has likely paid close to zero income taxes in recent history and is proud to hide that reality from the country he seeks to govern with American tax dollars.
Where does Donald Trump and his Trump Nut Caucus think the USA comes from ?
Where do they think the nation's law and order, military power, diplomatic posts, interstate highways, national infrastructure, public education and research, civil rights and public libraries come from ?
Thin air ?
America's greatness - and lack thereof - correlates with the progressiveness of its tax code and collections, not its regressiveness, evasion and non-compliance thereof.
The fact that we have nutty, nihilistic tax-evading billionaires systematically skipping out on income tax is the greatest scandal of our time.
Hillary and Bill Clinton paid $44 million in federal taxes on $142 million in income since 2006 and donated $15 million to charity.
Donald Trump ?
That's not just a scandal...that's sedition.
All of these artificial scandals are proudly Made In The USA by the very real vast right-wing conspiracy that hasn't had a constructive idea in 36 years, but is happy to traffic in character assassination for a living.
By far and away, the biggest scandal this election year is that the Republican billionaire standard bearer has likely paid close to zero income taxes in recent history and is proud to hide that reality from the country he seeks to govern with American tax dollars.
Where does Donald Trump and his Trump Nut Caucus think the USA comes from ?
Where do they think the nation's law and order, military power, diplomatic posts, interstate highways, national infrastructure, public education and research, civil rights and public libraries come from ?
Thin air ?
America's greatness - and lack thereof - correlates with the progressiveness of its tax code and collections, not its regressiveness, evasion and non-compliance thereof.
The fact that we have nutty, nihilistic tax-evading billionaires systematically skipping out on income tax is the greatest scandal of our time.
Hillary and Bill Clinton paid $44 million in federal taxes on $142 million in income since 2006 and donated $15 million to charity.
Donald Trump ?
That's not just a scandal...that's sedition.
499
The loudest voice in slamming this foundation, besides most likely paying little to no taxes, is the same voice whose record of philanthropy is dismal. Seems like everyone is crooked but the really crooked man.
8
@Socrates: Great points! The key is to look at the party affiliation of the people running the foundation. When McCain took a million from the Saudis for his personal foundation it was bad. But when the Clintons take $10-$25 million from the Saudis for their foundation there is no problem.
Why worry that the Clinton Foundation presents precedent for people we may not politically agree with. We will just continue to object when Republicans do it, and rationalize away the behavior when Democrats do so.
"Pay to Play." What a quaint and antiquated concept. At least for Democrats who supposedly believed the Citizens United ruling requiring quid pro quo corruption was wrong. But that was so 2010. This is 2016 when anything goes. The more money the merrier. What could possibly go wrong.
Why worry that the Clinton Foundation presents precedent for people we may not politically agree with. We will just continue to object when Republicans do it, and rationalize away the behavior when Democrats do so.
"Pay to Play." What a quaint and antiquated concept. At least for Democrats who supposedly believed the Citizens United ruling requiring quid pro quo corruption was wrong. But that was so 2010. This is 2016 when anything goes. The more money the merrier. What could possibly go wrong.
5
The Clintons do not benefit from the donations to the Foundation, but millions of individuals around the world do benefit. Even if a large donation to the Foundation was more likely to get a donor a conversation with Hillary (a big 'if' IMO), where is the "corruption" Trump is yammering about? There are all kinds of situations in politics and in government where the individual in power (or trying to be) does personally benefit from a donation (in cash or in career assistance) and the donor gets increased access of one sort of another (an audience with the powerful, a job for a nephew, an appointment as ambassador or cabinet member or something else). Appearance does matter, but we must not let the right-wing Hillary haters blow this into another of their "scandals" surrounding Hillary which are more fantasy than substance.
458
No one talks much about the flip side of these "transactions." Did someone give 32 million dollars for a few minutes with a government official? Maybe. But I wonder at the good work that 32 million dollars could do in alleviating hunger, poverty, drought, disease, infant mortality.
So maybe I argue for scandal, for unfettered access, for influence by just being in the same room. It seems a small price to pay in an attempt to relieve a bit of suffering in this world.
So maybe I argue for scandal, for unfettered access, for influence by just being in the same room. It seems a small price to pay in an attempt to relieve a bit of suffering in this world.
2
It is a shame that they named this Foundation after themselves and employ family members in it... otherwise what you are saying would be basically true.
Control over vast amounts of money confers power on those whose choices disposes of the fund. Any organization that receives and disburses money has overhead, staff, salaries, ability to hire contractors, lawyers, press agencies, etc. Its all the "web of power" that confers advantages not merely limited to receipt of cash. "Quid pro quo" is a very limited basis limited to determine culpability: for "A" you got "B" and, therefore, were bribed. Its much much more sophisticated.
One would think that the "mainstream" press would have gotten wise to the right-wing method of flinging mud indiscriminately toward Democrats and then claiming that some of it stuck, "otherwise, why would they look so wary?"
Why, indeed? Last week, the Washington Post ran a story entitled, "A Literary Guide To Hating Barack Obama," which included a list of publications from the usual suspects stuffed with contrary accusations that the President was, simultaneously, an incompetent mastermind and a Muslim radical Christian.
These are the people who turned the medals John Kerry received from the United States government for heroism in Vietnam into marks of shame.
And so when they next emerge stinking of meth to monger conspiracies, our "liberal" press treats them with deference and like Charlie Brown resolves this time to kick that football.
Last year, the press had a chance to address a real conspiracy when Piketty's "Capital" documented a frightening statistic: The world is approaching Gilded Age levels of concentrated wealth.
Yes, economies have grown mightily during the ensuing century, but Piketty wasn't writing about the amount of money sequestered into family trusts but the percentage of national income that disappears from circulation, only to reemerge as (among other things) campaign contributions to Senators and Representatives who then vote to deregulate perilous industries and make those rich people richer.
Scandal? Please. You wouldn't know one if it bit you.
Why, indeed? Last week, the Washington Post ran a story entitled, "A Literary Guide To Hating Barack Obama," which included a list of publications from the usual suspects stuffed with contrary accusations that the President was, simultaneously, an incompetent mastermind and a Muslim radical Christian.
These are the people who turned the medals John Kerry received from the United States government for heroism in Vietnam into marks of shame.
And so when they next emerge stinking of meth to monger conspiracies, our "liberal" press treats them with deference and like Charlie Brown resolves this time to kick that football.
Last year, the press had a chance to address a real conspiracy when Piketty's "Capital" documented a frightening statistic: The world is approaching Gilded Age levels of concentrated wealth.
Yes, economies have grown mightily during the ensuing century, but Piketty wasn't writing about the amount of money sequestered into family trusts but the percentage of national income that disappears from circulation, only to reemerge as (among other things) campaign contributions to Senators and Representatives who then vote to deregulate perilous industries and make those rich people richer.
Scandal? Please. You wouldn't know one if it bit you.
300
@Jack Mahoney
"...stinking of meth..."
