Why would a country such as Saudi Arabia, (Saudi women cannot even drive/need male permission to go out, etc.) be giving money to the Clintons? I know they want to oust President Assad of Syria and are bombing clinics/schools in Yemen with our help. Big question mark here, NYT.
25
Compare the Clinton Foundation and the Carter Center.....I do not want to vote for this woman.
45
When will Trump be called out on his foundation that has helped millions of people around the world? Oh wait...he has done little to nothing for anyone and harmed many people and has no foundation. Nevermind.
21
They came for the do-gooders, volunteers, those willing to speak on soap boxes.
They came for the press, but I thought, A Free Press is the only job mentioned in the Constitution. They are safe! While thinking some of those journalists are so full of themselve anyway! (I forgot to always remember; the day before the Russian Revolution, Moscow had 1,700 Newspapers. The next day, 3)
They came out against Academic Excellence & Scientific Advancement
They kept nominating & supporting men they despised.
Came out against teachers, Union members, Students, Immigrants, Refugees, Equality efforts on behalf of any who. PLAYED Thre Disabled, Black or Women Card !
They reserve all rights to play or instantly invalidate any Veteran Card, no matter the Valor, Sacraafice or SERVICE on a whim!
American History, rewritten to fit ideology instead of historical fact.
Blind Trusts have served all previous Administraations.
Please list previous Children, relativess forced to resign? Doesn't Chelsea's Board still hire & Fire?
I personally collected over $10 million in donations. Like Hillary, I didn't get any of the money!
People gave to do good, to avoid telling accountant they gave nothing, because their parents did grandparents did, because I feel guilty about something, because an issue touched them.
They came for the press, but I thought, A Free Press is the only job mentioned in the Constitution. They are safe! While thinking some of those journalists are so full of themselve anyway! (I forgot to always remember; the day before the Russian Revolution, Moscow had 1,700 Newspapers. The next day, 3)
They came out against Academic Excellence & Scientific Advancement
They kept nominating & supporting men they despised.
Came out against teachers, Union members, Students, Immigrants, Refugees, Equality efforts on behalf of any who. PLAYED Thre Disabled, Black or Women Card !
They reserve all rights to play or instantly invalidate any Veteran Card, no matter the Valor, Sacraafice or SERVICE on a whim!
American History, rewritten to fit ideology instead of historical fact.
Blind Trusts have served all previous Administraations.
Please list previous Children, relativess forced to resign? Doesn't Chelsea's Board still hire & Fire?
I personally collected over $10 million in donations. Like Hillary, I didn't get any of the money!
People gave to do good, to avoid telling accountant they gave nothing, because their parents did grandparents did, because I feel guilty about something, because an issue touched them.
6
Yes, they will "distance themselves" - and the foundation might even reject future foreign contributions. AFTER the election.
Attention K-Mart Shoppers: On Aisle 9, we have a fire sale - the opportunity to contribute to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for future access and favors. Hurry on over - this offer ends promptly on November 9th :-)
Attention K-Mart Shoppers: On Aisle 9, we have a fire sale - the opportunity to contribute to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for future access and favors. Hurry on over - this offer ends promptly on November 9th :-)
48
And Mr. Trump's for-profit businesses? What is the editorial opinion about what should happen there?
24
When the CEO of the Times Mark Thompson can run opinion on the paper, it may be time so stop bloviating on the matter of business and what -- some sacred space where business does not intrude?
4
HRC should give back the foreign and corporate money and stop taking any more. Also, they should pay for an independent audit and release the findings as to where the money went. We want to be able to applaud her good works.
18
It is an ethical imperative for this paper to cut its ties with the Clinton campaign.
52
If she weren't running against a clown who has virtually no chance of winning, she would have severed ties long ago.
Doesn't speak well for her moral compass.
Doesn't speak well for her moral compass.
23
The Clinton Foundation has done great things worldwide.
For the same reason Bill will step away from the Foundation, Chelsea should do the same. And both should do so now.
No risk that Hillary loses to Trump is worth taking; every single vote matters; we should take nothing for granted.
For the same reason Bill will step away from the Foundation, Chelsea should do the same. And both should do so now.
No risk that Hillary loses to Trump is worth taking; every single vote matters; we should take nothing for granted.
7
Donald Trump? Giving that grifter any credibility, any traction is an obscenity. Your mention of Trump is tawdry, unnecessary, and ultimately counter-productive to what soon will become your urgent messages to voters to turn out for Hillary and defeat the Republican horde of Breitbart supremicists. The Times has really soiled itself on this one.
13
The Clinton Foundation paid Huma $500,000 a year; that says it all. The Clintons are money oriented no matter how they get the money. They are now worth 111 million. They are as dishonest as they come.
55
Why is this so complicated? Running a charitable foundation is, on its face, a laudable activity. So is public service as the President of the US. But a candidate should have to choose which one is more important and bow out of the other. In my mind they ARE mutually exclusive.
17
Where is the focus on how Donald Trump's business interests would be managed if the unthinkable happens and he wins? With a history of mob connections and Putin, etc., isn't that more of an issue?
For the love of god, the Clinton Foundation is a charity that helps people around the world. It is a model that should be expanded, not shut down.
For the love of god, the Clinton Foundation is a charity that helps people around the world. It is a model that should be expanded, not shut down.
26
Should Trump cut ties with all the Russian loans and connections if he is elected? After all these benefit him financially. The Clinton Foundation benefits humanity and the Clintons do not take a dime from it.
24
Where is the call for Trump to divest himself from his various businesses that owe hundreds of millions of dollars to foreign entities including China's National bank and various Russian oligarchs? That is a much more dangerous conflict than anything at the Clinton Foundation.
20
I agree with this editorial position and am awaiting a similar one regarding the Trump empire which will be run by his children should he be elected. Surely, loans and other business arrangements can and will be made in order to gain favor with the Trump administration.
18
Hillary Clinton should cut remaining family ties to the Clinton Foundation when Donald Trump cuts ties to his (family's) businesses as they could benefit from presidential policy like tax cuts and reduced regulation or meeting with other officials in the U S government.
10
The plain evidence is that the Clinton Foundation is a combination tax-free Super-PAC, political slush fund, and money-laundering operation. We will never have hard evidence because there has never been and never will be a federal investigation of the “pay-to-play” allegations made by many (see articles on UBS funneling millions to the Clintons after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “fixed” their IRS investigation problem).
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/swiss-minister-to-meet-clinton-be...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubs-deal-shows-clintons-complicated-ties-143...\
The fact that there will never be an investigation or any accountability for the Clintons or the Clinton Foundation shows how rigged the system is, as Trump and Bernie Sanders have alleged.
Every doctor in America is reported on the internet if he/she takes anything more than $10 (ie, a latte and croissant at Starbucks) from a pharma rep.
Yet the same US government allowed the Clintons to personally collect millions of dollars from billionaires, foreign governments, and multinational corporations with business before the State Department, in addition to the hundreds of millions that went to their so-called “charity”.
Hillary will be our most corrupt President ever.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/swiss-minister-to-meet-clinton-be...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubs-deal-shows-clintons-complicated-ties-143...\
The fact that there will never be an investigation or any accountability for the Clintons or the Clinton Foundation shows how rigged the system is, as Trump and Bernie Sanders have alleged.
Every doctor in America is reported on the internet if he/she takes anything more than $10 (ie, a latte and croissant at Starbucks) from a pharma rep.
Yet the same US government allowed the Clintons to personally collect millions of dollars from billionaires, foreign governments, and multinational corporations with business before the State Department, in addition to the hundreds of millions that went to their so-called “charity”.
Hillary will be our most corrupt President ever.
41
There can be problems with foundations from the inception (e.g.read "Dark Money") and they can do a lot of good but the way the Clintons have been attacked underscores the double standard applied to HRC. AT no time when Bush Jr was president did the Bush Sr Foundation receive the interest, media time, investigations which the Clinton Foundation has received nor did the Bush Sr Foundation provide the transparency that the Clinton Foundation has provided. If we are to be fair, the media should frame its terms as how foundations in similar situations should be treated as a whole. Take it out of the political pony show.
16
So often lately, I have the chance to express outrage over the double standards applied during this particular election cycle. We are asked by the Times to care about the fact that Mrs. Clinton tried to help a former Nobel Peace Prize winner, for instance, who had contributed to the foundation.
Would that the 800 pound, orange-tinted gorilla in the room had such elevated concerns.
Would that the 800 pound, orange-tinted gorilla in the room had such elevated concerns.
15
It occurs to me that there could be an up side to having a President who is an extremely effective networker.
In Barack Obama, we had nothing of the kind ... he has often been described as aloof. By contrast, one of Hillary's biggest assets is a huge -- well, we used to call them Rolodexes. Anyway, whatever the kids are using these days, she has one, and it's extensive.
In typical fashion, her radical opponents want to turn that advantage into a negative. Their basic message on these emails and this foundation is that Hillary shouldn't have kept in touch. But she did keep in touch. It's a core characteristic — Hillary keeps in touch. You know, she remembers birthdays and stuff. And stuff. And assuming she sticks to her lifelong ways, she could take office as the best connected President we have ever seen — better even than Lyndon Johnson, with his Senate roots.
Really, the only thing that could stop Hillary from being the most effective President in living memory is the relentless opposition of Republicans. Maybe that's why she has been trying to make a few friends over in that group too.
Wait -- is that unethical too?
In Barack Obama, we had nothing of the kind ... he has often been described as aloof. By contrast, one of Hillary's biggest assets is a huge -- well, we used to call them Rolodexes. Anyway, whatever the kids are using these days, she has one, and it's extensive.
In typical fashion, her radical opponents want to turn that advantage into a negative. Their basic message on these emails and this foundation is that Hillary shouldn't have kept in touch. But she did keep in touch. It's a core characteristic — Hillary keeps in touch. You know, she remembers birthdays and stuff. And stuff. And assuming she sticks to her lifelong ways, she could take office as the best connected President we have ever seen — better even than Lyndon Johnson, with his Senate roots.
Really, the only thing that could stop Hillary from being the most effective President in living memory is the relentless opposition of Republicans. Maybe that's why she has been trying to make a few friends over in that group too.
Wait -- is that unethical too?
14
Another NYT article in defense of their beloved except with only two months to go before the elections and all the revelations of corrupt conduit between the foundation and the state department while she was the Secretary (never mind the 30,000 or so emails that were purposefully deleted and no one has aq clue about what those would have revealed, cutting ties with the foundation is too little too late.
The foundation will also be the death knell of Clinton dynasty.
The foundation will also be the death knell of Clinton dynasty.
25
OK, but why did the NY Times wait until it is almost critical for Clinton to cut all ties to the foundation, and by that I assume totally transfer all its management and functions to independent hands, maybe even change its name.
The Times should have insisted on it on the very day that Clinton clinched the nomination, which was at the DNC Convention, nearly a month ago.
I will be voting against Trump on Nov. 8, but with significant regret that we do not have another choice, and no I will not waste my vote on a third party candidate and see Trump squeak in.
The Times should have insisted on it on the very day that Clinton clinched the nomination, which was at the DNC Convention, nearly a month ago.
I will be voting against Trump on Nov. 8, but with significant regret that we do not have another choice, and no I will not waste my vote on a third party candidate and see Trump squeak in.
8
The Clinton Foundation and the CGI have done important, charitable and essential work in the improvement of the human condition. Even Donald Trump might not disagree with such a claim if he had the remotest idea of what the "human condition" is for billions of people.
That said, Hillary Clinton has abused the trust vested in her by President Obama in her insistent to play the conflict-of-interest as close to the edge of self-service as she can without being indicted. This is hardly the character standard any voter should want for an aspiring Commander-in-Chief.
It is often said that Donald Trump is Hillary Clinton's greatest possible political gift for 2016. Maybe so, but maybe Hillary is The Donald's greatest gift.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
That said, Hillary Clinton has abused the trust vested in her by President Obama in her insistent to play the conflict-of-interest as close to the edge of self-service as she can without being indicted. This is hardly the character standard any voter should want for an aspiring Commander-in-Chief.
It is often said that Donald Trump is Hillary Clinton's greatest possible political gift for 2016. Maybe so, but maybe Hillary is The Donald's greatest gift.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
5
Most foundations use the wealth of the founder as a starting point. After earning 150 million the last decade the Clinton's could have donated a substantial fund to start a foundation. Instead it was done with OPM, and most of those were seeking political favor. Self dealing is a part of the foundation world , but the Clinton's raised it to high art. The foundation could be turned over completely to the Gates foundation or others, but there goes the ability to stash staff on the foundation payroll, pay 10 or 20 million in travel expenses, and reward democratic donors with favors.
18
All presidential candidates and their extended families can no longer have any association with charitable foundations that take donations from companies, millionaires and non-citizens? All candidates relatives must quit all board positions and management jobs, sell their companies and hide in the basement until the candidate leaves office? All candidates must give up their contacts and friendships accumulated during lifelong careers? Foolish fantasies of an overly idealistic and unrealistic pundit class, all of whom are happy to build relationships and take a check from any media conglomerate, corporation or partisan institution willing to pay it.
10
History will look back on our time with the Clintons and the picture will be one of corruption and abuse of office. Not sure that the perception of the media will fare much better in an historical context- complicit, bias and propaganda will be the keywords when it comes to media legacy.
It's time for the NYT (and others) to print the truth about the Clintons, but (by design) that time will pass and the corruption will continue. Our media enable this corruption. Shame on you.
It is very simple. The Clintons established their foundation as a tax exempt pay-for-play scheme that essentially connected the Clintons, money (corporate and foreign) and government intimately. You want a favor, no problem, you got the cash?
The Clintons should be behind bars, period.
Those who wish to fool themselves by repeating the mantra that the Clinton Foundation was a charity, and it did good work, need to remove the blinkers and wake-up to reality.
It's time for the NYT (and others) to print the truth about the Clintons, but (by design) that time will pass and the corruption will continue. Our media enable this corruption. Shame on you.
It is very simple. The Clintons established their foundation as a tax exempt pay-for-play scheme that essentially connected the Clintons, money (corporate and foreign) and government intimately. You want a favor, no problem, you got the cash?
The Clintons should be behind bars, period.
Those who wish to fool themselves by repeating the mantra that the Clinton Foundation was a charity, and it did good work, need to remove the blinkers and wake-up to reality.
23
Is the question really - does money buy access in our government? I think the NRA could answer that question. Donald Trump has already stated, that is why he gives to both parties. George W. Bush set himself up as a lobbyist during his father's administration, openly admitting that he was selling access to his father.
If the effort to shutdown the Clinton Foundation is to stop Foundations from doing business, when a family member is president, then we should have demanded that the Bush Foundation for Family Legacy not be opened during the first Bush administration and closed during the second.
While money and access are a pervasive problem in our government that needs correcting, this focused effort on the Clinton Foundation is another Republican politically motivated attack not looking to correct a problem but rather score political advantage (Benghazi).
If the effort to shutdown the Clinton Foundation is to stop Foundations from doing business, when a family member is president, then we should have demanded that the Bush Foundation for Family Legacy not be opened during the first Bush administration and closed during the second.
While money and access are a pervasive problem in our government that needs correcting, this focused effort on the Clinton Foundation is another Republican politically motivated attack not looking to correct a problem but rather score political advantage (Benghazi).
10
There can be no doubt that something will have to be done with the Clinton Foundation and its broad base of foreign donors before Mrs Clinton takes office. If the concern with the Foundation is its on-going programs, then the simple solution is to transfer them, along with the funds, to one of the large, established foundations with a long track record in global development issues. The Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, or the Carnegie Corporation all have the resources and infrastructure to absorb the Clinton funds and manage its programs with out disruption and in such a way that honors the goals of the donors. This would simply be the charity equivalent of the blind trust many elected officials adopt when taking office.
4
People donate money to the Clinton Foundation and many of them (at least 85) have sought and received access as a result with high officials in the State Department. That is not in dispute. We are asked to believe that for millions donated there was no quid pro quo. This defies common sense. The only way the specific quid pro quo will be revealed is under oath with penalty of perjury. The fire wall between C.G.I. and the State Department that was promised by Mrs. Clinton will be built along with Trump's wall, in other words never.
16
I sure wish we could FOIA the private emails of our Senators and Congressional Representatives. (Are such emails even legal? Elected officials are technically a kind of Government employee, although they seem to legislate different rules for themselves.)
I think we would learn from such emails that these legislators, in giving "access" to large donors to their campaigns and own pet foundations, far exceed anything Mrs. Clinton has been shown to do while herself a Government employee.
Indeed, we might even see how the legislative votes these elected officials take correspond quite closely to the interests of those making "donations" (which are really a legalized form of bribery).
We should hope the next Court overturns Citizens United, or Congress legislates with the same effect, to bring back reasonable limits on campaign and superPAC donations to remove the inequality of legislative influence between the top 1% and the rest of us.
Corporations are not people, neither is money speech.
I think we would learn from such emails that these legislators, in giving "access" to large donors to their campaigns and own pet foundations, far exceed anything Mrs. Clinton has been shown to do while herself a Government employee.
Indeed, we might even see how the legislative votes these elected officials take correspond quite closely to the interests of those making "donations" (which are really a legalized form of bribery).
We should hope the next Court overturns Citizens United, or Congress legislates with the same effect, to bring back reasonable limits on campaign and superPAC donations to remove the inequality of legislative influence between the top 1% and the rest of us.
Corporations are not people, neither is money speech.
8
"The Clinton Foundation has become a symbol of the Clintons’ laudable ambitions, but also of their tangled alliances and operational opacity"
I am a registered Democrat. I generally support the Democratic party. This time I cannot in good conscience lend my support or approval. Frankly there are too many obvious conflicts of interest between the Clintons, access to the Obama Administration, foreign government officials, and billionaires in the United States and around the world.
I don't care how much good the Clinton Foundation has done. It doesn't matter one iota when cronyism and government are so obviously intertwined. The door to corruption has been opened and too many appear to have walked through.
If Mrs. Clinton in interested in the Presidency then the Clinton Foundation needs to be divested to others in a strict blind trust or it must be dissolved. Mr. Clinton should also make clear that he shall have no further interest and neither shall Chelsea Clinton. The whole thing reeks of corruption and cronyism.
And, Mrs. Clinton must assure the public that Mr. Clinton shall not have any part in a Hillary administration. A third Bill Clinton term is not what we're voting for.
I would like to be able to vote Democratic this year but so far there is no reason to do so. Maybe if I had a billion dollars and access to the Secretary of State I would feel more obliged. But I'm just an ordinary citizen. I have no say in government. Only the elitists have that privilege.
I am a registered Democrat. I generally support the Democratic party. This time I cannot in good conscience lend my support or approval. Frankly there are too many obvious conflicts of interest between the Clintons, access to the Obama Administration, foreign government officials, and billionaires in the United States and around the world.
I don't care how much good the Clinton Foundation has done. It doesn't matter one iota when cronyism and government are so obviously intertwined. The door to corruption has been opened and too many appear to have walked through.
If Mrs. Clinton in interested in the Presidency then the Clinton Foundation needs to be divested to others in a strict blind trust or it must be dissolved. Mr. Clinton should also make clear that he shall have no further interest and neither shall Chelsea Clinton. The whole thing reeks of corruption and cronyism.
And, Mrs. Clinton must assure the public that Mr. Clinton shall not have any part in a Hillary administration. A third Bill Clinton term is not what we're voting for.
I would like to be able to vote Democratic this year but so far there is no reason to do so. Maybe if I had a billion dollars and access to the Secretary of State I would feel more obliged. But I'm just an ordinary citizen. I have no say in government. Only the elitists have that privilege.
25
Thoughtful editorial. I have been impressed at the scale of good work the foundation has done, including the 11 1/2 million people who have been helped to receive HIV drugs to keep them alive. All of the dirt flung at the Clintons cannot take away the fact that this is a public charity, with all donors disclosed, with the Clintons receiving no salaries, and with the entities spending 88% of their funding on charity. Where is there anything remotely comparable from Mr. Trump whose charitable contributions seem to be a few hundred thousand despite his billions?
I once attended a function at the Carter Center where Pres. Carter and his wife spoke about the enormous good their foundation had done. This is true charity, helping end diseases and suffering in Africa and using the prestige of the presidency and the ties with notable figures to do so.
Still, for Hillary Clinton, this has become a distraction, and it is reasonable to avoid any possible conflict now. The fact is that Trump's enormous business loans from the Bank of China and his Russian investors pose much more serious conflicts of interest. If he would only disclose his tax returns as all modern candidates have, this situation and no doubt others would become clearer. I wish just once that Mr. Trump would actually be called to account for his nefarious ties and unsavory dealings in his businesses, his casinos, and his business loan structures.
I once attended a function at the Carter Center where Pres. Carter and his wife spoke about the enormous good their foundation had done. This is true charity, helping end diseases and suffering in Africa and using the prestige of the presidency and the ties with notable figures to do so.
Still, for Hillary Clinton, this has become a distraction, and it is reasonable to avoid any possible conflict now. The fact is that Trump's enormous business loans from the Bank of China and his Russian investors pose much more serious conflicts of interest. If he would only disclose his tax returns as all modern candidates have, this situation and no doubt others would become clearer. I wish just once that Mr. Trump would actually be called to account for his nefarious ties and unsavory dealings in his businesses, his casinos, and his business loan structures.
7
I am not sure why I am supposed to be shocked by the influence money and power have in our government, since that started about, what, 1787.
And then, too, I feel sure that if we looked at Trump's many charities, and his work with the poor, we'd find that....oh, wait.
I think I may need to check my notes.
And then, too, I feel sure that if we looked at Trump's many charities, and his work with the poor, we'd find that....oh, wait.
I think I may need to check my notes.
3
The Clinton Foundation is nothing more then a "jobs" program for Clinton supports and puppets.
Has the Foundation done some good work, yes, but you could also say Al Capon "did some good" work.
The Clintons have profited significantly of their "good" works indeed...
There may only be smoke put the Foundation taints any hope that she has of being unbiased. Everyday more news comes out that makes it appear that the Foundation ran a "pay for play" access plan for the Sec. State office.
Has the Foundation done some good work, yes, but you could also say Al Capon "did some good" work.
The Clintons have profited significantly of their "good" works indeed...
There may only be smoke put the Foundation taints any hope that she has of being unbiased. Everyday more news comes out that makes it appear that the Foundation ran a "pay for play" access plan for the Sec. State office.
12
my gosh, what bunk! You rail at the Clinton's opacity in an editorial that essentially states that questions have been raised without a single thing showing the questions are legitimate or warranted. Gee, maybe this is an example of why HRC despises the press - when supposedly objective news sources give credence to the painfully false equivalency that dominates cable "news" channels. What's next, will the NYT start screaming Benghazi?
I am not disagreeing with the basic idea of this editorial, but the credence given to unfounded accusations - yet again!!! - against the Clintons is just pathetic.
I am not disagreeing with the basic idea of this editorial, but the credence given to unfounded accusations - yet again!!! - against the Clintons is just pathetic.
10
What is the reason for Hillary Clinton? Does she want money? For what? She has plenty-- a home in NY and one in DC -- does she want to build more mansions and golf courses, like Trump? Her daughter lives in a $10 milion dollar property in New York, what else does she need. Does HRC want ower -- to do what? Does she fancy herself a Bill Gates, wheeling and dealing for eventual good. What could she possibly do with more money, or what does she plan to do with the good graces of the sort of people who gave the money in the first place. Journalists need to go after the question of motive, because I still don't understand what makes Hillary tick.
13
"Does the new batch of previously undisclosed State Department emails prove that big-money donors to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation got special favors from Mrs. Clinton while she was secretary of state?
Not so far, but that the question arises yet again points to a need for major changes at the foundation now, before the November election."
Firstly, the editorial starts off with the above paragraphs.
Further down, there is mention of direct correlation between Clinton Foundation donors and linkage to "seek access" to Mrs. Clinton:
"The newly disclosed emails show that some foundation donors and friends, like Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad bin al-Khalifa of Bahrain, used foundation channels to seek access to Mrs. Clinton."
There were other articles in the NYTimes that indicated that something like 54-56 donors to the Clinton Foundation did get access to Mrs. Clinton who was Secretary of State at the times.
As articles in the newspapers have said, there is no penalty or problem with what happened. However, the appearance of impropriety or questionable goings on, is beyond doubt.
For someone such as Mrs. Clinton who is always written up as "an experienced" politician and government representative (Senator and Secretary of State), there is a much higher benchmark of behaviour that should have been followed - period!
Not so far, but that the question arises yet again points to a need for major changes at the foundation now, before the November election."
Firstly, the editorial starts off with the above paragraphs.
Further down, there is mention of direct correlation between Clinton Foundation donors and linkage to "seek access" to Mrs. Clinton:
"The newly disclosed emails show that some foundation donors and friends, like Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad bin al-Khalifa of Bahrain, used foundation channels to seek access to Mrs. Clinton."
There were other articles in the NYTimes that indicated that something like 54-56 donors to the Clinton Foundation did get access to Mrs. Clinton who was Secretary of State at the times.
As articles in the newspapers have said, there is no penalty or problem with what happened. However, the appearance of impropriety or questionable goings on, is beyond doubt.
For someone such as Mrs. Clinton who is always written up as "an experienced" politician and government representative (Senator and Secretary of State), there is a much higher benchmark of behaviour that should have been followed - period!
24
Oh come on… Bahrain is an important ally for the United States. It is situated in the middle of the Persian Gulf and is the home of the headquarters of the U. S. Naval Forces Central Command. Six thousand U.S. sailors and marines are stationed there. To suggest that Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad bin al-Khalifa of Bahrain found it necessary to donate to the Clinton Foundation (which is a legitimate, A+ rated charity) to get a meeting with the U.S. Secretary of State is just ridiculous.
7
For sure, there's an awful lot of smoke - mainly generated by Clinton adversaries - but facts to indict? But it seems the paper of record's vision is clouded by the smoke, and buys into the clamor to shut down the Clinton Foundation. More's the pity.
One would expect some independent analysis before calling for the drastic closing of a foundation that has proven good works to it's name and reputation.
As for refusing foreign donations - this is a global initiative that is not U.S.-centric and does good things all over the world. Why shouldn't foreign money be involved? Further, theTimes calling for Mrs. C. to close down the foundation before the election is nonsense - the whole point of divesting personal interest in it is to avoid "undue influence" with the presidency. Until she wins it - if she does get there - there is no reason to shutter it. To do so before the election, is to give credence to the Clinton-haters that there is credence to the belief that they have indulged in 'funny business'.
Believe me, Mrs. C. would be charged in a heart-beat if there was anything to the rumors. Would that her opponent get anything like this editorial to warn him of an 'ethical' imperative' for his electoral progress. The Times' concern for HRC is cloudy, at best. Having endorsed her prior to the primaries, it would have been nice to see a more robust - brave - defense of the only viable candidate we have.
One would expect some independent analysis before calling for the drastic closing of a foundation that has proven good works to it's name and reputation.
As for refusing foreign donations - this is a global initiative that is not U.S.-centric and does good things all over the world. Why shouldn't foreign money be involved? Further, theTimes calling for Mrs. C. to close down the foundation before the election is nonsense - the whole point of divesting personal interest in it is to avoid "undue influence" with the presidency. Until she wins it - if she does get there - there is no reason to shutter it. To do so before the election, is to give credence to the Clinton-haters that there is credence to the belief that they have indulged in 'funny business'.
Believe me, Mrs. C. would be charged in a heart-beat if there was anything to the rumors. Would that her opponent get anything like this editorial to warn him of an 'ethical' imperative' for his electoral progress. The Times' concern for HRC is cloudy, at best. Having endorsed her prior to the primaries, it would have been nice to see a more robust - brave - defense of the only viable candidate we have.
11
The facts to indict were probably in the 30,000 deleted emails.
12
Where "there's an awful lot of smoke," there's fire.
12
It's a little late to be calling for cutting ties with the Clinton Foundation. It has already served its purpose as a source of lucrative employment for Clinton staffers between elections and as a means for Hillary and Bill to collect huge speaking fees - not to mention covering their travel expenses.
It's functionally impossible to separate the Clintons from the Clinton Foundation without dissolving the foundation and distributing its assets and programs to unrelated entities. The foundation is too lucrative to the Clintons for that to happen.
It's functionally impossible to separate the Clintons from the Clinton Foundation without dissolving the foundation and distributing its assets and programs to unrelated entities. The foundation is too lucrative to the Clintons for that to happen.
21
The Clintons will not cut ties to the various parts of the foundation, if they, for whatever reason, don't want to.
By now the Clintons are famous for doing whatever they want to, regardless of appearances or rules: Recall Bill's extramarital affairs, the Clinton Foundation's acceptance of foreign donations when Hillary was Sec of State, Hillary's exclusive use of a personal and unauthorized email system as Sec of State, Hillary's acceptance of generous speaking fees from Wall Street and corporations, with the likelihood of her running for President.
The Clinton rule is do what you want to, and if you're caught or in retrospect it was a bad idea, well, we'll talk our way out of it.
By now the Clintons are famous for doing whatever they want to, regardless of appearances or rules: Recall Bill's extramarital affairs, the Clinton Foundation's acceptance of foreign donations when Hillary was Sec of State, Hillary's exclusive use of a personal and unauthorized email system as Sec of State, Hillary's acceptance of generous speaking fees from Wall Street and corporations, with the likelihood of her running for President.
The Clinton rule is do what you want to, and if you're caught or in retrospect it was a bad idea, well, we'll talk our way out of it.
29
IMO, the real 'pay to play' issue is the correlation between donations to the Clinton Foundation and favorable State Department decisions made for contributing countries who had business before the State Department. Arms sales, for example. Arms sales that benefit US corporations (also donors to the Clinton campaign - kind of a two-fer). I'm wondering when the NYT or some other media blood hound will do some heavy research into those murky waters. Direct illegal links, maybe not - oddly and disappointingly coincidental (along with shameful), for sure.
Why not fully transfer the Clinton Foundation operations to the Gates foundation, to be run by the Gates (with NO Clintons involved) until Hillary is out of political office? The good work continues, maybe even for Haiti, and the CF will have a much improved image as a result.
Why not fully transfer the Clinton Foundation operations to the Gates foundation, to be run by the Gates (with NO Clintons involved) until Hillary is out of political office? The good work continues, maybe even for Haiti, and the CF will have a much improved image as a result.
15
The revelation that rich people speak to each other and give money to each other's charities is not new, you can get the same understanding by simply living in New York. The idea that the Clinton Foundation is an exemplar of influence trading is nonsense, because it ignores the myriad other ways that money and influence change our politics. The fact that most members of Congress spend hours and hours a day calling wealthy donors to attempt to meet hourly fundraising targets is a much more deep and pernicious force than the Clinton Foundation in distorting our national priorities.
Wealthy individuals are always going to seek access to influential politicians, and there are far worse methods to do so than giving money to a charity. The fact that the Clinton solution to this problem was to harness it to the benefit of people who need legitimate help speaks to their character. It also speaks to their central message: we create productive compromises.
Only a truly warped political animal would look at a successful AIDS charity and shut it down because of "optics".
Wealthy individuals are always going to seek access to influential politicians, and there are far worse methods to do so than giving money to a charity. The fact that the Clinton solution to this problem was to harness it to the benefit of people who need legitimate help speaks to their character. It also speaks to their central message: we create productive compromises.
Only a truly warped political animal would look at a successful AIDS charity and shut it down because of "optics".
11
The Foundation "scandal" is the biggest nothing burger of the new century. Doug Band of the Foundation sent an email on behalf of the Crown Prince of Bahrain who was seeking to meet with the Secretary of State but had been blocked when pursuing "normal diplomatic channels." Given that Bahrain is a critical Gulf ally of the United States which hosts a sprawling US Navy base from which American forces are waging three wars, the real scandal is why the Prince's request was stymied by "official channels." Sclerotic bureaucracy has long been a serious problem at Foggy Bottom. Still is.
10
Come on NYTimes. You defend this non-profit charity (yea, right) as doing 'good things' while it is obviously a way to take money from anyone and everyone (enemy nations included), and put it in the Clinton's pockets. It is not a 'non-profit' by definition as it's supposed to not have any political endeavors.
Then you suggest that maybe she should distance herself for the time being, just to be sure non of us voters think she might be enriching herself while enabling pay to play schemes.
Anyone look into her 'Global Initiative' - it's about a new world order, definitely pay to play, and is an outrage to anyone with a clue.
Hillary will be president, given the alternative, but she doesn't deserve to be. She should be under investigation, fined, and frankly, this little 'non-profit' should be shut down entirely.
Then you suggest that maybe she should distance herself for the time being, just to be sure non of us voters think she might be enriching herself while enabling pay to play schemes.
Anyone look into her 'Global Initiative' - it's about a new world order, definitely pay to play, and is an outrage to anyone with a clue.
Hillary will be president, given the alternative, but she doesn't deserve to be. She should be under investigation, fined, and frankly, this little 'non-profit' should be shut down entirely.
32
I wish that the recognition, mindfulness and call for action regarding the issue presented by the NYT board applied to the sanctioned actions by lobbyists who directly influence laws and policies in our government.
18
I would be shocked if anyone finds a "smoking gun" proving pay-to-play. Hillary is unethical, but not completely stupid. You recommendation is puzzling, though, Times Editors. You admit that people like the Crown Prince of Bahrain hoped to gain access to Ms. Clinton through the Foundation, but you stop short of saying it worked. When you suggest that Bill land Chelsea should cut their ties with the Foundation, are you concerned about the appearance of impropriety, or actual impropriety? Are you worried about political fallout during an election campaign, or actual damage to the functioning of our democracy? If Hillary cannot stay beyond reproach as our SOS, to the extent that you would purge the Clintons from their eponymous Foundation, how exactly will she be able to manage being President?
But let's not close the Foundation. I say let the Clintons be as involved as they want in it--even put Hillary on the Board too. Just keep them out of government, out of politics, out of public life. Let them be quiet, unassuming, philanthropists. Please.
But let's not close the Foundation. I say let the Clintons be as involved as they want in it--even put Hillary on the Board too. Just keep them out of government, out of politics, out of public life. Let them be quiet, unassuming, philanthropists. Please.
11
Of course, they wouldn't get a dime then....
6
The fact that the Cliintons take no revenue from the Foundation, and that the Foundation does, indeed perform good works is beside the point. At some point in time, the Clintons as a family simply have to detach themselves from engaging in activities that suggest the potential for conflict of interest claims.
What is bothersome about their efforts, both in Foundation funding and in how they acquire personal income through speaking engagements, acting in corporate advisory positions or in entertaining inquiries from Foundation donors while Secretary of State is that all bring about ethics claims whether conflicts of interest exist in fact or not.
With a do nothing Congress sabotaging Obama's every move, we cannot afford another Clinton Presidency that regularly serves up ethically related soft balls to distract from worthwhile programs and confine the next four years to endless ethics probes.
It's time for the Clinton's to begin the long process of detaching themselves from corporate and international relationships that they seem addicted to, not only for their historical place in Presidential history, but in the immediacy of need for domestic and international action on a broad front of human needs that demand it.
What is bothersome about their efforts, both in Foundation funding and in how they acquire personal income through speaking engagements, acting in corporate advisory positions or in entertaining inquiries from Foundation donors while Secretary of State is that all bring about ethics claims whether conflicts of interest exist in fact or not.
With a do nothing Congress sabotaging Obama's every move, we cannot afford another Clinton Presidency that regularly serves up ethically related soft balls to distract from worthwhile programs and confine the next four years to endless ethics probes.
It's time for the Clinton's to begin the long process of detaching themselves from corporate and international relationships that they seem addicted to, not only for their historical place in Presidential history, but in the immediacy of need for domestic and international action on a broad front of human needs that demand it.
6
Shame on you, NYT. Jumping right on the conservative train.
9
Some credit to the EB for addressing the issue. But points off for waiting so long and more points off for the apologetic tone. And more points off for saying that the new batch of e-mails doesn't yet prove that big donors to the foundation got special favors.
When HRC became SofS 1 of 2 things should have happened. Either Bill and Chelsea should have removed themselves from the foundation OR there should have been a huge firewall (I mean REALLY huge) built between HRC's SofS and the foundation. And neither happened -- which reflects badly on the Clinton's, our government and Obama. A tough responsible president would have told HRC that if she wanted to be SofS one of those things had to happen and then would have followed up to ensure his directive was followed. Yet he didn't.
And the commenters who seem to think this is a nothing -- what are you thinking? This is corruption at it's finest. The Clinton's have developed corruption as an art. THE only way she should be allowed to continue as a candidate is full disclosure of every detail of how the foundation was run, who gave money or paid Bill to give a speech and what subsequent business was done with the State department.
As a candidate, she has no right to the presumption of innocence here. She needs to prove to the voters that there is no corruption involved, no pay for play either with the foundation or Bill's speeches. The smoke is so thick that she has to prove there is no fire -- not just deny.
When HRC became SofS 1 of 2 things should have happened. Either Bill and Chelsea should have removed themselves from the foundation OR there should have been a huge firewall (I mean REALLY huge) built between HRC's SofS and the foundation. And neither happened -- which reflects badly on the Clinton's, our government and Obama. A tough responsible president would have told HRC that if she wanted to be SofS one of those things had to happen and then would have followed up to ensure his directive was followed. Yet he didn't.
And the commenters who seem to think this is a nothing -- what are you thinking? This is corruption at it's finest. The Clinton's have developed corruption as an art. THE only way she should be allowed to continue as a candidate is full disclosure of every detail of how the foundation was run, who gave money or paid Bill to give a speech and what subsequent business was done with the State department.
As a candidate, she has no right to the presumption of innocence here. She needs to prove to the voters that there is no corruption involved, no pay for play either with the foundation or Bill's speeches. The smoke is so thick that she has to prove there is no fire -- not just deny.
25
The minor prob with this is that there is no disclosure, no document, no fact, no evidence, that will ever be enough for you people.
Ever. You have no interest in such things, ither than as fuel for more conspiracy theory.
Ever. You have no interest in such things, ither than as fuel for more conspiracy theory.
4
But the Clintons do receive one very important benefit from the charitable works of the Foundation, perhaps the only benefit that really matters in the family and the one that propelled them into the national spotlight in the first place: Bill's super-narcissistic need for attention.
Hillary has a real chance to change the country and the world in a positive direction, to reverse the corporate influence on her party and her country, to be one of the greatest presidents ever. However, this will not happen if she continues to defer to Bill's ego and his need to consolidate his legacy. She must now leave him behind and go on to do great things. Time will tell if she can do it or not, but how they handle Bill's baby, the Foundation, will be an early clue.
Hillary has a real chance to change the country and the world in a positive direction, to reverse the corporate influence on her party and her country, to be one of the greatest presidents ever. However, this will not happen if she continues to defer to Bill's ego and his need to consolidate his legacy. She must now leave him behind and go on to do great things. Time will tell if she can do it or not, but how they handle Bill's baby, the Foundation, will be an early clue.
5
I'm sure that the Clinton Foundation does some good around the world. Unfortunately it also conforms to the Clinton's decades long pattern of doing good while being really sleazy about benefiting from it at the same time.
They are like a snail. You can't see what is going on inside the shell, but you know they leave a trail of slime where ever they go. I had enough the first two times around, I'll not vote for Nixon, Part Deux.
I'll not vote to Trump either, my support will be for those down ticket.
They are like a snail. You can't see what is going on inside the shell, but you know they leave a trail of slime where ever they go. I had enough the first two times around, I'll not vote for Nixon, Part Deux.
I'll not vote to Trump either, my support will be for those down ticket.
23
Me too. And I love the snail line.
11
You mean those who agree with Trumps policies (de jure), but use more sophisticated dog-whistles and don't insult so crudely?
1
The lies and deceptions never stop. The Clinton Foundation supposedly a nonprofit organization paid Blumenthal $200,000 a month to advise Hillary Clinton on State Department matters. The Foundation has provided a network for Hillary’s political career while supporting free trade that has hurt our country.
Free trade is globalists’ code for mega-corporations and banks to set up shop anywhere they please. They can bankroll and build production facilities, produce cheap goods, and sell them anywhere in the world without paying tariffs. Our corrupted government has given away American jobs every time they sign free trade agreements in favor of the global economy.
Hillary has a deep-rooted connection to the Bilderberg elitists. In 2008, Hillary and Obama running neck and neck had a meeting with the Bilderbergers in Va. 2-days later she dropped out of the race becoming Obama’s Secretary of State.
Her husband Bill Clinton attended the 1991 meeting in Germany shortly before becoming President and he attended again in 1999 when the conference was held in Sintra, Portugal (despite Bill'd lie that he had not attended in 15 years). Perhaps the biggest piece of news coming out of Austria and Bilderberg 2015 is the fact that a major Hillary Clinton advisor is on the list and set to attend.
Faced with voting for Hillary or Trump, we are left with two liars full of themselves and gluttony making it time to throw them both out and look at a third party candidate.