This kind of characterization greatly undermines the argument surrounding it.
"...stinking of meth..."
This kind of characterization greatly undermines the argument surrounding it.
3
Bravo! It seems as if this paper is run and its political stories written by college kids who have yet to learn how to discern the quality of a source, the ability to not overreact to any claim, or put new information in the context of a larger picture. I suppose they can't be blamed because the most outrageous, far-fetched ideas are promoted by politicians from what used to be a mainstream party, broadcasters or other attention hogs. It seems as if in it's desire to compete on line and in today's fast-paced, shrill and extreme media environment the NY Times has lost what made it such a great paper for so long. Its no longer that and I am every morning disappointed in its new shallowness. No wonder they make it so difficult to cancel a subscription. You have to actually talk to a person on the telephone. I would prefer to stay but I prefer the Economist.
1
@ Stuart
Thanks very much. Clearly, I meant that remark sarcastically. Now let me see, which candidate has used that excuse repeatedly?
Seriously, though, I meant to say that bats were flying from their ears, but somehow I used the meth reference to indicate voluntary mental illness instead. Won't happen again!
Thanks very much. Clearly, I meant that remark sarcastically. Now let me see, which candidate has used that excuse repeatedly?
Seriously, though, I meant to say that bats were flying from their ears, but somehow I used the meth reference to indicate voluntary mental illness instead. Won't happen again!
1
"If you think the Clintons have been the victims of a decades-long coordinated attack by Republicans, then you probably think the Clinton Foundation story is a big nothing-burger."
This is disingenuous at best, sneaky at worst. You present this as if republican attacks on the Clintons are perhaps just opinion rather than documented fact. Every bit of this article teases innuendo in one breath while refuting pay-for-play in the next, then looping back to "stay tuned, folks - we could very well find what we're looking for around the next corner!" You've elevated the issue of perception to cartoonish levels. I prefer the good works and trust the Clintons to restructure in such a way that that good can continue.
56
Excuse me, but where is the corruption? The Republicans are so concerned about emails, where is Colin Powell's emails leading up to the Second Gulf War? Or for that matter, Condoleezza Rice's emails? Or even Karl Rove's?Oh, I forgot Powell used a private company, AOL I believe and destroyed them, Rice only used voice mail, and millions of Rove's are still missing. How handy and how duplicitous of the Republicans to make baseless accusations void of fact, but reeking of hypocrisy. How many Americans died because of the Clinton Foundation? How many died because Republicans lied us into war. Enough said.
459
" (To belabor the metaphor: Where, then, is the smoke coming from?")
______
From the media itself.
Blowing smoke at the Clintons and claiming there MUST be fire is what ALL the cool kids in media are doing now and it becomes a herd mentality.
Imagine if as much attention was paid to the Bushes/the Carlyle Group/the bin Ladins??
Or even Colin's emails and HIS Foundation??
Or the Speaker of the House, who actually has the power to decide what comes to the floor, hosting a "donor retreat"?
The more one examines the story, the more one realizes that there really IS no there, there.
Somehow, when it comes to Clinton bashing, the media seems to follow a "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story" rule.
Perhaps the contrast in this election is too lopsided to be stuck with just the facts.
______
From the media itself.
Blowing smoke at the Clintons and claiming there MUST be fire is what ALL the cool kids in media are doing now and it becomes a herd mentality.
Imagine if as much attention was paid to the Bushes/the Carlyle Group/the bin Ladins??
Or even Colin's emails and HIS Foundation??
Or the Speaker of the House, who actually has the power to decide what comes to the floor, hosting a "donor retreat"?
The more one examines the story, the more one realizes that there really IS no there, there.
Somehow, when it comes to Clinton bashing, the media seems to follow a "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story" rule.
Perhaps the contrast in this election is too lopsided to be stuck with just the facts.
236
"if as much attention was paid to..
Trump's deals with Russian oligarchs which puts him at the will of Putin.....where is Trey "Benghazi" Gowdy when we need him?
Trump's "business success": what taxes does he pay, to whom is he in debt (see Russian oligarch's above
Trump's ......on and on
Trump's deals with Russian oligarchs which puts him at the will of Putin.....where is Trey "Benghazi" Gowdy when we need him?
Trump's "business success": what taxes does he pay, to whom is he in debt (see Russian oligarch's above
Trump's ......on and on
216
Absolutely!
Thank you.
Thank you.
2
seems to me the objective evaluation would be to look to how the proportion of successful requests to see Clinton is different for donors & non-donors
7
Dear Ms. Roller,
Allow me to ask a hypothetical question. If I, as Rich Petro, private citizen and not a donor to the "Foundation", had asked to meet with Secretary Clinton to, say, discuss the situation in Syria, do you think I would have even made it to a "list"?
Okay, everyone stop laughing out there but you DO see my point.
As Randy Newman said in his song, "It's money that matters" and money buys influence in "politics as usual" which is why Mr. Trump, as idiotic and hateful as he is, may just pull off a victory; he made his money the "old fashioned way', he inherited it.
Allow me to ask a hypothetical question. If I, as Rich Petro, private citizen and not a donor to the "Foundation", had asked to meet with Secretary Clinton to, say, discuss the situation in Syria, do you think I would have even made it to a "list"?
Okay, everyone stop laughing out there but you DO see my point.
As Randy Newman said in his song, "It's money that matters" and money buys influence in "politics as usual" which is why Mr. Trump, as idiotic and hateful as he is, may just pull off a victory; he made his money the "old fashioned way', he inherited it.
8
If you had something to offer in the way of usable intelligence about Syria as a result of your work or relationships there, then yes. If all you had was "I'm rich" then no. Would have met with Clinton, no. Could you have gotten a meeting with someone, probably yes. But if you had the access and experience to have acquired usable intelligence, you would probably already be in position to know who in the State Department should be your first point of contact.
6
Dear Deborah,
Or if I "donated" $100,000.00 or so to "The Foundation", I bet I'd get that meeting regardless of any "knowledge" I had on Syria.
Money buys politicians; get used to it as it's the "norm" for our batch of "experienced" politicians.
Or if I "donated" $100,000.00 or so to "The Foundation", I bet I'd get that meeting regardless of any "knowledge" I had on Syria.
Money buys politicians; get used to it as it's the "norm" for our batch of "experienced" politicians.
2
An important difference that you seem to ignore (and I mean no disrespect) is that your ability to influence the outcome of the Syrian situation as Rich Petro, private citizen, is about equal to mine, which is practically nonexistent. It's not personal. Time is a finite resource. If one wants to help solve crises, then that limited resource must be channeled in a way to assure maximum benefit. The Crown Prince of Bahrain may be a bigger player than either one of us.
1
Jimmy Carter has had a phenomenal post-Presidency after a mixed four years in office. His non-profit work in negotiation and to eradicate River Blindness is clear and exemplary.