Free trade is globalists’ code for mega-corporations and banks to set up shop anywhere they please. They can bankroll and build production facilities, produce cheap goods, and sell them anywhere in the world without paying tariffs. Our corrupted government has given away American jobs every time they sign free trade agreements in favor of the global economy.
Hillary has a deep-rooted connection to the Bilderberg elitists. In 2008, Hillary and Obama running neck and neck had a meeting with the Bilderbergers in Va. 2-days later she dropped out of the race becoming Obama’s Secretary of State.
Her husband Bill Clinton attended the 1991 meeting in Germany shortly before becoming President and he attended again in 1999 when the conference was held in Sintra, Portugal (despite Bill'd lie that he had not attended in 15 years). Perhaps the biggest piece of news coming out of Austria and Bilderberg 2015 is the fact that a major Hillary Clinton advisor is on the list and set to attend.
Faced with voting for Hillary or Trump, we are left with two liars full of themselves and gluttony making it time to throw them both out and look at a third party candidate.
19
Free Trade and treaties like NAFTA were the darlings of the conservative Republicans. Bill (and Hillary) Clinton's biggest flaw is their attempt to triangulate and attempt to placate Republicans, stupidly believing this would open up a 2-way street. It's why Bill destroyed Welfare in favor of Workfare, supported trade agreements, named a former Citigroup CEO as his Treasury secretary (Bush and Obama had former Goldman Sachs CEOS at Treasury, BTW). It's why supported and signed the Republicans' 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) which destroyed FDR's 1933 Glass-Steagell Act. Glass-Steagall, more than any other single piece of legislation, kept us from having a repeat of the 1929 Stock Market Crash and the Great Depression. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act set the stage for Bush's deregulation of much of Wall Street and the succeeding Great Recession of 2008.
BTW, as to electing business CEOs to run the country like a business, the last time was co-presidents Bush and Cheney and gave us the 2008 collapse and the Great Recession. Before that was Hoover, who gave us the 1929 collapse and the Great Depression.
How many more fingers does the American electorate have to stick in the fire and burn to learn that democratic governance bears no relationship to business and that (as even Malcolm Forbes advised) no businessman should ever become a politician and run for office?
BTW, as to electing business CEOs to run the country like a business, the last time was co-presidents Bush and Cheney and gave us the 2008 collapse and the Great Recession. Before that was Hoover, who gave us the 1929 collapse and the Great Depression.
How many more fingers does the American electorate have to stick in the fire and burn to learn that democratic governance bears no relationship to business and that (as even Malcolm Forbes advised) no businessman should ever become a politician and run for office?
5
This is an important Editorial statement covering most of the concerns of those who wish Mrs. Clinton well. Donna Shallala's interview on PBS only raised more questions about the opacity of the different elements comprising the Foundation. Unable to give answers to pointed questions, she ended with a plea for Hillary Clintons election as the only way to save the Foundations programs aimed at helping the needy in Africa. This can not be allowed to confuse the reason Americans need to defeat Donald Trump whose presidency would put the country and the world at great risk.
5
Would the foundation crash if H&B were not affiliated with it in any way? Probably not. Nothing can be done about Chelsea's role, nor should there be. As far as H&B go, personal integrity has got to be present regardless of who runs the Clinton Foundation.
The Lust for power/wealth is an addiction/disease much more powerful than heroin (the big hang up is if you do not have ostentatious wealth, how does anyone know you have power!) that dominates the consciousnesses of many humans on many levels of our daily lives, but particularly those who comprise the individuals on the planet who either already are or desperately want to be the super rich.
It is the Lusting which is addictive, not the wealth/power.(Do not get aspiration and and striving mixed up with Lust.) Lust is a separative personal thing. It has nothing to do with striving for the Common Good. It is all about having others notice and worship you.
I personally think that this sister and brother have been tested again and again around this issue. I think that they have got the message and are ready to serve the Common Good a service which requires great integrity.
I also think it is their Karmic obligation to demonstrate that integrity.
The Lust for power/wealth is an addiction/disease much more powerful than heroin (the big hang up is if you do not have ostentatious wealth, how does anyone know you have power!) that dominates the consciousnesses of many humans on many levels of our daily lives, but particularly those who comprise the individuals on the planet who either already are or desperately want to be the super rich.
It is the Lusting which is addictive, not the wealth/power.(Do not get aspiration and and striving mixed up with Lust.) Lust is a separative personal thing. It has nothing to do with striving for the Common Good. It is all about having others notice and worship you.
I personally think that this sister and brother have been tested again and again around this issue. I think that they have got the message and are ready to serve the Common Good a service which requires great integrity.
I also think it is their Karmic obligation to demonstrate that integrity.
2
I think that in my entire 68+ years on the planet, I've never seen anybody who showed such naked lust for money, power, and adoration than Donald Trump (I was born after WW II, so that eliminates one candidate). Trump reminds me of Napoleon Bonaparte's advice:
"There is only one thing in this world, and that is to keep acquiring money and more money, power and more power. All the rest is meaningless."
And there you have the perfect description of the top 0.1% who run America all rolled up in one pithy sentence.
"There is only one thing in this world, and that is to keep acquiring money and more money, power and more power. All the rest is meaningless."
And there you have the perfect description of the top 0.1% who run America all rolled up in one pithy sentence.
4
"Risks tainting Mrs. Clinton campaign." That train has left the station. Hillary like Bill is incapable of not putting corporate interests into whatever gov't activity they are involved. Seems like a pretty good case of influence peddling has been shown. But what do you want Donald Trump to be president?
7
NO evidence of wrongdoing, but because the media has helped ignite this issue, and make it 'something', where 'nothing' exists is more of an indictment of the press, than of the Foundation. The media should avoid adding heat to these so-called stories; they provide no light to the actual issues that matter.
9
The Clinton Foundation is evaluated, rated, reviewed as better run, more transparent & more efficient than United Way or the Red Cross! Better than thousands of Charities we all loved & trusted before Trump grumped!
I'm supposed to throw out my ethics as a successfu 5 decad fundraiser & adopt New GOPisms tainting charity work?
No donations from foreigners to pay for foreign problems
Do I Hafta remind ya; Just like Your neighborhood Softball League, the NFL=Non Profit & Budweser=Foreign Company!
Isn't going to be harder to recruit volunteers, if fulfilling Civic Duty rules out future employment options?
Really, to gain traction in an election, we are going to let them taint philanthropy?
America leads the world in giving!
We sat back. & allowed America's excellence & leadership in Science & Medicine to be politicized & vilified!
For most of my life, virtually everyone was proud to have voted, proud to have held office, proud to have volunteered on a campaign. Even a losing campaign!
That was an American experience! A few decades ago, the GOP figured out if you came out Negative. Undecided, Undeclared & Swing Voters (hard to convince, decided late) were less likely to vote again! Negative fires up the base & donations!
Make decisions for 3 years, 30 years in our future.
I'm supposed to throw out my ethics as a successfu 5 decad fundraiser & adopt New GOPisms tainting charity work?
No donations from foreigners to pay for foreign problems
Do I Hafta remind ya; Just like Your neighborhood Softball League, the NFL=Non Profit & Budweser=Foreign Company!
Isn't going to be harder to recruit volunteers, if fulfilling Civic Duty rules out future employment options?
Really, to gain traction in an election, we are going to let them taint philanthropy?
America leads the world in giving!
We sat back. & allowed America's excellence & leadership in Science & Medicine to be politicized & vilified!
For most of my life, virtually everyone was proud to have voted, proud to have held office, proud to have volunteered on a campaign. Even a losing campaign!
That was an American experience! A few decades ago, the GOP figured out if you came out Negative. Undecided, Undeclared & Swing Voters (hard to convince, decided late) were less likely to vote again! Negative fires up the base & donations!
Make decisions for 3 years, 30 years in our future.
4
Oh, great. The NYT is now in lock-step with the right-wing in attacking Hillary Clinton where there is no reason to attack.
Does the Times editorial board know anything about any other foundations--especially family foundations? Take a look around. Here's some help.
(http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/bush-foundation-clinton-foun...
The NYT is being led by the nose and it's the Times' own fault for being into "click-bait" copy and content with shallow journalism.
Does the Times editorial board know anything about any other foundations--especially family foundations? Take a look around. Here's some help.
(http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/bush-foundation-clinton-foun...
The NYT is being led by the nose and it's the Times' own fault for being into "click-bait" copy and content with shallow journalism.
4
Four words you should look up: Money laundering influence peddling. Willful ignorance is not an excuse.
9
The NYT is not now and has not been in many years a member of the "librul" media. In New York City, there are multiple groups that advertisers try to get their ads in front of. The Daily News offers up the working class to their advertisers. The New York Post offers up the conservative, particularly the ultra-conservative and reactionary readers. The NYT offers up the better educated, more highly-paid professionals. To do that, the NYT wears a thin skin of pseudo-liberalism. Would a truly liberal paper, finding evidence that Bush was illegally surveilling American citizens without a warrant - even a FISA warrant, a year before the 2004 elections sit on the story until after Bush was safely re-selected? Yet that's exactly what Editor Bill Keller did (and there are other Bush stories he also spiked until after the election). When asked why he withheld the story, which would have better informed the electorate about the character and policies of a presidential candidate (the reason the Founding Fathers specified Freedom of the Press for the Fourth Estate), he said that, had he released the story, it might have affected the election!!!!! There are any number of examples where the NYT self-censored stories about Iraq and Afghanistan (and the pix of Bush's hidden 2-way radio in his presidential debate - confirmed by NASA). All you had to do is read the same stories in the BBC or Guardian websites to see the full stories.
3
I know and understand these words. It's your comment that is incomprehensible.
1
C'mon everybody knows that Hillary doesn't have ethical imperatives. What she has are power expansion imperatives like Hitler in Europe. If laws, treaties, borders or Bill's latest Bimbo gets in the way the result is the same. Puff pieces in the NYT explain everything, she didn't know, Bill didn't mean it, its in the past ,and everyone's doing it. Eight out of the last nine Secretaries of State had private email servers and used charitable foundations to launder foreign cash and peddle influence so innocent Hillary had no idea it was illegal.Don't worry she won't do it again.
9
Whenever I read the phrase "everybody knows" I know I have already read the beginning of the lie and don't bother reading any further.
2
News flash. There is no shortage of examples of influence seeking in the political world. Hopefuls for face time with political power brokers continue to donate to political campaigns, make donations to community causes at all levels of government, and yes, give to foundations. Our system of governing not only condones it, but has institutionalized it.
Two things:
1) While it is notable that Hillary Clinton should take seriously the concerns expressed by many to clean up the optics on this issue, one can only wonder why this level of scrutiny was been lacking for many public figures in equivalent positions pre Clinton's run for the presidency. All this reeks of a double standard and hypocrisy.
2) It takes two to tango. What evidence is there that Hillary danced?
Two things:
1) While it is notable that Hillary Clinton should take seriously the concerns expressed by many to clean up the optics on this issue, one can only wonder why this level of scrutiny was been lacking for many public figures in equivalent positions pre Clinton's run for the presidency. All this reeks of a double standard and hypocrisy.
2) It takes two to tango. What evidence is there that Hillary danced?
6
Fernando Rajiv.
7
"one can only wonder why this level of scrutiny was been lacking for many public figures in equivalent positions pre Clinton's run for the presidency. All this reeks of a double standard and hypocrisy."
Can you please identify the other public figures and their "supposed" similar improprieties as those of Mrs. Clinton?
Can you please identify the other public figures and their "supposed" similar improprieties as those of Mrs. Clinton?
3
The NY TImes is concern trolling here and manifestly adhering to several of the Clinton Rules in the process. If you want to see real abuse of a foundation take a look at Trump's.
NB: Clinton Rules
2. Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false.
3. The media assumes that Clinton is acting in bad faith until there's hard evidence otherwise.
NB: Clinton Rules
2. Every allegation, no matter how ludicrous, is believable until it can be proven completely and utterly false.
3. The media assumes that Clinton is acting in bad faith until there's hard evidence otherwise.
8
Leopards and spots!!
4
Trump has changed the rules of the game. Some of them: unethical use of the system for personal gain - chapter 11, no transparency via his tax returns just to name two. To be talking about ethics in this context is itself unethical - no ethics are out of the window. American values: to whom much is given much is required, innocence until PROVEN guilty. One may not like how the Clintons became effective, but even as the editorial notes their effort with respect to the foundation is focused on the less fortunate of the world. As opposed to Mr Trumps effort on himself. This juxtaposition is the ethical question of the day (I think there is no question how Americans will resolve this position). Scrutinize them yes, but the mere insinuation of ethical impropriety should not stop the good the foundation provides to the world. Part of the foundations success is because of who is championing the cause. I say if we don't like what it looks like, require congress to fund the foundations initiatives so there is no need for the foundation in the first place. Here we are saying no we don't want to pay for greater good in the world ourselves AND we don't want the Clintons to do it through the private sector either. To me this is unethical.
6
A person who wants a contribution from the rulers of wealthy country, such as Saudi Arabia, would try to see the world through the rulers’ eyes. Then it might be easy for this person to unconsciously stick with the rulers' perspective. She might continue to view world events through the rulers’ eyes instead of standing back to objectively analyze what is going on.
I wonder if Hillary Clinton became so enmeshed in what the donors to her foundation thought that she neglected to look at the world more objectively. We will never know what she might have done as Secretary of State had she tried to think differently about world affairs.
The Saudis do not want Assad ruling Syria. Assad’s religious sect is an offshoot of the Shia. The Saudis are Sunni. They consider Shia to be heretics. The Saudis, al Qaeda, and ISIS are Sunni, and against Assad.
Would we be supporting the so-called Syrian “moderate” rebels (who turn over their American supplied equipment to a branch of al Qaeda called the Nusra Front and who fight alongside the Nusra Front), if the Saudis had not contributed millions to the Clinton Foundation? I wonder what Syria would look like now had Clinton not been serving simultaneously on the board of the Clinton Foundation and as Secretary of State.
I wonder if Hillary Clinton became so enmeshed in what the donors to her foundation thought that she neglected to look at the world more objectively. We will never know what she might have done as Secretary of State had she tried to think differently about world affairs.
The Saudis do not want Assad ruling Syria. Assad’s religious sect is an offshoot of the Shia. The Saudis are Sunni. They consider Shia to be heretics. The Saudis, al Qaeda, and ISIS are Sunni, and against Assad.
Would we be supporting the so-called Syrian “moderate” rebels (who turn over their American supplied equipment to a branch of al Qaeda called the Nusra Front and who fight alongside the Nusra Front), if the Saudis had not contributed millions to the Clinton Foundation? I wonder what Syria would look like now had Clinton not been serving simultaneously on the board of the Clinton Foundation and as Secretary of State.
11
Risks tainting Hillary Clinton? I'd say she's pretty well tainted by the Clinton Foundation already. And why keep making excuses for the Clintons? They have repeatedly shown they are willing to push and cross legal and ethical boundaries with impunity.
28
Fact: Hillary Clinton LIED repeatedly to everyone about the status of the State Department emails. She even hid behind Colin Powell to try and justify her shenanigans with the private servers. A private email ACCOUNT is NOT the same as a private email SERVER.
Spare the violins and face the reality. Even the article states: "But the emails and previous reporting suggest Mr. Trump has reason to say that while Mrs. Clinton was secretary, it was hard to tell where the foundation ended and the State Department began." Now Huma Abedin's role in this connection between the Clinton State Department and the Clinton Foundation is beginning to be exposed. These particular parts of this article is interesting: "The newly disclosed emails show that some foundation donors and friends, like Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad bin al-Khalifa of Bahrain, used foundation channels to seek access to Mrs. Clinton."
And:
"The Clinton Foundation has become a symbol of the Clintons’ laudable ambitions, but also of their tangled alliances and operational opacity." - Read that twice.
The ONLY guilty party for this to have become what it is right now has been Hillary Clinton. The spin machine is going full blast. And don't forget that it was the NYT itself that brought her email setup at the State Department to light.
The American voter says they don't want the same ol, same ol, but they don't prove it.
Spare the violins and face the reality. Even the article states: "But the emails and previous reporting suggest Mr. Trump has reason to say that while Mrs. Clinton was secretary, it was hard to tell where the foundation ended and the State Department began." Now Huma Abedin's role in this connection between the Clinton State Department and the Clinton Foundation is beginning to be exposed. These particular parts of this article is interesting: "The newly disclosed emails show that some foundation donors and friends, like Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad bin al-Khalifa of Bahrain, used foundation channels to seek access to Mrs. Clinton."
And:
"The Clinton Foundation has become a symbol of the Clintons’ laudable ambitions, but also of their tangled alliances and operational opacity." - Read that twice.
The ONLY guilty party for this to have become what it is right now has been Hillary Clinton. The spin machine is going full blast. And don't forget that it was the NYT itself that brought her email setup at the State Department to light.
The American voter says they don't want the same ol, same ol, but they don't prove it.
18
Astonishing how long it took The Times to suddenly recognize Clinton Inc.'s gigantic conflict of interest. Has the editorial board been magically transformed from cheerleader to watchdog? If so, let's hope that it doesn't revert back.
13
Hillary Clinton sneezed today! Is it possible that there was some dust in the air? Or is it more likely that because of her age her health is in considerable decline and now has an illness that she won't tell the American people. The country has to know, Hillary, why did you sneeze!
7
So funny, you write this opinion with trepidation and caring for the Clintons. An expose of this mess should have been written by any responsible journalism organization months if not years ago. Not only does it look like they peddled themselves and sold influence but less than 90% actually goes to the so-called foundation. The rest is spent on travel and accommodations for the Clintons?
I am not a Trump supporter lets be clear but at the same time anyone who would vote for the corrupt Hillary is getting what they asked for, same as when Valerie Jarret was voted into office in 2008-2012, and then brought along her henchman, Obama, Rice, Holder, Lynch, Sharpton and now Black Lives Matter to do her dirty work to ruin this country. Yes, she has been the President, funny Obama, her henchman spent almost 1 full year golfing, yet I guess that is ok with the Times!
I'm sure you will never print my opinion!
I am not a Trump supporter lets be clear but at the same time anyone who would vote for the corrupt Hillary is getting what they asked for, same as when Valerie Jarret was voted into office in 2008-2012, and then brought along her henchman, Obama, Rice, Holder, Lynch, Sharpton and now Black Lives Matter to do her dirty work to ruin this country. Yes, she has been the President, funny Obama, her henchman spent almost 1 full year golfing, yet I guess that is ok with the Times!
I'm sure you will never print my opinion!
6
Please don't make up stuff to post. Over 80% of income goes to programs at the CF, rest to administration. They are audited and rated. An A rating by the several top charity rating groups. Every 990, every expanded audit on-line. Travel expenses for a global enterprise encompass travel by everyone and everything involved. Are you sane?
Pres. Obama has taken less vacation time than any president in memory, Bill Clinton next for fewest days away from the WH.
Pres. Obama has taken less vacation time than any president in memory, Bill Clinton next for fewest days away from the WH.
9
Actually, I think Eisenhower holds the record for most golfing during a presidential administration. Bush was no slouch in that department either.
3
Great opening question, but the NYT makes clear they have no interest to doggedly pursue for answers. Probably because it would lead to the dratted email server, more specifically all those mails that were deleted after being unilaterally declared n/a to the government. Ensuring thus, that whatever got deleted in the email server stays deleted, at least the NYT won't have any part in its unraveling.
Don't be surprised if the Clinton camp do exactly as this paper is advising and of course, squeeze political capital out of it. Followed promptly by the obligatory laudatory op-ed here.
Whatever. Email or no email, the foundation name's a mouthful and screams easy access. Very passé. Rename/shut, hurry-up.
Don't be surprised if the Clinton camp do exactly as this paper is advising and of course, squeeze political capital out of it. Followed promptly by the obligatory laudatory op-ed here.
Whatever. Email or no email, the foundation name's a mouthful and screams easy access. Very passé. Rename/shut, hurry-up.
5
In this era of globalization, the ban on foreign giving would merely drive it underground. (Just look at the buyers/backers of US real estate). Nor does the Foundation have the incentive to police the policy.
3
Isn't this conversation premature? We don't ask sitting senators and governors to give up their seats before the election, we don't ask entrepreneurs and businesspeople to give up their companies, nor workers to give up their jobs before the election is held. Why the double standard if and only if the candidate in question is named Clinton? Trump is openly inaugurating golf courses and buildings while campaigning, nobody has told him to put all his assets in a blind trust, nor should they.
If this is the only thing you can editorialize about Mrs. Clinton, and you predict that the Press which ought and should include you, is going to have a field day with Huma Abedin's husband and hurt Mrs. Clinton with it, could you please once and for all admit that the Press adopted a double standard with respect to that family courtesy of the now disgraced Kenneth Starr, and never went back to normal again?
If this is the only thing you can editorialize about Mrs. Clinton, and you predict that the Press which ought and should include you, is going to have a field day with Huma Abedin's husband and hurt Mrs. Clinton with it, could you please once and for all admit that the Press adopted a double standard with respect to that family courtesy of the now disgraced Kenneth Starr, and never went back to normal again?
7
"...risks tainting Hillary 's campaign"?? As if nothing she and the foundation have done so far haven't already tainted it? That we're all giving her a fresh start so she only has to limp to Election Day without any further criminality or routine ethical cheating episodes?
7
The real issue concerning the Clinton Foundation is was there in fact "pay for play"? You claim "not so far." But, that is an inadequate statement coming on the heels of the recent admonishment by FBI Director, James Corey, concerning her emails while Secretary of State. It is important for this issue to be resolved quickly before it metastisizes into another major reason to distrust Sec. Clinton and weaken her candidacy against a clearly (disclosure I'm a professional psychologist) mentally disturbed man.
How can the clintons walk away from the Clinton foundation??? After all, the foundation is there to give them power and leverage and Clinton family is dying for more. There really is only one word to describe the clintons: CORRUPTION.
13
The Foundation is a charity, Kid.
3
Without the Clinton's there is no Foundation. People around the world know of the Clintons. They do not know the names of substitutes. The Foundation does
fantastic work. Let it be.
fantastic work. Let it be.
5
Its hard to separate when politics is involved. If she had no political ambitions, the foundation would be a gift to humanity. As of now, it is a bit of tangled mess of politics and charity.
3
Never going to happen, this is Hillary you are talking about. Money, money, money.
13
Neither Bill nor Hillary have been paid a dime from the foundation. But, that doesn't bother those untroubled by fact in their world view.
5
Rich and influential people seek and gain access to lawmakers through direct campaign donations, donations to super PACS and charitable donations to, say, a Hospital in a district where they seek to influence a congressperson. I don't see a difference here.
It seems that Sec Clinton's time was sought by people who thought that their donations to the foundation would help but we see no evidence of a response other than a courteous "I'll try".
The donors here were either really just altruistic or suckers somehow thinking their donation would get them influence, when it hardly even got them access.
It seems that Sec Clinton's time was sought by people who thought that their donations to the foundation would help but we see no evidence of a response other than a courteous "I'll try".
The donors here were either really just altruistic or suckers somehow thinking their donation would get them influence, when it hardly even got them access.
2
This editorial won' make W's Bush Foundation happy for partnering with the Clinton Foundation was the only legitimacy that his Foundation had.
Now, where's Trump's tax returns?
Now, where's Trump's tax returns?
5
The Clintons, including Bill, Hillary, Chelsea, and their relatives (Tony Rodham) and close friends could effectively put the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates into a trust that is administered bu professionals who have no connection with the Clintons from now ontil such time that Hillary Clinton is no longer POTUS or eunning for POTUS.
This would be analogous to lutting assers in a blind trust.
When that time is paaed, they can go back to running the Clinton Foundation.
Nobody has to admit ir deny anything about past acts.
Problem solved.
This would be analogous to lutting assers in a blind trust.
When that time is paaed, they can go back to running the Clinton Foundation.
Nobody has to admit ir deny anything about past acts.
Problem solved.
HRC’s dealings : There may be no smoke but it sure smells funky.
There are Enormous donations; enormous speaking fees and enormous personal wealth.
Maybe nothing was going on but many of us are very, very concerned. Let’s face it. The Presidents primary purpose is to get the Country and its Government to pull us together and to move forward. With HRC this stench will keep half of the Country’s Citizens looking over their shoulders in fear and concern -Did she do this for us or did she do it for the money or do it …because of a threat to reveal past dealings?
Let’s say she cuts her ties with the foundation. Is all well then? Do we dust off our hands and say, “Ok that takes care of that”?
What about when she, as POTUS has a typical, off the record, discussions with the very leaders and oligarchs that may have bribed her? What if after these meeting there are no signs of emails, no sign of bribes or cash flows but rather questionable policies or regulations?
Any POTUS’s actions can have controversial interpretations; it may be interpreted as favoritism or cronyism or as faulty foreign policy.
Will HRC POTUS to lead us into unity when these challenges arise?
How will HRC POTUS lead us when her credibility and honesty is so questioned by half of the nation?
There are a lot of questions and no answers. How can she disinfect herself? Separating herself from the foundation seems much like a perfume… Attempting to mask a stench that can’t be concealed.
There are Enormous donations; enormous speaking fees and enormous personal wealth.
Maybe nothing was going on but many of us are very, very concerned. Let’s face it. The Presidents primary purpose is to get the Country and its Government to pull us together and to move forward. With HRC this stench will keep half of the Country’s Citizens looking over their shoulders in fear and concern -Did she do this for us or did she do it for the money or do it …because of a threat to reveal past dealings?
Let’s say she cuts her ties with the foundation. Is all well then? Do we dust off our hands and say, “Ok that takes care of that”?
What about when she, as POTUS has a typical, off the record, discussions with the very leaders and oligarchs that may have bribed her? What if after these meeting there are no signs of emails, no sign of bribes or cash flows but rather questionable policies or regulations?
Any POTUS’s actions can have controversial interpretations; it may be interpreted as favoritism or cronyism or as faulty foreign policy.
Will HRC POTUS to lead us into unity when these challenges arise?
How will HRC POTUS lead us when her credibility and honesty is so questioned by half of the nation?
There are a lot of questions and no answers. How can she disinfect herself? Separating herself from the foundation seems much like a perfume… Attempting to mask a stench that can’t be concealed.
7
Shut the foundation down and distribute the funds to worthy charities? Moral.
Dismiss the current board of cronies and appoint a board of independent, respected Americans with no personal or professional ties to any Clinton or Clinton friend or aide to run the foundation, effectively creating a blind trust? Ethical.
Leave the foundation in the hands of cronies and Chelsea Clinton? Priceless.
Dismiss the current board of cronies and appoint a board of independent, respected Americans with no personal or professional ties to any Clinton or Clinton friend or aide to run the foundation, effectively creating a blind trust? Ethical.
Leave the foundation in the hands of cronies and Chelsea Clinton? Priceless.
9
Amazing equation of the unenlightened makes doing good bad, and being bad (Trump), good. We have a psychotic and psychopathic liar fomenting racial hatred and soliciting a foreign enemy, Russian to help him stage a coup, but we're talking about the 'appearance' of a foundation that does not pay a dime to Bill or Hillary in salary and does tangible good? Only in Trump's con-game with the mob in Vegas and Atlantic City does this type of reasoning hold up.
6
No, Alphonse, we have The Liar on the left, and The Loon on the right. And, we have a morally bankrupt media that has lost its moral compass and won't let the third party candidate even appear on the stage at the presidential debate.
9
Doesn't it make sense to look into senators' and other congresspersons meetings with contributors to see what kind of influence "may have been given through access to our representatives"?
8
For sure. But because others do this does;t mean that it is ethical for a Senator and Secretary of State to do it as well.
4
I don't understand how any serious news outlet could justify expending a single minute, keystroke, or syllable in the expression of anything remote critical of Mrs. Clinton. Are we not forgetting that the country is dangerously close to coming in the grasp a dangerously ignorant sociopath who trades in quasi-fascist appeals? An ignorant sociopath who ran a scam university, is ripping off his own campaign, won't release his taxes.... oh, forget it. I guess history will be the judge of Trump's media Quislings.
4
Personally, i'm getting really sick of this argument. You are willing to disregard anything that the Clinton's do or have done, because of your fervent dislike, possibly hatred of Donald Trump. How much would you excuse because "well, otherwise, the world will literally explode"? Would you even waive it off if she were to kill Mr. Trump during a live debate? After all, what's one little assassination when the future of the World is in jeopardy, right?
7
Cutting ties to the foundation? Just an opportunistic move. Just like changing your mind on the TPP. No wonder most americans dont trust her. Still, she gets her way by appealing to minorities (who are against Trump no matter what), to women (who want a woman as President) and by exploiting a divided republican camp. She talks competence and experience? US foreign policy has been a disaster lately, with chaos resulting in the Middle East and North Africa, confronting Russia instead of China and angering the EU allies. Is that the way she gets to be the next US President? Sad indeed.
6
When did The Times join the witch hunt? Maybe it would be more accurate to ask, when will The Times stop witch hunting?
"Does the new batch of previously undisclosed State Department emails prove that big-money donors to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation got special favors from Mrs. Clinton while she was secretary of state?
"Not so far [...]"
This sort of inference is appalling anywhere, but such irresponsibility from the the Editorial Board of Paper of Record indicates that you've lost your way.
"Does the new batch of previously undisclosed State Department emails prove that big-money donors to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation got special favors from Mrs. Clinton while she was secretary of state?
"Not so far [...]"
This sort of inference is appalling anywhere, but such irresponsibility from the the Editorial Board of Paper of Record indicates that you've lost your way.
3
I don't recall that the NYT made the same call to both of the Bushes while they were President to sever their ties to the Bush Family Foundation that had a very close relationship with the Saudis. Nor do I hear any NYT outrage about the close political and financial ties the Trump has with Putin. Why not?
7
I just finished reading the Clinton Foundation's Form 990 tax filings for the past three years, available to anyone who cares to look:
- Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton receive total compensation of $0.00.
- For self-evident security reasons, the board of directors has approved private charter and/or first class air travel for Bill and Hillary, although for Chelsea that approval is on a case-by-case basis. Along with what I assume are very nice offices, this constitutes the entire amount of favors enjoyed by the Clintons.
- Top foundation executives, such as the executive director, chief financial officer, chief development officer, et. al., receive annual salaries in the low-to-mid six figures.
- To support its charitable grant-making and human services programs (which are too lengthy to list here, please look it up), the foundation expends four to five times the legally required percentage of its assets, which is not typical among large foundations (e.g., over $100 million of assets).
I run a small not-for-profit organization that relies on the vision and largesse of private donors and charitable foundations. I wish all of them were as well-run, transparent, aggressive in their support strategies, and thoughtful in their sustaining work as the Clinton Foundation.
- Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton receive total compensation of $0.00.
- For self-evident security reasons, the board of directors has approved private charter and/or first class air travel for Bill and Hillary, although for Chelsea that approval is on a case-by-case basis. Along with what I assume are very nice offices, this constitutes the entire amount of favors enjoyed by the Clintons.
- Top foundation executives, such as the executive director, chief financial officer, chief development officer, et. al., receive annual salaries in the low-to-mid six figures.
- To support its charitable grant-making and human services programs (which are too lengthy to list here, please look it up), the foundation expends four to five times the legally required percentage of its assets, which is not typical among large foundations (e.g., over $100 million of assets).
I run a small not-for-profit organization that relies on the vision and largesse of private donors and charitable foundations. I wish all of them were as well-run, transparent, aggressive in their support strategies, and thoughtful in their sustaining work as the Clinton Foundation.
10
What noxious tripe from editors who ought to know better.
Your witless editorial strongly implies that Hillary Clinton has committed some egregious error by being part of an "A" rated charity that has done great good all around the world.
The Foundation's donor list is transparent, and Hillary Clinton got no personal enrichment of any kind through the foundation.
Your implication that there was a quid pro quo when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State is fatuous twaddle of the worst sort, and you should retract this dishonest editorial immediately.
The NYT is well-known for its strong anti-Clinton bias, and this editorial is an illustration of that ridiculous bias.
Instead of repeating and amplifying false claims about the Clinton Foundation, the NYT editorial board should have taken to task all the talking heads---and the Associated Press---for promoting all these patently false rumors.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Your witless editorial strongly implies that Hillary Clinton has committed some egregious error by being part of an "A" rated charity that has done great good all around the world.
The Foundation's donor list is transparent, and Hillary Clinton got no personal enrichment of any kind through the foundation.
Your implication that there was a quid pro quo when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State is fatuous twaddle of the worst sort, and you should retract this dishonest editorial immediately.
The NYT is well-known for its strong anti-Clinton bias, and this editorial is an illustration of that ridiculous bias.
Instead of repeating and amplifying false claims about the Clinton Foundation, the NYT editorial board should have taken to task all the talking heads---and the Associated Press---for promoting all these patently false rumors.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
4
This is exactly the wrong course of action for the Clinton family to take regarding the Clinton Foundation.
It is naive to think the critics would be silenced if they cut all ties.
Quid pro quo has not been found after numerous investigations into the Clinton's dealing with the Foundation and its' donors.
The Clinton's involvement has yielding many benefits to the efforts undertaken by the Foundation. That will certainly be reduced should they cut all ties. Frankly the Foundation's initiatives are sorely needed and a blow in their ability to fundraise will be felt around the world.
It is naive to think the critics would be silenced if they cut all ties.
Quid pro quo has not been found after numerous investigations into the Clinton's dealing with the Foundation and its' donors.
The Clinton's involvement has yielding many benefits to the efforts undertaken by the Foundation. That will certainly be reduced should they cut all ties. Frankly the Foundation's initiatives are sorely needed and a blow in their ability to fundraise will be felt around the world.
6
The Editors held their noses and gave their candidate a tepid hand slapping for running a third world shake down operation while SOS. Good for the Editors.
Even Obama "tried to draw a line between the foundation...and her role". How did that turn out? "The effort was at best partly successful." "...it was hard to tell where the foundation ended and the State Department began." That's a nice way of saying the Clintons gave the President the bird and went about Clinton business as usual.
Graft and corruption in government at any level - village, city, county, state, federal - is not O.K. It is not O.K. for the liberals commenting on this editorial to claim that everybody is doing it, and besides, Trump is worse, so the Clintons' actions are O.K. squared. No, they are not.
Even Obama "tried to draw a line between the foundation...and her role". How did that turn out? "The effort was at best partly successful." "...it was hard to tell where the foundation ended and the State Department began." That's a nice way of saying the Clintons gave the President the bird and went about Clinton business as usual.
Graft and corruption in government at any level - village, city, county, state, federal - is not O.K. It is not O.K. for the liberals commenting on this editorial to claim that everybody is doing it, and besides, Trump is worse, so the Clintons' actions are O.K. squared. No, they are not.
16
It is hard for me to believe that all of the sleaziness of Don the Con and his 3,500 lawsuits and unethical businesses (Trump University comes to mind) and the NY Times is hammering Hillary for her foundation that has saved millions of Africans from dying of AIDS! It boggles my mind of the unfairness of this scenario!
10
Clinton has presented a substantial plan for separating herself from the Clinton Foundation, if elected. By contrast, Donald Trump has campaigned on knowing how the game is played and willingly participating in greasing the wheels of government to benefit his business interests.
When is Trump going to put forth a like plan to divorce his actions if elected President from his many business holdings, associates and investors?
And when is the media going to demand it? After a President Trump supports an infrastructure bill where his businesses and properties benefit? After Trump Steaks are decreed the official red meat of official White House dinners?
According to this editorial, a "wise" Trump plan in this regard would include a ban on investments from foreign and corporate entities into Trump’s many business holdings, and an end to the involvement of his children in his businesses.
When is Trump going to put forth a like plan to divorce his actions if elected President from his many business holdings, associates and investors?
And when is the media going to demand it? After a President Trump supports an infrastructure bill where his businesses and properties benefit? After Trump Steaks are decreed the official red meat of official White House dinners?
According to this editorial, a "wise" Trump plan in this regard would include a ban on investments from foreign and corporate entities into Trump’s many business holdings, and an end to the involvement of his children in his businesses.
2
Just because they have not been "on the payroll" does not mean they
have not received funds from the foundation.
have not received funds from the foundation.
7
The American people may be directly affected by what appears to be influence peddling. We have ongoing wars in the Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Libya, Yemen etc that are costing our taxpayers as well as our reputation and credibility. I am not happy that any of our politicians should be taking money from foreign governments. Of course, foreign governments could also be funding offshore accounts that we likely would not know about. I am so disappointed in what is going on with our government.
6
So, the Times wants us to believe that a $30 million check from the Saudi government didn't translate into US actions that were in their interest? How naive do you think we are? Hillary Clinton bragged, in public, about awarding $43 million to the so-called 'Syrian rebels', who weren't even Syrian at all, but just a ragtag bunch of roving, imported jihadis with ties to Saudi Arabia. This is pay to play at a new level, no matter what you might think.
21
It should be possible for us good liberals and progressives to admit that we can't tolerate the mingling of private boards -- even charitable ones -- with federal governance. If Rupert Murdoch had become President and his sons were running a Press Freedom Foundation how long would it be before we'd be calling for a blind trust to be set up and for the exclusion of any Murdochs from the cabinet.
4
There must be something awful about making money doing good things for humanity and fighting AIDS in Africa, or the mutilation of women.
The great moral cynics and hypocritical voices that have jumped on this non-issue are completely in Trump's and Putin's pocket.
Yes, this foundation can be put completely in trust or other hands the second Hillary Clinton is elected president.
Where are Trump's taxes?
What is the Russian government's involvement in attempting to hack voting process in swing states?
Where is the FBI? The NSA?
Putin's Russia attempting to fix our election is the sort of issue that is existential and national in scope and importance. Not solving the AIDS crisis in Africa.
The great moral cynics and hypocritical voices that have jumped on this non-issue are completely in Trump's and Putin's pocket.
Yes, this foundation can be put completely in trust or other hands the second Hillary Clinton is elected president.
Where are Trump's taxes?
What is the Russian government's involvement in attempting to hack voting process in swing states?
Where is the FBI? The NSA?
Putin's Russia attempting to fix our election is the sort of issue that is existential and national in scope and importance. Not solving the AIDS crisis in Africa.
16
800,000 HIV positive children in sub-Saharan Africa received their life-giving drugs today because of the Clinton Foundation. Mrs. Clinton met with approximately 1700 individuals during her time as Secretary of State. Of those, 154 or 9% were "private" citizens. Of those 154, 80 or 52% had direct or indirect ties to the Clinton foundation. That's right! Many of those ties were indirect, that is the people she saw gave money to organizations that LATER gave money to the foundation. Hardly a "pay to play" scheme in anyone's eyes. In addition, Bill and Hillary Clinton receive NO MONEY AT ALL from the foundation. So even if you did "pay to play," you're paying to keep sick children healthy. Some scheme.
5
I am sure the Clintons will leave a hole large enough for a big check to get through when they write any restrictions. That's always been their way.
9
[With] ..."]Bill and Chelsea Clinton on its board. The initiative operates exclusively overseas, derives most of its budget from foreign sources and accounts for more than half of the foundation and its affiliates’ combined spending"..[, and Hillary notably absent from the board of CHAI by ethical concerns during her tenure as Secretary of State\] international issues such has childhood education and community health overseas, the op ed is ethically barren to say the least.
Consider the historic and dramatic benefits of the Foundation's efforts and successes from this totally reasonable relationship is the US ridiculous polemics as a consequence of the Radical GOP Right: Effectively blocked by Congress from any legislation relating to humanistic assistance internationally, the CHAI understook (1) the task of treating AIDS patients in Africa by inoculations from a quarter of a million to nearly 6 million patients with reliance on foreign contributions; [For which Hillary has been charged with the Radical Right as "pay to play" (2) encouraged independently of partisan polemics a dramatic expansion of micro loans to almost exclusively women
entrepreneurial enterprises, etc.
Hey NYT, this is just the model of relationships between government and NGO's which ought to be encouraged in what is like-it-or-not a global interdependent economy with complex issues which transcend national politics and epidemic issues
Consider the historic and dramatic benefits of the Foundation's efforts and successes from this totally reasonable relationship is the US ridiculous polemics as a consequence of the Radical GOP Right: Effectively blocked by Congress from any legislation relating to humanistic assistance internationally, the CHAI understook (1) the task of treating AIDS patients in Africa by inoculations from a quarter of a million to nearly 6 million patients with reliance on foreign contributions; [For which Hillary has been charged with the Radical Right as "pay to play" (2) encouraged independently of partisan polemics a dramatic expansion of micro loans to almost exclusively women
entrepreneurial enterprises, etc.