I would like to know more about the Clinton's work through the Foundation. What has all of that very successful fund-raising been aimed at accomplishing? It is truly remarkable that they have raised two billion dollars. It is also amazing how wealthy Bill and Hillary have become in their retirement years. There is absolutely no justification for requiring anyone to pull back the covers on their private lives. However, in their case, there are rather interesting "coincidences" that they could dispel quickly with a public airing of their work.
When I think of non-profits like the Ford Foundation or Bill and Melinda Gates, out on the edge of human compassion, I see no reticence in their public documents to describe their work in full. Perhaps that would be refreshing. How much compensation goes to the staff as a percentage of donated funds? What were the impact areas? Which components of mission will be impeded by the need to shut down international donations?
Clearly, the fund-raising was fully enable by Bill; and Hillary played a supporting role. She would do her campaign good by a transparency turn, but I know it will never come. But maybe it would help. And maybe it would not. It is no less interesting that Trump's tax returns.
I would like to know more about the Clinton's work through the Foundation. What has all of that very successful fund-raising been aimed at accomplishing? It is truly remarkable that they have raised two billion dollars. It is also amazing how wealthy Bill and Hillary have become in their retirement years. There is absolutely no justification for requiring anyone to pull back the covers on their private lives. However, in their case, there are rather interesting "coincidences" that they could dispel quickly with a public airing of their work.
When I think of non-profits like the Ford Foundation or Bill and Melinda Gates, out on the edge of human compassion, I see no reticence in their public documents to describe their work in full. Perhaps that would be refreshing. How much compensation goes to the staff as a percentage of donated funds? What were the impact areas? Which components of mission will be impeded by the need to shut down international donations?
Clearly, the fund-raising was fully enable by Bill; and Hillary played a supporting role. She would do her campaign good by a transparency turn, but I know it will never come. But maybe it would help. And maybe it would not. It is no less interesting that Trump's tax returns.
5
The information about where the money has gone and the finances of the foundation is all public. The Clinton's have not taken a dime from the foundation. Somehow, that information doesn't make it into an editorial full of innuendo rather than any facts.
5
Their personal tax returns and the finances of the Foundation are both a matter of public record. What else do you think they need to reveal?
4
You could look at the "work" section of www.clintonfoundation.org.
1
The world does not have enough foundations. If the 1% all set up foundations, competed for donations and tried to be the most effective at helping humanity, then we would have a more peaceful world. Sports also tame the restless soul. Busy hands are happy hands. And the world needs help. Charitable organizations should make their finances and activities open and on line. Not bad thinking for a half cup of morning coffee.
2
Can you name even a single member of congress who has not taken an appointment with a donor? Why is this different? Because it is the Clintons. And because the press can be fooled into making it a big deal so that it can provide balanced negative coverage.
132
Why is this different? Because it wasn't a donation to a "campaign". It was donations by foreign nationals and others to a Foundation linked directly to the US State Department and Secretary of State.
For all of Trump's faults, at least he loves America and would never sell it out to Nations that execute and murder gays, and treat women like slaves. But Hillary has. And yet, this paper and most of the media establishment support her. Why?
For all of Trump's faults, at least he loves America and would never sell it out to Nations that execute and murder gays, and treat women like slaves. But Hillary has. And yet, this paper and most of the media establishment support her. Why?
2
I suspect if you have a look at appointments that members of congress had with donors, and the subsequent favors granted and voting positions, you would indeed find that it's no different. In fact, one member is under indictment for just that (Senator Robert Menendez).
3
Business as usual. The Bush family connections with Saudi royalty. Washington lobbyists on the prowl with pockets full of campaign 'donations'. Nothing new here.
19
Nothing good either.
3
so "everyone does it" = justification? $2 Billion wrongs does not equal a right
3
What is appalling is there is a resigned acceptance of a corrupt process that is just frightening. I deal with people every day working in the U S government. The most common reaction to politics as usual: a shrug. C'mon folks. We have lost the greatest democracy the world has ever known and we just rattle our chains.
Both the foundation and democracy are about appearance and substance. Democracy appears to be real as we vote. But the real business is greased by private money and favors doled out. We live in an oligarchy dressed up as something else. In the 80's Elizabeth Drew wrote a book The Politics of Money detailing the huge advantage the GOP had in private cash. There were two ways the Dems could have gone: limits and restrictions or playing the game. The Clintons led the way into the latter. Wall Streeters were given plum posts while regulation and Glass Steagall took a beating. The same Rubin and Summers road show was recommended by the Clintons when Obama took office to lead the recovery that saved Wall Street while untold salvageable mortgages went under. Our predecessors knew there could be no difference between appearances and reality. One should not even risk the accusation. They knew that even the appearance could undermine faith and confidence. Not so today. With Congress' approval in single digits and widespread voter cynicism, politicians have reaped the rewards of a corrupt system and are buffered by a frightening amount of voter and media apathy.
Both the foundation and democracy are about appearance and substance. Democracy appears to be real as we vote. But the real business is greased by private money and favors doled out. We live in an oligarchy dressed up as something else. In the 80's Elizabeth Drew wrote a book The Politics of Money detailing the huge advantage the GOP had in private cash. There were two ways the Dems could have gone: limits and restrictions or playing the game. The Clintons led the way into the latter. Wall Streeters were given plum posts while regulation and Glass Steagall took a beating. The same Rubin and Summers road show was recommended by the Clintons when Obama took office to lead the recovery that saved Wall Street while untold salvageable mortgages went under. Our predecessors knew there could be no difference between appearances and reality. One should not even risk the accusation. They knew that even the appearance could undermine faith and confidence. Not so today. With Congress' approval in single digits and widespread voter cynicism, politicians have reaped the rewards of a corrupt system and are buffered by a frightening amount of voter and media apathy.
17
Let's stop flogging the idea that Bill Clinton deregulated the financial market.
1. Bill Clinton did NOT repeal Glass-Steagall. The name of the bill that DID repeal it was The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, good Republicans all. On Nov 4 1999 that bill was passed by the Senate 90–8, and by the House 362–57. A veto would have been fruitless.
2. Phil Gramm's Commodities Futures Modernization Act was passed by adding a footnote in the dead of night to a conference report on an 11,000 page appropriations bill AFTER the conference had been completed. The bill was never sent to committee, never voted on in committee, never brought to the floor, and nobody knew it was there when they voted on the necessary appropriation bill. I guess you blame that on Bill, too.
1. Bill Clinton did NOT repeal Glass-Steagall. The name of the bill that DID repeal it was The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, good Republicans all. On Nov 4 1999 that bill was passed by the Senate 90–8, and by the House 362–57. A veto would have been fruitless.
2. Phil Gramm's Commodities Futures Modernization Act was passed by adding a footnote in the dead of night to a conference report on an 11,000 page appropriations bill AFTER the conference had been completed. The bill was never sent to committee, never voted on in committee, never brought to the floor, and nobody knew it was there when they voted on the necessary appropriation bill. I guess you blame that on Bill, too.