Hey NYT, this is just the model of relationships between government and NGO's which ought to be encouraged in what is like-it-or-not a global interdependent economy with complex issues which transcend national politics and epidemic issues
3
But, what can be done about the billions of foreign dollars invested in the many Donald Trump endeavors. He is not only indebted to foreign countries like Russia, the Persian Gulf states, Saudi Arabia, southern Asia, Japan, and, most importantly, China. For example, Trump Tower, build in 1979, was originally co-financed by Trump and the Equitable Life Insurance Company (now called the AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company and is French). Trump only owns 30% of his tower. Two other major investors include Goldman Sachs (before most Wall Street firms refused to do business with the conman) and the People's Republic of China!
Trump is demanding that Clinton close the Clinton Foundation (which has saved or improved the lives of millions in the third world) and return ALL of the foreign money that has been contributed to it. Note that Hillary was NOT working with the Foundation during her tenure as Secretary of State, and won't if elected. Trump, OTOH, will be perfectly placed to create or cancel regulations that affect his many holdings and those of his investors.
I don't recall Trump offering to close down all of his foreign-invested projects and return the investments to their respective countries. While the Clinton Foundation is not a money-maker for the Clintons, but a set of charities with global reach, EVERYTHING Trump does is done solely to enrich himself.
That conflict of interest alone ought to disqualify Trump from elective office.
Trump is demanding that Clinton close the Clinton Foundation (which has saved or improved the lives of millions in the third world) and return ALL of the foreign money that has been contributed to it. Note that Hillary was NOT working with the Foundation during her tenure as Secretary of State, and won't if elected. Trump, OTOH, will be perfectly placed to create or cancel regulations that affect his many holdings and those of his investors.
I don't recall Trump offering to close down all of his foreign-invested projects and return the investments to their respective countries. While the Clinton Foundation is not a money-maker for the Clintons, but a set of charities with global reach, EVERYTHING Trump does is done solely to enrich himself.
That conflict of interest alone ought to disqualify Trump from elective office.
6
Despite your statement that the accusations that there was "pay-for-play" between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department have "not so far" been proven, it is imperative that the issue be resolved promptly before it metastasizes into another major "trust" issue for Sec. Clinton. We are facing an unusual election with a rather weak traditional establishment candidate facing a clearly mentally disturbed (and "yes," I can, as a professional psychologist, both make and substantiate that claim) man. Whatever my, and others, misgiving about Sec.Clinton may be, we really have no choice. And that is why the issue of the Clinton Foundation's potential involvement in State Department decisions must be addressed immediately, especially coming after Sec. Clinton's chastisement by FBI Director, James Comey, for her mishandling of government emails.
1
"If Mrs. Clinton wins, it could prove a target for her political adversaries." This's a probability. As vultures pursuing children in famine areas hoping them to fall to tear them & eat, callous critics of the Clintons are looking for any opportunity to jump on them; there're plenty of them.
"Achieving true distance from the foundation is not only necessary to ensure its effectiveness, it is an ethical imperative for Mrs. Clinton." This isn't easy. And the whole thing maybe a lingering problem.
A more practical & better solution is for them to announce publicly that they would set aside 90+% of their assets to be absorbed by the Clinton foundation managed by the foundation's officials. After some genuine measures, people would begin to admire the Clintons, as Chris Matthews turned a 180 from an avid persecutor to a strong admirer, calling Bill Clinton "President of the World."
"Achieving true distance from the foundation is not only necessary to ensure its effectiveness, it is an ethical imperative for Mrs. Clinton." This isn't easy. And the whole thing maybe a lingering problem.
A more practical & better solution is for them to announce publicly that they would set aside 90+% of their assets to be absorbed by the Clinton foundation managed by the foundation's officials. After some genuine measures, people would begin to admire the Clintons, as Chris Matthews turned a 180 from an avid persecutor to a strong admirer, calling Bill Clinton "President of the World."
3
The elite gain access to each other through money.
Doesn't mean it's right. But that's how it's done. Foundations, congress, real estate deals...it's all a swirl of self-dealing rich folks overhead, like clouds at 20,000 feet, while the rest of us stand in line at Starbucks, or wait for soup in a refugee camp, depending on whether you live in the first world or the third.
Doesn't mean it's right. But that's how it's done. Foundations, congress, real estate deals...it's all a swirl of self-dealing rich folks overhead, like clouds at 20,000 feet, while the rest of us stand in line at Starbucks, or wait for soup in a refugee camp, depending on whether you live in the first world or the third.
3
The NRA controls gun policy in this country. They endorse candidates, spend ad money, score legislators. Seventy-five percent of their donations come from foreign sources. How do we know that illegal arms dealers, terrorists and dictators aren't spending money to control US gun policy? Their website promises they will accommodate any corporate "needs." If we're going to do a serious examination about the political class and the donor class colluding to stack the deck; go ahead, we've been waiting. But if you're going to single out the Clinton Foundation to keep this lucrative horse race election as click bait entertainment for the simple mind; no thanks.
3
access=favor
3
That's how it works all over the third world, except there it is called corruption, here it is business as usual, we are told get over it, this is how things work in the USA, if you don't like it, go to another country.
5
After calling upon the well-educated and committed Chelsea Clinton to give up any ties to the Clinton Foundation, a job for which she is well-prepared, I assume that tomorrow's NYT editorial will insist that the Trump children walk away from their high-paying jobs at the Trump Organization and all related Trump companies.
Otherwise Sunday dinner with Dad, the president, probably at a Trump-owned property, eating TRump steaks and drinking Trump wine, will certainly include discussions of the 400+ entities that are the Trump Org.
It's only fair, NYT. No Foundation connections, no Trump Org. connections.
Otherwise Sunday dinner with Dad, the president, probably at a Trump-owned property, eating TRump steaks and drinking Trump wine, will certainly include discussions of the 400+ entities that are the Trump Org.
It's only fair, NYT. No Foundation connections, no Trump Org. connections.
6
She should have severed ties and gotten all family members out of it before starting her campaign.
Sadly it is the same arrogance and lack of humility that is feeding the negative view of her that causes these lapses in judgment. Ex; her semantic meanderings trying to avoid admitting to facts in evidence about what Mr. Comey said of her. There is a tendency to disassociate in her and her husband that seems more than lawyer like prudence.
Sadly it is the same arrogance and lack of humility that is feeding the negative view of her that causes these lapses in judgment. Ex; her semantic meanderings trying to avoid admitting to facts in evidence about what Mr. Comey said of her. There is a tendency to disassociate in her and her husband that seems more than lawyer like prudence.
3
A Palm Beach property “Bought by Mr. Trump in 2004 for $41 million and sold in 2008 to a Russian billionaire for $95 million, the residence has since sat empty…”
New York Times, AUGUST 27, 2016: http://nyti.ms/2bOU4bg
Here we have the appearance of money laundering and play to pay on the part of candidate Donald Trump and a Vladimir Putin crony capitalist. Has the New York Times any ethical qualms regarding this situation; any advise to Mr. Trump?
New York Times, AUGUST 27, 2016: http://nyti.ms/2bOU4bg
Here we have the appearance of money laundering and play to pay on the part of candidate Donald Trump and a Vladimir Putin crony capitalist. Has the New York Times any ethical qualms regarding this situation; any advise to Mr. Trump?
5
The entire point of the foundation is to peddle influence. To suggest "cutting ties" is disingenuous at best. It's legal. It's grossly unethical, and it's completely transparent to all but the deliberately ignorant. Vote 3rd party.
3
This long, tortured editorial is nothing more than a straw man argument.
4
I am dismayed at the focus on the Clinton Foundation when the same kind of scrutiny is missing from the business interests of Mr Trump. The Clinton Foundation is a 501(c)3 with EIN 31-1580204 and rated an A by the American Institute of Philanthropy. Its program overhead is 12%. By comparison, the American Red Cross is at 10%. A quick Google search suggests financial info is readily available without a fee, though with some hassle.
So the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation seems quite transparent to me. But I have no idea what Mr Trump is involved in. How is that better?
So the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation seems quite transparent to me. But I have no idea what Mr Trump is involved in. How is that better?
3
All this focus on Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, with fingers being pointed and accusations made while Dick Cheney's role in Halliburton was barely mentioned as his company made billions off the war Cheney started in Iraq.
Had Bill Clinton prosecuted people from the Reagan administration for their crimes and Barack Obama prosecuted bush ii and cheney for war crimes we might see some perspective in what we call scandals in the White House.
Had Bill Clinton prosecuted people from the Reagan administration for their crimes and Barack Obama prosecuted bush ii and cheney for war crimes we might see some perspective in what we call scandals in the White House.
3
If it is an "ethical imperative" to cut ties with the Clinton Foundation now, then it was already corruption when she was Secretary of State and cutting ties now will do nothing to alleviate her of being a symbol of pay to play politics for the 1%.
I just wish people would have been so willing to talk about her "experience" as Secretary of State during the primary when the candidates should have been properly vetting
I just wish people would have been so willing to talk about her "experience" as Secretary of State during the primary when the candidates should have been properly vetting
4
One thing we don't have to worry about with Trump is the possibility of him having any links to any charities.
7
Most contemporary presidents have gone on to set up large foundations, write books, make speeches—they make plenty of money—and all have done so without such heavy scrutiny. Bill Clinton is no different from other presidents who used his status opportunely. He parlayed his position and fame to make money of but he has also has gone on to do great things. The difference is an ex-POTUS leading a large international charity whose wife is Secretary of State who is now running for POTUS, is absolutely unprecedented. Clearly, it could get a bit complex. But come on, Bill Clinton is extremely influential in his own right and he did not need Hillary to solicit donations. Who wouldn't want an audience with Bill Clinton? As a married couple with such prominence, credentials and experience, there are few comparable situations—personal and legal— from which to get their cues. Does anyone truly believe that they are up at night plotting illegal schemes? Come on, these are two extraordinary political and intellectual giants that are few are far between and who still have a lot of service and greatness left in them. But, right wing detractors will do anything to derail them.
4
If the NY Times is calling for Hillary Clinton and her family to cut ties with the Clinton Foundation, shouldn't it also call for Donald Trump and his family to cut ties with the Trump Organization?
2
But Mr. Trump, so far, is a civilian, and as such there is nothing wrong to donate to his "Organization" and ask to see him. However, as a high-profile and long term government employee (Senator and later Secretary of State), Mrs.Clinton should have known better.
3
I wouldn't do anything until Eric Trump disbands his foundation )I think it raises money for killing nearly extinct animals). Also why jump through Trumps hoops until this bozo releases his taxes?
4
Did Clinton donors receive special favors? "Not so far" What is this April 1st ?
Emails show that the Prince of Bahrain couldn't even get a toe in the door of the State Department. Then he paid a few million to the Clinton Foundation and CGI and BINGO he gets a meeting with Hillary. That meeting was closely followed by a $630 million arms deal with Bahrain representing a 187% increase over the size of previous deals. All of this happened at the same time that Bahrain began supporting ISIS.
Could some of these arms have found their way through to ISIS ?
Emails show that the Prince of Bahrain couldn't even get a toe in the door of the State Department. Then he paid a few million to the Clinton Foundation and CGI and BINGO he gets a meeting with Hillary. That meeting was closely followed by a $630 million arms deal with Bahrain representing a 187% increase over the size of previous deals. All of this happened at the same time that Bahrain began supporting ISIS.
Could some of these arms have found their way through to ISIS ?
6
The Times editorial goes only part of the way toward separating the Clintons' (including their retinues) governmental and private activities. Almost everyone is afraid to shut down the Clinton foundations, lest their good works end.
However, what about arranging for other, respected foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Gates, ...) take over and operate Clinton charities? That should end influence-seeking that appears to plague the Clinton foundations, yet continue their charitable efforts.
However, what about arranging for other, respected foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Gates, ...) take over and operate Clinton charities? That should end influence-seeking that appears to plague the Clinton foundations, yet continue their charitable efforts.
1
Even if the foundation closed down tomorrow, the influence peddling has already been sought, completed and paid for. The NY Times editors have pushed this candidacy on America while disparaging the only candidate in 2016 who was actually working for the benefit all Americans rather than his own personal aggrandizement. When the Clinton family is described in history books, the NY Times editorial staff will be cited as major collaborators in the web of corruption.
6
Considering the almost 40 year history of the Clintons ties to corporate donors and later the Foundation, the fact is, the moment that Hillary Clinton was announced as Secretary of State, at that point, both of those ties should have been severed immediately. In not doing so, it just created unwanted baggage for the Republicans to latch on to in any future election campaign. Well, here we are and legitimate or not, they are milking for all its worth.
2
How about an editorial about Donald Trump cutting ties with all his businesses if he becomes President? I see nothing written about the complexities and conflicts that his ownership/licensing/branding involvements will create for him and for us. Letting his "kids" run the show is not an answer as multiple conflicts of interest will still exist. NYT and other media could have been exploring this issue for months now and there's little if anything and how Trump's businesses, financial relationships, lawsuits, etc., will be handled if he wins. Yet there are tons of articles about the Clinton Foundation, which, in contrast, actually does a bit of good in the world. Furthermore, how is the so-called "influence" of the donations to the Clinton Foundation on Hillary as Secretary of State any different than the influence of campaign contributions to any elected representative? The only difference is that the contributions of lobbyists and billionaires to political campaigns don't do any good in the world.
1
What is galling is that the Clinton Foundation, which has done a world of good, is being chastised for appearances of impropriety, when the Trump organization, which has primarily benefited the Trump family, escapes similar detailed scrutiny because it is a private enterprise? Swell, that’s capitalism at work – if you give back to the community, you are hounded; if you keep it all for yourself, you are left alone.
Also, we often talk of the Trump brand. Has anyone considered the value of the Clinton brand? The Clinton Foundation without the Clinton name or a Clinton involved is likely to lose it enormous appeal on the global philanthropic scene. It’s easy for the NY Editorial Board to simply ask Bill Clinton to cut “his foundation ties;” it’s not that easily done.
If this were as simple as releasing one’s tax returns, it could be done tomorrow. But unwinding one’s involvement with a global charitable organization takes time, Election Day notwithstanding, the Clintons should be allowed some breathing room to do this.
Also, we often talk of the Trump brand. Has anyone considered the value of the Clinton brand? The Clinton Foundation without the Clinton name or a Clinton involved is likely to lose it enormous appeal on the global philanthropic scene. It’s easy for the NY Editorial Board to simply ask Bill Clinton to cut “his foundation ties;” it’s not that easily done.
If this were as simple as releasing one’s tax returns, it could be done tomorrow. But unwinding one’s involvement with a global charitable organization takes time, Election Day notwithstanding, the Clintons should be allowed some breathing room to do this.
1
Why did you pull my comment that was said to be published? Once again - the Clintons will need lobotomies to forget the donors who bought their influence.
2
Here's a thought: Shut it down... NOW.
It's really a shame. The Clinton Foundation does so much good in the world.
Yes, Hillary, please cut whatever ties you have to a charity that saves lives. Meanwhile, will just stand here and wait for the Times to demand the same of Trump and his many personal for-profit business interests that are in debt to foreign banks (and quite possible the Russian government -- we don't know as we haven't seen a full disclosure or tax returns). And never mind about GHW Bush's Points of Light Foundation or Bob Dole's marital connections to the Red Cross in 96. They were Republicans, after all.
2
Before she "risks being tainted"? She is already well tainted.
8
Corrupt Clintons. What else is new besides the media's collusion in making the electorate believe we only have two choices a loud mouth and a corrupt queen!
4
Trump and his family should also cut ties to ALL of his businesses to demonstrate that he puts country first. The potential for conflicts of interest is enormous. And he should also divorce his foreign born wife. He is probably ready for a trade-in anyway, so that might not be much of a sacrifice.
1
The Clinton Foundation exists to personally monetize public office.
Its record of charity is opaque if it exists at all. This get-rich scheme is not laudable, and its innumerable conflicts with public policy call into question Ms. Clinton'so suitability for any public office.
Its record of charity is opaque if it exists at all. This get-rich scheme is not laudable, and its innumerable conflicts with public policy call into question Ms. Clinton'so suitability for any public office.
6
Raised more than two billion!
And most of it for everyone but Americans. And people wonder why globalism is unpopular. They benefit while our own starve. It's criminal.
And most of it for everyone but Americans. And people wonder why globalism is unpopular. They benefit while our own starve. It's criminal.
5
Bill & Melinda Gates donated more than $20 billion of their money to their foundation, almost all of it to be spent abroad. You have a problem with that?
3
DailyKos does a much better job of reporting all sides of various issues. And it's way to the left. Here you go with some facts:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/08/23/1562841/-What-the-media-doesn-t...
"What the media doesn't know about the Clinton Foundation could sink the Titanic"
Of course, you've made up your mind, so facts don't matter. But please go over and read the whole article. Here's an extract:
""the Clintons never took a nickel out of the foundation ... In fact, they gave a million dollars. .... the foundation negotiated prices to lower malaria [drugs] to cents. ... at Charity Watch they have a five star rated charity. You can't get a higher rating for a charity."
""So the Clinton Foundation was, a, taking no money for the Clintons, raising money from rich people and giving it to poor people .... And all of a sudden, the press has decided that we're going to go after this and shut it down. And you know what, you are probably going to be successful. There will be people that are going to die because of this."
""Everything that I have been associated with Bill Clinton with, the three things I'm most proud of," Carville said, "first, he stopped the genocide in Bosnia. Second, the human genome project of which my kids and grandkids will forever thank him for. And third is the Clinton Foundation.""
Of course, like any massive effort there have been failures and some of them too close for comfort.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/08/23/1562841/-What-the-media-doesn-t...
"What the media doesn't know about the Clinton Foundation could sink the Titanic"
Of course, you've made up your mind, so facts don't matter. But please go over and read the whole article. Here's an extract:
""the Clintons never took a nickel out of the foundation ... In fact, they gave a million dollars. .... the foundation negotiated prices to lower malaria [drugs] to cents. ... at Charity Watch they have a five star rated charity. You can't get a higher rating for a charity."
""So the Clinton Foundation was, a, taking no money for the Clintons, raising money from rich people and giving it to poor people .... And all of a sudden, the press has decided that we're going to go after this and shut it down. And you know what, you are probably going to be successful. There will be people that are going to die because of this."
""Everything that I have been associated with Bill Clinton with, the three things I'm most proud of," Carville said, "first, he stopped the genocide in Bosnia. Second, the human genome project of which my kids and grandkids will forever thank him for. And third is the Clinton Foundation.""
Of course, like any massive effort there have been failures and some of them too close for comfort.
6
Can we just once acknowledge that the Clinton Foundation does a lot of good, that it is a charitable foundation that has helped millions of people?
It seems more than unfair that the only use the press (I hesitate to label the NYT as gutter, but in this case it debases the conversation along with all the rest) can find is to look for more dirt when the very basis of this effort is to help people.
And it has helped millions of people.
It seems more than unfair that the only use the press (I hesitate to label the NYT as gutter, but in this case it debases the conversation along with all the rest) can find is to look for more dirt when the very basis of this effort is to help people.
And it has helped millions of people.
9
Any realistic discussion of the Clintons' foundations requires setting aside the blanket cover statement: "Aren't they helping people"? Certainly, past infamous mobsters, who wisely engendered goodwill in their home communities by charity, were not allowed to defend their illegal activity by showing libraries and baseball diamonds named in their honor. There are quite a few infamous and deposed dictators who played the same game.
There also has to be careful consideration of the the "odd jobs" that former President Bill Clinton has picked up along the way. For example, he was the chancellor of a questionable for profit international university--just as for profit universities in the US were coming under scrutiny.
Bill Clinton entered the corrupt world of FIFA just in time to see some remarkable events occur as well. At least coincidental with his entry into the bids for the Cup as the US representative, the worst venue to date was chosen (Qatar) and the Blatter dynasty imploded. Was he a catalyst?
There is also the question of motive. Is his interest in "good works" tied to free plane rides--planes owned by questionable figures. This is covered well in this article: https://newrepublic.com/article/114790/how-doug-band-drove-wedge-through...
Finally a question: If the foundations are doing so much good (as he claimed at the 2012 DNC), why isn't the answer that the family give up elected politics?
There also has to be careful consideration of the the "odd jobs" that former President Bill Clinton has picked up along the way. For example, he was the chancellor of a questionable for profit international university--just as for profit universities in the US were coming under scrutiny.
Bill Clinton entered the corrupt world of FIFA just in time to see some remarkable events occur as well. At least coincidental with his entry into the bids for the Cup as the US representative, the worst venue to date was chosen (Qatar) and the Blatter dynasty imploded. Was he a catalyst?
There is also the question of motive. Is his interest in "good works" tied to free plane rides--planes owned by questionable figures. This is covered well in this article: https://newrepublic.com/article/114790/how-doug-band-drove-wedge-through...
Finally a question: If the foundations are doing so much good (as he claimed at the 2012 DNC), why isn't the answer that the family give up elected politics?
21
Boy, rarely have I seen so much speculation, innuendo, and examples of the logical fallacies of "Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc" and "Post Hock Ergo Propter Hoc" (happening at the same time, therefore causal, and happening before, therefore causal). Correlation does NOT imply causation to anybody trained in critical thinking. As a young child, I remember my family driving by a house on fire. It was surrounded with red trucks and men in strange uniforms spraying liquid on the fire. Until I was old enough to understand what a fire department was and did, every time I saw one of those big red trucks I was scared that it was coming to burn down my house.
I soon grew out of that level of "reasoning." Unfortunately, especially on the fringe right now rebranding as the Alt-Right, all too many people never learned the lessons of formal and informal logical fallacy and their "thinking" is replete with these sorts of fallacies.
I soon grew out of that level of "reasoning." Unfortunately, especially on the fringe right now rebranding as the Alt-Right, all too many people never learned the lessons of formal and informal logical fallacy and their "thinking" is replete with these sorts of fallacies.
2
"A wiser course would be to ban contributions from foreign and corporate entities now. If Mrs. Clinton wins, Bill and Chelsea Clinton should both end their operational involvement in the foundation and its affiliates for the duration of her presidency, relinquishing any control over spending, hiring and board appointments."
Great. At what point will the NY Times require equivalence from the GOP nominee?
When will Donald Trump's children be required to sever THEIR relationships with Trump's business enterprises? Especially in light of the numerous financial entanglements that DJT appears to have with Russian and Chinese investors and the apparent tainting of Trump's stance on support for our NATO allies?
Goose? Meet Gander.
Great. At what point will the NY Times require equivalence from the GOP nominee?
When will Donald Trump's children be required to sever THEIR relationships with Trump's business enterprises? Especially in light of the numerous financial entanglements that DJT appears to have with Russian and Chinese investors and the apparent tainting of Trump's stance on support for our NATO allies?
Goose? Meet Gander.
9
The difference is, Donald Trump will not become the president. However the Clinton family will move into the White House in just a few months and they will continue their corrupt connections with the powerful and the rich. And that is a really big difference
1
There are rules, standards, and regulations already in place for the President to follow. I'm sure that whomever gets into the White House will have to follow these standards, the "whomever" being of course, Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton.
1
I thought there were rules, regulations, and perhaps even laws to prevent this for the President of the USA.
What I find most surprising is how this editorial board justifies the Clinton Slush Fund. They see the Clintons playing by their own rules and are fine with it.
The larger question is: should American politicians also run charities and foundations while serving the public? If you believe that money is a corrupting influence in politics (like this editorial board does - sometimes!), then the answer is clearly no. I don't know what the Clinton Foundation does with its "contributions" and I don't want to know. This is a time of choosing for the Clintons and the American public. If Hillary wants to go fight AIDS in Africa or whatever, then by all means. If she wants to build infrastructure in South America to provide clean drinking water and whatnot, then great. But if she wants to be POTUS then she needs to close this charity down and work for the American people exclusively. Barring only certain donations is not the answer. Having her friends and cronies run the foundation for her and her family is not the answer.
Recently released emails show that "pay-to-play" was indeed in effect at the Clinton Foundation. For this editorial board to pretend otherwise is an abdication of the Truth and their journalistic responsibility to speak it to Power.
The larger question is: should American politicians also run charities and foundations while serving the public? If you believe that money is a corrupting influence in politics (like this editorial board does - sometimes!), then the answer is clearly no. I don't know what the Clinton Foundation does with its "contributions" and I don't want to know. This is a time of choosing for the Clintons and the American public. If Hillary wants to go fight AIDS in Africa or whatever, then by all means. If she wants to build infrastructure in South America to provide clean drinking water and whatnot, then great. But if she wants to be POTUS then she needs to close this charity down and work for the American people exclusively. Barring only certain donations is not the answer. Having her friends and cronies run the foundation for her and her family is not the answer.
Recently released emails show that "pay-to-play" was indeed in effect at the Clinton Foundation. For this editorial board to pretend otherwise is an abdication of the Truth and their journalistic responsibility to speak it to Power.
27
Er, not to burst your alternative reality bubble, but getting access is not enough. There must be a direct quid-pro-quo tied to both parties and provable beyond a reasonable doubt (no other reasonable explanation, like the fact that Clinton saw something like 1,500 foreign people during her years in the State Department (when she was not participating in the Foundation) and there is NO evidence that she made so much as a dollar from any of the Foundation's charitable works. But, then, when you live in the wingnut alternate universe, reading and listening to only those voices who reinforce your confirmation bias, facts are merely inconvenient things to either be ignored or discredited (usually by attributing them to the "librul" media).
2
Please note the release was by the FBI which has had these emails all along !!!! Wonder whether they are holding back more for timely releases for political reasons. I would like to talk about price and income tax statements ??? Mr Director !!! Are you now or ever been a member of the Republican Party ???
1
This is EXCELLENT advice. However, and I say this as a supporter, given their sense of entitlement, the tone-deaf Clintons will likely ignore it. Things will stay as they are, she will be elected, emails will continue to trickle in hinting at - but not necessarily confirming - impropriety, and we'll add 4-8 more years to the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" that has followed the Clintons like white on rice for almost 30 years.
Hillary needs to ditch her BAD idea to give her husband a role in her administration. Her team of "close advisors" needs to change as well. They are either afraid of being straight with her, or they are dumb as a box of rocks. If they were doing their jobs, things like the email debacle would've never happened. Huma Abedin -the closest of the "close advisors" obviously needs to go, as it seems she only feeds Hillary's sense of entitlement. Surely there is someone close to Hillary, who truly believes in her, who can step in and say, "Look, I know you had no bad intentions with XYZ events, but the public perceived your intentions as somewhat sketchy. Multiple sketchy perceptions add up. Going forward, you're going to check your sense of entitlement at the door and be a great deal more transparent. Now, I'll let that sink in while I go help Huma pack up her office. When I return, we'll strategize on ways to flip the public's perception to reflect who you really are. I'll be right back!"
Hillary needs to ditch her BAD idea to give her husband a role in her administration. Her team of "close advisors" needs to change as well. They are either afraid of being straight with her, or they are dumb as a box of rocks. If they were doing their jobs, things like the email debacle would've never happened. Huma Abedin -the closest of the "close advisors" obviously needs to go, as it seems she only feeds Hillary's sense of entitlement. Surely there is someone close to Hillary, who truly believes in her, who can step in and say, "Look, I know you had no bad intentions with XYZ events, but the public perceived your intentions as somewhat sketchy. Multiple sketchy perceptions add up. Going forward, you're going to check your sense of entitlement at the door and be a great deal more transparent. Now, I'll let that sink in while I go help Huma pack up her office. When I return, we'll strategize on ways to flip the public's perception to reflect who you really are. I'll be right back!"
8
Once again, the esteemed Editorial Board is late to the party.
Why is it that they join only when the drumbeats have become too loud to be ignored?
And why haven't they asked for the recusal of the Clinton family from Foundation affairs now since the imagery is still pay now for play later?
The sewage flowing from the Clintons is still sewage, no matter how it is dressed- and lawyered up.
Why is it that they join only when the drumbeats have become too loud to be ignored?
And why haven't they asked for the recusal of the Clinton family from Foundation affairs now since the imagery is still pay now for play later?
The sewage flowing from the Clintons is still sewage, no matter how it is dressed- and lawyered up.
34
Now, about the income tax statements ???
2
The Clintons have indeed personally benefitted from their "family foundation".....yes big financial gains. Where are those Wall St speech transcripts hmmmm? Why so secret if everything is A-OK? The Clintons are 21st Century Carpetbaggers who did nothing for Arkansas, NY state or the USA. We need to stop pretending otherwise while we still can.
25
Where are Trump's tax returns?
4
What ties the Wall Street speeches to the Clinton Foundation or the Clinton Family Foundation (two separate entities)? You have given no actual verifiable or falsifiable facts, only your opinion, accepted as some sort of revealed truth.
BTW, where are Trumps real medical records? And what about his taxes? Even Richard Nixon released his taxes despite being under audit. All Trump has to do is release his first two 1040 pages & his Schedule A (charitable contributions) & we will only see what he earned, what tax rate he paid, & what he gave to charity. None of this affects the information the IRS may or may not be auditing.
For that matter, the only "proof" Trump offers to show he is being audited is a letter written by his own lawyer. When the IRS audits somebody, they send a formal filing to him first. For some reason, Trump refuses to produce the only thing that would verify he is actually being audited (the IRS never publicly speaks about ongoing audits or the absence of audits). We have only Trump's and his attorney's word that he is even being audited at all.
So, c'mon Donald. Release your two 1040 pages and your Schedule A's for the last five years. It won't affect your audit.
Shall we apply the same standard the right likes to apply and assume there are many truly bad, if not totally illegal secrets you are trying to hide?
And how about an actual medical report - the doctor interviewed on TV who wrote your letter was self-contradictory and appeared a total loon.
BTW, where are Trumps real medical records? And what about his taxes? Even Richard Nixon released his taxes despite being under audit. All Trump has to do is release his first two 1040 pages & his Schedule A (charitable contributions) & we will only see what he earned, what tax rate he paid, & what he gave to charity. None of this affects the information the IRS may or may not be auditing.
For that matter, the only "proof" Trump offers to show he is being audited is a letter written by his own lawyer. When the IRS audits somebody, they send a formal filing to him first. For some reason, Trump refuses to produce the only thing that would verify he is actually being audited (the IRS never publicly speaks about ongoing audits or the absence of audits). We have only Trump's and his attorney's word that he is even being audited at all.
So, c'mon Donald. Release your two 1040 pages and your Schedule A's for the last five years. It won't affect your audit.
Shall we apply the same standard the right likes to apply and assume there are many truly bad, if not totally illegal secrets you are trying to hide?
And how about an actual medical report - the doctor interviewed on TV who wrote your letter was self-contradictory and appeared a total loon.
1
Although it goes without saying that a yuge conflict of interest does not even begin to describe this whole situation, I would like to know not how much money the Clinton ´foundation' raised or even what was meant to achieve but rather what has been in fact achieved.
9
Income tax, please, Donald ???
2
And I would like to know how many hundreds of millions (or billions) Trump is indebted to foreign investors (including China, Russia, and many Arab nations) for ongoing project that are solely to enrich him. Nobody has yet to be able to prove the Clintons benefited financial from the CF. Trump, OTOH, is ONLY involved in his international projects to enrich himself. Talk abot the Mother of All Conflicts of Interest.
1
Who benefited the most? The poor and sick around the world!
How did it affect our country? Zilch.
It is the penchant of modern media to focus on non-consequential things!
How did it affect our country? Zilch.
It is the penchant of modern media to focus on non-consequential things!
9
ya gotta wonder just how naive the NYT E/B wants its readers to appear.
in the context of what occurs everyday around the world,
the Clinton Foundation is likely in the upper tier of actors behaving nominally well.
lots of unnecessary smoke for sure, but not much fire, and fewer injuries than the natural nah-sayers wish.
..."if we could just get to the bottom"...
ahem.
apparent success in any field seems to bring-out the disenchantments of many.
every time
every where
with no mechanisms to achieve any lasting and acceptable reconciliation.
more often tempests in teapots rather than teapot domes
in the meantime,
our recent history gives us:
president-for-life Cheney wheeling and dealing with his cronies at Halliburton and holding secret white house meetings with energy producers,
RR's Iran/Contra debacle and the Beirut Barracks Bombing,
RMN's legendary befuddlements.
((too few characters allowed herein to do justice to a more comprehensive listing.))
from the Founding Fathers onward,
entanglements to private life activities,
before - during - and - after public-service have been a common thread.
these statements in no-way reduce the need for the Clintons to be far more forthcoming, informative, and transparent than their collective behaviors to date.
and,
most certainly if HRC is elected,
total severance from and distancing away will be required.
until then:
perhaps we should pause and consider how our current President Obama is a most unique and remarkable man.
3
But income tax statementS, Donald ???
2
I believe that every significant government official at all levels of government should establish a family foundation that excepts donations to advance causes that each government official feels are important. I believe that given the importance of most government officials, even police and regulatory enforcement personal, this would lead to vast billions of additional funds being donated for charitable purposes here in America. That would truly be an admirable achievement and a tribute to the brilliant precedent set by the Clintons who took a mere Presidential Library fund and grew it to so much more.
4
The Clintons have always been about money and making as much money as possible. They are also an extremely power hungry couple who will do anything and use anyone to achieve their ends.
It was not widely reported but Bill Climton was hired in 2010 to be the chancellor of the Laureate Network, the world's largest university network. Mr. Climton and his friends were hired to promote the university and some of the investors were Henry Lravis, George Soros and Steve Cohen. Mr. Clinton was paid to promote the university in Malaysia, Peru and Spain. The university had an annual revenue of $4 billion by January 2014 far larger revenues than received from Trump University. The Clintons had received $16.5 million in income from Laureate University.
This is important information to know as the Clintons do not do a thing without receiving a monetary reward. If this was about Donald Trump, it would have been reported 24 hours seven days a week. The Clintons are sleazy and dishonest people whose only goal is to get back into the White House by any means possible honestly or dishonestly.
Donald Trump may not be the best presidential candidate out there, but he is preferable to crooked Mrs. Clinton and her husband Bill. They are two of a kind and not very nice people. They do not deserve to win the presidency.
It was not widely reported but Bill Climton was hired in 2010 to be the chancellor of the Laureate Network, the world's largest university network. Mr. Climton and his friends were hired to promote the university and some of the investors were Henry Lravis, George Soros and Steve Cohen. Mr. Clinton was paid to promote the university in Malaysia, Peru and Spain. The university had an annual revenue of $4 billion by January 2014 far larger revenues than received from Trump University. The Clintons had received $16.5 million in income from Laureate University.
This is important information to know as the Clintons do not do a thing without receiving a monetary reward. If this was about Donald Trump, it would have been reported 24 hours seven days a week. The Clintons are sleazy and dishonest people whose only goal is to get back into the White House by any means possible honestly or dishonestly.
Donald Trump may not be the best presidential candidate out there, but he is preferable to crooked Mrs. Clinton and her husband Bill. They are two of a kind and not very nice people. They do not deserve to win the presidency.
22
Seems like the well documented facts as always is furnished by the Donald, doesn't it ???
2
How is it that crooked Donald Trump superior to Hillary Clinton.
Trump has been part of scams ranging from Trump University to various failed condominium projects; has stiffed workers and vendors; he has avoided paying federal taxes; he has dealt with Russian oligarch in what appears to have included money laundering and pay to play that would leave potential President Trump beholden to Vladimir Putin.
Trump has been part of scams ranging from Trump University to various failed condominium projects; has stiffed workers and vendors; he has avoided paying federal taxes; he has dealt with Russian oligarch in what appears to have included money laundering and pay to play that would leave potential President Trump beholden to Vladimir Putin.
2
Wait til you see the TRUMP income tax statements for ANY year ??? Talk about openness !!!
2
Cutting Ties to the Clinton Foundation? Any expectation that this could be done in fact borders on fantasy given the history of Bill and Hillary.
26
No seems like the wish of the Republicans as a distraction of course !!!
1
You want a fantasy ??? Try Trump revealing his taxes on income, bankruptcies etc.???
1
Once again much ado about nothing You raise the question of favors when there is absolutely no evidence of any favors. Just the media run wild again. Same for the crap today about weiner's sickness "clouding" the campaign. How, other than a writer speculating. Utter stupidity.
6
No evidence?
Then you haven't been reading the news, libtemtex.
In the law, it is called willful ignorance.
Then you haven't been reading the news, libtemtex.
In the law, it is called willful ignorance.
4
It is hard to understand how smart people could not see the wisdom of of doing what your editorial board is recommending (A wiser course would be to ban contributions from foreign and corporate entities now.), back when the announcement of separating from the foundation was made. I am a Clinton supporter but I was stunned they did not just end their involvement immediately. Why wait? It speaks to me of their sense of entitlement and their real inability to see clearly the dangers of "appearing to sell access" for contributions even if that was never intended. It helps me understand why some people simply have concluded Hilary is untrustworthy. I do not believe that, but I have concluded smart people can often make dumb decisions.
9
They are not allowed to the Clinton Foundation under the charitable filings that the IRS has given the Clinton Foundation.
Needless to say, that hasn't stopped the Clintons from soliciting them, and the Clinton Foundation from accepting them...
And they even lied about them on their taxes for several years running ...calling it "an accounting error"
Needless to say, that hasn't stopped the Clintons from soliciting them, and the Clinton Foundation from accepting them...
And they even lied about them on their taxes for several years running ...calling it "an accounting error"
2
Now lets get to the lie about being a supporter of WHO !!!
1
Personally I wouldn't mind seeing the Clinton Foundation, and ALL foundations, closed down because they are simply tax havens to hide wealth and for the wealthiest to play "masters of the universe". But to go after The Clinton Foundation alone is preposterous - a little like singling Martha Stewart out for a few thousand dollars of "insider trading" while allowing other financial robber barons to steal Trillions of our taxpayer and 401K dollars with no consequence.
It's just another witch hunt and a waste of OUR money, which funds Congress and supposed "non-profit" tax free democracy destroying organizations. The only way we will stop it is to remove democracy-destroyers from every level of government in elections for the next 40+ years and stop participating in any way to the lies-hate-anger-fear-war crowd. We must puncture their hot air rhetoric bag and reduce them to a puddle of muck.
It's just another witch hunt and a waste of OUR money, which funds Congress and supposed "non-profit" tax free democracy destroying organizations. The only way we will stop it is to remove democracy-destroyers from every level of government in elections for the next 40+ years and stop participating in any way to the lies-hate-anger-fear-war crowd. We must puncture their hot air rhetoric bag and reduce them to a puddle of muck.
6
If Hillary were truly committed to the betterment of humanity she would remain at the Clinton Foundation, where her charitable work cuts through government bureaucracies and partisan politics. No question the Clinton Foundation delivers- plain and simple. Yet Hillary's running for President only confirms my suspicions; that the Oval Office is the last punch on her political ticket- It's vindication and redemption from all those who opposed her along her path, it's an in your face sweet victory on the outside and a shallow and vain ego stroke on the inside. Sorry, but that's a terrible reason for wanting to become President, until Hillary articulates hers' [which she has never done] then that's what I'm going with.
6
Between this and the Anthony Wiener issue, what shows up most often is some of the brightest and most talented politicians seem to have a fatal flaw. With the Clintons, it's well-known they have the experience and political brass, but lack the humility and common sense to figure out why they're not very trusted.
Hillary should immediately cut ties with Wall Street, the foundation and apologize for her email server. Instead, she is insulted from common sense by a group of highly trained attorneys and aides, all of whom think apologizing shows 'weakness' ;her image is in a constant state of damage control. Middle america views this as cold and out-of-touch. Sometimes, simple is better, and just coming out in the open about everything is OK, especially against an opponent like Trump
Instead we will be privy to more obfuscation, more dancing around the issues with well-tested messages, and more cluelessness on 'why don't people like me?'
Hillary should immediately cut ties with Wall Street, the foundation and apologize for her email server. Instead, she is insulted from common sense by a group of highly trained attorneys and aides, all of whom think apologizing shows 'weakness' ;her image is in a constant state of damage control. Middle america views this as cold and out-of-touch. Sometimes, simple is better, and just coming out in the open about everything is OK, especially against an opponent like Trump
Instead we will be privy to more obfuscation, more dancing around the issues with well-tested messages, and more cluelessness on 'why don't people like me?'
6
Now, about Donald's income tax statements ???
1
For all their supposed political savvy, the Clintons sure are tone deaf on this one. Why are they even hesitating to cut ties to the foundation? It's the only right thing to do.
Another self-inflicted wound.
Another self-inflicted wound.
7
For very astute politicians, the Clintons are the most careless and out of touch in mainstreet politics. What are you waiting for Hillary, cut it off already. No more hesitation nor postponement. DO IT NOW!
11
It's the famous, oft-used-and-ill-advised Hillary Hesitation.
3
arrogance is a vice. She truly believes the law doesn't apply to her, and it doesn't. Last week the Navy sent a sailor to prison for doing a fraction of what Hilary did with her private email server.
4
Right, Hillary, get the Russians to release the Donalds income tax statements for the past ten years ???
The Clinton Foundation is not a business. It is a non-profit charity. The Clinton's 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 Clinton 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.
If, nevertheless, it is argued that The Clinton 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.
9
Foundation like this are the wave of the future, as our corrupt politician loss their office, they will find ways like this to keep the campaign contributions flowing. It's all about access.
It's time to BAN all this fountain, 401c, so called non-profit, if we can't track where the money comes from and where it goes. While we are at it, it's time to tax all church and cults these are nothing more then another tax scam, any thing to get out of taxes is what they all have in common
It's time to BAN all this fountain, 401c, so called non-profit, if we can't track where the money comes from and where it goes. While we are at it, it's time to tax all church and cults these are nothing more then another tax scam, any thing to get out of taxes is what they all have in common
6
More sad attempts to gin up Clintonian scandal to show "fairness" in coverage between Clinton and Trump. How horrible, they raise money for charity from some of the people who THEY WOULD TALK TO ANYWAY.
3
Trump is upset that the $100,000 he gave the Clinton Foundation went to do good for others (women's issues, HIV drugs, etc.) and he did not get to "play" with her. Question for Trump - what were you hoping to get in return for your $100,000? You're obviously not interested in the common good - only the selfish good.
Oooo! How dare Hillary use her position to help those in need around the world instead of enriching herself!
As for the overly expensive speeches she gave to Goldman Saks and other Wall St groups, I say good for her. She managed to "play" them for suckers.
Trump is the one with the most serious conflict of interest - excluding the Russian connection - his businesses, through his kids, would certainly profit hugely from deals he makes from the oval office.
Oooo! How dare Hillary use her position to help those in need around the world instead of enriching herself!
As for the overly expensive speeches she gave to Goldman Saks and other Wall St groups, I say good for her. She managed to "play" them for suckers.
Trump is the one with the most serious conflict of interest - excluding the Russian connection - his businesses, through his kids, would certainly profit hugely from deals he makes from the oval office.
10
Ok. I agree. Now let's see an article or editorial about how Donald is using the presidential campaign to build his public persona for financial gain (and how his companies are billing for services provided to the campaign), using the campaign to build a present or future media empire, as well as how he will segregate himself from his business holdings should he win the White House (tho he would probably prefer to maintain his NY digs).
Oh, I forgot...he is campaigning for Donald Trump and really has given no thought to the actual job.
Oh, I forgot...he is campaigning for Donald Trump and really has given no thought to the actual job.
7
Kind of late in the day for this realization, isn't it?
11
The NYT doesn't seem to keep up on the news very well.
Hillary's ties to the Clinton Foundation and the crass way she traded donations and Bill's speaking bribes for access to senior government officials has ALREADY tainted her campaign.
The NYT editors really should get out a little more. Perhaps they might want to actually read or watch material from organizations that still do news reporting.
Hillary's ties to the Clinton Foundation and the crass way she traded donations and Bill's speaking bribes for access to senior government officials has ALREADY tainted her campaign.
The NYT editors really should get out a little more. Perhaps they might want to actually read or watch material from organizations that still do news reporting.
26
Please explain to your readers why HRC should sever ties to the Clinton Foundation now, but did not need to do so when she was Secretary of State, meeting with many of the same potential donors, face-to-face, while on the US Government payroll. I'm sure there's an easy answer to that, but it's somehow eluding me.
22
I hope the editorial board realizes that had clinton taken all their advice she'd have been a female Bernie sanders. But you didn't endorse Bernie. Go figure
7
Pay for play is SOP in every aspect of our political system. It's ugly and wrong but it is our system and we the people can't pick and choose when it irritates us and when it's okay. We need clear law regarding conflict of interest and we need public financing of elections. We don't have either.
We have 2 insiders who are clearly elitist plutocrats running for President. Hillary Clinton isn't running against herself. She is running against an elitist plutocrat, Donald Trump pretending to be a populist. Something should be done about our broken system but until it is we still have to make a choice. Mrs. Clinton with all of her baggage is an easy choice.
We have 2 insiders who are clearly elitist plutocrats running for President. Hillary Clinton isn't running against herself. She is running against an elitist plutocrat, Donald Trump pretending to be a populist. Something should be done about our broken system but until it is we still have to make a choice. Mrs. Clinton with all of her baggage is an easy choice.
8
What the Clintons say and do have proven historically to be two totally different things and when caught Bill and Hillary obfuscate, deny, and outright lie to cover their tracks. The latest "cutting the ties to the Clinton Foundation" is merely a smoke screen for a secret diabolical plan to retain control through straw men and offshore bank accounts to park their personal proceeds from the family foundation.
Bill lied about Monica, Hillary lied about her e-mails, that leaves Chelsea next in line to take the next hit for the family.
Bill lied about Monica, Hillary lied about her e-mails, that leaves Chelsea next in line to take the next hit for the family.
4
As they say in Human Resources, "It's not the intent, it's the perception."
4
She got calls from Foundation contributors while Sec. of State. That is what the game is all about - access. The contributor had a client that was trying to find his or her way through a complicated Nation's Capital. He calls Hillary and she directs him to someone to talk to. The Contributor impressed the client that he knows the way through the city. With that there will be a big retainer. In addition the client gets a road map through the government to start a lobbying effort. Meanwhiles the little people in the world, the ones who have no job, need healthcare, cannot payoff a student loam - those people that represent the majority have no one to talk to except Sanders or Trump.
6
I'm a little person. I just called Trump two minutes ago. I'll let you know when he returns my call.
You sure don't need emails to prove influence peddling through that phony foundation. The records of the foundation itself is a who's who of money grubbing politicians from many different countries spanning decades, all the way back to Arkansas. The Clinton foundation has been an unreported scandal for years, now when these crooks should be outed, we get an apology instead.
Cronyism is okay if you are a democrat apparently.The Times is a two bit rag anymore, licking the Clinton's boots. Just how many members of the Times staff has also donated to the Clinton Foundation?
Cronyism is okay if you are a democrat apparently.The Times is a two bit rag anymore, licking the Clinton's boots. Just how many members of the Times staff has also donated to the Clinton Foundation?
14
In the absence of a "smoking gun email" (stay with me, we're not going to go off on a tangent about emails), to "prove" that a "favor" was given requires being able to prove a counterfactual -- for example, that if various Bahraini and Saudi interests had not been writing big checks to the foundation, the Clinton State Department would have been more willing to call those governments to account for their human rights abuses, their wink-wink, nod-nod attitude toward terrorists incubating on their soil, etc.
It's always going to be very difficult to prove a counterfactual like that, especially when you are talking about complex real-world decisions that always involve consideration of multiple factors.
However, the rules about conflicts of interest that we apply in many contexts -- for example, the conflict rules that lawyers must follow -- exist in part to address the "appearance of impropriety" and to draw lines to avoid situations where anyone might wonder what is motivating someone's decisions.
To what extent would it be possible to allow the foundation to operate but shield the Clintons from even knowing who is giving and how much? I must admit ignorance as to what aspects of the operation of a foundation like this are in the public record. I'm thinking of the equivalent of putting assets into a blind trust. Maybe it requires the foundation to specify that donations above $5000 (picking a random number) can only be accepted anonymously?
It's always going to be very difficult to prove a counterfactual like that, especially when you are talking about complex real-world decisions that always involve consideration of multiple factors.
However, the rules about conflicts of interest that we apply in many contexts -- for example, the conflict rules that lawyers must follow -- exist in part to address the "appearance of impropriety" and to draw lines to avoid situations where anyone might wonder what is motivating someone's decisions.
To what extent would it be possible to allow the foundation to operate but shield the Clintons from even knowing who is giving and how much? I must admit ignorance as to what aspects of the operation of a foundation like this are in the public record. I'm thinking of the equivalent of putting assets into a blind trust. Maybe it requires the foundation to specify that donations above $5000 (picking a random number) can only be accepted anonymously?
1
It was easy to track the quid pro quo of that former power couple, the Doles, with Bob plugging for sugar price supports, corn syrup, ethanol tax credits worth billions of dollars for Archer Daniels Midland, the Koch brothers, agribusiness in general, jobs to specific board members children and grandchildren - same w/ Bush. And Liddy's $200K as Red Cross head, $800,000 plus speech income. The bills and transactions were discoverable.
We've not seen or been directed to one specific example of HRC plugging a bill, handing a lucrative contract, giving a job to anyone
in return for Foundation or political contributions. We're listened ad nauseam to the blather about the uranium mine sale where Clinton had one vote out of nine, which was an irrelevant sale of a product everybody already buys as spent material from old Russian warheads.
Out of thousands of meetings held at State, it would have been odd if some had not included government representatives or individuals who contributed to the gigantic public charity which is the CF. Star power, good works, innovative programs and research, global reach, cross-collaboration of experts not usually seen in standard relief agencies...and 990's w/ expanded audits on-line.
We've not seen or been directed to one specific example of HRC plugging a bill, handing a lucrative contract, giving a job to anyone
in return for Foundation or political contributions. We're listened ad nauseam to the blather about the uranium mine sale where Clinton had one vote out of nine, which was an irrelevant sale of a product everybody already buys as spent material from old Russian warheads.
Out of thousands of meetings held at State, it would have been odd if some had not included government representatives or individuals who contributed to the gigantic public charity which is the CF. Star power, good works, innovative programs and research, global reach, cross-collaboration of experts not usually seen in standard relief agencies...and 990's w/ expanded audits on-line.
5
"If Mrs. Clinton wins, the foundation said it would stop taking contributions from foreign governments, except for contributions from Australia, Canada and a handful of European nations."
That sounds like the typical Clinton dodge, spin and denial, and jerk around. You know Bill will give his $200,000 speeches regardless of whether he is on the Board of the Foundation or not.
Please.
That sounds like the typical Clinton dodge, spin and denial, and jerk around. You know Bill will give his $200,000 speeches regardless of whether he is on the Board of the Foundation or not.
Please.
19
Face it. If a Republican candidate for president had done what Hillary Clinton has done with the Clinton Foundation, he or she would be hounded out of the race by investigating journalists who would leave no stone unturned to discover the facts of this vast play for pay scheme that has enriched the Clintons personally. The Times and other mainstream media need to do their jobs and dig out the truth. Or is that too much to ask for Clinton sycophants?
25
" he or she would be hounded out of the race by investigating journalists"....So where are Trump's tax returns? When you look at the Clinton Foundation and its finances (which is charitable, not for profit like Trump University) you are looking data that is already a layer or two deeper than anything Trump has thus far revealed. So yes, lets have a level playing field.
1
Shame on Bill C. for feeding starving babies, helping poor women make a living, and helping provide clean water. Why can't he just retire and paint pictures like George Bush? I'm outraged!
3
I am a life long dem, but it's time for a reality check. H clinton had the experience to know how these conflicts of interest would appear, how showing favors to the donor class would look. hence she knoew enough based upon her experience to avoid them. Instead she set up a private server in order to prevent the public from knowing what she was doing. her trusted aids working in dual functions give her plausible deniability as to what she designed the entire system to do. All of the events only make sense in this scenario. After too many coincidences they aren't coincidences anymore. Please. Ocams razor. The story makes sense only one way when you add together ALL the facts. it was done in order to hide a pay for play situation and keep it from the public eye. proving quid quo pro is another situation, but we don't vote based a conviction By a standard of reasonable doubt knowing the relevant facts it if walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quack likes a duck, and flies like a duck it's a duck. In order to believe it wasn't a pay for play situation requires one to believe a large number of low probability coincidences happening to the point of statistical impossibility
9
Ethics has never worried the Clintons. that is all I want to say.
23
I am surprised that the Editorial Board of the Times, without explanation, sweeps up Chelsea Clinton with the same broom it uses on her parents. Even more than our presidents, we want our judges to be--and appear to be--beyond the influence of others, except through transparent channels. Yet, Virginia Thomas, Justice Thomas's wife, with the help of undisclosed donors, founded Liberty Central, a 501(c)(4) organization, to lobby congress, get involved in elections, and generally oppose President Obama's agenda, even though that agenda has been repeatedly challenged in the courts. And that is OK. Virginia Thomas should not be required to surrender her career and right to be politically active because her husband became a Supreme Court justice. Chelsea Clinton is 36 years old. She likewise should not forfeit her career and the right to continue working at the Clinton Foundation, which by all accounts does wonderful work, if her mother is elected president. If Donald Trump is elected president, it will be very difficult to untangle his business interests from his public duties, but no matter how that is accomplished, his adult children, Ivanka, Eric, and Donald Jr., should not be required to quit their jobs at the Trump Organization.
3
The naïveté of this is overwhelming . Do you really think the Saudis gave $10 million to promote gay and gender issues? It's bribery ver. 3.0
20
This piece reads like an internal Clinton campaign memorandum, including a situational analysis and recommendations for an upcoming meeting of advisors.
22
Political Parties could not survive without influence peddling, so what’s all the excitement about.Is it wrong to use your influence to garner funds for Charitable projects,yes it is, especially when your a high official in Government. Charitable organizations have hired well paid personnel to run their charities &, here is where it becomes sticky.Non Profitable does not mean that those working for non profitable charities,do not live very well off the charities, that goes for those that establish the charities.Therefore,anyone who is influential in Government should not be running anything that is a magnet for billions of dollars, it is impossible to take out the influence factor & it’s impossible to prove someone of giving money to a charity, that he is looking for something in return.There are a thousand ways to cover up a government pay back.
The Times is absolutely correct, Clinton must distance herself from any involvement in the Clinton foundation. However. she should have done this when she entered Government, & it is probably too late to repair the damage, to a person that is constantly under suspicion for one thing after another.
Thank Goodness, that Trump is her opponent, which should help her to become President.
The Times is absolutely correct, Clinton must distance herself from any involvement in the Clinton foundation. However. she should have done this when she entered Government, & it is probably too late to repair the damage, to a person that is constantly under suspicion for one thing after another.
Thank Goodness, that Trump is her opponent, which should help her to become President.
4
Hey Bernie. You still don't care about those damned emails?
15
Corruption for Hillary Trump
and
Corruption for Donald Trump
Greed is the motivation for both Clinton and Trump.....and...devious ways of
satisfying a way to obtain more and more and more; is just the same :
and this motivation for more...to satisfy a need for more; just the same
for Donald Trump as for Hillary Clinton/
Luckily voters have an alternative:
Libertarians (actually the values of true Democrats and true Republicans)
Governor Gary Johnson and running mate Governor William F. Weld.
not greedy; successful two term Governors of New Mexico and Massachusetts
but....the Media is also greedy for Media Citizens United huge PacFunds
for Clinton and Trump...so the Media is really aiding and abetting what they
here decry...rather hypocritical don't you think....I do..
and
Corruption for Donald Trump
Greed is the motivation for both Clinton and Trump.....and...devious ways of
satisfying a way to obtain more and more and more; is just the same :
and this motivation for more...to satisfy a need for more; just the same
for Donald Trump as for Hillary Clinton/
Luckily voters have an alternative:
Libertarians (actually the values of true Democrats and true Republicans)
Governor Gary Johnson and running mate Governor William F. Weld.
not greedy; successful two term Governors of New Mexico and Massachusetts
but....the Media is also greedy for Media Citizens United huge PacFunds
for Clinton and Trump...so the Media is really aiding and abetting what they
here decry...rather hypocritical don't you think....I do..
3
Ramparts editor Warren Hinckle, who died recently: “What journalism is all about is to attack everybody. First you decide what's wrong, then you go out to find the facts to support that view, and then you generate enough controversy to attract attention.”
Sounds about right.
Sounds about right.
1
In an alternate world, the Clinton's would be congratulated for using their influence to a good cause.
Liberals must not be apologetic for seeing their leaders engaged in fighting global poverty and malnutrition. In fact we should applaud it and support it.
That the charity is named Clinton foundation betrays perhaps a bit of narcissism. But which influential leader does not have such characteristic?
I am proud of the great work the Clintons do for this country and the world. That is the narrative I stick to. I refuse to be influenced by an alternative narrative peddled by her opponents. That we even listen to such alternative narratives is the fault of us being liberal. We so much want to be perfect; to a fault by disavowing our leaders who do good.
Liberals must not be apologetic for seeing their leaders engaged in fighting global poverty and malnutrition. In fact we should applaud it and support it.
That the charity is named Clinton foundation betrays perhaps a bit of narcissism. But which influential leader does not have such characteristic?
I am proud of the great work the Clintons do for this country and the world. That is the narrative I stick to. I refuse to be influenced by an alternative narrative peddled by her opponents. That we even listen to such alternative narratives is the fault of us being liberal. We so much want to be perfect; to a fault by disavowing our leaders who do good.
4
Your narrative is right, the facts be damned, eh? I know from personal experience that it's difficult to accept that the lie you've believed for so many years is in fact a lie. But it is. The Clintons are not "good" people.
8
This infuriates me in a way little can, because it displays an appalling ignorance of philanthropy and it assumes the worst. Most funders (corporate and otherwise) have specific areas of interest and to say that others will just fill that space is beyond laughable. I have yet to see an opinion piece that's ever discussed who else is doing the same kind of work and on the same scale.
In the philanthropy world, we call attention to donors engagement--it isn't pay to play--it's an essential part of fundraising and anyone who knows anything about charity knows this. The Clintons have lent their profile to this organization to build it into an entity doing work no one else was doing. They have not profited from it, despite dark allusions. The bulk of their wealth comes from speeches and book deals, neither of which are controversial, unless your last name is Clinton. Meeting with heads of state is uncontroversial as well for a Secretary of State.
Our current Secretary of State's wife has a foundation, as does former President George Herbert Walker Bush--which he ran while in office and continued to run as his son George became the president and his son Jeb ran for president. The donors to their various charitable concerns are not named, while the Clintons have made donor names public and have a level of transparency that isn't matched by most foundations of its size. That is a fact, not hyperbole. This foundation's work is life-saving; it's not a vanity project.
In the philanthropy world, we call attention to donors engagement--it isn't pay to play--it's an essential part of fundraising and anyone who knows anything about charity knows this. The Clintons have lent their profile to this organization to build it into an entity doing work no one else was doing. They have not profited from it, despite dark allusions. The bulk of their wealth comes from speeches and book deals, neither of which are controversial, unless your last name is Clinton. Meeting with heads of state is uncontroversial as well for a Secretary of State.
Our current Secretary of State's wife has a foundation, as does former President George Herbert Walker Bush--which he ran while in office and continued to run as his son George became the president and his son Jeb ran for president. The donors to their various charitable concerns are not named, while the Clintons have made donor names public and have a level of transparency that isn't matched by most foundations of its size. That is a fact, not hyperbole. This foundation's work is life-saving; it's not a vanity project.
5
I wonder if you call Trump's associations something like "donor engagement". I realllllly doubt it.
4
I'm talking about the public charity, not the Clintons' family foundation. They have two and their private giving is directed to their family foundation, of which they are the only donors. The public charity is the one that has people up (laughably) in arms. Trump's family foundation is a conduit for other people's money and personal stinginess.
1
Has the liberal progressive side of the political spectrum learned anything lately? It is beyond naive and dumb to think this "charity" exists for an altruistic goal of helping all mankind. The foundation is a mechanism for first class travel, jobs for associates, and quid pro quo for contributors.
As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow the Clinton's will surely figure out a way of making a buck and amassing more power. Now you can go out to the Hamptons and eat cake with the elitists that envision a world that does not exist. Me, I have to get back to work to pay for all of this dreaming.
As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow the Clinton's will surely figure out a way of making a buck and amassing more power. Now you can go out to the Hamptons and eat cake with the elitists that envision a world that does not exist. Me, I have to get back to work to pay for all of this dreaming.
16
Why wasn't this done when she became Secretary of State? How could there not be a conflict?
I am a Hillary supporter, but they had to know how this would look.
I am a Hillary supporter, but they had to know how this would look.
11
Curious as the why the NYT doesn't similarly call for Trump to cut ties to his businesses??? At least we have access to the dealings of the foundation. We have zero knowledge of any potential conflict of interest issues involving his businesses and a potential presidency. Instead he is given a pass by merely saying that he would have his kids run his companies if he is elected. Bizarre.
7
And how about Colin Powell's Foundation? And that of George H. W. Bush? And Bush's service on the Carlyle Foundation while his son was president.
People treat the Clintons badly and one can only wonder if it is because they have adamantly attempted to help the poorer people of the world rather than the 1%--hence all the accusations to the contrary. It's the Karl Rove strategy--accuse someone who opposes you of doing what you do, and make the claim that they are the "corrupt" and "untrustworthy" and "bigoted" people...
People treat the Clintons badly and one can only wonder if it is because they have adamantly attempted to help the poorer people of the world rather than the 1%--hence all the accusations to the contrary. It's the Karl Rove strategy--accuse someone who opposes you of doing what you do, and make the claim that they are the "corrupt" and "untrustworthy" and "bigoted" people...
3
Did either President Bush cut ties to their foundation during their presidencies? Did Ronald Reagan?
The double standard at play here is obvious and a disservice to the voters.
The double standard at play here is obvious and a disservice to the voters.
6
What foundations? Presidents establish foundations after their years in office. That's why there is a Clinton foundation; you remember, Bill was President? So tired of wicked stupid people who can't tell the difference between before and after, private email address and private email server. How stupid do you think the rest of us are?
8
@JWL: did they make 125 million dollars from those foundations, and racked 2 billion dollars in 15 years for trafficking influence? (HRC 8 years at NY senator and 4 years as Sec of State - all the 12 years with a private SERVER.
5
Do your homework. The Bush foundation was in existence through two presidents Bush.
3
Old philosophical saying: As a being is, so it acts.
HRC acts sleazy in her financial maneuvers.
The NYT is right, the Foundations should shut down.
Should Mrs. Clinton win the election, she can restart the Foundation when her term of office is up.
HRC acts sleazy in her financial maneuvers.
The NYT is right, the Foundations should shut down.
Should Mrs. Clinton win the election, she can restart the Foundation when her term of office is up.
3
Josie, do you know anything about the Clinton Foundation? Have you any idea of the good it has done globally? Do you know this foundation gets an "A" rating. And are you aware that there has NEVER been an accusation of actual wrong doing? Research before you accept the dirt dished up by opponents.
2
Al Capone was very charitable to children in Chicago as well
5
Mr. and Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton are both lawyers who have relentlessly repeatedly violated the fundamental ethical obligation of a every lawyer to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. The Clintons barbarian gangster rampage scheme to convert their elected and selected public "service" in their quest for privileged palatial perch in the royal realm of corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch band of bandits.
The Clinton Foundation is their premiere organized crime family scheme for "earning" money and "buying" power. Neither Jesus nor Lincoln nor King earned much for giving speeches. The Clinton's are not worth a fraction of the $ 121 million that they have by their speeches. Chelsea Clinton is no worthy of respect and honor than any child who was smart enough to pick powerful wealthy parents.
Cutting ties to the Clinton Foundation at this late date is a charade. Chelsea and her scion prince son of a convicted felon father husband will not cut her ties. While their ill-gotten gains will carry their foul stench over everything that they touch forever. Scheme Clinton "has no sense of decency". The Clinton's are both pathological liars masters of black mass incarceration and black welfare deformation.
Remember Sister Souljah, Monica Lewinsky, Lani Gunier, Chris Stevens and the mass incarcerated black Americans!
The Clinton Foundation is their premiere organized crime family scheme for "earning" money and "buying" power. Neither Jesus nor Lincoln nor King earned much for giving speeches. The Clinton's are not worth a fraction of the $ 121 million that they have by their speeches. Chelsea Clinton is no worthy of respect and honor than any child who was smart enough to pick powerful wealthy parents.
Cutting ties to the Clinton Foundation at this late date is a charade. Chelsea and her scion prince son of a convicted felon father husband will not cut her ties. While their ill-gotten gains will carry their foul stench over everything that they touch forever. Scheme Clinton "has no sense of decency". The Clinton's are both pathological liars masters of black mass incarceration and black welfare deformation.
Remember Sister Souljah, Monica Lewinsky, Lani Gunier, Chris Stevens and the mass incarcerated black Americans!
24
2nd paragraph 4th sentence "Chelsea Clinton is no 'more' worthy..."
Another junior moment!
Another junior moment!
3
Shut it down. Or transfer it to Gates Foundation.
1
Where are the calls for Trump to liquidate all of his businesses? Why should a charitable organization, transparent in its finances and donors, be seen as a huge conflict of interest, while Trump's for-profit businesses, which also depend on foreign and domestic investors, be given a free pass?
10
He's already been bankrupt four times. I think Trump is only running for the financial benefit it brings.
1
"Cutting Ties to the Clinton Foundation"... It's a bit late for that, don't you think?
Trump is a buffoon, but Hillary represents the investor class, the top 1--no, the TOP .01 %, a few hundred families that control something like HALF of the world's wealth. Our system is corrupt and nothing will change because those families like it that way. Sure, she will throw us the occasional bone--like college tuition grants for those in need. But real change ain't coming.
Follow the money...
Trump is a buffoon, but Hillary represents the investor class, the top 1--no, the TOP .01 %, a few hundred families that control something like HALF of the world's wealth. Our system is corrupt and nothing will change because those families like it that way. Sure, she will throw us the occasional bone--like college tuition grants for those in need. But real change ain't coming.
Follow the money...
17
Maintaining careful boundaries is basic to good Ethics. Doing so requires vigilance and self-restraint.
All groups or institutions tend to perpetuate themselves. And they resist disbanding or limiting their reach. Yet no person, group or institution is so vital that it's work or goals cannot be accomplished by another.
The Clinton Foundation has become an Albatross in this election and will continue to dog the Clintons, should Hillary win. (I hope she will!)
It is time for the Clintons to step up and put the welfare of the nation above the blurred boundaries and appearance, if not actuality, of wrong doing.
Put the country first. Let go of what appears to be a family business. Which is interfering with our election and a Hillary presidency.
It's hard to let go. I know that. But do it for the welfare of this nation.
Thank you, in advance.
All groups or institutions tend to perpetuate themselves. And they resist disbanding or limiting their reach. Yet no person, group or institution is so vital that it's work or goals cannot be accomplished by another.
The Clinton Foundation has become an Albatross in this election and will continue to dog the Clintons, should Hillary win. (I hope she will!)
It is time for the Clintons to step up and put the welfare of the nation above the blurred boundaries and appearance, if not actuality, of wrong doing.
Put the country first. Let go of what appears to be a family business. Which is interfering with our election and a Hillary presidency.
It's hard to let go. I know that. But do it for the welfare of this nation.
Thank you, in advance.
7
Yes, the Clinton foundation has become an albatross; but only by the relentless attack of the conservatives.
In fact, can you think of anything liberals do, be it Clinton, Pelosi, or Obama that the GOP would not attack? As a matter of fact they even abolish their principles for the sole purpose of attacking liberals.
In fact, can you think of anything liberals do, be it Clinton, Pelosi, or Obama that the GOP would not attack? As a matter of fact they even abolish their principles for the sole purpose of attacking liberals.
1
By all accounts, the Clinton Foundation has done some marvelous work. But there should be no opportunity for donors to get favors from Hillary Clinton should she become President. Barring foreign donations and Clinton family involvement in operational activities while she is President is wise. Do we really want to have endless iterations of the "House Select Committee on the Clinton Foundation" while she is President, with Bill and Chelsea subpoenaed to testify?
10
This just utter nonsense. Any fair coverage of this non-issue would include the fact that every single member of Congress, every single state legislator and every single governor takes contributions for his or her campaign and thereafter takes calls and meetings from the contributors. That money is a direct pecuniary benefit to the candidate. Here, the Clinton foundation takes contributions that have no pecuniary benefit to either Bill or Hillary Clinton, but instead go to do good work throughout the globe. The people that Mrs. Clinton met with while Secretary of State are exactly the type of people she would have met with whether they had donated to this charity or not.
20
The problem is where does the "charitable" contribution end and the campaign contribution begin? Contributions to foundations are charitable and can be written off on one's taxes as such, contributions to campaigns can't. Foreign entities can't contribute to campaigns as the Clintons learned back in the nineties. But they can contribute to foundations.
Don't be so naive.
Don't be so naive.
6
In the 2014 Congressional election cycle, Republican-leaning dark money organizations (i.e., 501[c][3] charitable organizations that spend on political campaigns) raised and spent nearly $100 million. We don’t know who contributed to those organizations because the law allows the donors to remain anonymous – anonymous, that is, to all but the beneficiaries of the spending. Now who is being naïve?
If Sec. Clinton and the Clinton Foundation were at "arms length: while she was Sec. of State, why couldn't that same distance be kept if she became POTUS? The simple answer is that there was no arms length distance kept between the Secretary and the Foundation, just a gang of Clinton Groupies that served as intermediaries to offer a false image of distance between them. Poor Ms. Abedin, who paid your salary while you were simultaneously on the staff of the foundation and Sec. Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff at State?
So, Mrs. and Mr. America, the apparent choice is between a family that can't keep its hands clean and a man who is drowning in red ink - which is why he won't release his tax returns, and who talks about his alleged assets and not his liabilities.
However America got itself into this situation - and don't blame the "pols" because there were no deals in "smoke -filled rooms. American voters did it, but the lifeline is available as there are two competent people available who are running on the Libertarian and Green Party tickets. Don't say they are flawed in some trivial way when the alternative to either is to decide into which sewer one is willing to throw oneself.
So, Mrs. and Mr. America, the apparent choice is between a family that can't keep its hands clean and a man who is drowning in red ink - which is why he won't release his tax returns, and who talks about his alleged assets and not his liabilities.
However America got itself into this situation - and don't blame the "pols" because there were no deals in "smoke -filled rooms. American voters did it, but the lifeline is available as there are two competent people available who are running on the Libertarian and Green Party tickets. Don't say they are flawed in some trivial way when the alternative to either is to decide into which sewer one is willing to throw oneself.
10
No big special favors, no need to close down the foundation. Although, Hillary and Bill must distance themselves from it, after the election. Chelsea can keep her job, if she promises not to run for office, ever.
I'll believe a Clinton promise when pigs fly and I'm a Dem (at least by past voting behavior).
7
What a great scam! Does anyone really honestly believe that countries such as Saudi Arabia just “gave” them millions of dollars out of the goodness of their heart? With no expectations of some future favor(s)? Access alone is a “favor”. And do you continue to believe that there will be an email out there somewhere which says “because we gave you X Millions of dollars, we would like to see Y occur”. I mean you must really be naïve to think this is how money and influence works. As for the “great work” the fndtion does….hmmm…anyone really do an audit of them? Anyone know their expense ratio? Where do you think their $10mm in income comes from? How about Chelsea’s income? Or “their network of longtime political advisers, former administration officials and business partners.” I doubt they are doing this all for free. I think it’s great to found a non profit to “tackle” all of these “problems”, so many problems to tackle…what have they actually accomplished? Great article in the Time a while back on how virtually nothing was actually accomplished in Haiti and even worse, the Clinton fndtion took credit for another organization’s work! So yes, they really are “involved” in so many things…but accomplish precious little, save to enrich themselves in terms of money and being surrounded by other powerful people and govts…far from some altruistic fndtion. They never made or created anything to explain their wealth – they just peddled their influence. Disgusting.
17
Yeah, they have an excellent expense to services ratio, and they provide a public online searchable data base of everyone who is a contributor. And do you really think the crown prince of Bahrain, home port to the u.s. navy's 5th fleet needs to give a donation to get a meeting with the u.s. secretary of state? Like really?
3
I'll simply repeat what has been asked many times before by many people, liberals and conservatives alike - If the Clintons are so concerned about how their foundation would compromise HRC's potential presidency, why was it OK when she was Secretary of State? Wake up America. A diSTINKtion without much difference.
14
"False Alarms Show a Nation Quick to Fear the Worst"
This other headline on today's paper belongs here.
This other headline on today's paper belongs here.
4
Strongly disagree. I want to know if Trump's family is going to resign from his company so that he won't be entangled if he becomes president? How about being balanced in your editorials.
Also, the main goal of Trump is to make himself rich. The goal of the Clinton Foundation is to make the world a better place. Philanthropy and self-enrichment are not the same thing.
Even if Clinton did curry favors at the State Department, great! She used her influence to try to end poverty in Africa? Or to try to end AIDS? Seriously, what have YOU done today?
Also, the main goal of Trump is to make himself rich. The goal of the Clinton Foundation is to make the world a better place. Philanthropy and self-enrichment are not the same thing.
Even if Clinton did curry favors at the State Department, great! She used her influence to try to end poverty in Africa? Or to try to end AIDS? Seriously, what have YOU done today?
16
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!
17
Apparently it's fine for shady billionaires and dictators to make huge donations to the Clinton Foundation for access/consideration from the US government while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State but not as President? Disgraceful.
17
@ Paul. So here's what riles up HRC's supporters (among other things). In 1997, Colin Powell started a charity called America's Promise. It accepted very large donations from very large corporations. When Powell became Sec. of State, he did not shut the charity down, as some are now hollering for the Clintons to do with the CF. Instead he gave it to his wife, Alma, to run. Ken Lay of Enron (billionaires didn't come much more shady than Ken Lay) gave a *very* large donation to America's Promise, after which, the State Dept. intervened to help Enron with a business problem in India. The Powell's son, Michael, was Commissioner of the FCC when his father was SoS and his mother ran America's Promise. AT&T gave a very large donation to America's Promise and the FCC under W. Bush was, shall we say, lax in its regulation of telecom.
It's fair enough if your point is that we hate these kinds of conflicts and we should root them out of government. Fine. But don't go all apocalypse and the-sky-is-falling when Hillary Clinton is the subject, even though her Republican counterparts have done the same -- or much worse -- and no one ever uttered a peep. When that happens, we Hillary supporters conclude that a double standard is being applied, either because she's a woman or because of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Or perhaps because IOKIYAR.
It's fair enough if your point is that we hate these kinds of conflicts and we should root them out of government. Fine. But don't go all apocalypse and the-sky-is-falling when Hillary Clinton is the subject, even though her Republican counterparts have done the same -- or much worse -- and no one ever uttered a peep. When that happens, we Hillary supporters conclude that a double standard is being applied, either because she's a woman or because of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. Or perhaps because IOKIYAR.
1
Two wrongs don't make a right.
1
Cede the assets to the Gates/ Buffet initiative. They don't suffer the grifters' compulsion of the Clinton duo.
4
The editorial board once again comes in at the last available moment to offer a lukewarm, medium toasted, half decaf view on the horrendous conflict of interest and corruption of the Clintons. Perhaps in 2016, you might re-consider the 2003 Iraq invasion. the Viet Nam war, the drone war, the drone killings of US citizens, the lack of a public option in Obama Care. You are pathetic. I wish the board had both brains and guts. I hate you.
20
Down, kitty. Hate only hurts the hater.
2
There is an old Indian story of Ram: he liberated his wife Sita after defeating her captor Ravan. After assuming his throne with his wife, one laundryworker wondered if Sita had remained chaste. Ram said that while he had no doubts about his wife's chaste behavior, the KING SHOULD BE ABOVE ALL SUSPICIONS, FOUNDED or OTHERWISE. SO he abandoned her. Yes, it was unjust to Sita. I wold have preferred if he had just abdicated and live by the side of is wife. In any case, his rule that the Ruler must be above all DOUBTS still holds. Hillary, shut any links with the foundation. We need you more that what the foundation can do for others.
2
Personally, I don’t expect my elected representatives and leaders to be gods. I don’t expect them to fast in the desert for 40 days, commune with angels or die for my sins. I would just like them to be effective at governing a modern nation state so as to prolong our existence in this world.
4
". . . the foundation could do much more to distance itself from the foreign and corporate money that risks tainting Mrs. Clinton’s campaign."
Who cares if Mrs. Clinton's campaign is tainted? Oh, of course: the New York Times cares! She's their candidate!
I wonder if there is any other Danger (Carlos) that equally, unreasonably threatens to taint Mrs. Clinton's campaign?
Who cares if Mrs. Clinton's campaign is tainted? Oh, of course: the New York Times cares! She's their candidate!
I wonder if there is any other Danger (Carlos) that equally, unreasonably threatens to taint Mrs. Clinton's campaign?
7
Or another Carlos (Slim).
7
or 11 million Carloses who are already here and ready for round 2 of amnesty.
6
@ Blue. Didn't you post a while ago that you're a Dem? Hmm. Gotta be a little more circumspect when showing those true colors.
Bribing politicians, and other types of leaders, has been in practice since the time the human species decided they prefer, or were forced, to be ruled by either the strongest or smartest one among them. In the 50's and 60's in my neighborhood there was a candy store that was actually a "number joint". For people outside of Northeast cities, the number was a 3 digit number based on the outcome of the NYSE close or the WPS of a few horse races each day. Bet $1 win $600. It was illegal until most states legalized it. Back then the beat cop new what was going on at the candy store. People were lined up outside to get into the store. When you walked into the store there would be 2 or 3 baby ruths and a couple of hershey bars. However the cop received $200 a month to look the other way. This was before police unions and the police were not paid very well. The practice stopped when the police unionized, were finally paid a decent wage and had a pension. The $200 a month was no longer worth the loss of the job.
The current form of bribery will not be stopped as easily. Especially since the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of it with Citizens United and Governor McDonnell's case.
I find it very disappointing that the Times and other main stream media do not call the Foundation and the connection to politics what it really is.
The current form of bribery will not be stopped as easily. Especially since the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of it with Citizens United and Governor McDonnell's case.
I find it very disappointing that the Times and other main stream media do not call the Foundation and the connection to politics what it really is.
8
Looking forward to the editorial about Trump's and Trump's kids foundations and the money flowing back and forth between them. Have they revealed their donors lists? Do we know as much about Trump's finances and taxes as we do about the Clinton's? Let me help you with the second paragraph in this editorial. It should be shortened to "No." without further irresponsible speculation.
12
No, NYT, the ethical imperative is for you in the media to be calling for the Clinton Foundation to be shut down and investigated for fraud - of which it is obviously guilty; and for Bill and Hillary to be thrown in jail where they have belonged for decades.
But you have no ethics, so why should the Clintons? "Ethical imperative" HA! What a laugh! The NYT - and the rest of the media -have been enabling these crooks for decades, only now, when it seems that it could hurt their beloved Hillary's chances of becoming president do they start worrying about "ethics."
You liberals are so morally and ethically depraved that you can't even see the self indictment in your own pathetic attempts to cover up for this criminal you plan to endorse.
But you have no ethics, so why should the Clintons? "Ethical imperative" HA! What a laugh! The NYT - and the rest of the media -have been enabling these crooks for decades, only now, when it seems that it could hurt their beloved Hillary's chances of becoming president do they start worrying about "ethics."
You liberals are so morally and ethically depraved that you can't even see the self indictment in your own pathetic attempts to cover up for this criminal you plan to endorse.
15
Questionable practice or not, think of tie success of the Clinton Foundation in another way. How brilliant of the Clintons to hAve successfully established this entity and then devoted a large part of its endeavor to worthy humanitarian causes. There is an organizational brilliance at play here. Certainly a gain for the United States to have them on 'our team'. Experience in global affairs, government, politics,and social responsibility are all part of the Clinton package. It's the best we have this time around. I'm sure if we looked critically at any of the presidents of yore, especially the rich ones, we would find odious behavior and questionable practices. The bottom line is can they do the job. In this case Mrs.Clinton is a no brainer.
Her opponent represents inherited wealth, a somewhat questionable business career, which except for branding might not stand the light of day, contentious social policies, including a past history of racist business policies, no government experience or real knowledge of the world, and a hit first ask questions later personality.
All of the above makes the choice of Mrs. Clinton the only sane one this election presents.
Her opponent represents inherited wealth, a somewhat questionable business career, which except for branding might not stand the light of day, contentious social policies, including a past history of racist business policies, no government experience or real knowledge of the world, and a hit first ask questions later personality.
All of the above makes the choice of Mrs. Clinton the only sane one this election presents.
90
The Clinton "package" is responsible for much of our country's wealth disparity and the human suffering that goes with it.
3
Funny, but one thing that always struck me from the many Foreign Corrupt Practices Act read-ins I sat through at my old job was this. Working for a multinational we could be investigated and successfully prosecuted for "patterns of practices that gave the appearance of impropriety". In other words in our financial dealings with foreign regulators and businesses, I could be jailed for a pattern, not a finding of an act beyond a reasonable doubt. Wonder how much buying your way out of that costs on the Clinton price list?
13
Clearly, the editorial board at the NYT are also PR spokespersons for the Clinton Foundation.
"independent foundations"... I love a good oxymoron.
"independent foundations"... I love a good oxymoron.
16
Getting harder and harder to vote for this woman.
23
You imply that the Crown Prince, soon to be King of Bahrain, an important ally country of the U.S. needs to give the Clinton Foundation money to get a meeting with the U.S. Secretary of State? You can't really believe that. I mean like, "Hello."
3
Bahrain has a human rights record that would make most Americans weep. How on earth did Democrats get in the business of defending the worst of the worst on this planet?