5
Imagine the fun if Nixon had survived until the age of e-mails and the internet and he had had a "Nixon Foundation". Then it was discovered that he had irrevocably deleted half of all of his e-mails when he left office and then some of those e-mails resurfaced elsewhere with official business on them including secret contacts with donors to the "Nixon Foundation"? All of you would be clamoring for the press to "name the Special Prosecutor" and to "follow the money", right? You would have screams about his corruption so loud that you wouldn't even have to turn your TV on.
No scandal to see here, folks? Wait 'till you see the next bunch of her e-mails surface! This is like trying to bail the Titanic with a coffee cup. The Clintons are a foul stench in the nostrils of decent people.
No scandal to see here, folks? Wait 'till you see the next bunch of her e-mails surface! This is like trying to bail the Titanic with a coffee cup. The Clintons are a foul stench in the nostrils of decent people.
21
But in Watergate, Nixon broke the law. He had to be pardoned. HRC has never done anything even remotely similar.
3
Really? What is Obstruction of Justice? (destroying the records she was required by law to keep of all of her communications as Secretary of State). Nixon erased 18 minutes of tape, Hillary erased four tears.
6
So why did Comey, a right wing Repubican who was a US attorney in the Bush - Gonzales Justice dept who was not fired and then the number two man in the Bush - Ashcroft one, not even recommend her indictment? And Obama never pardoned her.
3
"Mr. Trump’s campaign has jumped on the story, calling the Clinton Foundation “the most corrupt enterprise in political history” — while neglecting to mention that his own foundation has given at least $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation."
That is a perfect example of the Fox Butterfield fallacy: consists of misidentifying as a paradox that which is simple cause-and-effect relationship.
Made famous here at the NYT, by the way.
That is a perfect example of the Fox Butterfield fallacy: consists of misidentifying as a paradox that which is simple cause-and-effect relationship.
Made famous here at the NYT, by the way.
9
Oh yes a fallacy, based in fact.
1
What I find befuddling about this entire 'scandal' is the fact that Clinton was not in a legislative role at the State Department. Meanwhile sitting Senators and Representatives (both parties) are daily meeting with lobbyists and donors and then introducing legislation to directly benefit their donors to the detriment of the average consumer/voter, yet nary a peep from the press or the R's. Smoke indeed.
150
you make your own point: State is Executive. Legislators on the opposite side of the aisle can agree/oppose Special Interest legislation, depending on campaign contributions, etc. Executive & Judiciary are insular (well, since before Judge Bork & Bush v. Gore, i guess)
2
Surely, you must know how the system works:
Those in cahoots with donors and lobbyists know that as long as they can keep the focus of the media and the public on Clinton, there will be no focus on us.
That modus operandi in one form or another has ben in place in this country from the beginning...
Those in cahoots with donors and lobbyists know that as long as they can keep the focus of the media and the public on Clinton, there will be no focus on us.
That modus operandi in one form or another has ben in place in this country from the beginning...
2
The Clintons provide access for money. That is the only modus operandi a foundation like that can do.
5
Even if that were true, the money has never gone to them, just to help the world. Nothing here, time to move on to the next manufactured "scandal" the Repubs gin up.
They'll find something in those emails to miscast on another topic and they won't be done until she is reelected to her second term and them have another candidate to lie about. Obama may be the cleanest politician in history, but they worked hard to make up stuff about him, couldn't com up with much ... socialist? no. Born in Kenya? Keep trying, Donald.
It's what Republicans do: Lie like Putin.
They'll find something in those emails to miscast on another topic and they won't be done until she is reelected to her second term and them have another candidate to lie about. Obama may be the cleanest politician in history, but they worked hard to make up stuff about him, couldn't com up with much ... socialist? no. Born in Kenya? Keep trying, Donald.
It's what Republicans do: Lie like Putin.
274
What percent of the donors to the Foundation got to see the SOS?
Ans: About 1% and practically all of these clearly would have access even if they had not donated.
Ans: About 1% and practically all of these clearly would have access even if they had not donated.
18
If Clinton is elected, the Republican push for media coverage of faux scandals will continue as a means of not only tarring her and weakening her presidency but also in an attempt to get her removed from office. Seeing the success of Watergate in removing Nixon from the presidency, leaders of the Republican Party began a campaign in the late 1970s to weaponize the judiciary with party loyalists in a move to take down a Democratic president in revenge. They came close to taking down Bill Clinton with endless investigations of false scandals by a shadily appointed Kenneth Starr; if they lose this election and again in 2020, they will continue trying to use impeachment against Hillary as long as they have a Republican House. With a Republican Senate, they could succeed.
6
Last week Benghazi, this week the Clinton Foundation; next week it will be something else. Republicans need to revisit the story of the little boy who cried wolf. After 25 years of baseless accusations and insinuations against the Clintons, not to mention the waste of time and money on investigations that go no where, even the most hardcore right-winger should understand why so many people respond to the latest allegations with skepticism. Frankly, I find Trump's refusal to release his tax returns, his use of campaign dollars to purchase Trump products and services and to pay his own family members far more scandalous.
71
Look, nonClinton Democrats and Independents are not stupid. We continue to know the difference between nothings like Benghazi and Vince Foster, and somethings like Clinton Foundation quid pro quos, private email servers, Goldman Sachs speeches, tarmac visits and random data analyst deaths. There's just too much monkey business.
9
Anyone can look at the Clinton Foundation financial records, including their annual IRS-990's. I've taken the time to read the 990. Despite the innuendo from the Trump campaign, the Clintons don't get a dime from the foundation and a lot of their speech income goes into the fund, not into their own pockets. (FWIW: There are "charities" that benefit the owners more than the recipients so before writing the check get a copy of their 990 before sending money.)
Most people don't get the idea that you can get people to give you donations or pay you fees and that you don't keep all, or a substantial portion, for yourself.
Celebrities use their status to get money for their charitable causes. Usually they don't get any personal gain other than seeing that their charity gets to do what it can.
You can read the reports yourself, or you can just accept the assertions of somebody attacking the other person. The scandal is in the eye of the beholder and there isn't anything that logic will do to change that.
Most people don't get the idea that you can get people to give you donations or pay you fees and that you don't keep all, or a substantial portion, for yourself.
Celebrities use their status to get money for their charitable causes. Usually they don't get any personal gain other than seeing that their charity gets to do what it can.
You can read the reports yourself, or you can just accept the assertions of somebody attacking the other person. The scandal is in the eye of the beholder and there isn't anything that logic will do to change that.
83
George, you say the Clintons don't get anything for themselves, yet the Foundation pays Clinton staff salaries (part of Huma Abedin's salaray for instance, as mentioned today) and let's not forget this $2 billion raised is also for the Clinton Library. (Will there be separate libraries for Bill and Hillary?) The whole point, however, is that the Clintons were shaking down foreign donors from the start, that it continued while Hillary was Secretary of State, and that there is some evidence – and most certainly the appearance – of a "pay to play" dictum that provided access to H Clinton for some of the most corrupt and suppressive governments on the planet. Ethics, character, and personal responsibility no longer seem to mean anything to politician or the press. This trend is dragging down the expectations of our entire population, and with it the ideals that made America great. When the majority are no longer brave, proud, or idealistic, there is nowhere to go but down. Like worms.