If the KSA or Bahrain or another sordid government wants uranium, arms or some other scummy favor, they deliver to the person that calls the shots. Not the government at large.
If the KSA or Bahrain or another sordid government wants uranium, arms or some other scummy favor, they deliver to the person that calls the shots. Not the government at large.
7
Cutting Ties to the Clinton Foundation
It's too late!
It's too late!
9
Where's the beef? There is no evidence that shows any wrong doing. But once again,the NYT Editorial Board decides to wring its hands about a charity that has done a great deal of good. Why? Because this charity is linked to the Clintons. And any editorial or so-called news linked to the Clintons is clickbait. The NYT has given up all pretense of being a reputable news organization in its coverage of the 2016 presidential election. Where are the editorials about Trump's highly questionable business practices? Shameful!
4
There have been plenty, daily, The Times has been more than fair with Hillary.
7
"There is no evidence that shows any wrong doing."
Really ?
Major Clinton Foundation donor and Hillary fund raiser Claudio Osorio bilked US taxpayers out of $10 million. With Bill Clinton's assistance fraudulently obtained a loan from the State Department to build houses in Haiti. He wound up building none and is now in jail.
Clinton Foundation donors Richard Friedman, Marriott Hotels and Digicell formed a syndicate to build a hotel in Haiti. The hotel is up and is one big white elephant which is losing money and is never full. They don't care because the project was funded by a Hillary approved $200 million loan from the State Department. Will the loan ever be repaid ?
Then there is Hillary's brother Tony Rodham who has been quite active in Haiti. Do check him out.
There is plenty more . . . . .
Really ?
Major Clinton Foundation donor and Hillary fund raiser Claudio Osorio bilked US taxpayers out of $10 million. With Bill Clinton's assistance fraudulently obtained a loan from the State Department to build houses in Haiti. He wound up building none and is now in jail.
Clinton Foundation donors Richard Friedman, Marriott Hotels and Digicell formed a syndicate to build a hotel in Haiti. The hotel is up and is one big white elephant which is losing money and is never full. They don't care because the project was funded by a Hillary approved $200 million loan from the State Department. Will the loan ever be repaid ?
Then there is Hillary's brother Tony Rodham who has been quite active in Haiti. Do check him out.
There is plenty more . . . . .
7
Why and how would she cut the ties?? Bill may cut ties but they have already said that Chelsea would head the foundation if Hillary wins the election. That is not cutting ties. The only way is to dissolve the foundation but the damage has been done. It is becoming more and more evident that Hillary while Secretary of State used pay for play with the foundation and her position. Just released emails show Huma Abedin being the conduit for this activity and more emails to be released. No matter how much good is said to be done by this foundation other foundations would step in and take up the slack I am sure. This is a major problem for Hillary with no simple answer.
10
Let's review. According to the Times, the Clinton Foundation has, "pioneered initiatives ranging from fostering female-owned businesses in Haiti to lowering the cost of H.I.V./AIDS drugs in Africa. As the enterprise sprawled from water treatment to education to climate change."
The Times says that all three Clintons "got involved" in the foundation. But what the Times leaves out is that they are not being paid by the Clinton Foundation.
So this foundation that is doing amazing and truly important work around the world, this foundation that is non-profit, and that the Clintons are not earning big salaries for running or "getting involved" with, is supposed to cast a shadow over Ms Clinton's presidential campaign? How in the world?
The Times asserts that the foundation used its influence to get the crown prince of Bahrain a meeting with then-Secretary Clinton. Why in the world should the foundation have to set up the meeting? Surely, the crown prince of an important Middle Eastern country should be able to meet and talk with the secretary of state without anyone's intervention.
Once again, silly, baseless innuendo from the Times.
The Times says that all three Clintons "got involved" in the foundation. But what the Times leaves out is that they are not being paid by the Clinton Foundation.
So this foundation that is doing amazing and truly important work around the world, this foundation that is non-profit, and that the Clintons are not earning big salaries for running or "getting involved" with, is supposed to cast a shadow over Ms Clinton's presidential campaign? How in the world?
The Times asserts that the foundation used its influence to get the crown prince of Bahrain a meeting with then-Secretary Clinton. Why in the world should the foundation have to set up the meeting? Surely, the crown prince of an important Middle Eastern country should be able to meet and talk with the secretary of state without anyone's intervention.
Once again, silly, baseless innuendo from the Times.
106
The Times' coverage of the Clinton campaign has been irresponsible from the beginning. And the publication claims to support her. What is this weakness that allows the Times to be an apologist and concede to the GOP? The Foundation's finances have been perfectly transparent. And the Times perpetuates everything the Trump campaign dreams up! I'm done.
1
Yes it must. A core question though is do we really want a President that had no qualms about running the state department and using her position to attract contributions to her foundation from foreign nationals who represent their country with the United States.
The same holds true with using a private server that was not properly secured. Both of thes actions do not bode well for Hillary's judgement. If it wasn't for Trump she would not have a chance of winning the election. This in turn makes one wonder about his decision to run in the first place. Prior to this election cycle they had a personal relationship. Is this another Clinton scheme? ... http://lstrn.us/2aPxXxC
The same holds true with using a private server that was not properly secured. Both of thes actions do not bode well for Hillary's judgement. If it wasn't for Trump she would not have a chance of winning the election. This in turn makes one wonder about his decision to run in the first place. Prior to this election cycle they had a personal relationship. Is this another Clinton scheme? ... http://lstrn.us/2aPxXxC
8
The editorial contortions to avoid reporting blatant conflict ( or total synergy) of interests of the candidate , her spouse & her daughter make the author eligible to join the " final five" on the Olympic gold gymnastics team. Shameful disregard for the residual public of subscribers!
8
The Clintons had a chance to "clean" up their act prior to Hillary running for President AGAIN in 2016. But, of course, the Clintons can't seem to make the decisions to gain the ethical upper hand and place themselves, over and over, into ethically, and possibly illegal positions, primarily for money(#1) and power (#2).
This all boils down to Hillary's campaign dying by a thousand cuts. Most of them self-inflicted. She can't criticize Donald Trump, or his judgement, when this goes on. She can cut the ties to the Clinton Foundation but the damage is done.
What else is there that points to ethical challenges for Hillary? What can be attributed to her judgement? And then there's the newly released "Tick Tock Bengazi" email, in which her underlings list her "accomplishments" including being the prime decision maker in overthrowing Qaddafi and other mistakes, but written before the poor outcome.
It's too little too late. The NYT can do all it wants to try to put the cat back in the bag. It won't work. There is no return from this fresh hell of the Clinton's own making.
She can no longer run as the candidate of the good judgement. Not after this.
This all boils down to Hillary's campaign dying by a thousand cuts. Most of them self-inflicted. She can't criticize Donald Trump, or his judgement, when this goes on. She can cut the ties to the Clinton Foundation but the damage is done.
What else is there that points to ethical challenges for Hillary? What can be attributed to her judgement? And then there's the newly released "Tick Tock Bengazi" email, in which her underlings list her "accomplishments" including being the prime decision maker in overthrowing Qaddafi and other mistakes, but written before the poor outcome.
It's too little too late. The NYT can do all it wants to try to put the cat back in the bag. It won't work. There is no return from this fresh hell of the Clinton's own making.
She can no longer run as the candidate of the good judgement. Not after this.
14
She could shoot someone in Times Sq and still be the better candidate. This election is to weep.
The main problem in this editorial is the sentence near the end: "If Mrs. Clinton wins, it could prove a target for her political adversaries. " One lesson of the Clinton and Obama years is that the GOP has nothing positive to offer the US, and instead can only sabotage. No matter what Mrs. Clinton does, they will be hounding her non-stop. We face 4 or 8 years of "targets" by default, unless we don't allow it or ignore it.
1
All of this information was out there during the primaries. Why didn't we hear from the NYT editorial page during the primaries?
21
If governments ran properly for all the people , then there would be no need whatsoever for ''charity'' and as an extension ; corruption.
Think about it .
Think about it .
4
Sorry, Times, but plans have long been underway to divorce themselves from the foundation if Hillary is elected. By the way, did you ever investigate Colin Powell's Foundation?
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...
1
The amount of innuendo and "wink wink nudge nudge" here is staggering -- yuuuuge, even. Yet Trump's self-confessed buying of influence gets a pass. To Hillary I say "You go, girl!"
Joe Biden's late son wisely urged his father to run because "America doesn't need four more years of Clinton values".
Why did the NYT not run editorials like this during the democratic primaries?
And we should take great comfort that she hasn't been indicted?
Why did the NYT not run editorials like this during the democratic primaries?
And we should take great comfort that she hasn't been indicted?
25
Oh, what I wouldn't give for Joe Biden right now.
12
It's good to see that many of the Times readers have a more intelligent and clear eyed take on the Clinton Foundation than the NYT editorial board.
The GOP's "The Clintons are criminals! All we have to do is find a CRIME!" campaign has been going on for decades. That the New York Times would become an unwitting accessory to this barrage of innuendo is unsettling. That it would do so on the same day as their campaign reporters claim that
"Weiner's Texts Cast a New Cloud Over CLINTON CAMPAIGN"(?!?!?) Casts a a cloud over the Gray Lady's current editorial slant.
The Clinton Foundation has done much good and has been as transparent as any other charity of its size and scope.
Huma Abedin suffered public humiliation and has struggled to salvage her marriage to a brilliant politician who has been destroyed by his personal demons.
I am very disappointed in The New York Times today.
The GOP's "The Clintons are criminals! All we have to do is find a CRIME!" campaign has been going on for decades. That the New York Times would become an unwitting accessory to this barrage of innuendo is unsettling. That it would do so on the same day as their campaign reporters claim that
"Weiner's Texts Cast a New Cloud Over CLINTON CAMPAIGN"(?!?!?) Casts a a cloud over the Gray Lady's current editorial slant.
The Clinton Foundation has done much good and has been as transparent as any other charity of its size and scope.
Huma Abedin suffered public humiliation and has struggled to salvage her marriage to a brilliant politician who has been destroyed by his personal demons.
I am very disappointed in The New York Times today.
2
There is NO corruption, period!
3
See no evil
Hear no evil
Speak no evil
All is GREAT!
Hear no evil
Speak no evil
All is GREAT!
9
She'll follow your sagacious counsel on this just like she did when she released the transcripts of her Goldman $ach$ speeches. That's why she scores so well on honesty and integrity, right?
17
"Do the emails prove that donors got special favors? Not so far."
Not so far?? What is that supposed to mean? Does the NYT editorial board somehow know that they will in the future? Gimme a break.
Do the emails prove that Hillary is a child molester? Not so far.
Do the emails prove that Hillary committed genocide? Not so far.
Do the emails prove that Hillary is a cannibal? Not so far.
Not so far?? What is that supposed to mean? Does the NYT editorial board somehow know that they will in the future? Gimme a break.
Do the emails prove that Hillary is a child molester? Not so far.
Do the emails prove that Hillary committed genocide? Not so far.
Do the emails prove that Hillary is a cannibal? Not so far.
5
Does the investigation into Seth Rich's death prove that Hillary is a murderer? Not so far.
3
Clinton is, though imperfect, by far the superior candidate and the only one who can beat Trump. If you agree, please share this documented list of reasons to actively support her, read by 13,002: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/open-letter-sanders-supporters-scott-s-sm...
2
"NYT Graphic: At Least 110 Republican Leaders Won't Vote for Donald Trump."
The NYT published the above article in today's edition. Perhaps as a follow-up they can do some research on their candidate of choice and answer the question, how many Democrats won't vote for Hillary because of her foundation, her lies and her gross incompetence in dealing with America's secrets?
The NYT published the above article in today's edition. Perhaps as a follow-up they can do some research on their candidate of choice and answer the question, how many Democrats won't vote for Hillary because of her foundation, her lies and her gross incompetence in dealing with America's secrets?
8
A rattle snake has better chance of "changing its ways" that this pitiful couple!
10
Why not just admit that Hillary Clinton is corrupt but it doesn't matter to the NY Times and the Left.
20
The NY Times needs to disclose ITS "donations" to the Clinton Foundation, including its editorial board members and employees.
13
And oh Mr. Trump's business interests must be divested from him and Ivanka immediately before the election
2
"an ethical imperative" is the wrong term. An epistemological imperative is more to the point. If the NYTimes can't convince its readers to buy newspapers or buy the stuff that is on their website ads, then it will have to go all NPR on us, begging for money. So the truth is that money makes the world go round. NPR begs several times a year and despite being "public" now takes "ads". The ethics of whether to call yourself a "journalist" or a money beggar is really a matter of truth. All charities and NGO's beg for money. Many beg for money that pays big salaries to its executives, so only 20 cents on the dollar goes to good works. Those same "charities" are likely sponsors on many websites and newspapers. So, what if any does ethics have to do with it. If you actually want to do good works, you have to get the government to do it; pay of the recipient government to do it; or beg for money; or all that. The epistemological aspect is that you guys, on the verge of being all NPR-like are not telling the whole truth.
1
There may be no "fire" yet, but I'll bet you my last dollar that's because the "fire" is in the 30,000 deleted emails.
17
Where are the calls to shut down the Donald Trump Foundation or the Eric Trump Foundation? They exist. The Bush family had foundations when Jeb Bush was in the primary. They did not get any scrutiny. I am so sick of this double standard from the press.
110
Double standard?! Ever hear of the Clinton Global Initiative University? Probably not, but it exists.
1
Ed. Board is hedging when it says that no charges against Clinton re qui pro quo's and play for pay's have been proven,and that therefore they should be let off the hook. Reminded of a killing, a tragedy that ocurred far away and in a place distant from the Beltway, the kidnapping, torture and killing of Patrice Lumumba by right wing forces in Katanga which did not want its copper resources expropriated by the central government.It was obvious who was behind his death, but when int. minister Godefroy Munongo was accused of the plot, he replied,"Prouvez le!"Likewise for the crafty Clintons.You can't prove that Foundation was a money making scheme, that it gave the minimum to cure AIDS in Africa, and kept the bulk for themselves, but you know in your heart that that is the case.Worked 4 years in Africa as a volunteer, in Senegal, Ghana and Guinea Conakry, and never heard of the Foundation, and the people in these 3 countries sure could have used some help. Guinea is one of Africa's poorest nations, having been ostracized for its anti imperialist stance by De Gaulle shortly after independence, and cut off from Western help.
5
My biggest fear with the upcoming presidential election isn't that Trump will win, but that Clinton will screw it up and lose.They should not wait to see how it all plays out, but correct this situation today. It ain't over till it's over and it ain't over.
1
None of this impresses me when I compare this to the massive and obvious quid pro quo in the relationship between the NRA and the members of the GOP.
When all of them are willing to drop that relationship maybe I can begin to consider Hillary had any serious issue that might affect her ability to serve as president. I suspect she may have wanted donors to think they had access when in fact they did not.
When all of them are willing to drop that relationship maybe I can begin to consider Hillary had any serious issue that might affect her ability to serve as president. I suspect she may have wanted donors to think they had access when in fact they did not.
73
Deflect and place your head deeper in the sand. The uranium deal and other Clinton Foundation deals make your comparison embarrassing
4
Ah the old 'but they do it too' excuse.
My kids used to use that one.
My kids used to use that one.
3
It's time to cut the ties to America's dependence on dynasties. This is what happens. We don't need anymore Bushes or Clintons in politics and we don't need anymore pandering by the media. On Meet the Press this week Joy Ann Reid defended the Clinton foundation because the Bush Foundation influenced GWB - so you know, that makes it OK. It's astounding that the press is not attacking her more for this because the stuff highlighted here is mostly the good stuff - you didn't really even dip into the corruption of the Clinton Foundation, just that it's a target for her adversaries. Please stop watering down the damage done by this foundation and the moneyed interests in politics.
13
It's ok for an ex-president to start a charitable foundation. Unless his spouse is actively seeking public office -- particularly national. Then the opportunity for corruption and pay for play becomes obvious -- just as if a former VP started a foundation all the while actively campaigning for higher office.
Let's not be fooled by the foundation's good works. Of course it must do some good works or else its true purpose would be too obvious.
But the facts of the matter are pretty straight forward. According to the Clinton's, they were essentially flat broke when they left the WH. Somehow, without starting a business or working for one they have amassed a fortune of around $100 million. They have made huge amounts of money giving speeches to various entities. HRC set up her own e-mail server as SofS not for the convenience of needing just one device, but so she could keep from public scrutiny the contents of those e-mails. She only gave the e-mails over after the existence of her e-mail set up was discovered by the Benghazi committee. She then deleted 30k of them before handing anything over -- claiming they were about yoga and weddings. Now we find out -- not true.
The history of corruption and lying with the Clinton's goes back to Arkansas -- the cattle futures trades. We can no more believe that the Clinton's haven't benefited from the foundation and pay for play than we can believe Bill didn't have sex with that woman.
Let's not be fooled by the foundation's good works. Of course it must do some good works or else its true purpose would be too obvious.
But the facts of the matter are pretty straight forward. According to the Clinton's, they were essentially flat broke when they left the WH. Somehow, without starting a business or working for one they have amassed a fortune of around $100 million. They have made huge amounts of money giving speeches to various entities. HRC set up her own e-mail server as SofS not for the convenience of needing just one device, but so she could keep from public scrutiny the contents of those e-mails. She only gave the e-mails over after the existence of her e-mail set up was discovered by the Benghazi committee. She then deleted 30k of them before handing anything over -- claiming they were about yoga and weddings. Now we find out -- not true.
The history of corruption and lying with the Clinton's goes back to Arkansas -- the cattle futures trades. We can no more believe that the Clinton's haven't benefited from the foundation and pay for play than we can believe Bill didn't have sex with that woman.
17
Get real America. The Clinton family are powerful people and they attract powerful people as friends, accomplices and peddlers of influence, good or bad as it may be. Their foundation has influence to attract money to do good things and in a world of quid pro quo, tit for tat, wink-wink, nod-nod, the reverse holds just as true.
Consequently, all foundation activities, world-wide and in America, should be suspended until Ms Clinton loses or leaves the White House.
Consequently, all foundation activities, world-wide and in America, should be suspended until Ms Clinton loses or leaves the White House.
2
I would be very interested in reading an Editorial by the Times close to Election Day in the event Mrs. Clinton does not "achieve true distance from the foundation."
14
Me too.
4
Correlation is not Causation.
Republicans do not need a reason to attack, investigate, or hold hearings on Hillary Clinton. Republicans can just make one up. When nothing prevented Obama from winning, Trump went directly to racism and religious bigotry by accusing Obama of being a Muslim from Kenya.
Strangely Dick Cheney has escaped investigation. He chaired the Energy Task Force and promoted the Iraq war reaping billions in profits for the oil industry and preventing big oil from being held accountable for harm, like Fracking poisoning wells. His company Halliburton made Billions and no investigations?
Republicans do not need a reason to attack, investigate, or hold hearings on Hillary Clinton. Republicans can just make one up. When nothing prevented Obama from winning, Trump went directly to racism and religious bigotry by accusing Obama of being a Muslim from Kenya.
Strangely Dick Cheney has escaped investigation. He chaired the Energy Task Force and promoted the Iraq war reaping billions in profits for the oil industry and preventing big oil from being held accountable for harm, like Fracking poisoning wells. His company Halliburton made Billions and no investigations?
82
Hillary Clinton, for an extremely smart woman has made some extremely stupid mistakes. If she was smart (?), she would resign immediately from the Foundation. Unfortunately, it appears that she also lacks ethics.
America will sadly miss Mr Obama, he had both grace and smarts. If Hillary wasn't running against a bigger clown as well as totally unqualified, this would not even be a contest.
America will sadly miss Mr Obama, he had both grace and smarts. If Hillary wasn't running against a bigger clown as well as totally unqualified, this would not even be a contest.
2
an aspect of the obama era legacy will be the difficulty his administration has had with drawing lines of any kind....this one "between the foundation...and her (HRC) role," like all the others, seems, erased or obscured by any breeze.
only now, with public notice (and no colin powell in sight to take the heat) is there talk of folding the table and shutting down the game.
the NYT, both feet in a cement block of advocacy ("...special favors...not so far...") caveats, (an alternative to pivots?): "the new emails underscore that this effort was at best partly successful," (giving new life to the old "partially pregnant" joke).
all the hugger-mugger (the tactic of hasty removal and disposal of inconvenient corpses, according to shakespeare), ranging from the "if this, then that" assurances of donna shalala to the familiar clinton trope "oops, we won't do it again, ever" are all the more distressing because the "potenital conflicts of interest" involve an official of we the people's government, not some swashbuckling private developer who, whatever he did and however he did it, is a private citizen who has made no secret of his ability to game the system...he can be, and has been, sued for his "dealings" praised for public service (yes wolman rink is an nyc treasure) hailed for creating jobs, condemned for labor practices, and so on...out there without a net.
disappointed democrats are stuck, we will be forced to play a no-trump hand with an untrustworthy partner.
only now, with public notice (and no colin powell in sight to take the heat) is there talk of folding the table and shutting down the game.
the NYT, both feet in a cement block of advocacy ("...special favors...not so far...") caveats, (an alternative to pivots?): "the new emails underscore that this effort was at best partly successful," (giving new life to the old "partially pregnant" joke).
all the hugger-mugger (the tactic of hasty removal and disposal of inconvenient corpses, according to shakespeare), ranging from the "if this, then that" assurances of donna shalala to the familiar clinton trope "oops, we won't do it again, ever" are all the more distressing because the "potenital conflicts of interest" involve an official of we the people's government, not some swashbuckling private developer who, whatever he did and however he did it, is a private citizen who has made no secret of his ability to game the system...he can be, and has been, sued for his "dealings" praised for public service (yes wolman rink is an nyc treasure) hailed for creating jobs, condemned for labor practices, and so on...out there without a net.
disappointed democrats are stuck, we will be forced to play a no-trump hand with an untrustworthy partner.
4
We are reliving Rome. Donations by foreign dictatorships and none from Western Governments (France, U.K. or Germany) is an obvious red flag of Quid Pro Quo. The NYTimes must remove its rose colored glasses; this model is corruption at its finest as it uses women and children as human shields to justify inventorying political loyalists for future political gain. If even the NYTimes cannot suspect the obvious, then other presidents or parties will follow this dangerous political model. Both candidates are now Manchurian as their allegiance is foreign donors and not the people who the profess to serve. This model enjoys far worse consequences than the influence of domestic money in political discourse.
16
How amusing, urging the corrupt Clinton cartel to divest themselves from their stock and trade, but only after they've accumulated a fortune!
Might as well tell El Chapo to cut ties with the Sinaloa cartel.
Might as well tell El Chapo to cut ties with the Sinaloa cartel.
20
The extra-large partisan horse blinders are NOT flattering. Clinton spent the entirety of her Obama administration tenure ignoring ethics agreements, breaking ethical promises, and creating every appearances of corruption at the highest levels. The Times' prescription, to prevent more of the same during a Hillary presidency, is to extract a fresh tranche of agreements, promises and assurances from the Clintons?! Everybody knows how this ends: Lucy yanks football away at the last second, and hapless Charlie Brown winds up flat on his back.
17
Trump may be destroying the Republican party.
But the Clintons are tearing apart the Democratic party.
How many comments here have been reduced to saying ignoring the specific limitations regarding Conflict of Interest doesn't matter?
How many people will vote for Clinton only because the thought of Trump makes them sick?
Voters need to stop ignoring the Clintons' failures to adhere to the limits specifically set out by President Obama.
We need to demand that the Clintons will follow all laws, rules, procedures, etc set out if they regain the White House.
But the Clintons are tearing apart the Democratic party.
How many comments here have been reduced to saying ignoring the specific limitations regarding Conflict of Interest doesn't matter?
How many people will vote for Clinton only because the thought of Trump makes them sick?
Voters need to stop ignoring the Clintons' failures to adhere to the limits specifically set out by President Obama.
We need to demand that the Clintons will follow all laws, rules, procedures, etc set out if they regain the White House.
12
And exactly how are you going to enforce this "demand"? What exactly do you plan to do if they don't follow all laws, rules, and procedures? Same as Obama when she didn't follow rules, procedures, and agreements while at State?
4
Isn't that our biggest lesson? The Clintons didn't even adhere to their promises to OBAMA. Why will they keep their promises now?
4
The NYT is now calling on the Clinton Crime Family Foundation to suspend accepting foreign government donations? After enriching themselves and probably selling out US interests for large "donations/pay offs"?
The reason the Clinton's have said they will stop accepting foreign donations if she is elected is because they have told all "get the checks in here quickly, or you will be unable to buy access in January".
It has nothing to do with ethics. The Clinton's have proven they have none.
Hillary Nixon Clinton.
The reason the Clinton's have said they will stop accepting foreign donations if she is elected is because they have told all "get the checks in here quickly, or you will be unable to buy access in January".
It has nothing to do with ethics. The Clinton's have proven they have none.
Hillary Nixon Clinton.
12
There is no evidence of pay for play only bad optics as perceived by the Clinton bashing press. I don't recall Bush having to distance himself a from his dad's Thousand Points of Light foundation. It really doesn't matter what the Clinton's do, it will be 4 to 8 years of scrutiny on steroids by the press.
89
Clinton bashing press? Now I know you're playing a mind game.
3
Of course there is no hard evidence. If there were, she would likely be in prison right now.
1
Clinton Entitlement Syndrome (CES) - A belief that they should personally do well (very well) because they do good. It seems they recognize this is a problem which is why they resist public and press scrutiny. For Bill, it seems more about his innate desire for the perks, particularly to emulate JFK's womanizing. For Hillary, who always has seemed more practical, it's really about the $. I sure hate the Clintons, but come November, there is a much worse option.
3
The editorial shines a light on, once again, the influence of money and politics. And by politics, I mean both elections and governing. I'm frankly not sure which is more troubling. Both acidic to a citizens' democracy. (Although not in the Supreme Court's black-and-white reading of the Constitution.) Ms. Clinton needs to immediately sever ties to the foundation and all of its contributors. Mr. Clinton needs to prepare for an orderly separation himself no later than January. He would help his wife's campaign by announcing the specific steps he's taking between now and the election.
1
The Clinton Foundation served its purpose. It is staffed by Clinton aides who were placed on cool reserve with high salaries until Hillary gets elected and then those operatives will serve in her administration. Despicably, the Foundation masqueraded as a charity while functioning like a racket. Clinton's emails, which we were never supposed to see, clearly indicate the scrofulous nexus between the Foundation and Hillary's State Department.
13
Back when Bush and Cheney first ran for the White House, very little was made of Cheney's connections to Halliburton. No one tried to force Cheney to sell his stock in the company. He basically just said that he'd put his shares in a blind trust during his tenure as VP and that was that. Cheney then went on to press for two wars that depleted our national coffers while filling his personal ones. Cheney is considerably richer now than he was before 2000, mostly because of the government's reliance on Halliburton to provide services in Afghanistan and Iraq. I cannot understand the furor over the Clinton Foundation, which is a charity and not a for-profit. Please stop promoting the false narrative that the Clintons have somehow abused their power or allowed donors to buy influence. No evidence has been found of this at all.
1
"Bill Clinton created the foundation in 2001 as a vehicle to fund his presidential library. He and his supporters have since raised more than $2 billion..."
Let me correct that for you...'Bill Clinton created the foundation in 2001 as a vehicle to peddle his still substantial political connections and influence after leaving the office of the Presidency. It has since become a vainglorious boondoggle effectively operating as a shadow agency of the US government, especially taking advantage of its unique posture during Hillary's tenure as Senator and then Secretary of State to sell access to the Clintons. Foundation "donors" have since given more than $2 billion dollars to play in the Clintons' political sandbox."
That's roughly how it would have read if the Clintons were Republicans, particularly if they were Republicans of the more radical variety.
But finally, at least the NY Times acknowledges the venality at the core of this foundation, if rather obliquely. For a non-Progressive like me, that feels like progress.
Let me correct that for you...'Bill Clinton created the foundation in 2001 as a vehicle to peddle his still substantial political connections and influence after leaving the office of the Presidency. It has since become a vainglorious boondoggle effectively operating as a shadow agency of the US government, especially taking advantage of its unique posture during Hillary's tenure as Senator and then Secretary of State to sell access to the Clintons. Foundation "donors" have since given more than $2 billion dollars to play in the Clintons' political sandbox."
That's roughly how it would have read if the Clintons were Republicans, particularly if they were Republicans of the more radical variety.
But finally, at least the NY Times acknowledges the venality at the core of this foundation, if rather obliquely. For a non-Progressive like me, that feels like progress.
11
"Contributions would be limited to... United States-based independent foundations." What's to stop foreign interests from creating US-based independent foundations? The process to set up a 501c is surprisingly easy. Better yet. They could get a PO Box and form a shell company. The disclosure requirements are even less stringent that way. Point being, I don't believe the Clintons' are really making a good-faith effort to sever ties with the organization. Leaving Chelsea in charge is a pretty big warning flag. After the email scandal, they will have simply learned to be more discrete and less documented in their actions.
4
Clinton Foundation has done tremendous good for under-priveleged people across the globe. However Hillary must release a transition plan to hand over the baton to 3rd party charity organization. Refusing to do so will only tighten the race. She cannot be over confident on the polls, anything can happen. Trump is an unconventional candidate, so she must do following things:
1) Have a press conference and face questions from press on this and any other topics. What is stopping her? This is the best way to connect to your own folks
2) Release a transition plan for Clinton Foundation with a clear timelines. Timelines for transition must be short and end before the election day
3) Release a bi-weekly press conference schedule. I mean why should she fear? Thats the best possible way to get favorable numbers high. She has nothing to lose on her favor-ability numbers
1) Have a press conference and face questions from press on this and any other topics. What is stopping her? This is the best way to connect to your own folks
2) Release a transition plan for Clinton Foundation with a clear timelines. Timelines for transition must be short and end before the election day
3) Release a bi-weekly press conference schedule. I mean why should she fear? Thats the best possible way to get favorable numbers high. She has nothing to lose on her favor-ability numbers
19
Who will audit and when will they report the " tremendous good" committed by the Clinton Foundation? Rather seems like the lie trumpeted and magnified repeatedly and unquestioned until it became US media folklore.
1
The CF is already a public charity run by a board of directors. Read the 990.
It's this kind of hyper-scrutiny by a liberal newspaper that prevents Clinton from wanting to do press conferences.
1
What is done is done and cannot be undone, and what we know of it has a hard time passing the "smell test." The Clintons have always seemed to stray over the line but never so far that they could not jump back quickly when discovered or when they thought they might be. The thing that is the most troubling about all of this is that it reflects very bad judgment. Much of what the Clintons have done is of questionable judgment. In Hillary's case, we have her use of unsecure private email servers for all of her emails as Secretary of State, the disregard of her obligations under the Freedom of Information Act, the deleting of large numbers of emails that may or may not have belonged to the Department of State, the complete blurring of the boundary between the Clinton Foundation and the Department of State, etc. When you add to all this the comments the FBI had about Hillary's treatment of classified information and information that she should have known was classified and her lack of truthfulness to the American public about what she did, you get a very poor picture.
The Clintons have always quested for wealth, and the presidency does not pay very well. Maybe Hillary should consider making more $250,000 speeches, writing more books, and making more paid public appearances rather than the presidency. She will put a lot more money in the bank a lot faster.
The Clintons have always quested for wealth, and the presidency does not pay very well. Maybe Hillary should consider making more $250,000 speeches, writing more books, and making more paid public appearances rather than the presidency. She will put a lot more money in the bank a lot faster.
6
This whole issue is much to do about nothing. And it sells advertising and gives talking heads something to do. If the Clinton's had major business interests like Poppy Bush did with the Carlyle Group before he became President we would simply expect the newly elected President to but those interests in a blind trust for the duration of their Presidency. The same apply here except that we have a charity that does good works.
People calling for instant action on severing ties here seemly have no idea how complicated that action really is. Various vendors, providers, and staff have to be brought on board and in many cases new agreements or contracts must be made. All this takes time.
For the most part the most vehemently anti Clinton folks will continue to use that issue as a cudgel in a vain attempt to keep her from office. It will join the long lexicon of issues from the emails to White Water that have been used to try and bring the Clinton's down. Not going to happen however as history shows. Just more of the lie's, smears, and character assassination that the Grand Old Pirates are famous for.
People calling for instant action on severing ties here seemly have no idea how complicated that action really is. Various vendors, providers, and staff have to be brought on board and in many cases new agreements or contracts must be made. All this takes time.
For the most part the most vehemently anti Clinton folks will continue to use that issue as a cudgel in a vain attempt to keep her from office. It will join the long lexicon of issues from the emails to White Water that have been used to try and bring the Clinton's down. Not going to happen however as history shows. Just more of the lie's, smears, and character assassination that the Grand Old Pirates are famous for.
The very fact that the Clinton Foundation raised billions of dollars from around the world in a matter of just 15 years raises eyebrows. This may not reflect exactly what is being called Pay-to-Play, but it most certainly raises profound questions about honesty and integrity of both Bill and Hillary Clinton. When Hillary became secretary of state, it was stated in public that there would be a wall between the Clinton Foundation activities and Hillary Clinton's State department. That did not come true. Although emails do not yet directly show pay-to-play game, there are obviously many other ways the pay-for-play can take place. Don't the husband and wife talk at all about all these donations and the motives of these donors? Such matters indeed do deserve investigation by an independent special prosecutor. By giving a pass to Hillary Clinton on such a matter of huge moral and ethical significance, NYT Editorial Board is essentially downgrading the United States to the levels of dishonest rulers of Third World countries. This will help Hillary to get elected, but most certainly America will loose it's moral ground in global sphere.
5
1) I don't know why the NYT Editorial Board continues to make these fruitless pleas to the Clintons to change their behavior. Recall the editorial asking Hillary to release the paid speech transcripts? Still waiting on HRC's response to that one.
2) In my mind, their is clear evidence of favors for donors in the case of Fernando Rajiv. Google it. He gave $1 million plus to the foundation. He was then appointed to a sensitive intelligence committee with no apparent qualifications. Even staffers couldn't figure out why he was appointed. The word from the top: HRC requested this. Then, when the press started questioning his qualifications, he abruptly resigned. There are emails saying something along the lines of "the SOS must be protected on this."
3) This stinks to high heaven, and nobody can convince me otherwise:
"She prompted multiple investigations with 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."
2) In my mind, their is clear evidence of favors for donors in the case of Fernando Rajiv. Google it. He gave $1 million plus to the foundation. He was then appointed to a sensitive intelligence committee with no apparent qualifications. Even staffers couldn't figure out why he was appointed. The word from the top: HRC requested this. Then, when the press started questioning his qualifications, he abruptly resigned. There are emails saying something along the lines of "the SOS must be protected on this."
3) This stinks to high heaven, and nobody can convince me otherwise:
"She prompted multiple investigations with 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."
22
Twenty odd " speeches" off one transcript which was probably burned rather than erased.
1
JJ, we all know how the script works. Huma will resign, she is the one common theme between State dept and the foundation and now her presidential campaign. Doug has already left. Huma will go and rest will be business as usual, Nina Tanden will replace Huma and someone else will pick up the slack.
4
Petey, you're likely right.
3
The good work done needs to be recognized.
The problem with waiting to see if Ms. Clinton wins the election before shutting down foreign donations, no matter how innocent, and from corporations domestic included, only gives rise to the perception that those donors must hurry up before the door closes.
Also, for the Clinton family to step down for the duration of another Clinton presidency is shallow. Anyone with a memory can hope that subtle messages get through, and while it now seems that pay to get access, or pay ahead of time for consideration, no matter how subtle, will only flip flop with favors being granted during her time in office, only to be rewarded after she leaves.
Indeed, this seems to be a major worry with Mr. Clinton's flurry of highly paid speeches after the fact, and can only appear as payment for services previously rendered.
The problem with waiting to see if Ms. Clinton wins the election before shutting down foreign donations, no matter how innocent, and from corporations domestic included, only gives rise to the perception that those donors must hurry up before the door closes.
Also, for the Clinton family to step down for the duration of another Clinton presidency is shallow. Anyone with a memory can hope that subtle messages get through, and while it now seems that pay to get access, or pay ahead of time for consideration, no matter how subtle, will only flip flop with favors being granted during her time in office, only to be rewarded after she leaves.
Indeed, this seems to be a major worry with Mr. Clinton's flurry of highly paid speeches after the fact, and can only appear as payment for services previously rendered.
1
It's and outrage!!! So let's see, what were the terrible things that came of this dark and secret collusion between influential foreigners and the Clintons? Lots of people got access to cheaper HIV/AIDS drugs in Arica? It's an outrage! Loans to female-owned businesses in Haiti? Disgusting. I can see why so many posters are worked into a lather over this stuff.
And while we're on it, let's talk about the humanitarian efforts of Trump....Hmm. Well then let's imagine what a Trump Foundation might do. Explore new and better ways to avoid taxes? Fund research by climate "scientists" who never set foot in a lab? Subsidize machine guns for kindergarten teachers? Pay for dry cleaning KKK costumes?
And while we're on it, let's talk about the humanitarian efforts of Trump....Hmm. Well then let's imagine what a Trump Foundation might do. Explore new and better ways to avoid taxes? Fund research by climate "scientists" who never set foot in a lab? Subsidize machine guns for kindergarten teachers? Pay for dry cleaning KKK costumes?
1
And why have we not had ANY serious, prolonged editorials on what is happening right now in Trump's businesses? How involved is he? The media thought it was funny when he was pushing his golf course in Scotland a few weeks ago. He's said his kids will run his businesses if he wins. Is that acceptable? Can we trust him to not be involved? And you're worried about Chelsea managing an aid program in Africa?
So the Clinton's are using their influence to motivate the wealthy to give to noble causes.... Why am I not upset by this? As in other 'scandals' no payback other than access has been found.
For decades the right has been wanting to privatize social programs. By my account the Clinton's are close to tithing--how many super 'Christian' right wingers in congress are actually doing this? The Right should be trying to name an airport after them for what they have accomplished.
So the Clinton's are using their influence to motivate the wealthy to give to noble causes.... Why am I not upset by this? As in other 'scandals' no payback other than access has been found.
For decades the right has been wanting to privatize social programs. By my account the Clinton's are close to tithing--how many super 'Christian' right wingers in congress are actually doing this? The Right should be trying to name an airport after them for what they have accomplished.
2
Too late. you can't sweep pay for access under the rug. So this means that the President will be accessible for money. She is no longer eligible for the presidency. Might as well vote more Chicago politicians in...............Slamming the barn door shut after the horses ran away, the barn burned to the ground and the ashes have cooled......she is a criminal. If her name wan;t Clinton she would (and should) be prosecuted for her misdeeds
10
There is no conflict. Hillary said so and she and Jesus have never told a lie.
8
This whole thing stinks, and has for years. A Senator/Secretary of State/Presidential candidate taking funds from foreign governments, wall street, other "interested" parties. The Foundation should have been shut down long ago, but again, the Clintons try to skirt the laws and ethics and have it both ways. "Already bought and paid for" should be the campaign's 2016 slogan. This will give Trump exactly what he needs to pull a victory out of a hat.
7
Lee Fang- an excellent journalist writes over at The Intercept-writes that the Clinton surrogates and apologists are whistling past the graveyard on serious ethical issues with a double standard compared to their critique of others.
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/26/clinton-foundation-spin/
What bothers me more than the Clitnonistas attempts to explain this stuff away is the apparent willingness and endless effort expended to cover up for the Clinton's sleazy affairs by mainstream media outlets that are supposedly fact based and impartial.
Take a look at the restrictions placed upon career Civil Servants and then look at the pay to play that surrounds the Clintons at every turn. Were Hillary a common GS or WG employee what has gone on would have her in hot water- very hot water.
What I would like to see is David Brock- in the flesh- sharply questioned by a journalist who is not already in the bag for Hillary Clinton. Apparently that would be a fairly short list.
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/26/clinton-foundation-spin/
What bothers me more than the Clitnonistas attempts to explain this stuff away is the apparent willingness and endless effort expended to cover up for the Clinton's sleazy affairs by mainstream media outlets that are supposedly fact based and impartial.
Take a look at the restrictions placed upon career Civil Servants and then look at the pay to play that surrounds the Clintons at every turn. Were Hillary a common GS or WG employee what has gone on would have her in hot water- very hot water.
What I would like to see is David Brock- in the flesh- sharply questioned by a journalist who is not already in the bag for Hillary Clinton. Apparently that would be a fairly short list.
11
Why shouldn't Mr. Trump divest himself from his businesses that interact with Russia, China and all places in the world where he can find cheap labor? Why only a nonprofit that cares for others, as opposed to the private business created to line the pockets of Trump on the backs of poor workers.
Billions raised currying favor? It is astounding that this can happen here, it sounds like a bad movie plot about a banana republic. So disheartening. Only the independent candidate Gary Johnson seems to demonstrate ethical behavior and selfless concern for the country.
3
I would like to know whether the Clintons Foundation's sponsored programs have had a genuine beneficial impact to justify the Foundation's tax privileged status. Have independent, third party evaluations been undertaken to determine the measure of success that foundation money has achieved, say, in Haiti? I am not referring to tax law compliance, transparency, or merely following accounting protocols---the criteria used by rating organizations, like Charity Navigator---but to the effectiveness of the foundation's grants to programs that purport to be making a substantive, beneficial difference in the world.
1
The Clinton legacy? No smoking gun.
It's the best you can say about her foundation, her e-mail server, the entire Clinton history.
It's the best you can say about her foundation, her e-mail server, the entire Clinton history.
6
So The Clinton Foundation has to change and abandon its socially responsible work because of the possibility of conflicts of interest. Then surely you must be prepared to call for the Trump Organization to be liquidated. It has a byzantine business structure designed to be less than transparent, it resists releasing tax returns, it relies on foreign investors for more than $650M in loans, it profits only Donald Trump and contributes nothing to the social good. So - it needs to close down too, right?
134
This is about eight years too late. If the Clinton Foundation shouldn't be accepting foreign donations when she is President then certainly the same rules should have applied when she was Secretary of State.
The Clinton Foundation, Clinton Campagn, DNC and Clinton family all have shared employees, donors, allies, contacts, access and influence.
It's just wrong. Thie is not a monarchy.
The Clinton Foundation, Clinton Campagn, DNC and Clinton family all have shared employees, donors, allies, contacts, access and influence.
It's just wrong. Thie is not a monarchy.
17
Tens of millions of Saudi petrodollars go to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary advocates arming and training Sunni Wahabbist rebels to destabilize and overthrow the Shiite Alawite Assad government. Hundreds of thousands die and millions flee Syria in every direction except towards Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The world's worst disaster since Bush/Cheney/Powell/Rice occurred during Clinton's tenure as SOS. And so did the second worst disaster: the destruction of any semblance of governance in Libya.
Trump is demented but Hillary has of history of warring for Wahabbis while taking their money. Our choice in November is between a fool and a mercenary.
The world's worst disaster since Bush/Cheney/Powell/Rice occurred during Clinton's tenure as SOS. And so did the second worst disaster: the destruction of any semblance of governance in Libya.
Trump is demented but Hillary has of history of warring for Wahabbis while taking their money. Our choice in November is between a fool and a mercenary.
11
You can’t let the Clintons hide behind adjectives. If Hillary Clinton wins, then the Clintons need to completely dissociate with the Foundation, stop using “Clinton” as part of the Foundation name, turn over complete control to another person or group so they can continue the work or the Foundation without any Clinton involvement. Limits on Foreign or corporate donors introduces adjectives, which to a Clinton is a loophole, and history shows they will exploit any and all loopholes, and not honor agreements that they make on good faith alone.
5
Absolutely true.
1
Along the same lines, should Donald Trump get out of his businesses? He is in debt to many banks, some in foreign countries. Could there be potential conflicts of interest here?
2
What is it about Hillary's campaign, and about Democrats in general, that they once again fail to talk about the great work that the Clinton Foundation has done. Although I disagree with the conclusions you have drawn here, why ever aren't her handlers talking about the absolutely great work being done by this Foundation? The moment The Donald opened his mouth about it with his unsubstantiated claims of sinister activity, I stood up in my living room and yelled back at the TV about what the Clinton Foundation does. Why the bleep can't her team learn how to hit him back? Oh, and you too! This editorial has it's tail between its legs and seems to be reactive, not proactive.
Why Jill can beat Hillary ... and Trump
http://bit.ly/2bvNsiC
http://bit.ly/2bvNsiC
3
Cutting ties to the Clinton Foundation is a good idea. For 2008.
Isn't it just a little late now?
It's like ;promising not to go back into that bad old bank after having emptied out the safes.
If elected, President Clinton can pretty much do whatever she wants. Doesn't need that silly Foundation any more.
There is a vast right wing conspiracy after her. That's because she is a very unethical character. They have good reason. (I never hear about them being after anyone else.)
We'll know Clinton is in office when we see the "For Sale" sign go up on the lawn of the White House.
Isn't it just a little late now?
It's like ;promising not to go back into that bad old bank after having emptied out the safes.
If elected, President Clinton can pretty much do whatever she wants. Doesn't need that silly Foundation any more.
There is a vast right wing conspiracy after her. That's because she is a very unethical character. They have good reason. (I never hear about them being after anyone else.)
We'll know Clinton is in office when we see the "For Sale" sign go up on the lawn of the White House.
10
And what to my wondering eyes does appear? An editorial ever so mildly critical of Clinton.
Offsetting the 50 that trash Trump.
Good trade!
Offsetting the 50 that trash Trump.
Good trade!
6
In response to the revelations about her emails, Hillary's strategy has been to say as little as possible until forced to say more by various official investigators. The hope, I guess, is that the public will grow weary of the story and that the improprieties will disappear sooner rather than later. That strategy has proved extremely damaging to her campaign. With regard to the pay-for-play odor around the Clinton Foundation, she has said virtually nothing. When will she - and her lawyers - learn that delivering a full-throated explanation of meetings with foundation donors, and more importantly, a ringing defense of the foundation's worthy activities would be the best way to make this thing go away?
2
Hillary's campaign is already so tainted that I really couldn't care less about this particular brouhaha.
If her opponent weren't a certifiable idiot with delusions of grandeur, she'd be facing certain and well deserved defeat.
I'd ask what the country did to deserve two such horrible presidential candidates, but the answer is obvious: we've stopped paying attention and allowed ourselves to be distracted while our democratic republic was turned (By both major parties.) into a plutocratic oligarchy. And now we have a choice between the moronic Trump and the obviously corrupt and arrogant Hillary. On the one hand it serves us right, but on the other hand, God help us.
If her opponent weren't a certifiable idiot with delusions of grandeur, she'd be facing certain and well deserved defeat.
I'd ask what the country did to deserve two such horrible presidential candidates, but the answer is obvious: we've stopped paying attention and allowed ourselves to be distracted while our democratic republic was turned (By both major parties.) into a plutocratic oligarchy. And now we have a choice between the moronic Trump and the obviously corrupt and arrogant Hillary. On the one hand it serves us right, but on the other hand, God help us.
9
Perception is stronger than facts. Big money begets favors. She needs to step away from the Clinton Foundation immediately or Trump will embarrass her at the debates with 'crooked Hillary' at every turn.
4
Why doesn't the media pays as much attention to the overwhelming influence of lobbyists in Wasington as it does to this hyped up Clinton Foundation issue? Even at its worst, I doubt the Clinton Foundation can compare to the unethical purchase of our elected officials by lobbyists.
1
I agree with this editorial. However I doubt it will be enough for the Clinton haters. Haters gotta hate. Now how about those tax returns Mr. T?
2
Good to see this op-ed for what it reveals about Hillary's character and her judgment, as if we didn't know enough already.
Trump will hammer on the issue of judgment, as any opponent should. Sadly, it's what worries those of us who will, with regret, vote for her.
The DNC needs a top to bottom overhaul to rid itself of "Clinton capture."
Trump will hammer on the issue of judgment, as any opponent should. Sadly, it's what worries those of us who will, with regret, vote for her.
The DNC needs a top to bottom overhaul to rid itself of "Clinton capture."
6
Starting with Donna Brazile.
6
Russ, the Clintons have been building this up since her loss to Obama in 2008. In 2013, right after Mrs C left the State Department, democratic women senators signed a pledge urging Hillary to run for Prez. They secretly and quietly began the task of realizing this mission of electing Hillary. The Hillary Victory Fund was set up, the Clintons being masters at fundraising, they have tremendous clout among wealthy people (who also donated to their foundation), Hollywood stars, Silicon Valley, VC's, CEOs, Athletes, Entertainment industry...you get the picture...hyper connected. Their name recognition is a brand, known not just in the US but all over the world. Among blacks and Hispanics they are as well known if not better than Obama. The congressional black caucus went to bat for Hillary all through the primaries, in churches and barbershops, town halls and community centers.
5
What the heck kind of article starts with "Does the new batch of...emails prove that big-money donors to the ...Clinton foundation got special favors?"
Hm? And in the second paragraph start, "Not so far, but..."
Does the evidence online about the editorial board prove that each of them beats his or her spouse? Not so far, but...
Do better, for God's sake.
Hm? And in the second paragraph start, "Not so far, but..."
Does the evidence online about the editorial board prove that each of them beats his or her spouse? Not so far, but...
Do better, for God's sake.
10
The Clinton Foundation is philanthropic in name and outward appearance only. In fact, it is a shell organization to direct money to the Clintons and their associates through lavish travel expenses (no one riding coach here!), "consultant fees" and influence peddling. Compare this, say, with the Bill and Melinda Gates organization-- a genuine philanthropy. How many articles have we seen on its presence in politics? Is Melinda running for President (or anything)?
One hopes that the FBI investigation will this time bear fruit.
One hopes that the FBI investigation will this time bear fruit.
11
Since the Supreme Court decision that somehow made a corporation an individual with the right to spend as much money as it pleases for political purposes, it has legally become pay for play. This is what most people who follow these matters find odious about the clintons. The put on a store front about being do-gooders, then we find out that they been doing good for themselves at the same time. How many people did Bill Clinton pardon on the last day of his presidency??? Enough to know that the pay to play system was at work. The only take away from this election is that A. It's the lesser of two evils election. B. If we do not get money out of our political system of electing those who represent us, then one day an individual like hitler, with the backing of a man like Putin, and buy his way to the White House
Family foundations over time often ended up with
no family members on the board. It seems to
me that since the foundation was established
there were and still are major donors who
have given because they believed that Hillary
would run for President and that they would
want to be "remembered" as donors.
One comment stated that the foundation
provided direct services. I had been
lead to believe that it provides funding
for other NGOs that provide direct services.
Also, since so many of their political friends
and former employees work for thefoundation,
I have wondered whether it has really been
a mechanism to keep the Clinton organization
working until Hillary ran for office..Without a
thorough audit or Charity Navigators ability
truly assess the work and finances of the
foundation we will never know exactly how it has functioned.
no family members on the board. It seems to
me that since the foundation was established
there were and still are major donors who
have given because they believed that Hillary
would run for President and that they would
want to be "remembered" as donors.
One comment stated that the foundation
provided direct services. I had been
lead to believe that it provides funding
for other NGOs that provide direct services.
Also, since so many of their political friends
and former employees work for thefoundation,
I have wondered whether it has really been
a mechanism to keep the Clinton organization
working until Hillary ran for office..Without a
thorough audit or Charity Navigators ability
truly assess the work and finances of the
foundation we will never know exactly how it has functioned.
2
The Clintons derive no tangible benefit from their charity other than the satisfaction that comes from saving the lives of poor children. They take no salaries, and in fact put tens of millions of their personal funds into it. Those personal funds could easily support the "luxury travel" to Earth's poorest countries that supposedly motivated them to found their charity in the first place.
Breathless charges of "corruption" require conflating funds for charity with funds for political campaigns or even out-and-out bribes. They're not in any way similar, and not even close.
It's Swift Boat 2016, and the NY Times is at the helm at full throttle.
Breathless charges of "corruption" require conflating funds for charity with funds for political campaigns or even out-and-out bribes. They're not in any way similar, and not even close.
It's Swift Boat 2016, and the NY Times is at the helm at full throttle.
1
If you dislike both the corruption of Clinton and the stupidity of Trump then vote third party. Each vote cast for a third party candidate is a message that corruption and stupidity are, to use the brain-dead understatement of John Kerry, "unacceptable."
6
Each party includes a spectrum of views, both progressive and conservative. Neither Trump nor Hillary TRULY represent these views. To make matters worse, hillary supporters quickly jump and attack anyone who expresses this by reminding people of Nader and Gore. By shaming, scolding and guilting. By reminding of Supreme court appointments and oh how we should vote for the democrat nominee alone. This is pure extortion it is not democracy. By scaring people into voting for "not trump" NYT editorial board, Paul Krugman, Charles Blow, Frank Bruni...continue to be attack dogs for manifesting Clintons' political ambitions (not to mention the DNC, Congressional Black Caucus, liberal main stream media, Hollywood stars and stripes).
6
Clinton Foundation has supported valuable initiatives; I doubt that the motivation was avarice alone. Many good works depend on donations from the wealthy, not us peons. The Clintons have a world network which gives them access not only to funds, but to governments and institutions. That can be used for good.
But there is no doubt at all that someone donating huge amounts of cash expects to be treated with deference. Any group relying on the charity of donors understands this. Sometimes it's just about stroking egos; but it is easy to see how contacts appear to be about currying political favor, and the line is not clearly drawn. Those who see themselves as friends don't expect a cold shoulder when the call with a problem.
Who knows why the Clintons (including Chelsea)didn't remove themselves from the foundation so long as either of them was representing our government - to avoid the suspicions of selling influence. One of the aggravating things about Bill and Hill: for intelligent, politically savvy folk, they seem so bullheaded about personal behavior, that, knowing they are under a microscope, they manage one more pratfall.
It isn't just them. Our ruling class segues in and out of government positions and jobs where government contacts and influence is key; children of successful politicians are handed positions of influence because of connections. Lobbyists pay for influence, arranging political donations as they craft legislation favorable to their bosses.
But there is no doubt at all that someone donating huge amounts of cash expects to be treated with deference. Any group relying on the charity of donors understands this. Sometimes it's just about stroking egos; but it is easy to see how contacts appear to be about currying political favor, and the line is not clearly drawn. Those who see themselves as friends don't expect a cold shoulder when the call with a problem.
Who knows why the Clintons (including Chelsea)didn't remove themselves from the foundation so long as either of them was representing our government - to avoid the suspicions of selling influence. One of the aggravating things about Bill and Hill: for intelligent, politically savvy folk, they seem so bullheaded about personal behavior, that, knowing they are under a microscope, they manage one more pratfall.
It isn't just them. Our ruling class segues in and out of government positions and jobs where government contacts and influence is key; children of successful politicians are handed positions of influence because of connections. Lobbyists pay for influence, arranging political donations as they craft legislation favorable to their bosses.
3
It is always difficult to prove play for pay but if it was hard to tell where the foundation ended and the State Department began that is pretty close. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck it is a duck.
39
Clearly there was conflict of interest.
The question is whether it bothers you much.
Clearly, it is of no concern to many if not most Clinton supporters.
But a bipartisan memorandum of understand was developed before she became SOS because even our corrupt representatives knew it was cause for concern.
The fact that many people don't care is not a good sign of anything.
The question is whether it bothers you much.
Clearly, it is of no concern to many if not most Clinton supporters.
But a bipartisan memorandum of understand was developed before she became SOS because even our corrupt representatives knew it was cause for concern.
The fact that many people don't care is not a good sign of anything.
42
Too late! You can't un-ring a bell.
15
"Does the new batch of previously undisclosed State Department emails prove that big-money donors to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation got special favors from Mrs. Clinton while she was secretary of state?
Not so far..."
This is false because access is the favor! Does anyone actually believe that the highest echelons of the State Dept. worked on these private citizens interests (more than half CF donors) out of the goodness of their hearts? Absolutely not. Their concerns got heard while the vast majority of people whose problems may have needed the intervention of the Sec. of State weren't, because they couldn't cough up the dough.
And we literally don't know the half of it as the State Dept. is withholding HRC's schedule almost 4 years after she left State, which is outrageous.
There will be no cutting of ties with regards to the CF. Chelsea Clinton will still remain on it's board. Doug Band will still be there. The structure and personnel that allowed foreign contributors and corporation to donate to the Clinton Foundation have not been altered. The only thing that has changed is Bill is gone, but he has gone into the halls of power.
And then there's the promise... That the Clinton Foundation will not accept foreign donations. if She didn't keep her promises with Obama:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/293507-seven-ways-the-clinton-found...
Why would she keep her promises to the American people?
Not so far..."
This is false because access is the favor! Does anyone actually believe that the highest echelons of the State Dept. worked on these private citizens interests (more than half CF donors) out of the goodness of their hearts? Absolutely not. Their concerns got heard while the vast majority of people whose problems may have needed the intervention of the Sec. of State weren't, because they couldn't cough up the dough.
And we literally don't know the half of it as the State Dept. is withholding HRC's schedule almost 4 years after she left State, which is outrageous.
There will be no cutting of ties with regards to the CF. Chelsea Clinton will still remain on it's board. Doug Band will still be there. The structure and personnel that allowed foreign contributors and corporation to donate to the Clinton Foundation have not been altered. The only thing that has changed is Bill is gone, but he has gone into the halls of power.
And then there's the promise... That the Clinton Foundation will not accept foreign donations. if She didn't keep her promises with Obama:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/293507-seven-ways-the-clinton-found...
Why would she keep her promises to the American people?
39
"Why would she keep her promises to the American people?"
It's the Clinton motto, "promises were meant to be broken!"
It's the Clinton motto, "promises were meant to be broken!"
3
The NYT needs to practice journalism.
Is there an independent staff writer that can provide information to the people? You know, like a real journalist?
How much did the Clinton family profit via the Clinton Foundation during her time as SOS? Speeches, consulting fees, etc..?
If they plan to put these new restrictions in place if she wins the Presidency, then why weren't these restrictions put in place when she was SOS?
We know the Clinton Foundation has done good work work, residually, in many cases but what is the overall amount of good per $ spent/raised? Besides the Clintons, who profited from these programs?
Please, NYT, do your job.
Is there an independent staff writer that can provide information to the people? You know, like a real journalist?
How much did the Clinton family profit via the Clinton Foundation during her time as SOS? Speeches, consulting fees, etc..?
If they plan to put these new restrictions in place if she wins the Presidency, then why weren't these restrictions put in place when she was SOS?
We know the Clinton Foundation has done good work work, residually, in many cases but what is the overall amount of good per $ spent/raised? Besides the Clintons, who profited from these programs?
Please, NYT, do your job.
26
She'll have my vote....but it against Trump. I am a Democrat, but she really puts allegiance to the test.
5
"She'll have my vote....but it against Trump. I am a Democrat"
Party above country, a true Democrat!
Party above country, a true Democrat!
6
People - those of you convinced this really doesn't matter and she can't possibly lose because Trump is so horrible - don't kid yourselves. Everything possible must be done to win. Being overconfident about a Hillary victory is lethal!!!!
Nobody knows what will happen between now & the election or how large turn out will be.
This isn't over by a long shot.
The foot dragging by Hillary on this is horrifying. So is her refusal to disclose anything about the Wall Street speeches *and* her ongoing allergy to press conferences. She's making a lot of mistakes - & polls show her beating Trump but they also show her with a favorability rating of only 35%.
She needs high turnout. Leaving the mess with the Foundation around for her critics to shred her about is stupid!!! Why is she so overconfident she keeps thinking she can get away with this? Also not disclosing anything about the Wall Street speeches, not apologizing for the email mess, and not talking to the press like they're radioactive. What in the world is she thinking? Does she want to lose? She has a horrendous opponent but it could happen!
Remember how shocked people were when W. (sort of) beat Gore & when W. beat John Kerry during the Iraq War? Wake up!
There are lots of crazy people who could turn out to vote for Trump!!!
Hillary is making lots of terrible decisions. Somebody needs to sit her down & straighten her out. Like reminder she lost big time to Obama in 2008! And before that, 8 years of W!!!
Nobody knows what will happen between now & the election or how large turn out will be.
This isn't over by a long shot.
The foot dragging by Hillary on this is horrifying. So is her refusal to disclose anything about the Wall Street speeches *and* her ongoing allergy to press conferences. She's making a lot of mistakes - & polls show her beating Trump but they also show her with a favorability rating of only 35%.
She needs high turnout. Leaving the mess with the Foundation around for her critics to shred her about is stupid!!! Why is she so overconfident she keeps thinking she can get away with this? Also not disclosing anything about the Wall Street speeches, not apologizing for the email mess, and not talking to the press like they're radioactive. What in the world is she thinking? Does she want to lose? She has a horrendous opponent but it could happen!
Remember how shocked people were when W. (sort of) beat Gore & when W. beat John Kerry during the Iraq War? Wake up!
There are lots of crazy people who could turn out to vote for Trump!!!
Hillary is making lots of terrible decisions. Somebody needs to sit her down & straighten her out. Like reminder she lost big time to Obama in 2008! And before that, 8 years of W!!!
63
A lot of crazy people are supporting Hillary too! It's time to vote for the third party candidate...what's his name?
2
"Why is she so overconfident she keeps thinking she can get away with this?"
the decline of the political fortunes of willie stark ("all the kings men") and "lonesome" rhodes ("a face in the crowd") capped by extreme overconfidence, stems from disrespect for the intelligence of their constituents, probably because they were so easy to fool the first time around.
the decline of the political fortunes of willie stark ("all the kings men") and "lonesome" rhodes ("a face in the crowd") capped by extreme overconfidence, stems from disrespect for the intelligence of their constituents, probably because they were so easy to fool the first time around.
Did you look at her tax returns? The 3 speeches to different financial groups were listed, among the dozens of other speeches for the same price to groups representing dairy and deli owners, bakers, car dealers, techies, sales persons, travel groups, scientists, artists, educators and doctors, tree huggers, women's groups - Why don't you want to see the speeches to those groups? All the events were for paying guests only. What could she possibly have said to financial groups that you has you so worried - Good job on promoting women? Please address the needs of poor economies? Go Green? Colin Powell and Condi Rice and W and Laura addressed the financials too. Powell made $6 million in his first year on the speaker circuit out of State. Did he give them military secrets? Not likely. Aren't you worried about what he could have said worth $6,000,000?
7
Sirs/Madams:
You write
"that risks tainting Hillary Clinton’s campaign".....
It should read
"that has already tainted and is tainting Hillary Clinton's campaign".
Editorial Board Grades on that one
Rhetoric A+
Knowledge: ????
Hoeisty ; Z-
Ed Burchianti
Williamsburg VA
You write
"that risks tainting Hillary Clinton’s campaign".....
It should read
"that has already tainted and is tainting Hillary Clinton's campaign".
Editorial Board Grades on that one
Rhetoric A+
Knowledge: ????
Hoeisty ; Z-
Ed Burchianti
Williamsburg VA
11
What charity work does this foundation actually do? The collect a LOT of money, but what good does it actually accomplish?
12
That information is out there. Look it up.
1
So , as Nicole Wallace on Morning Joe advises Trump...so goes the Times playing campaign advisor to HRC.
Hmm?
Hmm?
6
When someone runs a foundation that helps farmers in arid African nations irrigate, develop seeding and funds AIDS drugs for 9 million, that should qualify you as presidential material whether ties are broken or not. Being wife of a former president who started a foundation should not disqualify anyone.
147
Evita Peron's foundation did a good deal of good for charities but did a bit more good for herself and those needing political favors. Sound familiar?
2
Mark: Yes. Rush Limbaugh talking points do sound familiar. Comparing Clinton to Peron sounds like a typical partisan ploy. Those on the right who buy into unprovable propaganda without taking the time to look for facts, evidence, context, proof is all too familiar. You work hard, right? Take the time to read this:
http://blogs.worldwatch.org/nourishingtheplanet/the-clinton-foundation-h...
http://blogs.worldwatch.org/nourishingtheplanet/the-clinton-foundation-h...
1
Why was this editorial not written during the Democrat debates ?
35
Cuz wikipedia was not threatening to reveal it back then...
4
Too bad that the NYT and others, BEFORE the Democratic primaries, either did not do sufficient research, or worse yet, did the research but chose not to emphasize, HRC's inherent conflicts of interest. Having this information might have propelled Sanders to victory. Then Americans would have a really interesting choice in November.
6
Steve, I have given several hints to Paul Krugman as a reader's comment for several years now. Apparently NYT and Krugman never thought it was a big deal or conflict of interest.
3
Hillary and Bill both should have cut all ties with the Foundation months before she announced her candidacy. They should do it immediately or possibly lose the election over this. Both of them.
She's wanted to be president for about 30 years. Is she really willing to lose this election to Donald Trump because she & BIll are too stubborn and convinced this really doesn't matter because the Foundation is so great? More than half of all people surveyed are very bothered by this and it's one of the most significant reasons people give for not trusting her. Whatever their love for the Foundation - it ain't worth it to stay dug in.
GET OUT NOW.
She's wanted to be president for about 30 years. Is she really willing to lose this election to Donald Trump because she & BIll are too stubborn and convinced this really doesn't matter because the Foundation is so great? More than half of all people surveyed are very bothered by this and it's one of the most significant reasons people give for not trusting her. Whatever their love for the Foundation - it ain't worth it to stay dug in.
GET OUT NOW.
3
"Whatever their love for the Foundation"
The Clinton cartel has one, and only one love, money!
The Clinton cartel has one, and only one love, money!
2
It used to be called "APPEARANCE of impropriety". Not even actual impropriety; the mere APPEARANCE was sufficient to raise serious question and provoke investigation, certainly by any state bar that an attorney was admitted to. Of course, Bill was disbarred by Arkansas and Hillary let her bar admission(s) lapse awhile ago. Yet, the standard of APPEARANCE of impropriety still applies to high-ranking officials, such as State.
And, as always with the Clinton's, they long ago figured out that it was easier to do the bad act, and when found out, go into Bill's "aw shucks" mode and say they'd never do it again. Just like a couple of kids who cannot ever seem to make the moral choice.
They are always apologizing for their "mistakes". Yet they always seem to find new "mistakes" to commit. For a couple of lawyers, they have always been way too comfortable with going up to the line, standing on it and just barely avoiding full-out criminal proceedings. Except for a time or two... Emails sent anywhere without care for security classifications or recipients' security clearances; donations passed through different sets of hands and entities; meeting with Loretta Lynch; and that's just the last few years. Neither Clinton engenders any sense of trust or confidence in their choices.
If it looks like a duck, if it sounds like a duck, if it walks like a duck - it's a duck. I will vote because I want to ensure my right to do so. But ABC now and forever - ANYONE BUT CLINTON.
And, as always with the Clinton's, they long ago figured out that it was easier to do the bad act, and when found out, go into Bill's "aw shucks" mode and say they'd never do it again. Just like a couple of kids who cannot ever seem to make the moral choice.
They are always apologizing for their "mistakes". Yet they always seem to find new "mistakes" to commit. For a couple of lawyers, they have always been way too comfortable with going up to the line, standing on it and just barely avoiding full-out criminal proceedings. Except for a time or two... Emails sent anywhere without care for security classifications or recipients' security clearances; donations passed through different sets of hands and entities; meeting with Loretta Lynch; and that's just the last few years. Neither Clinton engenders any sense of trust or confidence in their choices.
If it looks like a duck, if it sounds like a duck, if it walks like a duck - it's a duck. I will vote because I want to ensure my right to do so. But ABC now and forever - ANYONE BUT CLINTON.
27
An apocryphal tale:
The devil came to Hillary and said:
"I will give you four—even eight—years of the presidency and unbelievable wealth from it in exchange for your eternal soul."
Hillary said,
"What's the catch?"
6
Yeah, Hillary must cut ties with Clinton Foundation, must give a press conference one of these days, and must release her speeches to Goldman Sachs. You keep spending that penny into the wind, NYT. She may be slimy but she's not an idiot, she knows perfectly well that you'll keep shilling for her anyway if she doesn't.
37
And while we're at it Donald Trump should sell all of his businesses and release his tax returns.
@Steve
Sure. Fully investigate the Donald's business practices and ties and bankruptcies. It's not a zero sum game here. Both candidates are slime. No complaints from me if anyone wants to investigate previous Bush and Cheney arrangements as well. I'm repulsed by corruption no matter who is involved.
Sure. Fully investigate the Donald's business practices and ties and bankruptcies. It's not a zero sum game here. Both candidates are slime. No complaints from me if anyone wants to investigate previous Bush and Cheney arrangements as well. I'm repulsed by corruption no matter who is involved.
2
Glad you are treating Hillary the same way you treated Jeb Bush and the Bush Family Foundation (which does not even disclose its donors) when he was running for President. Just as you treated Hillary the same way when Colin Powell ran a personal email account on AOL that was so insecure it got hacked, possibly endangering national security. Oh, wait . . .
2
Distance itself from politics?
A little late, huh?
A little late, huh?
16
The Clinton foundation made many mistakes, but they boil down to a few. Mrs. Clinton should have used a vehicle similar to a blind trust to entirely separate herself from the foundation starting with her presidential run in 2008 and should have kept it in place for her term as Sec. of State. Second, as complicated as it would have been, she should have recused herself from decisions involving donors to the foundation (however, if it had been a true blind trust, she would not have known who donated). Lastly, just like her predecessors, if she had kept private emails and accounts entirely separate from government related emails, we would not be having this discussion about emails. Whether there was quid quo pro or pay to play for foundation donations is still unclear. The foundation, and its founders were completely within the bounds of the law when it was founded in 2002. It did and still does very good work on par with other multinational foundations. Most big foundations of this size have both public and anonymous donors. I hear little from the detractors comparing it to other similar foundations.
1
I'm no Clinton fan, but I put a lot of the blame on what happened while she was SOS on the Obama administration. Why didn't they insist on a stricter, higher wall between the foundation and State? It seems to me they dropped the ball.
2
I am so sick of this garbage: virtually every serious news outlet has condemned the AP story as lousy and misleading "journalism." There is ZERO evidence of ANY "Pay for Play" activity, and the smarmy "yet" attached to that by the editorial board is unconscionably provocative. Yes, changes need to be made. Why: because the rules tha were generated by the Obama administration--and by all accounts followed by Ms. Clinton and the Foundation--are DIFFERENT when, Truman said, the buck stops at the desk of the President. I find both of these processes responsible, transparent, and perfectly reasonable.
138
If you didn't have to backdoor the money for access they would just hand them the check. Let's say 10% charity, 85% access and the rest is just Clinton grandstanding.(5% for Fox viewers.)
1
To quote my favorite NYT comment of the month, "Vermont, we have a problem." Thank you to whoever said it.
10
If this separation actually comes to pass, what will the Times and Maureen Dowd write about during a Clinton presidency? Whitewater? Benghazi? Her pantsuits?
Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad bin al-Khalifa of Bahrain tried to use the foundation to seek access, and was rebuffed.
Is Hillary supposed to control the actions of one?
Is Hillary supposed to control the actions of one?
1
Did you call for the closure of the George H.W. Bush foundation while his son was president? It didn't happen, and they did not disclose their donors. The Clinton Foundation has disclosed its donors, which allows you to make suggestions of impropriety, while the Bush Foundation did not, so you didn't know anything. Hypocrisy, or just Clinton Derangement Syndrome?
284
They have not disclosed their donors. They lied about them and obfuscated on many others.
Excellent point.
1
If they haven't disclosed their donors, then how do you know which people donated and whether they met with Secretary Clinton? Trying to have it both ways?
1
Why? The majority of Democrat in these pages has made it clear that they are fine with the Clinton Foundation's appearance of pay to play, and acceptance of foreign money.
This is how Democrats "get things done." Own it.
This is how Democrats "get things done." Own it.
16
That 'risks' tainting her campaign?? Outrageously funny and pathetic at the same time.Clinton's campaign has been tainted from the start by her transparent lying and pay-for-play Slush Fund, the CGI. The moral bankruptcy of the Liberal-Left with their acceptance of this most morally tainted candidate has never been clearer than in this election.
20
The issue of whether Hillary Clinton used her position as secretary of state to drum up business foe the Clinton Foundation won't go away. Cutting her ties to the foundation now would just emphasize she and her aides acted inappropriately and, perhaps, illegally when she was secretary.
5
Ethics 101- the appearance of impropriety is just as bad as actual misconduct.
The work the Foundation has done is laudable but it is past time for her to cut her ties. Bill was more than capable of seeing to its continued success, her inability to understand or see why it looks bad is troubling.
The work the Foundation has done is laudable but it is past time for her to cut her ties. Bill was more than capable of seeing to its continued success, her inability to understand or see why it looks bad is troubling.
2
Yes, it's another massive lapse of judgment on her part that should give us all pause.
1
The Clintons (parents and daughter) could teach a master class in influence peddling. The astounding "consulting" fees that Bill has collected outdistance by any measure the value of his consultations if they did not include the prospect of special access. The same goes for the enormous speaking fees that both Bill and Hillary have collected. The Clinton Foundation is a tax favored extension of this, which has funded an incredibly lavish high end networking opportunity for the rich and powerful, with dubious actual accomplishments. Adding insult to injury, it has been built on the backs of American taxpayers who are denied any taxes on its investments and who lose hundreds of millions of tax dollars on deductible donations. Donald Trump's tax returns undoubtedly contain an astounding array of tax saving devices used very aggressively, but the tax returns of the Clintons are far scarier in the blatant reveal of the shameless world of influence peddling and special access they have been selling for a very long time.
13
The Clinton Foundation is nothing more than a front for the Clintons to have their own private tax shelter. The fact that Hillary gave 2M in donations to charity and 98% went to the Clinton Foundation should tell you everything you need to know. Look at Bill's speaking fees when she was running the State Dept. and now. It's night and day. Clinton Politics make Chicago politics look like Rookie Ball.
23
That's why they schooled Obama and his Chicago team when they drafted their "memorandum of understanding" on how the foundation would operate when she was SOS. Clearly, that little MOU did little to stop the Clintons.
3
It's only now that the deplorable fact of her having a conflict of interest all through her tenure as the Secretary of state has been revealed after the disclosure of her official email scandal, not by her own admission. Who can believe her now that once elected POTUS Hillary Clinton would sever links with the foreign and corporate donors to the multibillion worth Clinton Foundation and its various operations.? What about her credibility and image during the campaign run, sure to be tarnished by the opponents and remaining so in public perception? Relevant here is the saying that Ceaser's wife should be above suspicion,which applies to all the public office holders in the rule of law based democracies, and justified both on the public ethics and constitutional propriety grounds- the test of transparency and accountability that Hillary Clinton has already miserably failed.
14
Oh for God's sake. Check out what the foundation actually does, as does the Carter Center and the Johnson Foundation and the rest of the presidential charities before you shriek more about conflicts of interest (when no personal interest exists there) or other broad and absurd "philosophical" applications that occur to your mind.
2
jb, Rosalyn Carter is not running for Prez nor are her descendants.
3
Jai, the Foundation was formed well before Clinton ran for president.
1
Regarding Pay to play see
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hilla...
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hilla...
3
Spare us the reorganizations to see what can be hived off and run independently. Just dissolve the foundation and transfer the remaining assets to other worthwhile world wide charitable groups.
2
It's one thing for right-wing propagandists to pretend that a presidential foundation is an unusual thing for an ex-president to have. But I'd expect the NYT editors to know better. My family has supported the Carter Center for years, and I understand the LBJ Foundation is doing fine even after all this time. We do get an inexpensive Christmas card once a year from "Jimmy and Rosalyn", but we don't expect favors otherwise. I'm sure, too, that some rich people and some corporate heads donate, and Jimmy doesn't work for them, either. And LBJ has been out of action for some time, as formidable as he was. In short, pretending that a charity that is quite usual for presidents is unique to Clinton, or that there is any proof of a quid pro quo, is mere mud-slinging, and I expect better of the New York Times. Sort yourselves out.
2
Hillary's cutting ties to the Clinton's Foundations won't end questions about her and Bill's roles working together to solicit large foundation donations on the possibly false pitch that, somehow, the donation would win access to Secretary Clinton for government actions.
The FBI investigation into the "pay to play" allegations against both Hillary and Bill while she was Secretary ought to be concluded before October. Who among the donors was misled by Bill Clinton for a donation?
The FBI investigation into the "pay to play" allegations against both Hillary and Bill while she was Secretary ought to be concluded before October. Who among the donors was misled by Bill Clinton for a donation?
6
The Clintons have lived their political lives with the ethical code of "The ends justify the means." If you believe in the righteousness of their "ends" you are likely more comfortable looking past their "means."
The relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the Office of the Secretary of State puts this ethical belief system on full display. Or, as one of my friends has said about the Clinton ethics, "Just add money and stir."
I have no doubt that the "Clinton Foundation" has accomplished enormous good in the world. Do I wish that it could have done this with a less notorious mode of behavior than providing access to the operation of our government? Well, sure.
BUT. When it comes to ethics. The opposing candidate and party no longer seems to be able to even separate the "means" from the "ends." At least the Clintons can claim a noble purpose.
I would hope that Hillary Clinton comes to the conclusion that the Presidency of the United States is a greater prize than the maintenance of a private Foundation. She should immediately announce some form of stewardship that eliminates any connection of the Clinton Foundation to the Presidency.
Wouldn't this be the "ends justifying the means" of a much higher order? Wouldn't this be the sort of sacrifice that is expected from a President of the United States? Of course it is.
The relationship between the Clinton Foundation and the Office of the Secretary of State puts this ethical belief system on full display. Or, as one of my friends has said about the Clinton ethics, "Just add money and stir."
I have no doubt that the "Clinton Foundation" has accomplished enormous good in the world. Do I wish that it could have done this with a less notorious mode of behavior than providing access to the operation of our government? Well, sure.
BUT. When it comes to ethics. The opposing candidate and party no longer seems to be able to even separate the "means" from the "ends." At least the Clintons can claim a noble purpose.
I would hope that Hillary Clinton comes to the conclusion that the Presidency of the United States is a greater prize than the maintenance of a private Foundation. She should immediately announce some form of stewardship that eliminates any connection of the Clinton Foundation to the Presidency.
Wouldn't this be the "ends justifying the means" of a much higher order? Wouldn't this be the sort of sacrifice that is expected from a President of the United States? Of course it is.
2
Best line I've heard in awhile:
As one of my friends has said about the Clinton ethics, "Just add money and stir."
As one of my friends has said about the Clinton ethics, "Just add money and stir."
3
Not having had much interest in the workings of the Clinton Foundation, from what I've read so far, it seems Donald and the Trumplicans are trying to whip up a hurricane in a toilet bowl.
As I understand it, the foundation's purpose is charitable: improvement of the lives, the health and economic opportunities of poor people in every corner of the planet. And that purpose is largely being accomplished. Now in the past, when Sheikh This'n bin That'n wishes to get Ms. Clinton's ear, he goes through the channels (Ms. Abedin) to do so. Is he asking for nuclear secrets, you think? Well maybe you don't, but her honorable opposition always thinks the worst.
There is no argument that, as President, Hillary Clinton should cut all ties with the foundation for the duration of her term(s). Bill and Chelsea, too. The steps listed by the editors are imminently reasonable.
By the same token, Trump, should hell freeze, as President, should turn over every penny of his fortune(?) to a blind trust beyond the control of him and his children, to remove even the possibility of a whiff of favoritism to any foreign or domestic government or business enterprise involved in the manufacture of ties, suits, hair stiffener, smell-good water, and cheap but over-priced wine.
As I understand it, the foundation's purpose is charitable: improvement of the lives, the health and economic opportunities of poor people in every corner of the planet. And that purpose is largely being accomplished. Now in the past, when Sheikh This'n bin That'n wishes to get Ms. Clinton's ear, he goes through the channels (Ms. Abedin) to do so. Is he asking for nuclear secrets, you think? Well maybe you don't, but her honorable opposition always thinks the worst.
There is no argument that, as President, Hillary Clinton should cut all ties with the foundation for the duration of her term(s). Bill and Chelsea, too. The steps listed by the editors are imminently reasonable.
By the same token, Trump, should hell freeze, as President, should turn over every penny of his fortune(?) to a blind trust beyond the control of him and his children, to remove even the possibility of a whiff of favoritism to any foreign or domestic government or business enterprise involved in the manufacture of ties, suits, hair stiffener, smell-good water, and cheap but over-priced wine.
76
Hillary and Bill whipped up the hurricane in a toilet bowl.
Donald is merely pointing to the fact that the water is flowing out from under the bathroom door at an alarming rate.
The Clintons have only themselves to blame.
Donald is merely pointing to the fact that the water is flowing out from under the bathroom door at an alarming rate.
The Clintons have only themselves to blame.
Why should the adult daughter of a President be barred from doing the wok which she apparently does quite well?
Dick Cheney's daughters were not barred from being a lobbyist for Coors and a senate candidate. The Carter and Ford children were not barred from pursuing their own work?
And we are talking about a charitable foundation anyway? One of the things that seems to be trumpeted as a horror here is that the Crown Prince of Bahrain got,an interview with our Secretary of State. The guy is going to be the head of,state someday in a very volatile region of the world. Should we be appalled that our chief diplomat talks with him.
Are we outrage that the crown prince of Great Britain got an interview with the President?
Dick Cheney's daughters were not barred from being a lobbyist for Coors and a senate candidate. The Carter and Ford children were not barred from pursuing their own work?
And we are talking about a charitable foundation anyway? One of the things that seems to be trumpeted as a horror here is that the Crown Prince of Bahrain got,an interview with our Secretary of State. The guy is going to be the head of,state someday in a very volatile region of the world. Should we be appalled that our chief diplomat talks with him.