6
Where is proof that any of this money is for the Clinton Library? And who donated for the Bush libraries, the Reagan Library, etc.
What the Clintons donate to the Foundation is their after tas income.
Donald Trump has not donated his own money to his foundation in years. He has supporters who directly donate funds tot he foundation. Trump NEVER declares those funds as his personal income and never pays taxes upon those funds.
Donald Trump has not donated his own money to his foundation in years. He has supporters who directly donate funds tot he foundation. Trump NEVER declares those funds as his personal income and never pays taxes upon those funds.
When a judge recuses him/herself from a case involving a relative, no one has done anything wrong. It is the presence of two strong, competing interests that creates conflict of interest.
President Obama set up clear rules for Mrs Clinton and the foundation to avoid conflict of interest when she became SOS. Those rules were largely ignored.
To call that a problem of "perception" is to completely ignore the basis for conflict of interest in the first place.
Conflict of interest is different from quid pro quo: pay to play. There, you need evidence before you can claim it. And here, there is no proof of pay to play.
But conflict of interest is rampant. That, in and of itself, is a significant problem. That's why rules were established in the first place.
President Obama set up clear rules for Mrs Clinton and the foundation to avoid conflict of interest when she became SOS. Those rules were largely ignored.
To call that a problem of "perception" is to completely ignore the basis for conflict of interest in the first place.
Conflict of interest is different from quid pro quo: pay to play. There, you need evidence before you can claim it. And here, there is no proof of pay to play.
But conflict of interest is rampant. That, in and of itself, is a significant problem. That's why rules were established in the first place.
21
"President Obama set up clear rules for Mrs Clinton and the foundation to avoid conflict of interest when she became SOS. Those rules were largely ignored."
Reference please.
Reference please.
2
Please detail what rules were ignored.
3
Len and Cathy: Look no further than the Editorial Board in Today's NYT:
"When Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state, the Obama administration tried to draw a line between the foundation, particularly its foreign-government sponsors, and her role. The new emails underscore that this effort was at best partly successful. "
There's plenty of other info on the web if you google.
"When Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state, the Obama administration tried to draw a line between the foundation, particularly its foreign-government sponsors, and her role. The new emails underscore that this effort was at best partly successful. "
There's plenty of other info on the web if you google.
4
"Mr. Trump’s interest in reforming campaign finance doesn’t seem to extend past his opponent, and while he has criticized unlimited spending in elections, his campaign hasn’t put forth any concrete policy proposals that would restrict political influence peddling."
For me, this is the heart of the matter. If Trump's "foundation" gave to the Clinton Foundation, and he is now shouting larceny at the top of his lungs, where does that leave him? What does his foundation even do? The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
While I feel the Clintons at times become poster children for everything that's wrong in American society, particularly when it comes to financial dealings, I do feel they need to begin folding the Clinton Foundation into another existing one (the Gates Foundation?) until such time that both Clintons are fully retired.
However, please remember how the moniker of '"pay for play" can easily be applied to any number of relationships between sitting Congressional or otherwise governmental officials, many of which don't pass the smell test yet are sanctioned by today's SCOTUS. Until there is some definition of when "access" in return for either campaign funding or charitable donations is definitely wrong--and in today's money driven society, that's unlikely to happen (eg, the MacDonald case)--these types of cases and associations will continue to generate "scandals".
We need a Savanrola to come in to create new rules that apply to everybody in the Washington access game.
For me, this is the heart of the matter. If Trump's "foundation" gave to the Clinton Foundation, and he is now shouting larceny at the top of his lungs, where does that leave him? What does his foundation even do? The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
While I feel the Clintons at times become poster children for everything that's wrong in American society, particularly when it comes to financial dealings, I do feel they need to begin folding the Clinton Foundation into another existing one (the Gates Foundation?) until such time that both Clintons are fully retired.
However, please remember how the moniker of '"pay for play" can easily be applied to any number of relationships between sitting Congressional or otherwise governmental officials, many of which don't pass the smell test yet are sanctioned by today's SCOTUS. Until there is some definition of when "access" in return for either campaign funding or charitable donations is definitely wrong--and in today's money driven society, that's unlikely to happen (eg, the MacDonald case)--these types of cases and associations will continue to generate "scandals".
We need a Savanrola to come in to create new rules that apply to everybody in the Washington access game.
39
Sorry Christine, but Mr. Trump is a private Citizen. The Clintons' are not, and haven't been since law school.
They have been begging wealthy people for money all their lives. Trump has been begging banks for money all his life.
Big difference! Unfortunately the Progressives can't see the difference.
They have been begging wealthy people for money all their lives. Trump has been begging banks for money all his life.
Big difference! Unfortunately the Progressives can't see the difference.
8
I MIGHT assert that a scandal is a scandal when perpetrated by a liberal; but while disarming in its outrageousness and helpful to stealth-introducing arguments that appear reasonable only because they’re slightly LESS outrageous, that tongue-in-cheek assertion nevertheless would be as facile and illegitimate as suggesting the opposite – a favorite pastime in this forum.
But Emma’s statement that the Clinton Foundation spends its money “on its programs in other countries” is disingenuous and seeks to set up invalid premises. It spends SOME of its money on charitable programs and some of it on evangelizing the Clinton brand while providing employment to loyal apparatchiks between political gigs. The PERCEPTION among many is that it assists Clintons to advance personal political interests, and all the rest is mere cover. Indeed, its dual-nature is reminiscent of the practice of jihadists who operate from within civilian populations to avoid attacks that could cause significant collateral damage.
Changing those perceptions is not aided by parsing the multiple possible meanings of the word “is”.
Mrs. Clinton can claim with a smile that despite all the smoke there’s no fire, but her assurances aren’t about to dissuade that the sheer VOLUME of smoke isn’t indicative of fires (plural). People have their own “perceptions” about what a lot of smoke really means.
The extent to which people “recoil” likely will depend on what ELSE is revealed between now and 8 November.
But Emma’s statement that the Clinton Foundation spends its money “on its programs in other countries” is disingenuous and seeks to set up invalid premises. It spends SOME of its money on charitable programs and some of it on evangelizing the Clinton brand while providing employment to loyal apparatchiks between political gigs. The PERCEPTION among many is that it assists Clintons to advance personal political interests, and all the rest is mere cover. Indeed, its dual-nature is reminiscent of the practice of jihadists who operate from within civilian populations to avoid attacks that could cause significant collateral damage.
Changing those perceptions is not aided by parsing the multiple possible meanings of the word “is”.
Mrs. Clinton can claim with a smile that despite all the smoke there’s no fire, but her assurances aren’t about to dissuade that the sheer VOLUME of smoke isn’t indicative of fires (plural). People have their own “perceptions” about what a lot of smoke really means.