Are we outrage that the crown prince of Great Britain got an interview with the President?
I understand the intent of the Editorial Board to hold Mrs. Clinton to a high ethical standard, an area where she and her husband have serious weakness. This is a shame, because their political and social goals are so laudable by comparison.
However, all Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have done in the Clinton Foundation is leverage the political and social capital they had coming out of Washington in 2000 to further those laudable social and political goals. They worked their contacts. They strong-armed their friends, wherever they were, for a good cause. And, yes, they leveraged themselves to go onto the speakers circuit to eat rubber chicken and raise money, for themselves and for their foundation. There are an awful lot of Executive Directors and Board Chairs in New York City, Philadelphia and Los Angeles, as well as York PA and Tacoma WA, doing exactly the same thing for their causes.
Must Mr. and Mrs. Clinton's relationship with the Clinton Foundation change? Yes, absolutely. But calls for closing it down are outrageous.
And when is Mr. Trump going to sell off his holdings in Trump-branded companies around the world, where he has leveraged his political and social capital to build the brand? If he wins, he will place his holdings in a blind trust, pursuant to Federal law, and it will all be waiting for him at the other end of his presidency. Dismantling the Clinton Foundation is, by comparison, cruel and unusual punishment for seeking elective office.
However, all Mr. and Mrs. Clinton have done in the Clinton Foundation is leverage the political and social capital they had coming out of Washington in 2000 to further those laudable social and political goals. They worked their contacts. They strong-armed their friends, wherever they were, for a good cause. And, yes, they leveraged themselves to go onto the speakers circuit to eat rubber chicken and raise money, for themselves and for their foundation. There are an awful lot of Executive Directors and Board Chairs in New York City, Philadelphia and Los Angeles, as well as York PA and Tacoma WA, doing exactly the same thing for their causes.
Must Mr. and Mrs. Clinton's relationship with the Clinton Foundation change? Yes, absolutely. But calls for closing it down are outrageous.
And when is Mr. Trump going to sell off his holdings in Trump-branded companies around the world, where he has leveraged his political and social capital to build the brand? If he wins, he will place his holdings in a blind trust, pursuant to Federal law, and it will all be waiting for him at the other end of his presidency. Dismantling the Clinton Foundation is, by comparison, cruel and unusual punishment for seeking elective office.
202
but they are now worth 100 million dollars...where did that money cpme from and what did they do to earn it??
3
Defending Hillary by comparing her to Trump? Are you sure that's the road you want to take? It's definitely not a high road.
If you're truly unaware of Hillary's poor judgment, you haven't been reading enough.
If you're truly unaware of Hillary's poor judgment, you haven't been reading enough.
3
And Adolph Hitler cut Germany unemployment by half.
Reality check. This corruption will follow her the rest of her life. It is on track to get worse...much worse.
11
Lowering the cost of HIV/AIDS drugs in Africa is corruption? Who cares if a few rich guys were asked to pay for things like that? Tell me about the charitable contributions of Trump and his followers. I'm waiting....
1
The Mafia took care of people too so how did the Clintons get so wealthy when the only business they were involved in was our government?
Still waiting for the editorial on what Do and Trump MUST do to keep from having conflicts of interest with his businesses should he become president. We can't even tell what ARE his businesses. And where are his tax returns? At least pretend to be fair and balanced when it comes to the Clintons.
The question that should be asked is why now and not when she was SecState?
A further question is why has the Times and other media outlets not screamed from the rooftops about this since she announced her candidacy.
A further question is why has the Times and other media outlets not screamed from the rooftops about this since she announced her candidacy.
7
I happen to believe that the time for the Clintons to cut the ties to their Foundation was 2009. It did not happen, but President Obama had enough concerns about the a possible conflict of interests that he required her to sign an agreement. Did she respect the agreement? Can we trust the Clintons will do the right thing once in the WH? To vote for her because she was never indicted (her greatest achievement really)or because she is not Trump?
NYT, you already did a good job of killing Trump. You cannot remove the ugly virus that invaded Hillary decades ago. Why not tell about or the other candidates?
NYT, you already did a good job of killing Trump. You cannot remove the ugly virus that invaded Hillary decades ago. Why not tell about or the other candidates?
6
Obivously the NY Times editorial board is not disturbed the least by the pay-to-play modus operandi of Clinton. That she would provide access to high ranking diplomats in exchange for money, the New York Times find not questionable at all. All that matters is winning the election.
15
The solution is simple: if you want to be in public life, then no outside money interests can be permitted, whether benign or not.
Pass a law.
Pass a law.
5
@ David Henry. You mean like Citizens United? Or super PACs?
1
Porch, did you read what I wrote? If you did, then you could answer your own question.
David ask about the Black congressional caucus PAC and all you will get is silence.
2
The first thing I think of when a foundation is created is that whomever is creating it is looking for tax breaks. I really believe that any concern for the causes they support comes AFTER they realize the savings that the foundation allows them. I guess that's okay but to me is smells nonetheless.
4
Years ago, the Clinton Foundation reached the point that it was a major NGO with a large staff. It can continue run and do good things without the Clintons at the helm. It should have been put into receivership and run as a blind trust when Hillary became secretary of state.
It's too late for that, but the process to do so needs to begin NOW, not after the election.
Finding something for Bill to do to keep out of trouble is a problem. But this foundation is not the solution. It IS trouble.
It's too late for that, but the process to do so needs to begin NOW, not after the election.
Finding something for Bill to do to keep out of trouble is a problem. But this foundation is not the solution. It IS trouble.
Hillary Clinton used lawyers and BleachBit software to delete 30,000 of incriminating emails. Nobody employs teams of lawyers, a private SERVER, and uses BleachBit software that deletes all traces from servers that "even God can't read" to delete yoga emails.
Hillary Clinton promised in writing to the Obama administration to cut all ties from foundation and to stop taking donations. That didn't happen, and she got away with it. Nobody is ever holding her responsible.
How can you be so naive and believe it will be better this time around? Besides, foreign governments can use proxy American individuals and foundations for their donations to the Clinton foundation.
Need examples for pay-for-play?
1. The Clinton Foundations received about 120 million in donations related to the sell of US Uranium to Russia, done with the help of a Canadian middle man Giustra. Bill and Hill also racked millions in speaking fees for this deal.
2. The Clinton Foundation received 10 million dollars from Saudi Arabia and soon after the state dept cleared sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia worth 29 Billion dollars, weapons used to kill all the non sunni muslims in the Middle East.
And what Secretary of State doesn't expect Classified emails on her server during her tenure so she "naively" decides to put all of it on a private server so the personal (Clinton Foundation dealings) stay below the radar, never mind the US National Security is left at risk, and all the Gov rules are broken?
Hillary Clinton promised in writing to the Obama administration to cut all ties from foundation and to stop taking donations. That didn't happen, and she got away with it. Nobody is ever holding her responsible.
How can you be so naive and believe it will be better this time around? Besides, foreign governments can use proxy American individuals and foundations for their donations to the Clinton foundation.
Need examples for pay-for-play?
1. The Clinton Foundations received about 120 million in donations related to the sell of US Uranium to Russia, done with the help of a Canadian middle man Giustra. Bill and Hill also racked millions in speaking fees for this deal.
2. The Clinton Foundation received 10 million dollars from Saudi Arabia and soon after the state dept cleared sales of weapons to Saudi Arabia worth 29 Billion dollars, weapons used to kill all the non sunni muslims in the Middle East.
And what Secretary of State doesn't expect Classified emails on her server during her tenure so she "naively" decides to put all of it on a private server so the personal (Clinton Foundation dealings) stay below the radar, never mind the US National Security is left at risk, and all the Gov rules are broken?
14
Would this great newspaper fifty some years ago have simply said to Nixon, "Just cut ties and do better from here on out?" Can I assume that good reporters are following the smoke all the way to the fire, if any? Good reporting either clears Clinton or it establishes the case against her. Either outcome is in the public interest. But to write an editorial saying cut ties makes me wonder. If there is nothing wrong here, why cut ties? If there is something wrong, why stop at suggesting a moratorium on impropriety?
8
I have thought about this. OK. I'll let this foundation thing go under 1 condition. Chelsea Clinton holds a news conference and says, "I will never seek elected office at any level in the United States. If I do, may my child be eaten by a great white shark."
1
Exactly how much of the two billion dollars went to helping the individuals and organizations it was set-up to help? I missed that part. Also, has there ever been a President...and his family... in the history of our country that has made so much money after leaving the White House as President Clinton and his heir to be Hillary? Strange, how tens of million of dollars just came their way. Speaking fees, book deals, shady organizations, lie after lie after lie. At least Mr. Trump has an excuse. He's not very bright but the Clintons they are as cunning and devious as Bonnie and Clyde.
5
@Joe. How much of the money went to charity? 88%, according to Charity Watch, which gives the Clinton Foundation an A rating. Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton have never taken any compensation from the Foundation. And, yes, in today's dollars, Ronald Reagan made as much money as Bill Clinton giving speeches after he left office.
93
All of your questions are readily answered with about 5 minutes of internet searching. Clinton has more than a decade of tax returns on her website. You can see her sources of income in great detail if you wanted. There is also detailed information about the Foundation readily available to the public.
2
I am simply astounded that a well-functioning charity organization (rated A) would be turned into a corrupt scandal for one candidate while the other candidate whose university was a fraud, who lies constantly and flip-flops on his core policy agenda is just "Trump being Trump".
337
Maybe I am mistaken, but isn't there some expression about "Two wrongs....."?
Donald Trump negatives are on the front page and editorial page every day. I'm not sure what you're complaining about?
Mrs. Clinton deserves scrutiny for her lack of transparency and the appearance of conflict of interest which is clearly present.
Mrs. Clinton is way ahead in the polls because both candidates are being vetted not in spite of it.
Mrs. Clinton deserves scrutiny for her lack of transparency and the appearance of conflict of interest which is clearly present.
Mrs. Clinton is way ahead in the polls because both candidates are being vetted not in spite of it.
If you really want to be astounded, try Googling Bill Clinton Laureate Colleges. You'll get an eyeful. The release of this info is doubtless why criticism of Trump University has disappeared from mainstream media. The Clintons are doing Trump one better when it comes to colleges.
1
It doesn't matter that the Clinton Foundation "does good work" because the money is clearly dirty. This and the DNC primary and the many other ethical deficiencies of the progressive liberal Marxist Democratic left has only proven that the Democratic party is the new communist party. Anyone who could vote for Hillary at this point is morally challenged.
Even without all of the corruption, Hillary's "great economic plan" is to soak the rich, chase corporations off shore and expand government...In other words, she wants to continue slaughtering the geese that lay the eggs. By the time Hillary is through choking down greasy goose meat, the USA will be too far gone to recover. Debt is approaching $20 Trillion. Interest rates will rise one day...when they do, our last goose will be cooked.
Even without all of the corruption, Hillary's "great economic plan" is to soak the rich, chase corporations off shore and expand government...In other words, she wants to continue slaughtering the geese that lay the eggs. By the time Hillary is through choking down greasy goose meat, the USA will be too far gone to recover. Debt is approaching $20 Trillion. Interest rates will rise one day...when they do, our last goose will be cooked.
4
No outright evidence of quid pro quo arrangements have been found. Fair enough. However, it is extremely difficult to prove such an arrangement has been made. I doubt that the Clintons and their core loyalists, having been to the best law schools in the land, would be stupid enough to put any such arrangement in ink (or electron). But none of this soothes the real aching question, which is, how hard are mainstream journalists looking for evidence of these arrangements? Might guess is that, right now, not very hard at all. Many of us suspect (and so do the Russians? and Guccifer? and Assange?) that the NYT could be digging up dirt if really wanted to.
9
The whole point of the private email server was to prevent scrutiny of the blurring of the lines between public and personal, either out of hubris or poor judgement. As Secretary of State she was a failure. The only reason to vote for her is because she is the lesser of the two evils. A truly sad state of affairs.
7
It is amazing that they didn't stop taking these donations long ago but not surprising. It is just another example of the pattern of bad judgment by The Clinton Family.
While The Clintons should take it a step further, and resign from the foundation and the board, it's probably too late to change the perception or the reality that influence has been purchased and it will follow Hillary should she win the election.
While The Clintons should take it a step further, and resign from the foundation and the board, it's probably too late to change the perception or the reality that influence has been purchased and it will follow Hillary should she win the election.
7
Agreed-for the good of the people and the organizations the foundation supposedly helps, this controversy should have been anticipated and a plan should have been put in place months ago. Perhaps another example of, "but that doesn't apply to us"?
1
No matter how much the NYT tries to downplay and minimize the relationship between HRC and the foundation while she was Sec. of State. -- I think that the evidence indicates that in quite a few cases it was "pay to play". And despite promised made of separating herself from the foundations if she were to be President, the public will think, quite correctly, that it will be "pay to play" again.
It seems that no matter what, there is a stench of illegality and under the table business about the Clintons. It was there when Bill was President and it will be much worse if HRC is president.
Both Clintons are so in love with Power and Money that they will stop at nothing to get it. I simply don't believe that they will separate themselves from the foundations as they say they would - there will be some sly undercover deals they will be making. This is how the Clinton have operated and they will not change those habits.
It seems that no matter what, there is a stench of illegality and under the table business about the Clintons. It was there when Bill was President and it will be much worse if HRC is president.
Both Clintons are so in love with Power and Money that they will stop at nothing to get it. I simply don't believe that they will separate themselves from the foundations as they say they would - there will be some sly undercover deals they will be making. This is how the Clinton have operated and they will not change those habits.
14
"If she wins the Presidency"
That statement in itself, is proof positive that the foundation is the Clinton treasure chest, in terms of current value, tbe value of future contributions, and value of access to the innermost circle of the government of the United States of America, by any and all actors, good and bad, willing to pay.
Influence peddling and the addiction to wealth will be Hillarys' downfall, and along with it whatever little respect accorded our so obviously corrupt government.
This election year is disgraceful, and beyond embarrassing to the people of the United States of America.
That statement in itself, is proof positive that the foundation is the Clinton treasure chest, in terms of current value, tbe value of future contributions, and value of access to the innermost circle of the government of the United States of America, by any and all actors, good and bad, willing to pay.
Influence peddling and the addiction to wealth will be Hillarys' downfall, and along with it whatever little respect accorded our so obviously corrupt government.
This election year is disgraceful, and beyond embarrassing to the people of the United States of America.
14
Ridiculous assumption.... "correlation proves causation," is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy in that two events occurring together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship."
Hillary should disassociate with the Foundation right away? Then Trump will point to her action as proof that there is guilt. Tricky business.
One is perplexed when Dick Cheney, while VP chaired the Energy Task Force where " many of the regulations and recommendations were pro-Oil" and secret "little accountability for mistakes or harmful actions to those in authority" and that the CEOs of major Oil companies were also on the Task Force.
Then there was the Iraq war: ""Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are." "ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Halliburton, among others, met with Cheney's staff in January 2003 to discuss plans for Iraq's postwar industry."
No investigation? No Hearings?
Hillary should disassociate with the Foundation right away? Then Trump will point to her action as proof that there is guilt. Tricky business.
One is perplexed when Dick Cheney, while VP chaired the Energy Task Force where " many of the regulations and recommendations were pro-Oil" and secret "little accountability for mistakes or harmful actions to those in authority" and that the CEOs of major Oil companies were also on the Task Force.
Then there was the Iraq war: ""Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," said Gen. John Abizaid, former head of U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq, in 2007. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan agreed, writing in his memoir, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." Then-Sen. and now Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the same in 2007: "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are." "ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Halliburton, among others, met with Cheney's staff in January 2003 to discuss plans for Iraq's postwar industry."
No investigation? No Hearings?
91
First explain what this Clinton Foundation business is all about. It strikes me as an under the table money laundering scheme.
7
If the Clinton's had a shred of integrity they would have cut their ties to their Foundation on the day Hillary announced her Candidacy. And certainly, made good on doing so by the time she achieved her historic Nomination.
But, no. Looks like another Clinton scandal a birthing, the kind the Clinton's have never done anything about, except lie.
But, no. Looks like another Clinton scandal a birthing, the kind the Clinton's have never done anything about, except lie.
7
She was giving paid speeches up until about a month before she announced, which was terrible, terrible optics. So it doesn't surprise me one bit that they missed this elephant in the room.
All of us arguing away at the margins of the problems with the Clintons and how they do business reminds me of George Carlin talking about the "illusions of choice".
5
I view the story of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for official business as a tempest in a teapot. But her financial sides show a touchy-feely socialist ready to shed tears who worships the Golden Calf.
Yes, actually the emails clearly demonstrate a pay-for-play scheme, which is why she violated the laws regarding government records and thwarted FOIA to hide it, leading inevitably to mass violations of the laws regarding the handling of classified material. This is so patently obvious that the failure of the NYT to condemn her, instead endorsing her, is shocking and destroys any credibility it may have had on the issues of government corruption and transparency.
15
Why must Americans be subjected to this unethical if not criminal behavior?
The Clintons have become oligarchs,too wealthy and politically powerful for any Democrat,including Obama, to challenge.
They are destroying American values of honesty and truthfulness.
Supporting them because "all politicians are dishonest and unethical", is unacceptable.
The Clintons have become oligarchs,too wealthy and politically powerful for any Democrat,including Obama, to challenge.
They are destroying American values of honesty and truthfulness.
Supporting them because "all politicians are dishonest and unethical", is unacceptable.
10
The mere fact that Gilbert Chagoury, one of the Clinton's billion dollar babies and the subject of some of the recent emails, was denied entry to the US because he is on the Terrorist Watch List, should explain all that is needed about Clinton ethics. They, all three, are for sale to anyone.
8
"It would also send a signal that Mrs. Clinton and her family have heard the concerns of critics and supporters."
Clinton's behaviors and attitudes constantly reminds me of Chris Argyris' contribution in Harvard Business Review, "Teaching Smart People How to Learn".
I expect her to win the contest; and am pessimistic about her prospects for avoiding the mistakes of the past while in office.
Clinton's behaviors and attitudes constantly reminds me of Chris Argyris' contribution in Harvard Business Review, "Teaching Smart People How to Learn".
I expect her to win the contest; and am pessimistic about her prospects for avoiding the mistakes of the past while in office.
4
Instead of shutting down the Clinton Foundation, why not just transfer all of the control and all of the assets of the Foundation to another charitable foundation? The charitable programs of the foundation can continue and the Clintons can show that the Foundation indeed has a noble purple and is not merely a "pay to play" scheme as their rivals have alleged.
2
Even if the Foundation bans foreign donations now, we have no idea what has been 'incentivized' in the past.
The Foundation is the most egregious and dangerous of all the pay to play corruption in our federal government and that is truly an outrageously dubious achievement.
The Foundation is the most egregious and dangerous of all the pay to play corruption in our federal government and that is truly an outrageously dubious achievement.
8
For those who say this is no big deal, ask yourself a simple question. Why would a large corporation or foreign government donate to the Clinton Foundation? It could be for altruistic reasons, it could be for publicity, or it could be to gain influence. Publicity, probably not in that they have tried to hide the names of contributors. Altruism, do you think of big corporations and Middle Eastern governments as being altruistic? Doubtful. What is left? Influence.
225
Why anybody donates money to a foundation is not relevant unless they obtain something in return. The first thing to acknowledge is that money given to the Clinton foundation in no way enriches the Clinton family, if anything they themselves have donated large sums to the foundation. The only thing Bill and Hillary are guilty of is using their celebrity to attract donations from all over the world. The second thing any article on the foundation should mention is what that foundation does and what it does not do. It does not make political contributions, it does support many worthy causes as expected from a charitable institution. Finally, apart from attempts by donors to get access to Hillary (many of which were not granted) there is no evidence whatsoever that donors got anything that they would not have gotten without having donated a penny to the foundation. The whole foundation brouhaha is another example of the continuous effort to blacken Hillary. What is disturbing is how much the press and punditry contribute willingly to this effort. It is a shame that because Hillary is running for President the foundation is now obliged not to accept foreign or corporate donations even though its only connection will be the name Clinton.
5
Big corporations get tax breaks, good public approval, and altruistic rewards. Our money-drenched political system has made cynics of everyone. There are real reasons to give to charities. I do not know exactly how much charities raise in the US annually, but surely some of that must be because someone wants to do good.
2
You claim the donors are trying to buy influence. Even if that is the case, that doesn't mean they ARE buying influence. All it proves is that they THINK the Clintons can be bought.
Lots of people believe untrue things about the Clintons. There's a vast right-wing conspiracy dedicated to exactly that.
Lots of people believe untrue things about the Clintons. There's a vast right-wing conspiracy dedicated to exactly that.
2
This is very simple. If Hillary Clinton becomes president she and her family members should resign all positions with the Clinton Foundation and the name of the Foundation should be changed. Nothing more needs to be done, nothing less would be adequate.
3
What about the Hillary Victory Fund? It was set up to fund down tickets in state democratic parties, yet majority went to Hillary's campaign. Who is going to investigate? Not NYT for sure. It would rather close its eyes or give the task to an intern.
2
The Foundation will not be a pivotal issue.
The average American doesn't know a foundation from a water fountain, and believes whatever they are told. Hillary haters have already decided that Crooked Hillary is doing something illegal, so changing policy about foreign donors will have no effect.
The same is true for the e-mail "scandal".
If the Trumpistas can't get excited about Trump's obviously shady affairs with Communists in Russia, which probably border on treason, it illustrates their willful ignorance about any issue of substance.
This, too, shall pass.
The average American doesn't know a foundation from a water fountain, and believes whatever they are told. Hillary haters have already decided that Crooked Hillary is doing something illegal, so changing policy about foreign donors will have no effect.
The same is true for the e-mail "scandal".
If the Trumpistas can't get excited about Trump's obviously shady affairs with Communists in Russia, which probably border on treason, it illustrates their willful ignorance about any issue of substance.
This, too, shall pass.
I wholeheartedly agree with this editorial. Former Secretary Clinton should cut ties so the Foundation does not "become a conduit to the White House for powerful influence seekers." Exactly!! She should emulate almost every other politician and only allow access to those big campaign donors.
81
Good one! A bit too subtle perhaps for the readers and writers here...
1
That's the problem! The biggest donors (e.g. Middle-Eastern delegates, among others) were the ones that were asking of contact with her as Secretary of State.
It's the "appearance" of impropriety that is at the heart of this "faux pas". The press and others have mentioned that legally, there was nothing wrong, as there were not any laws or regulations to not do this.
It's the "appearance" of impropriety that is at the heart of this "faux pas". The press and others have mentioned that legally, there was nothing wrong, as there were not any laws or regulations to not do this.
1
Trump has 500 companies globally. He plans to put these in the care of his kid. This is a huge conflict of interest! Few are talking about this. Clinton Foundation is important and I believe she needs a real to divest, carefully. Lives are at stake. However, Trump's conflicts are much greater and need to be discussed.
210
Yes. The Clintons need to divest from the Clinton Foundation. This includes the daughter. Let the Gates foundation run it for 4 to 8 years. Warren Buffet trusts them why not the Clintons? That is the price of running for president. You can do it Hillary, you have wanted this job all your life, pay the price.
Ironically, for your sake, the Clinton Foundation will be left in the hands of Hillary!'s kid.
Maybe few are talking about it but it's clearly openly be reported. Mrs. Clinton and Donald Trump deserve to be fully vetted. The fact that Mrs. Clinton has apparently created the appearance of conflict of interest deserves the light of day. Mrs. Clinton has benefited greatly by public scrutiny. In spite of her high negatives, she is clearly head and shoulders better than Donald Trump. Based on polling the public appears to have noticed.
1
The Clintons have always been slow to respond to false charges, hoping that most people will be able to spot the truth. The result has been a void that the right wing has been happy to fill with slander.
Surely by now they should learn that the right will exploit any opening, and even create false videos/evidence to harm others.
Surely by now they should learn that the right will exploit any opening, and even create false videos/evidence to harm others.
140
"slow to respond to false charges"? Do me they're explanations change as the truth comes out?
2
The Clintons value perception above all, and they play the political game better than anyone—which is why they've never been caught.
Citing their corruption is not a vote for Trump. It's not the Right that is asking questions, it is everyone but her diehards.
Citing their corruption is not a vote for Trump. It's not the Right that is asking questions, it is everyone but her diehards.
2
@David Henry: One could say that they didn't respond to charges because these are difficult to prove although they might have merit. As with all sports, politics is a game of inches and it is not easy to prove whether one is an inch within or without the law.
Can someone explain to me where the Clinton-specific scandal is here?
Why do people express outrage that rich donors get special favors and access to our political leaders? Isn't that business-as-usual in our political culture? Does anyone think that when the Koch brothers call a congressperson or senator or governor they've bought and paid for, they don't get special access and favors? Not long ago, a prankster radio personality got a direct line to Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin, posing as one of the Kochs. Enough said.
Yes, the money culture in our politics is generally corrupt and disgraceful. But it is not Clinton's doing. She has to play game everyone else is playing.
There is no there there.
Why do people express outrage that rich donors get special favors and access to our political leaders? Isn't that business-as-usual in our political culture? Does anyone think that when the Koch brothers call a congressperson or senator or governor they've bought and paid for, they don't get special access and favors? Not long ago, a prankster radio personality got a direct line to Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin, posing as one of the Kochs. Enough said.
Yes, the money culture in our politics is generally corrupt and disgraceful. But it is not Clinton's doing. She has to play game everyone else is playing.
There is no there there.
5
Hillary Clinton should have cut ties with the Clinton Foundarion as soon as she announced her presidential run. She should have known that people would have questioned conflict of interest issues between her and the foundation, I think she is a smart woman but some of us now are questioning her common sense. We need to learn everything and everyone involved with this Foundarion and if and what special favors were bestowed upon those who contributed sums of money. If she has nothing to hide, she will reveal everything.
3
The gentle coaxing provided by the board just demonstrates how partisanship drives their outrage. No doubt this would be considered a major scandal if a Republican had a foundation that the board agrees was heavily intermixed with the State Department. So much so that the board states that it was hard to tell where one began and the other ended.
Also find it confusing that the board claims that "pay for play" has never been proven, yet just a few sentences later admit that donors "used foundation channels to seek access to Mrs. Clinton." Think the board would be so charitable if it was the Bush Foundation? Of course not.
The problem with the NYT editorial board is that partisanship trumps all other considerations. As a result, its declarations are easily ignored.
Also find it confusing that the board claims that "pay for play" has never been proven, yet just a few sentences later admit that donors "used foundation channels to seek access to Mrs. Clinton." Think the board would be so charitable if it was the Bush Foundation? Of course not.
The problem with the NYT editorial board is that partisanship trumps all other considerations. As a result, its declarations are easily ignored.
9
@Mike. Actually, George H.W. Bush had a charitable foundation while his son ran for and served as President. Unlike the Clinton Foundation, the Bush family foundation kept all of its donors secret. Not a word about that either from the NYT or from Republicans. So, yes, there is clearly a double standard. IOKIYAR (It's OK If You're a Republican).
There are no excuses. Access for money is a quid pro quo and must be transparent and well regulated. Elected officials, those whose intent is to compete for public office and those in civil services should rightfully be prohibited from any apparent pay to play schemes no matter how worthy the cause of the fundraising.
1
This is another hilarious editorial from the NYT. Its message is that HRC must cut her ties with the Clinton Foundation because the Clinton Foundation is corrupt and might taint her campaign. But it is not the Foundation that is corrupt. It is the Clintons. The Foundation is merely the beneficiary of their corruption. They obviously have persuaded many people with money to contribute money to their Foundation along with good amounts to them, either as salary from the Foundation or as speaking fees in exchange for a promise either explicit implicit that Hillary if elected will somehow return the favor. Why else would anyone give to their Foundation. There are surely others out there that are doing other good work or indeed the same good work and by giving to the Clinton Foundation one creates the suspicion that one has something else in mind. People that are totally innocent have no interest in creating such suspicion. By dealing with the Clintons, one risks tainting oneself . Obama has tainted his administration by letting the get rich running their Foundation. And now the NYT has tainted itself by writing a ridiculous editorial suggesting that the Clintons can save themselves from the taint by shutting down the Foundation. They are the taint and it can not be washed away.
10
Is the Clinton Foundation a 'foundation' in name only and legally a charity?
Why in 2014 did the Clinton Foundations employees rise from 300 to 2000 in one year? Anticipation of a Presidential run? or an increase in donations to the foundation with an increase in giving out more charity. Or influencing America's public policy?
Many more questions need to be asked and given answer to. Stepping aside if she wins is not showing much transparency here and your Times voice that there is not more to this is also weakening.
Quid-pro-quo?( even the Justice Dept. has a hard time of proving this...)
There is more to the financial concerns than 'all the good' they are doing.
It's like going to an airport tarmac to see an old friend to talk about the children and grand children and leave knowing they are all doing well and will be ok in the future.
This is not the way most American Voters want business conducted in Washington anymore,includes both parties.We as voters have had enough.Too bad for US the status quo has not.
Why in 2014 did the Clinton Foundations employees rise from 300 to 2000 in one year? Anticipation of a Presidential run? or an increase in donations to the foundation with an increase in giving out more charity. Or influencing America's public policy?
Many more questions need to be asked and given answer to. Stepping aside if she wins is not showing much transparency here and your Times voice that there is not more to this is also weakening.
Quid-pro-quo?( even the Justice Dept. has a hard time of proving this...)
There is more to the financial concerns than 'all the good' they are doing.
It's like going to an airport tarmac to see an old friend to talk about the children and grand children and leave knowing they are all doing well and will be ok in the future.
This is not the way most American Voters want business conducted in Washington anymore,includes both parties.We as voters have had enough.Too bad for US the status quo has not.
7
A "good" charity uses 80% or more of its money for charitable purposes while a "bad" charity uses less than 50%. The Clinton charities does not publish their information in any normal manner making what they do indecipherable. Charity Watch once claimed that the Clinton charities did good work, but then stated that they could no longer rate the foundation because they fathom their financial statements. The quotes you hear about how great the foundation is comes from many years ago when Charity Watch thought they knew what was going on.
>
According to their tax filings the Clinton charities, depending on how you chose to read it, uses between 80% and 95% for overhead functions with between 5% and 20% going to those they claim to help. Worse still, the foundations had to refile their statements because of bogus information showing their performance to be worse than initially reported.
>
The Clinton charities claim that they received around $2 billion dollars in donations. Charles Ortel, an MBA charity expert, claims than when you add the donations that many people claim to have given, then the total is closer to $100 billion.
>
The law requires every charity to undergo an audit using standard accounting practices every year. The Clinton charities have never done this so no one really knows what these charities are doing. Being that they broke this law about being audited and likely many others, does anyone really feel comfortable with this situation?
>
According to their tax filings the Clinton charities, depending on how you chose to read it, uses between 80% and 95% for overhead functions with between 5% and 20% going to those they claim to help. Worse still, the foundations had to refile their statements because of bogus information showing their performance to be worse than initially reported.
>
The Clinton charities claim that they received around $2 billion dollars in donations. Charles Ortel, an MBA charity expert, claims than when you add the donations that many people claim to have given, then the total is closer to $100 billion.
>
The law requires every charity to undergo an audit using standard accounting practices every year. The Clinton charities have never done this so no one really knows what these charities are doing. Being that they broke this law about being audited and likely many others, does anyone really feel comfortable with this situation?
18
No, you have it completely wrong. The 80% is for their own charitable programs, audited, information is public, and they save lives. You are acting as if a Red Cross employee who is paid to help staff a shelter after a flood is not going charitable work
@Cleetus. Nope. Go to Charity Watch. It's still analyzing the Clinton Foundation. The Foundation still gives 88% of the money raised to charitable causes. Charity Watch still gives the Clinton Foundation an A rating. You're confusing Charity Watch with Charity Navigator, which doesn't rate the Clinton Foundation solely because of internal ratings criteria unique to Chaity Navigator, not because of any shortcoming of the Clinton Foundation. As Pope said, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
Very annoyed by the hyper scrutiny of this by-all-measures highly successful charity, which operates with appropriate transparency. The Clinton foundation has an A rating and a Robin Hood approach - take money from the very rich and use it to help the desperately poor around the globe. Let's see a similar scrutiny of Donald Trump's foundation - has it done any good in the world or acted just a tax dodge and way for Trump to treat rounds of golf as charitable contributions? From this article you might suspect that the Clintons have not released their tax returns, when in fact the public has been provided the Clintons' returns going back decades, while the Republican in the race, breaking with tradition, has not released even one year's. You might suspect that they profit in some way from the Foundation, when in fact neither Bill nor Hillary draws a salary from the Foundation. The real news this campaign, if only the media would cover it, is the shameful way a candidate as experienced and effective as Clinton is being treated, while the human garbage fire that is Donald Trump is given a pass on behavior that wouldn't be tolerated in most elementary schools.
458
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/04/27/independ...
Truth is mixed ratings by charity watch groups ..and who funds these charity watch groups??
Truth is mixed ratings by charity watch groups ..and who funds these charity watch groups??
2
The Clinton Foundation is a modern day Tammany Hall designed to provide paychecks to Clinton courtiers like Huma Abedin in between their government jobs. At the same time it lines the Clinton's pockets with sweet 'speaking fee' money. Go to NYT own reporting on the latest batch of Hilary emails from the beginning of this month (though always buried inside the paper) and you can see the push from donors who had in some cases given millions of dollars to the Clintons for a 15 minute face to face meeting with "HRC". The favor seeking and giving is pretty clear. It's time to stop dressing this up as a charity, as if the Clintons spent their weekends working at a soup kitchen in Yonkers. By the way: defending and rationalizing the seedy behavior of the Clintons has become a national pathology
8
really? they don't draw salary from the foundation? Wonder where they earned over $10mm? how about Chelsea and the rest of "their network of longtime political advisers, former administration officials and business partners" Doubt they are doing work for charity. They say they are doing "great things" and they are certainly involved in so many projects (I read 3500 somewhere....$2bn fund into 3500 projects, leaves ~570k per project...which a) I highly doubt is happening and b) seems to be too many projects for any organization to be involved in...save for the headlines...) - what have they actually accomplished? Raising awareness? Great! Doubt it takes a $2bn fund to do that...Say what you will about Trump, but at least he is not wrapping himself around some altruistic "charity" to explain his monetary ambitions.
1
How about they divest themselves totally from the foundation? They can turn over everything to another foundation or a new set of directors. That is the logical settlement if it's truly about the children. So we are left to speculate that the Clintons benefit from their so-called benevolence. More likely there is something besides smoke.
3
You know the old saying, Charity Begins at Home.
Hillary Clinton has always been fiercely goal-oriented, and one of her goals is wealth. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but earning personal money via a charity has a bad taste to it, and makes one wonder exactly why Clinton wants to be president. The pay isn't that great.
This brings Donald Trump into the equation. His entire career has been focused on acquiring and keeping every dollar that crosses his path, no matter who it rightfully belongs to. He might be in the race for the glory, but only if that glory brings an enormous amount of cash along with it. And it will.
So we can ask ourselves: Do we want the financial side effect of the next presidency to be more wealth and power for the Clinton family through the Clinton Foundation, which actually does provide some amount of help for people worldwide, or more wealth and power for Trump and his children, who will buy fancier jets and bigger mansions for themselves?
Trump's bumbling ineptitude, shady connections, and innumerable repulsive traits have already disqualified him in my mind, so for me it's a moot question.
Hillary Clinton has always been fiercely goal-oriented, and one of her goals is wealth. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but earning personal money via a charity has a bad taste to it, and makes one wonder exactly why Clinton wants to be president. The pay isn't that great.
This brings Donald Trump into the equation. His entire career has been focused on acquiring and keeping every dollar that crosses his path, no matter who it rightfully belongs to. He might be in the race for the glory, but only if that glory brings an enormous amount of cash along with it. And it will.
So we can ask ourselves: Do we want the financial side effect of the next presidency to be more wealth and power for the Clinton family through the Clinton Foundation, which actually does provide some amount of help for people worldwide, or more wealth and power for Trump and his children, who will buy fancier jets and bigger mansions for themselves?
Trump's bumbling ineptitude, shady connections, and innumerable repulsive traits have already disqualified him in my mind, so for me it's a moot question.
111
The Clintons aren't paid for their work for the Foundation. It's a fact that isn't exactly highlighted by articles like this one. And, as you note, public office doesn't pay that well. Your assessment of Hillary's motivation of wealth is wrong.
And isn't that the sad part, that even a charity is assumed to be for profit because of politics. Not even charity gets a break.
And isn't that the sad part, that even a charity is assumed to be for profit because of politics. Not even charity gets a break.
13
Your vote in TN may count in this election. So, ok. Vote. My vote wont count. I am not voting. Not being a fascist is too low a bar for my vote.
4
"You know the old saying, Charity Begins at Home."
Here's what the NY Times Maureen Dowd’s said in her article "When Will Hillary Let Go?” (June 14, 2014):
"Hillary still obsesses about money, a narrative thread that has existed since she was thwarted in her desire to build a pool at the governor’s mansion in poor Arkansas and left the White House with a doggie bag full of sofas, rugs, lamps, TVs and china, some of which the Clintons later had to pay for or return."
Why was Hillary not arrested for theft—especially from the White House?
Of course, as usual, she had an excuse that it was "a clerical error."
4
This editorial seems like a coded message to a candidate whose avarice and corruption make Nixon look like a Boy Scout. The Clinton Foundation has never been anything but a cash-for-favors scam that occasional uses a tiny fraction of the take for the public good. It's nice to see The Times slowly coming around.
10
There seems to be an assumption that it is easy to break apart a charity of this size without adverse consequences to the beneficiaries of the charity.
Many say give it to the Gates Foundation, but the Gates gave money to the Clinton Foundation not the other way around. That tells me that the Clinton Foundation is doing on-the-ground work that the Gates Foundation does not. Maybe the Gates Foundation will be willing to restructure.
The Clinton Foundation provides mostly direct services. It is likely that they will need to find multiple partners to take over different projects or parts of projects. These partners will still need to raise money if they are going to survive and they won't have the benefits of the Clinton donor list. Donors have different motivations. Some probably want the status of association, but others just want to give to a organisation that makes sure that funds actually go to the needy instead of their corrupt governments. The partner organisations will need time to build their own reputations.
The size of the Clinton Foundation allows for benefits of scale. The foundation lowered the prices of AIDS medications by bundling needs in multiple countries to increase the volume discount. In other words, the foundation was able to negotiate lower prices than any one country on its own.
Winding the foundation down carefully and with transition funding is not a scandal.
Many say give it to the Gates Foundation, but the Gates gave money to the Clinton Foundation not the other way around. That tells me that the Clinton Foundation is doing on-the-ground work that the Gates Foundation does not. Maybe the Gates Foundation will be willing to restructure.
The Clinton Foundation provides mostly direct services. It is likely that they will need to find multiple partners to take over different projects or parts of projects. These partners will still need to raise money if they are going to survive and they won't have the benefits of the Clinton donor list. Donors have different motivations. Some probably want the status of association, but others just want to give to a organisation that makes sure that funds actually go to the needy instead of their corrupt governments. The partner organisations will need time to build their own reputations.
The size of the Clinton Foundation allows for benefits of scale. The foundation lowered the prices of AIDS medications by bundling needs in multiple countries to increase the volume discount. In other words, the foundation was able to negotiate lower prices than any one country on its own.
Winding the foundation down carefully and with transition funding is not a scandal.
2
Give me Jimmy Carter any day. A nice humble man, and ex-president, who has done a world of good. Not for power, personal enrichment, or so he could live in the White House again. Just because he has a big heart, and it was the right thing to do.
7
We are in this position to begin with because the establishment anointed Clinton. Ask yourself why there were only 2 other candidates in the beginning, as opposed to the Repubs. Circus as the Repub candidates were, at least they were many & diverse. Whereas the Dem side from the beginning was clearly established to not only select Clinton but to prevent anyone from competing against her. I'm convinced Sanders could run to begin with only because the DNC & other power brokers thought he was joke, no threat to Clinton. When he wasn't, the DNC & the media, including the NYT, actively operated as Clinton's free PR campaign, aggressively either silencing Sanders, fear mongering (he's a commie) or ridiculing his supporters (Bernie Bros, stupid young people, etc).
Now here we are. The 2 biggest jokes in US history as our candidates.
And appallingly, the *chief* tool Clinton supporters use is fear-mongering. We are told we "have to" vote for her, or Satan will bring our country to damnation. This is almost literally the argument.
The 3rd party choice is suppressed even now. Raise the issue & you will be subjected to bullying & ridicule.
The campaign is almost devoid of issues. I feel like I'm inside a dystopia. Facts are actively suppressed while all the tools of despots are employed, fear-mongering, propaganda, ad hominem attacks, etc.
Now the NYT - in almost September - wants to pretend it's discussing an actual issue. Too little, too late. By design.