The extent to which people “recoil” likely will depend on what ELSE is revealed between now and 8 November.
19
Precisely the Republican plan by any means possible, including Russian hackers.
20
Roller defies logic. Not only is there smoke, but the entire NYT building is burning down around her, but.....there is always hope it will 'go away".
5
Ahh Richard, ever since Watergate Republican loyalists have smarted for the day when a Democrat in high office might be bought down for high crimes an misdemeanors. They almost got their wish with Bill Clinton and his wiggle out of their grasp left an ugly, painful scar. Now Hillary Clinton comes along and emails, the modern version of hidden tape recorders, are picked and parsed for evidence of criminality, none found so far- but wait there's more! That email with the quid pro quo is in the next batch or the batch before or the lost personal batch; she's a Clinton, she must be corrupt!
Once upon a time a political movement evolved based on the notion that government is inherently bad. It held that those who aspire to office, unless they subscribe to undoing government, are bad. And lo, it came to pass that those who seek office are almost to the person flawed in ways great and small. They are inept, ill motivated, self serving, stupid or corrupt.
Congratulations Richard, your side has won, government these days is pretty bad, ineffectual, corrupt, inept and depending on how this low election turns out potentially really, really dangerous. Who would a thunk it?
Once upon a time a political movement evolved based on the notion that government is inherently bad. It held that those who aspire to office, unless they subscribe to undoing government, are bad. And lo, it came to pass that those who seek office are almost to the person flawed in ways great and small. They are inept, ill motivated, self serving, stupid or corrupt.
Congratulations Richard, your side has won, government these days is pretty bad, ineffectual, corrupt, inept and depending on how this low election turns out potentially really, really dangerous. Who would a thunk it?
6
while the Clintons may not have received a penny from the FOB&H Foundation, plenty of long-time FOB&H have. and therein lies the rub...
13
The motives of the donors would seem to matter less than those of the Clintons. The critics claim that Hillary used her position as Secretary of State for personal gain, through her role in the foundation. Clinton has provided abundant evidence that she likes money, but no member of her family received a penny from their involvement with the foundation.
Even under the worst case scenario, therefore, the critics maintain that she used the influence of her office to obtain money, in order to save thousands of lives. If she did that, it would constitute a highly improper use of her authority, but it would not substantiate Trump's charges.
The candidate should certainly terminate any further connection between the foundation and her family, but the mere appearance of impropriety in a case where the government official derives no personal benefit from her alleged behavior should disqualify no one from seeking elective office.
Even under the worst case scenario, therefore, the critics maintain that she used the influence of her office to obtain money, in order to save thousands of lives. If she did that, it would constitute a highly improper use of her authority, but it would not substantiate Trump's charges.
The candidate should certainly terminate any further connection between the foundation and her family, but the mere appearance of impropriety in a case where the government official derives no personal benefit from her alleged behavior should disqualify no one from seeking elective office.
7
Dr. R, you are spreading lies. https://www.truthorfiction.com/chelsea-clinton-makes-900000-almost-nothing/
"And claims about Chelsea’s Clinton’s salary at the Clinton Foundation are just plain fiction. According to tax records filed by the Clinton Foundation, Chelsea earns no reportable compensation for her role there."
"And claims about Chelsea’s Clinton’s salary at the Clinton Foundation are just plain fiction. According to tax records filed by the Clinton Foundation, Chelsea earns no reportable compensation for her role there."
5
"No member of their family has received a penny..."? True, if you exclude millions per year in lavish travel to A-list destinations, including Presidential suites in 5-star hotels, gluttonous dining in Michelin 3-stars, wild parties flowing with ancient cognac and thousand dollar magnums while Hollywood trash warble inane songs for stacks of Benjamin's. Yeah, those Clinton's didn't take a penny. As if they would stoop to scoop up anything less than high 6-figures. And best of all, these millions per year in Benedict are tax free to them. And the leftist bobble-heads keep a-bobbling, waxing doggedly about the Clinton's generosity and selfless service 'to the children'. Blech.
6
Dr Paul, I have to respect your imagination. But you left out the wild orgies with Vegas showgirls and guys. And how about the shopping sprees at Harry Winston and Nieman Marcus?
Oh, BTW, the most respected charity rating organization, Charity Watch, rates the Clinton Foundation "A".
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-cl...
Oh, BTW, the most respected charity rating organization, Charity Watch, rates the Clinton Foundation "A".
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-cl...
5
When is it a "scandal?"
When you oppose the person.
Someone you support can do no wrong. Any excuse will do. Even no excuse at all, bluffing it out, that will do too if you just don't want to see it.
Most partisans see that very clearly about the other side, but not at all about their own, even as they themselves prove the point.
When you oppose the person.
Someone you support can do no wrong. Any excuse will do. Even no excuse at all, bluffing it out, that will do too if you just don't want to see it.
Most partisans see that very clearly about the other side, but not at all about their own, even as they themselves prove the point.
33
When is a scandal really a scandal?
I think the answer you are looking for is it is a scandal when it concerns a Republican.
Did I get it right?
I think the answer you are looking for is it is a scandal when it concerns a Republican.
Did I get it right?
18
And when Hillary Clinton is thirsty and drinks water, she is making a stand against the orange juice industry. She really wants to sink the orange juicy industry in Florida. There is a bunch of emails that may, just may, serve as evidence. Being thirty is so crooked.
107
I make a lot of typos in my comments, but rarely one as creative as yours. Since I am 78, I don't trust young folks either.
4
Hillary mistepped again. The Clinton for all their political astuteness have a blind eye when it comes to the perception of conflict of interest. Any contact at any level between the State Department and the Foundation should have been banned by Hillary on day one. Regardless that no material favors were extended, neither Hillary nor we needed this distraction from real issues
15
So if I give 5 bucks to the Clinton Foundation, I lose my right to to contact the State dept if I need help in a foreign country?
Balderdash!
Balderdash!
8
It appears that a scandal is what Fox News, Rush, Hannity, etc say it is. The rank and file base wouldn't know one even if it hit 'em in the posterior, until they were told it was one.
104
And in today's paper we learn that the Weiner-Abedin news "Casts a cloud over the Clinton Campaign"
Just who cast that cloud, could it be only our intrepid reporters?
Just who cast that cloud, could it be only our intrepid reporters?
14
So, according to proponents of political partisanship, it appears that the point here is to fear and hate what one knows is legal if it is being done by someone that you are told you should fear and hate because they are your political enemy at the time. I read this a couple of times and can find the there there. What is the point? Is this supposed to balance the criticisms of Trump so you appear to be balanced and objective? I realize that you had to stretch a lot to dirty Trump's opponent because it is so obvious to see the dirt carried by Trump who takes every advantage of a rigged oligarchy for personal gain. When will the Times get back to journalistic practices rather than this tabloid nonsense?
121
The Times ran a front page store where it weighed whether it would advocate for Clinton and against Trump rather than adopting a traditionally neutral position. This article reveals the damage of even considering that question. As it says, your view of the foundation depends on your view of the Clintons. In effect, the Times has already made up its mind in this matter. They have abandon the interest in neutrality when it comes to the foundation.
17
I believe the Times has endorsed a candidate on its editorial page in every important election in my 78 years, If you do not understand or do not believe the separation of reporting and opinion in the paper, why read it?
9
Conservatives and their right-wing outrage machine never internalized the lesson from the fable of the boy who cried wolf.
From Monica Lewinsky to travel gate, Whitewater, the Clinton chronicles, Benghazi, private emails, and now, the Clinton foundation, there is a never-ending march of subjects for reactionary indignation and alarm.
The conservative outrage machine has no credibility left. They have spent it all.
From Monica Lewinsky to travel gate, Whitewater, the Clinton chronicles, Benghazi, private emails, and now, the Clinton foundation, there is a never-ending march of subjects for reactionary indignation and alarm.
The conservative outrage machine has no credibility left. They have spent it all.
223
@ Brock
You hope you're right.
You hope you're right.
2
THE CLINTONS Continue to be targets for unrelenting mud-slinging by opponents. While Hillary and Bill have not had any salaries for their work in their foundation, Hillary's meetings with foreign donors is seen as questionable. What influence could a major donor from Qatar be seeking from the US Secretary of State? If these 15,000 + e mails were made during Hillary's time as Secretary of State, I'd like to know where the FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service and IRS were? Asleep on the job? If any of her e mails, personal or official, were thought to be a threat to national security, they all had the duty to warn her about activities that might be suspect. For security agencies to neglect to assure that all communications from all highly placed government officials are legal and ethically sound is a problem of oversight. Timing "investigations" to coincide with political campaigns stinks to me! It stinks of dirty politics! Once again, it looks like the head of the FBI is acting like a political shill and a goon for the GOP. Donald's squawking about corrupt institutions is ironic, to be polite. He's not quacking about the fraud charges pending against him in late November related to the Trump "University." Has the FBI investigated any of Trump's e mails during that period of time? Or has he gotten a free pass because he's in the same political party as the FBI? We see, once again, how the GOP governs by means of name-calling. Infantile behavior is not oversight.
252
Not to defend any of this, but the issue is that a private server/email was used. As a member of federal government, the freedom of information act makes her communications potentially public (if requested). The timing, of course, was well planned.
I'm sure if any one of us was faced with this kind of relentless probing and questioning, we'd end up looking silly, or something illegal would crop up.
I'm sure if any one of us was faced with this kind of relentless probing and questioning, we'd end up looking silly, or something illegal would crop up.
4
"What influence could a major donor from Qatar be seeking from the US Secretary of State?"
A 1,482% increase in arms sales approved by Clinton's State Dept?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-s...
A 1,482% increase in arms sales approved by Clinton's State Dept?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-s...
4
Nothing to see here, move along
1
Emma Roller answers her own headline question "When is a scandal not a scandal?" by saying it depends on your view of the Clintons. Why is that? Since the Clintons don't take salaries from the Clinton Foundation, where is there a conflict of interest?
Is the Secretary of State allowed to be favorably impressed with--and thus take meetings with or phone calls from--those private individuals, heads of state, corporate or foundation representatives who give money or aid to sick children, HIV treatments, means of water purification, food for the starving? Could she hypothetically decide to grant even the leader of North Korea an audience if she was pleased that he had given $5 million to a charity or foundation? Even if that charity or foundation was named after her family? What if the foundation was named after Donald Trump? If a foundation doesn't pay her, where is a conflict of interest, whether its name is Clinton, Gates, Ford, or Trump?
If one of a Secretary of States's interests is to encourage donation of funds for humane purposes, why can't such donation be a factor in how she decides to treat a donor, whether that donor be private individual, head of State, or corporation?
Is the Secretary of State allowed to be favorably impressed with--and thus take meetings with or phone calls from--those private individuals, heads of state, corporate or foundation representatives who give money or aid to sick children, HIV treatments, means of water purification, food for the starving? Could she hypothetically decide to grant even the leader of North Korea an audience if she was pleased that he had given $5 million to a charity or foundation? Even if that charity or foundation was named after her family? What if the foundation was named after Donald Trump? If a foundation doesn't pay her, where is a conflict of interest, whether its name is Clinton, Gates, Ford, or Trump?
If one of a Secretary of States's interests is to encourage donation of funds for humane purposes, why can't such donation be a factor in how she decides to treat a donor, whether that donor be private individual, head of State, or corporation?
54
I find people's knee-jerk support of whatever candidate the DNC offers up very distressing. You don't have to read Fox News.
Want to know about how much HRC is adored in Haiti? Google 'Haiti' and 'Hillary Clinton' and 'Nytimes' and you will find a NYTimes Story from March 14, 2016 about all the marvelous things the Clintons have accomplished in Haiti.
I quote: "Among the litany of complaints being laid at their feet: Fewer than half the jobs promised at the industrial park, built after 366 farmers were evicted from their lands, have materialized. Many millions of dollars earmarked for relief efforts have yet to be spent. Mrs. Clinton’s brother Tony Rodham has turned up in business ventures on the island, setting off speculation about insider deals."
Also in same, Clinton accused of rigging the Haitian election. Enjoy the extremely distasteful quote by Cheryl Mills, proving that the moral abjection of HRC's nearest and dearest, Huma, Cheryl, Doug Band etc. knows no bounds.
For info about the Clintons making money by selling US uranium to the Russian via the Clinton (charitable) Foundation, see the NYTimes, dated April 23, 2015.
Americans clearly don't demand even a pretense of honesty from their elected officials. It's enough to just "beat" the "other side" like some inane Super Bowl match. Doesn't matter that she voted for the most idiotic and destructive foreign policy decision of the century either. All you have to do is remember that she's female.
Want to know about how much HRC is adored in Haiti? Google 'Haiti' and 'Hillary Clinton' and 'Nytimes' and you will find a NYTimes Story from March 14, 2016 about all the marvelous things the Clintons have accomplished in Haiti.
I quote: "Among the litany of complaints being laid at their feet: Fewer than half the jobs promised at the industrial park, built after 366 farmers were evicted from their lands, have materialized. Many millions of dollars earmarked for relief efforts have yet to be spent. Mrs. Clinton’s brother Tony Rodham has turned up in business ventures on the island, setting off speculation about insider deals."
Also in same, Clinton accused of rigging the Haitian election. Enjoy the extremely distasteful quote by Cheryl Mills, proving that the moral abjection of HRC's nearest and dearest, Huma, Cheryl, Doug Band etc. knows no bounds.
For info about the Clintons making money by selling US uranium to the Russian via the Clinton (charitable) Foundation, see the NYTimes, dated April 23, 2015.
Americans clearly don't demand even a pretense of honesty from their elected officials. It's enough to just "beat" the "other side" like some inane Super Bowl match. Doesn't matter that she voted for the most idiotic and destructive foreign policy decision of the century either. All you have to do is remember that she's female.
31
"For info about the Clintons making money by selling US uranium to the Russian via the Clinton (charitable) Foundation, see the NYTimes, dated April 23, 2015."
This smear has been thoroughly debunked by Politifact.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-tr...
"First, the State Department did approve of Russia’s gradual takeover of a company with significant U.S. uranium assets, but it didn’t act unilaterally. State was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal.
Second, while nine people related to the company did donate to the Clinton Foundation, it’s unclear whether they were still involved in the company by the time of the Russian deal and stood to benefit from it.
Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state."
Emily, it has been proven that smoking is bad for your health. Throwing up smoke is bad for the political health of this great country.
This smear has been thoroughly debunked by Politifact.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-tr...
"First, the State Department did approve of Russia’s gradual takeover of a company with significant U.S. uranium assets, but it didn’t act unilaterally. State was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal.
Second, while nine people related to the company did donate to the Clinton Foundation, it’s unclear whether they were still involved in the company by the time of the Russian deal and stood to benefit from it.
Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state."
Emily, it has been proven that smoking is bad for your health. Throwing up smoke is bad for the political health of this great country.
279
So Obama and Clinton together gave over control of 25% of our uranium production. You're ok with that?
4
And, Len, you really believe that, in relation to "smoke" about Hillary, Politifact is an objective observer? I'd like to sell you my shares in a bridge over the East River to Brooklyn.
Frank Guistra, the Canadian Owner of Uranium One, the company he sold to Rosatom, Russia's atomic manager, gave 31.2 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation in 2009, when Hillary was Secretary of State and signed off on the deal.
A year ago, Hillary said on TV that when she and Bill left the White House, they were "Dead broke." Since then, Bill has been retired. She was a US Senator for 6 years, then Secretary of State for 4. Now they are worth some 250 million dollars.
How did they pile up that fortune, by her saving Green Stamps?
Frank Guistra, the Canadian Owner of Uranium One, the company he sold to Rosatom, Russia's atomic manager, gave 31.2 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation in 2009, when Hillary was Secretary of State and signed off on the deal.
A year ago, Hillary said on TV that when she and Bill left the White House, they were "Dead broke." Since then, Bill has been retired. She was a US Senator for 6 years, then Secretary of State for 4. Now they are worth some 250 million dollars.
How did they pile up that fortune, by her saving Green Stamps?
4
The Clinton Foundation issue seems to be worrisome enough to the Editorial Board of the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/opinion/cutting-ties-to-the-clinton-fo...
The Editorial Board said it best: "Achieving true distance from the foundation....is an ethical imperative".
It's a shame that Mrs. Clinton has not yet thought of this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/opinion/cutting-ties-to-the-clinton-fo...
The Editorial Board said it best: "Achieving true distance from the foundation....is an ethical imperative".
It's a shame that Mrs. Clinton has not yet thought of this.
27
"The Clinton family has never taken a salary from the foundation. ". top executives such as Steve Jobs also didn't take a salary but they sure got their perks. and Chelsea getting a $600,000 salary from NBC is another example of 'pay to play'. not that there's anything wrong with that. if wealthy individuals will give money that is used for a good cause, for whatever reason, why not take it as long as there is no specific quid pro quo.
9
And you and SCOTUS agree on this.
1
Perception, optics, insinuations, deceptions, rumors, unproven accusations, conspiracy theories, etc., all the tools of PROPAGANDA casting DOUBT & FEAR-MONGERING on a US public that's too busy to think through anything at all, never mind what's up in the latest tabloid-style pseudo-news. Too bad for H. Clinton that US voters are willing sitting ducks for the onslaught of such "news".
116
I'm not a pundit and it's a scandal. Influence peddling plain and simple.
33
Where is your specific proof? Accusations without proof are lowdown PROPAGANDA.
142
Others' conclusions aren't bound by your inability to perceive the glaringly obvious: what looks, sounds, and walks like a duck is, in fact, a duck.
8
Jeff, it is ironic your remark comes from Germany. Remember "The Stab in the Back"?
3
Oh and even assuming the facts most negative to the Clintons - the Foundation still accomplishes life saving and changing work around the world. Trump, on the other hand, will be peddling influence to the highest bidder to line his pockets and that of his yet to be named backers.
340
Through a carefully orchestrated smear complain, the GOP operatives have managed to convince the American public, including many democrats, that The Clinton Foundation had some nefarious purpose that included transferring huge sums of money to the Clintons themselves in exchange for selling influence. When President Clinton established this foundation, the whole country cheered his activism and vision. When Ms. Clinton entered and exited the State Department, the country cheered her success and her efforts to restore America's good name in the world. So, the GOP got busy to defame the Clinton's for their good works - and have managed to turn these achievements to liabilities. What shocks me the most is how complicit the mainstream media is in virtually unquestioningly going along with this narrative, despite no evidence. As someone who has spent years in the developing world where aid programs like those that the Clinton Foundation funds and manage change lives - I have only the utmost respect for what they do. The prince of Bahrain simply had to call and would have gotten whatever meeting or face time he wanted anyway. That's how the real world works. On the other hand, a bunch of rich politicians and operatives who have nothing to lose will sit here and try to shut that Foundation down to discredit the Clintons. Why not? They won't suffer. And their sole mission - destroying the Clinton candidacy will be accomplished.
636
@Dana
There is no "good work" that would be torn asunder by transparency. Most of these faux scandals evaporate when the prideful "attacked" lay the cards of evidence on the table and slay their accusers.
Why would there have been any assumption otherwise. You start a foundation, raise two billion dollars, and turn it to use. People should pore over the Form 990, the annual report, and praise or criticize as appropriate. We do it with the United Way, why not the Clintons.
The way in which Clinton partisans insist on relativizing all their behavior is what leads to its persistent claim on their reputation.
There is no "good work" that would be torn asunder by transparency. Most of these faux scandals evaporate when the prideful "attacked" lay the cards of evidence on the table and slay their accusers.
Why would there have been any assumption otherwise. You start a foundation, raise two billion dollars, and turn it to use. People should pore over the Form 990, the annual report, and praise or criticize as appropriate. We do it with the United Way, why not the Clintons.
The way in which Clinton partisans insist on relativizing all their behavior is what leads to its persistent claim on their reputation.
9
A big "nothing burger", nothing to see so move along..
1
For such a crusader for "proof" you've left many questions for this Republican conspiracy to smear Clinton. If anything is politics as usual it's finding out information about your opponents. Also there absolutely is evidence of this Clinton conspiracy it just all happens to be circumstantial. There is no smoking gun. I don't think she should be put in jail for what's there but I believe there is certainly evidence that she put herself in a position to have conflicts of interest and all she has as evidence to the contrary is her word. As Democrats living under Citizens Unites we should be scrutinizing such a situation and not allowing our party to turn into what our counterpart's has become.
2