Now here we are. The 2 biggest jokes in US history as our candidates.
And appallingly, the *chief* tool Clinton supporters use is fear-mongering. We are told we "have to" vote for her, or Satan will bring our country to damnation. This is almost literally the argument.
The 3rd party choice is suppressed even now. Raise the issue & you will be subjected to bullying & ridicule.
The campaign is almost devoid of issues. I feel like I'm inside a dystopia. Facts are actively suppressed while all the tools of despots are employed, fear-mongering, propaganda, ad hominem attacks, etc.
Now the NYT - in almost September - wants to pretend it's discussing an actual issue. Too little, too late. By design.
20
By design too, establishment republicans are scared that Trump will threaten their funding sources and lifestyles. They will secretly vote for Hillary because she and she alone guarantees that status quo is maintained and the funding continues from big money all the way to state level elections. By design too, Trump might be doing Clintons a favor by scaring voters to vote for Hillary rather than the terror he has portrayed himself to become.
3
One who assumes the money wasn't for access is either naïve, stupid or in on it. It is amusing to hear about laudable goals. For example, micro lending. Read the Atlantic piece a few months back. Check that, don't bother. Micro lending has never worked, it is just a feel good way to give a speech and pick up a check. These organizations are just a way to cruise around and comingle with the Davos set on someone else's dime.(Usually some rich pig from a foreign country who needs access to the government organizational infrastructure) How to stop it? Who knows, shunning? That didn't work with the piggy banking culture, who should have been banned from any restaurant, bar or country club after 08, but ended up being the toast of the town, especially in NYC. In closing, no good deed goes un punished, but bad deeds get ignored.
7
I find the suggestion that all of the work of the Clinton Foundation be turned over to the Gates Foundation disturbing for its practical impact and for what it says about the Anerican psyche. First in an era where wealth inequality is possibly the most destructive force in our society and monopolistic forces may be inhibiting innovation, people want to create a more monolithic private source of charitable control to an incredibly wealthy businessman and his family. So if it is a pet project of a family, the Gates Family, who I agree does much good, it will receive an over abundance of funding but if it's not on the Gates Foundation radar, forget about it. I believe diversity in funding sources is a good thing. Second, such an action would unfairly take away charitable impulses of a family who has dedicated their lives to public service. Both the power of the Clinton name to attract funding for charitable causes and the satisfaction, as well as the insights, of a very important public family would be taken away. For all the wonderful work done by the Gates Foundation, making it more monolithic and subjugating the work of Bill Clinton and his family, I believe, is wrong headed.
1
"a family who has dedicated their lives to public service"
Yes, that is true in fantasy land, but in the real world it reads:
a family who has dedicated their lives to personal enrichment!
Yes, that is true in fantasy land, but in the real world it reads:
a family who has dedicated their lives to personal enrichment!
6
They will if elected as all the monies and deals will be in place just as with political contributions
The Clinton Foundation, gaining a 5-star rating from Charity Navigator, has worked with the State Department starting in the days of the Bush Presidency, doing important development work and saving lives.
Now, due to concern over the "appearance " of a conflict, no actual evidence of a pay to play decision, an outcry will shut down its effective work.
If the press wants to go after actual demonstrated pay to play, let's spend the fall campaign focused on meetings with and donations to Republicans from gun manufacturers, oil companies, wealthy individuals who want their taxes lower. Republicans even protected an oil drilling tax loophole blocking Democratic votes to close that loophole to pay for enabling millions of people to refinance their student debt.
You care about pay to play? Let's see some Republican emails, every day, from now until the election.
In the meantime, I am going to send a small donation to the Clinton Foundation. I don't want to meet with anyone. I just know it will help to save lives
Now, due to concern over the "appearance " of a conflict, no actual evidence of a pay to play decision, an outcry will shut down its effective work.
If the press wants to go after actual demonstrated pay to play, let's spend the fall campaign focused on meetings with and donations to Republicans from gun manufacturers, oil companies, wealthy individuals who want their taxes lower. Republicans even protected an oil drilling tax loophole blocking Democratic votes to close that loophole to pay for enabling millions of people to refinance their student debt.
You care about pay to play? Let's see some Republican emails, every day, from now until the election.
In the meantime, I am going to send a small donation to the Clinton Foundation. I don't want to meet with anyone. I just know it will help to save lives
2
"Now, due to concern over the "appearance " of a conflict, no actual evidence of a pay to play decision, an outcry will shut down its effective work."
Can you prove with evidence that Citizen United creates a conflict?
Can you prove with evidence that Citizen United creates a conflict?
2
Just like the speech transcripts — sweep 'em under the rug while you point at Trump.
5
"The Clinton Foundation has become a symbol of the Clintons’ laudable ambitions, but also of their tangled alliances and operational opacity. If Mrs. Clinton wins, it could prove a target for her political adversaries. Achieving true distance from the foundation is not only necessary to ensure its effectiveness, it is an ethical imperative for Mrs. Clinton."
I agree with the general tone of this article and the argument made in the concluding paragraph. It is absolutely imperative that Mrs Clinton "achieve true distance from the foundation" and do that as quickly as possible. Even the suggestion that there might or could be a conflict of interest here only gives the Trump campaign and the GOP an opportunity to once again impugn the integrity of the Clintons.
I also agree with the thought advanced here that the Clintons ban contributions from foreign and corporate entities now.
I agree with the general tone of this article and the argument made in the concluding paragraph. It is absolutely imperative that Mrs Clinton "achieve true distance from the foundation" and do that as quickly as possible. Even the suggestion that there might or could be a conflict of interest here only gives the Trump campaign and the GOP an opportunity to once again impugn the integrity of the Clintons.
I also agree with the thought advanced here that the Clintons ban contributions from foreign and corporate entities now.
3
Shoulda done it years ago...
if it were Candidate Trump the Editorial Board would have been all over him and you probably would have agreed, cheering wildly.
By the way I am no Trump lover.......
this year I am voting for myself.......
we have the most horrible choice set in recent history if not the entire America history.
EB
if it were Candidate Trump the Editorial Board would have been all over him and you probably would have agreed, cheering wildly.
By the way I am no Trump lover.......
this year I am voting for myself.......
we have the most horrible choice set in recent history if not the entire America history.
EB
3
She should cut ties to demonstrate independence and transparency. But can we get real here. The entire US government is run by pay to play politicians. Lobbyists, corporations, and the super rich own Washington and everyone in it. They all not only pay for access, they pay for votes. Bernie Sanders may have said the same things over and over again, but he was right. Everyone that goes to these high dollar fund raising events participates in the pay for access game.
At least the Clinton Foundation does some good in this world. The same can't be said for the NRA, and other groups that wield power for profit at the expense of peoples lives.
Once again, will have a double standard applied to Hillary Clinton. The entire political scene is a sewer of quid pro quo, bribery and big money control. She has a charity and an email server and gets treated like she was Nixon reenacting Watergate II.
As of yet, no one has demonstrated that either case has resulted in harm or wrongdoing. It is true that they open the possibility of wrongdoing, but until evidence is found of such acts, leave that woman alone. She has been investigated more times than an organized crime syndicate. Compared to other politicians, she is nowhere near the villain she is made out to be. I'd cut any charity some slack that helps those in need as opposed to those that fund their corporate empires through legislation.
At least the Clinton Foundation does some good in this world. The same can't be said for the NRA, and other groups that wield power for profit at the expense of peoples lives.
Once again, will have a double standard applied to Hillary Clinton. The entire political scene is a sewer of quid pro quo, bribery and big money control. She has a charity and an email server and gets treated like she was Nixon reenacting Watergate II.
As of yet, no one has demonstrated that either case has resulted in harm or wrongdoing. It is true that they open the possibility of wrongdoing, but until evidence is found of such acts, leave that woman alone. She has been investigated more times than an organized crime syndicate. Compared to other politicians, she is nowhere near the villain she is made out to be. I'd cut any charity some slack that helps those in need as opposed to those that fund their corporate empires through legislation.
29
The apathy in your sentiments belies the reason the "entire political scene is a sewer of quid pro quo". Hey, everyone else does it, so why punish HRC? Right? Thanks for that.
And, did you ever stop to think that there may be very good reasons she "has been investigated more times than an organized crime syndicate"? (BTW, I disagree with that analogy, as well.) She has a long life in politics and has a lot of connections. And, most importantly, I don't think you can even disagree, her judgment in some matters is one of the reasons she is so often investigated.
I wish voters had higher expectations for their elected leaders. We have the political system we have because of the public's demand for an extremely low bar.
And, did you ever stop to think that there may be very good reasons she "has been investigated more times than an organized crime syndicate"? (BTW, I disagree with that analogy, as well.) She has a long life in politics and has a lot of connections. And, most importantly, I don't think you can even disagree, her judgment in some matters is one of the reasons she is so often investigated.
I wish voters had higher expectations for their elected leaders. We have the political system we have because of the public's demand for an extremely low bar.
6
"As of yet, no one has demonstrated that either case has resulted in harm or wrongdoing. It is true that they open the possibility of wrongdoing, but until evidence is found of such acts, leave that woman alone."
Can you prove with evidence that Citizen United has caused wrongdoing?
If not, then I assume you believe we should leave Citizen United in place, because otherwise, it would be very hypocritical of you.
Can you prove with evidence that Citizen United has caused wrongdoing?
If not, then I assume you believe we should leave Citizen United in place, because otherwise, it would be very hypocritical of you.
3
America has, since the 1880s and Industrialist Henry Lee Higgenson's privatization of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, worked to take regular governmental activities of both socialist and aristocratic governmental forms and give them to the private sector ultimately ending up in 6 of the seven primary Domains of a civilized society being handled solely by Not for Profits due to the problem defined by economist William Baumol as "productivity lag." A problem so severe that it is termed an economic virus and is called the Baumol Disease for the man who articulated the problem. 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?
6
Step back and ask yourself how the Clintons could go from "dead broke" to amassing in the neighborhood of $100 million in net worth by working for a "charitable organization"? They could put many of the private jet flying mega-church evangelists to shame.
48
They have released their taxes. They earn royalties on books, often millions of dollars from millions of individuals who buy the books.
As a former President and a former US Senator and Secretary of State, they earn more for invited speeches than your average science fiction author or celebrity.
They donate money to the Clinton Foundation, don't take from it (again, for anyone who cares to see, all Foundation records are public!)
In contrast, Now ask yourself why Trump, who has said it the past has taken large loans from Russian oligarchs (i.e. Is deeply in debt to them) won't release his taxes?
As a former President and a former US Senator and Secretary of State, they earn more for invited speeches than your average science fiction author or celebrity.
They donate money to the Clinton Foundation, don't take from it (again, for anyone who cares to see, all Foundation records are public!)
In contrast, Now ask yourself why Trump, who has said it the past has taken large loans from Russian oligarchs (i.e. Is deeply in debt to them) won't release his taxes?
1
You could make all the same points for the preachers of the Prosperity Gospal.
The Clintons should bite the bullet and end all ties (Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea) with the Foundation. This should be done now, not something contingent on winning an election.
And, it would be better to go a step further and have the Foundation dissolve and transfer its assets to, for example, Bill Gates' Foundation.
And, it would be better to go a step further and have the Foundation dissolve and transfer its assets to, for example, Bill Gates' Foundation.
8
Just one question: Why is no one speaking out about Mr. Trump's conflict of interest with his international dealings?
14
They are. But also, people generally don't need to be told how evil the devil is. They're already aware.
Furthermore, if you're only going to hold Hillary to the standard of "Well, Trump does it too", I would recommend finding another standard bearer.
Furthermore, if you're only going to hold Hillary to the standard of "Well, Trump does it too", I would recommend finding another standard bearer.
4
as much as i dont want to write this. it seems fair cause the crooked cheney had to cut ties overtly with haliburton.
1
Cheney put Halliburton in a "blind" (ha!) trust, declared war on Iraq in a speech in nAugust of 2002 ( long before the Congress voted) and earned unknown large sums (billions for him selves and former cronies with no- bid contracts to Halliburton) from killing and displacing millions of lives. No outcry about "possible conflict of interest" from Republicans of course
3
And yet, we now know he didn't really cut them.
2
That boat has already left port.... Last year would have been the time to al least cut all ties since it was quite obvious HRC would be campaigning for POTUS.
But because of their "political" arrogance and other means thought the could control all this have their cake and eating it too with a glass full of honey sweetened milk...
But because of their "political" arrogance and other means thought the could control all this have their cake and eating it too with a glass full of honey sweetened milk...
18
More anti-Clinton banter which has gone on for thirty years, spent hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars and uncountable hours of Congressional time. Arguably the most successful President of our time (sans personal life stupidity) builds, from scratch, one of the most effective charitable organizations of our time and it needs to be torn down because they maybe had some one hour meetings here and there with some foreign dignitaries. Who cares? Time well spent if it battles malaria and AID's, feeds and educates children and advances the cause of community health. This couple that has devoted their lives to accomplishing things just gets no respect. It has been said that "people actually root for others to fail". Never so true as in the Republicans generation long battle to discredit one of the most effective families ever.
10
The Clinton's are doing what they have always done.The acquisition of Power and Wealth has always been their Main Goal in Life. Remember "As you get older you do not change,you just become more so".
18
Halliburton made billions of dollars from the Iraq War. Did Cheney have anything to do with that? Nah, it was all on the up and up!
17
To this day, George W Bush has not been held accountable for the Iraq war and post war mess.
2
Ugh, the NYT still doesn't get why so many people are turned off by Clinton's self-serving, self-enriching smarminess. This election has left us with two very disappointing choices. I'm writing in Bernie Sanders.
44
So, according to the NY Times, Hillary Clinton has done nothing wrong. And, if elected president, she must promise not to do it, anymore.
48
I realize that the Editorial Board has drunk the Clinton kool-aid but this column expresses too much concern over the political appearance of Clinton Foundation instead of the troubling reality of it. I say this as a (albeit reluctant) HRC supporter. In the instance of the Clinton Foundation, and potential 'pay to play,' her critics have it right. I can look past all the other salacious, sexist headlines: the emails, Benghazi, even the over cosiness with big banks, and see a politician and a public servant doing her job. But the Foundation poses much too much of a conflict of interest for the Clintons, who are, as a unit, not known for ethical discipline in the first place. It's become a private arm and piggy bank while they do all their 'good deeds' -- which is neoliberal speak for things that cost a lot and benefit but a few. I'm not buying that they have to keep the doors of the Clinton Foundation treasury open while HRC campaigns and then, if she wins. Stop collecting any money. If the Foundation's funds are worth at least $2 billion as the article suggests, then the Foundation can continue to run its charity work. I want to like HRC, and feel right about voting her. But let's not confuse Clinton entitlement with the concern of sick children in Africa. The Foundation needs to halt all money, and Clinton investments need to go into a blind trust until they are out of office. Anything less isn't just bad PR for the Clintons, it's smarmy liberal politics.
18
Mrs. Clinton is driven to the Presidency because there is no better stay-out-of-jail card. Think about what could come down on her if she doesn't win, and the protection she receives if she does. The real charity work is unwittingly done by those who vote for her; as every one of them has been charmed into service as a public defender.
26
Think about the Marc Rich pardon. Those stay-out-of-jail cards aren't just for personal use.
3
I was pleased to contribute to the Clinton Foundation before Hillary announced her run for POTUS, and would do so again. The foundation receives "A's" from charitable evaluators, it is highly rated for its work in improving the condition of the third world. Through efforts such as the Clinton's, the Carter's and others third world poverty has been greatly reduced. If they can use their political influence to wrangle more money out of wealthy sheiks and robber barons for that purpose, great. Note, the Clinton's put money into the foundation, they don't take it out. The prefect is the enemy of the good. I say: "Keep up the good work and the hell with the sniping critics and political attacks".
19
"The Clinton Foundation has become a symbol of the Clintons’ laudable ambitions, but also of their tangled alliances and operational opacity".
The Clinton Foundation is a symbol of the Clintons' pay to play game plan and a shinning symbol of how broken our government and the Clintons are.
The Clinton Foundation is a symbol of the Clintons' pay to play game plan and a shinning symbol of how broken our government and the Clintons are.
115
The Editors are right to point out that The Clinton Foundation should stop taking such donations now. Announcing that they will accept donations until Hillary Clinton becomes President is an insult to all of us. What they have done is essentially announce a Going-out-of-Business sale for access to and influence over the likely President. The next six months will be the Foundation's best fundraising period yet.
Still, it is shocking that the Editors give a pass to the Foundation on the lack of evidence of pay-to-play. First, there are emails that indicate at least two cases where access was requested in exchange for donations. Why would aides and Foundation employees even discuss this if it never would be considered? And, frankiy, why would a government, corporation or other group ever give to the Clinton Foundation if not to gain access and influence?
Still, it is shocking that the Editors give a pass to the Foundation on the lack of evidence of pay-to-play. First, there are emails that indicate at least two cases where access was requested in exchange for donations. Why would aides and Foundation employees even discuss this if it never would be considered? And, frankiy, why would a government, corporation or other group ever give to the Clinton Foundation if not to gain access and influence?
42
"First, there are emails that indicate at least two cases where access was requested in exchange for donations."
Access itself is a valuable thing. You need to communicate what policy you favor before you get it.
Access itself is a valuable thing. You need to communicate what policy you favor before you get it.
3
The evidence does not point to influence. It just doesn't. Perhaps you didn't read past the headlines.
The sub-headline for this editorial on the Times home page reads: "The foundation must distance itself from politics, and the foreign and corporate money that risks tainting Hillary Clinton’s campaign."
"RISKS"? It has already happened.
And in pretty much the same way as it usually happens with these public figures. Can anyone say, among multiple examples, "Richly-paid Goldman Sachs speeches of stll-undisclosed content"?
"RISKS"? It has already happened.
And in pretty much the same way as it usually happens with these public figures. Can anyone say, among multiple examples, "Richly-paid Goldman Sachs speeches of stll-undisclosed content"?
55
"First, there are emails that indicate at least two cases where access was requested in exchange for donations."
What value is she giving her business speech recipients? What information can she communicate to a company, say Goldman Sachs, that would benefit them? If that information is in regards to the operation of the government, then should it be for sale, or equally available to everyone?
By seeing the corporate speech content we could better speculate about what they were getting in return for the fees they paid.
John
What value is she giving her business speech recipients? What information can she communicate to a company, say Goldman Sachs, that would benefit them? If that information is in regards to the operation of the government, then should it be for sale, or equally available to everyone?
By seeing the corporate speech content we could better speculate about what they were getting in return for the fees they paid.
John
4
But, gosh, isn't this the "experienced and seasoned" politician that the NYT has been promoting?
It's extremely lucky that Ms. Clinton has as her opponent a gas bag full of vitriol and hatred but, as his followers love, "no experience' in "politics". If "politics" is defined as grabbing as much loot as one can while donating some of the money to "charity" then the former Secretary of State is more than qualified to continue her political role as president; there's TONS more money to be made in THAT office.
Face it; Hillary stinks to high heaven but just quite a bit less than the "dump" known as Trump. In either case, clothes pins on one's nose will be standard gear as we head to the polls and, once more, vote AGAINST the greater evil versus voting FOR the "bast and brightest" as neither party seems capable of offering us that kind of choice.
Democracy is "messy" but really.....
It's extremely lucky that Ms. Clinton has as her opponent a gas bag full of vitriol and hatred but, as his followers love, "no experience' in "politics". If "politics" is defined as grabbing as much loot as one can while donating some of the money to "charity" then the former Secretary of State is more than qualified to continue her political role as president; there's TONS more money to be made in THAT office.
Face it; Hillary stinks to high heaven but just quite a bit less than the "dump" known as Trump. In either case, clothes pins on one's nose will be standard gear as we head to the polls and, once more, vote AGAINST the greater evil versus voting FOR the "bast and brightest" as neither party seems capable of offering us that kind of choice.
Democracy is "messy" but really.....
19
I imagine it may have gone something like this: One Clinton to another, "If the foundation raises some money for charity, we can always say that is the purpose of the foundation. People will believe it. A lot of the voters buy anything we sell." (High five).
42
Have you ever heard of Charity Navigator". Before you donate to charity, if you do, look the Charity up on their website. And while you're there, look up the Clinton Foundation.
1
Lynn, we love what the foundation does, there is no doubt about how it has channeled money from wealthy people eager to donate to life saving causes all over the world. The problem for us is the political angle of it. That an officer of the foundation had political access which might have influenced how it received donations. The mixing of politics, political ambitions and charity is what we have problems with, not with the Charity Navigator stars assigned to Clinton Foundation (bravo to them for doing what they do).
1
The standard for public employees is not "quid pro quo". No one needs to demonstrate that in order to demonstrate a violation of the federal ethics rules. The standard is the appearance of a conflict of interest. Only a deliberately blind person or an enabler could argue having employees work for both the Clinton Foundation and the State Department wasn't a conflict of interest. Federal employees have to fill out a form to be employed outside of the government. I'm waiting to see Huma's outside employment form.
The operations of the Clinton Foundation also violate relevant RICO statutes for racketeering. Peter Schweitzer documented nine instances in which countries and companies with business before the State Department gave large donations and then received favorable rulings. Those entities never dealt with the Clinton Foundation again. The NY Times said these charges are meticulously documented. The country is waiting for a response.
It's remarkable how those who want her to be president, including the writers of this editorial, are willing to ignore clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
The operations of the Clinton Foundation also violate relevant RICO statutes for racketeering. Peter Schweitzer documented nine instances in which countries and companies with business before the State Department gave large donations and then received favorable rulings. Those entities never dealt with the Clinton Foundation again. The NY Times said these charges are meticulously documented. The country is waiting for a response.
It's remarkable how those who want her to be president, including the writers of this editorial, are willing to ignore clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
75
Peter Schweizer? He's your fact finder? I think you need to find a very different one.
1
While she was Secretary of State, she set up her own email server to conduct government business and not only did not cut her ties with the Clinton Foundation but may even have crossed the line between the foundation and the State Dept.
For an attorney that Mrs. Clinton is, her actions show a total lack of judgement. Those of us who supported Bernie Sanders in the primary knew that Mrs. Clinton had a lot of baggage that will haunt her in the general election. The sad fact is that this election won't even be a contest were it not for Mrs. Clinton's lapses in judgement, especially with a self-absorbed buffoon heading the GOP ticket. If the GOP had nominated a decent candidate, Mrs. Clinton would be the one losing this election sin a landslide.
Mrs. Clinton would do well to at least show some good judgement now and cut all ties to the Clinton Foundation and turn over the running of the Foundation to another charitable organization, such as Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Failure to take action on her part would continue to demonstrate that Mrs. Clinton cares more about her family foundation than about the country and that is reason enough for her to lose the election to a lousy candidate that Trump is.
For an attorney that Mrs. Clinton is, her actions show a total lack of judgement. Those of us who supported Bernie Sanders in the primary knew that Mrs. Clinton had a lot of baggage that will haunt her in the general election. The sad fact is that this election won't even be a contest were it not for Mrs. Clinton's lapses in judgement, especially with a self-absorbed buffoon heading the GOP ticket. If the GOP had nominated a decent candidate, Mrs. Clinton would be the one losing this election sin a landslide.
Mrs. Clinton would do well to at least show some good judgement now and cut all ties to the Clinton Foundation and turn over the running of the Foundation to another charitable organization, such as Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Failure to take action on her part would continue to demonstrate that Mrs. Clinton cares more about her family foundation than about the country and that is reason enough for her to lose the election to a lousy candidate that Trump is.
35
Without the connections to the Clintons, there is no Clinton Foundation. Who would give a dime to The Foundation is not in exchange for political access and influence?
11
Please share you knowledge of the exchange of "political access and influence" by/through the Foundation. Or is this just something "everybody knows"?
There has been a silent coup by the Clinton Democratic machine of the executive, the DOJ, the State Department and the MSM, led by the formerly proud NYT. All the subservient institutions now twist in the wind, obscuring, hiding, managing and even obstructing the truth. As a result, corrupt corporate oligarchy wins, and the law is not applied, as in a democracy, to its leaders, now the self interested elites.
This is by no means an endorsement of the Republicans, who also have savagely attacked our institutions in acts of self perpetuation and self service.
But now the NYT asks the Clintons to correct the appearance of impropriety...forbidden to attorneys by the ethics rules.. when in fact the appearance was gone long ago and the dirty substance is emerging, and it can't be corrected by a revision to appearance. We are now an undiluted oligarchy and the idea that the needs of citizens will be addressed has become a fallacy.
This is by no means an endorsement of the Republicans, who also have savagely attacked our institutions in acts of self perpetuation and self service.
But now the NYT asks the Clintons to correct the appearance of impropriety...forbidden to attorneys by the ethics rules.. when in fact the appearance was gone long ago and the dirty substance is emerging, and it can't be corrected by a revision to appearance. We are now an undiluted oligarchy and the idea that the needs of citizens will be addressed has become a fallacy.
64
corrina:
Thank you for your eloquence and precision in describing - exactly - the obvious.
Thank you for your eloquence and precision in describing - exactly - the obvious.
2
There is no question that the Clinton Foundation has achieved astounding and outstanding good works throughout the world. So it's rather stunning that, without any evidence of pay to play schemes, concerns of perception have been elevated to such a level as to profoundly reduce its ability to serve. Meanwhile, we have a candidate who is destroying the integrity of our political process with daily statements which are racist, misogynist, inflammatory, and outright lies. Where is the call for action here? There's something truly absurd about this. I'd hate to see good works curtailed and trust the Clintons, servers all, to put a structure in place to alleviate concerns.
19
The "call to action" against Trump is constant and unrelenting.
Trump's poor character doesn't excuse Hillary's poor character. That's not how it works.
Trump's poor character doesn't excuse Hillary's poor character. That's not how it works.
7
"the integrity of our political process"
Right. The DNC is a shining example to all.
Right. The DNC is a shining example to all.
7
This is the usual Republican strategy (and why not, they famously succeeded in swift-boating John Kerry,, after all) of relentlessly attacking the opponent's strength.
The famous "private email server" doesn't much concern me, since it appears Hillary was advised to try this arrangement by Colin Powell, and that years of investigation have turned up just three questionable emails marked "classified" in ambiguous ways.
But this entanglement between the Clintons' charitable foundation and the State Department is serious. It makes my heart sink, though I trust the Foundation has helped many people, internationally.
It doesn't much matter if Bill surrenders his position as Foundational Chief at this point. He should have done it before. And if the Clintons just plan to hand the CEO's job over to Chelsea, then the promise that there will be no intersection between their politics and their money-making ventures loses credibility.
Trump CAN'T become President, our country and other countries would be ruined by him, so let's hope that he can be predicatably primed and aimed to explode in a thousand other directions, and that he'll keep forgetting this issue.
But this entanglement between the Clintons' charitable foundation and the State Department is serious. It makes my heart sink, though I trust the Foundation has helped many people, internationally.
It doesn't much matter if Bill surrenders his position as Foundational Chief at this point. He should have done it before. And if the Clintons just plan to hand the CEO's job over to Chelsea, then the promise that there will be no intersection between their politics and their money-making ventures loses credibility.
Trump CAN'T become President, our country and other countries would be ruined by him, so let's hope that he can be predicatably primed and aimed to explode in a thousand other directions, and that he'll keep forgetting this issue.
4
Colin Powell did NOT advise Clinton to set up a private SERVER in her basement. Colin Powell did NOT advise Clinton to "wipe" many thousands of emails, thousands of which should have been turned over to the State Department. There already IS an intersection between their politics and their money-making ventures. These are people, who, regardless of their backgrounds, are so privileged that they really don't believe the rules exist for them. Colin Powell is not like that and it is typical that Clinton should try to put the onus on a person of color. Throwing people under the bus is both the Clinton's MO: see Lani Guinier
23
So it doesn't concern you at all that she exposed classified material on an unsecure server in order to hide the selling of her office to foreign powers? What would concern you? Blaming Colin Powell is just an expansion of the scandal. Even if he did advise it (and he denies it), would you break the law if a political figure advised you to? Why believe a Clinton over Powell. And even if you did believe Clinton, why would it matter? Colin Powell doesn't have the power to suspend the laws.
5
Let's just cut ties with the Clinton's, they'll never go away otherwise. These scandals /questions / FOIA lawsuits will certainly follow her into the White House. Tough position to be in when half of the country didn't vote for her and those that did held their collective noses in the voting booth.
Most everyone I know, both Dems and Repubs, would vote for Joe Biden in a heartbeat.
Most everyone I know, both Dems and Repubs, would vote for Joe Biden in a heartbeat.
25
It is only because of Trump that she is the better choice. How sad for the American people.
11
What is the difference between age-old access provided by political contributions to explain how what you want fits in to the national interest that political donations provide and and the access afforded to people who donate to the Clinton foundation ? If what they want is done, then there is a quid pro quo. So far, we know that one person got a job somewhere. Is that what this is all about ?
6
Richard,
You never fail to surprise me with your take on a given op-ed.
You never fail to surprise me with your take on a given op-ed.
1
While some argue that fairness in our political discourse and in defending competing political interests suggest that the Clinton Foundation should be put up on blocks, I think it would be a shame. After all, it’s not often that a couple invents a means as clever and effective at advancing personal political interests -- how often is something so completely novel introduced into American politics? Seems a shame to reward such Machiavellian inventiveness with a requirement that they destroy it.
Besides, who really believes it? The promise is contingent on Mrs. Clinton’s winning in November, and who’s to enforce what is appropriate behavior by a First Spouse if that happens? Then, everyone knows that presidency or not, it would be taken down off the blocks as soon as Chelsea needed help at a run at the U.S. Senate.
What the new batch of previously unreleased State Dept. emails demonstrates is that Mrs. Clinton was less than candid about her motives in “deleting them” from her personal email server, claiming that they merely dealt with preparations for Chelsea’s marriage or other “personal” matters. All THAT claim, now exploded, has managed to do is to create intense curiosity to see all 33,000 of the “deleted”, reminiscent as they are of South America’s “disappeared”.
People take these antics altogether too seriously. If you really have a proper sense of the absurdity of life, the universe and everything, it’s all pretty entertaining.
Besides, who really believes it? The promise is contingent on Mrs. Clinton’s winning in November, and who’s to enforce what is appropriate behavior by a First Spouse if that happens? Then, everyone knows that presidency or not, it would be taken down off the blocks as soon as Chelsea needed help at a run at the U.S. Senate.
What the new batch of previously unreleased State Dept. emails demonstrates is that Mrs. Clinton was less than candid about her motives in “deleting them” from her personal email server, claiming that they merely dealt with preparations for Chelsea’s marriage or other “personal” matters. All THAT claim, now exploded, has managed to do is to create intense curiosity to see all 33,000 of the “deleted”, reminiscent as they are of South America’s “disappeared”.
People take these antics altogether too seriously. If you really have a proper sense of the absurdity of life, the universe and everything, it’s all pretty entertaining.
4
The Clinton Foundation has done remarkable good and has helped causes and people most in need throughout the world. Those are the facts. All of the rest is just election nonsense.
Let's just focus on getting Hillary elected and then I'm sure Hillary and Bill will do the right thing concerning their involvement with their foundation.
Oh, and can someone remind me of what good things Mr. Trump is doing to help those most in need?
Let's just focus on getting Hillary elected and then I'm sure Hillary and Bill will do the right thing concerning their involvement with their foundation.
Oh, and can someone remind me of what good things Mr. Trump is doing to help those most in need?
16
lol! yes, they will most certainly "do the right thing". ..like use their position within government to raise even more money for this foundation...which does what exactly?
13
Rampant conflict of interest is not election nonsense.
16
Excellent fair and measured assessment of the Clinton Foundation and its appropriate future in an H Clinton administration. But really, partisans can rant and express outrage over potential access through a nonprofit charity when the whole US election system is based upon campaign donations for access to elected government officials? In the all too familiar words of Bill Clinton, "Give me a break."
9
great attitude "this behavior permeates government, so who cares anymore"...boy, we've come a long way since Watergate....
14
@ r: Did you read the opinion piece or my comment? What Congressmen, Sentors, Governors, Judges and Presidents do to get elected is much worse than the fact that the donor list of a charity and the list of people with appropriate State Department business have some overlap. The system of elections, on the other hand, is built on money that DIRECTLY benefits office holders. Apples and oranges.
BTW, do you have similar concern about money affecting the elected officials that you vote for, or just the Clintons?
BTW, do you have similar concern about money affecting the elected officials that you vote for, or just the Clintons?
3
Agreed. 100%. But we must stop praising Mrs. Clinton as some special talent, leader or public servant. She's just like the rest of them.
3
All lawyers - those disbarred or otherwise - learned in their law school ethic classes to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. this goes doubly for those seeking careers in "public service." sadly, there are those who fear a Trump presidency (count me in) so much that they'll give BHCC, Inc. a free pass (count me out) for such behavior.
20
Funny, I thought the Clinton Foundation is a huge positive for the Clintons, providing leadership in the treatment of AIDS and malaria to millions in Africa with free and subsidized drugs, healthy nutrition and anti-obesity programs in over 8,000 US schools, relief and rebuilding efforts after the Haiti earthquake, Katrina and other disasters, climate change mitigation through large city green building retrofits, global education programs and many other initiations in community health, development, education and women's roles globally.
Seems like pointing words into action to me, like that "it takes a village" thing.
Much has been made of the Clinton's fortune. But unlike that of Trump, I would expect that the bulk of the Clinton financial fortune will go in a direction similar to Warren Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates, rather than into luxury apartment buildings, aircraft, golf courses, casinos and other havens for the most corrupt money of the world.
Seems like pointing words into action to me, like that "it takes a village" thing.
Much has been made of the Clinton's fortune. But unlike that of Trump, I would expect that the bulk of the Clinton financial fortune will go in a direction similar to Warren Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates, rather than into luxury apartment buildings, aircraft, golf courses, casinos and other havens for the most corrupt money of the world.
91
first off, their "fortune" is made up of the donations received into the foundation. they didn't "earn" it, they used Thierry influence and government connections to place themselves in a favorable position to solicit donations (well, in a sense, they did "earn" it) so please do not confuse that with anyone else you mentioned who actually did earn their wealth (regardless of the seemingly poor business practices of one D. Trump). and if this foundation has done all the wonderful things you mentioned, they should hardly have any money left...which is not the case. also, you may want to dig into the Haiti thing...not exactly a stellar outcone. just because the are "involved" doesn't mean anything actually gets done...great thing about charity work I guess, no one really checks on the outcome...
8
If you are going to cite Haiti, you better do some research first. I bet your comment in praise of the Clintons, their Foundation, and their wealth will be recommended by thousands of their supporters -- none of who could care less about Haiti. In fact, I challenge each person who "thumbs up" your comment to read serious reporting about Haiti. (Hint: probably won't find it in the NY Times).
7
"I would expect that the bulk of the Clinton financial fortune will go in a direction similar to Warren Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates..."
Based on what, pray tell? Facts not in evidence.
I expect the bulk of the Clinton financial fortune will go to Chelsea Clinton. Not a single decision they've ever made makes me think differently.
Based on what, pray tell? Facts not in evidence.
I expect the bulk of the Clinton financial fortune will go to Chelsea Clinton. Not a single decision they've ever made makes me think differently.
6
What else do you think Assange was referring to the other day with the "thousands of pages relating to various aspects of the Hillary Clinton campaign and some other institutions" The result of the next dump of wikileaks will be President Trump. Liberals and Hollywood celebrities would be well advised to purchase cheap airfare now to the places you promised to emigrate to, Canada chief among them, before the rush creates a price bubble.
17
I largely agree with this editorial, if only because when it comes to the Clintons, everything is suspect. Even the good charitable work the Clinton Foundation indisputably.
Donald Trump has, in his inimitable way, shouted from his bully pulpit that Crooked Hillary and Bill Clinton have profited from the Clinton Foundation as if it were some big slush fund created under the rubric of a "foundation." I find that description not only inaccurate, but slanderous.
The Foundation has an "A" rating, and since its existence, has set up the rules and operating procedures befitting a charitable organization. If the Clinton Foundation has received more donations than the Carter Foundation, it's likely due to the standing (or notoriety, Trump would say) of the Clintons themselves.
But given the optics, I agree this organization should be mothballed, its various sub-organizations folded into another nongovernmental organization such as that run by Bill and Melinda Gates. Such "mothballing," however must done done with utmost care to ensure no interruption to CHAI's supplying Africa with the AIDS medications desperate patients need.
Will all that stop this crazy talk of "pay for play"? Unlikely. As long as an issue can be flamed and nurtured, the Clintons will have hell to pay. I hope, as much as they probably dislike the idea, that they begin to realize the only way to stop the attacks is to stop their involvement with their Foundation.
Donald Trump has, in his inimitable way, shouted from his bully pulpit that Crooked Hillary and Bill Clinton have profited from the Clinton Foundation as if it were some big slush fund created under the rubric of a "foundation." I find that description not only inaccurate, but slanderous.
The Foundation has an "A" rating, and since its existence, has set up the rules and operating procedures befitting a charitable organization. If the Clinton Foundation has received more donations than the Carter Foundation, it's likely due to the standing (or notoriety, Trump would say) of the Clintons themselves.
But given the optics, I agree this organization should be mothballed, its various sub-organizations folded into another nongovernmental organization such as that run by Bill and Melinda Gates. Such "mothballing," however must done done with utmost care to ensure no interruption to CHAI's supplying Africa with the AIDS medications desperate patients need.
Will all that stop this crazy talk of "pay for play"? Unlikely. As long as an issue can be flamed and nurtured, the Clintons will have hell to pay. I hope, as much as they probably dislike the idea, that they begin to realize the only way to stop the attacks is to stop their involvement with their Foundation.
11
Why didn't you just throw in the vast right wing conspiracy? It's never the Clinton's fault.
12
Oh yes please do for appearances' sake! As to removing the indelible stain of corruption that adheres to the Clinton Crime Family, well it is something of an impossibility to change one's DNA.
41
Interesting. A crime family that has been investigated for decades with private and public money whose sex lives, emails and every financial action have been scrutinized by powerful special interests and powerful politicians, but have been found guilty of nothing.
2
"but have been found guilty of nothing"
O.J. was found not guilty too, proving that with enough money you can buy your way out! The Clinton cartel's legal apparatus makes the "Dream Team" look like the JV team.
O.J. was found not guilty too, proving that with enough money you can buy your way out! The Clinton cartel's legal apparatus makes the "Dream Team" look like the JV team.
6
There are two different concepts at play here, and it simplifies matters a lot to think of the situation that way.
One is quid pro quo: pay for play. I do something for you, you do something for me. No quid pro quo has been proven for Hillary Clinton as SOS, the foundation, and sponsors / donors.
But conflict of interest is another matter. Judges remove themselves from cases involving relatives--not because they have done anything wrong, but because there are two strong, competing interests at play.
Conflict of interest has been rampant in the case of Mrs Clinton as SOS and the foundation. For one thing, the limits President Obama set up to address exactly this were largely ignored. Another example is Ms Abedin's simultaneous employment by both the foundation and the State Department.
Many foundations are run successfully without one of the founders holding a cabinet position. The argument that it was a case of ignoring conflict of interest or ignoring the interests of people with HIV is a false one.
The other is f
One is quid pro quo: pay for play. I do something for you, you do something for me. No quid pro quo has been proven for Hillary Clinton as SOS, the foundation, and sponsors / donors.
But conflict of interest is another matter. Judges remove themselves from cases involving relatives--not because they have done anything wrong, but because there are two strong, competing interests at play.
Conflict of interest has been rampant in the case of Mrs Clinton as SOS and the foundation. For one thing, the limits President Obama set up to address exactly this were largely ignored. Another example is Ms Abedin's simultaneous employment by both the foundation and the State Department.
Many foundations are run successfully without one of the founders holding a cabinet position. The argument that it was a case of ignoring conflict of interest or ignoring the interests of people with HIV is a false one.
The other is f
33
Mrs. Clinton can't even do charitable work without her critics tagging along berating her every move. The problem would appear to be that the $2 billion raised went to the poor instead of into some CEO's pocket. How about this, then. Hillary Clinton agrees to shut down her charitable foundation when Sheldon Adelson agrees to shut down his casinos. She'll stop fielding calls from donors, who give to her charity, when Republican Governors, like Scott Walker, stop taking phone calls from the Koch brothers. And she'll stop doing good works when the Supreme Court overturns Citizen United and reverses all the bad works that decision has created. This is no longer a double standard, it has become a crucifixion.
113
How about this, then: how does one conceal their shady ventures? Cover up with charity work. Your defense is identical to defending a criminal who held the door open for an old lady as he left the bank he just robbed. A little sugar on the rotten helps it go down easy - for some.
11
It's not just Republicans that are calling Hillary out, it's Democrats.
After all, the thirds of Americans don't trust her.
Nor does Republican corruption excuse Hillary's corruption.
We shouldn't be playing the victim. Admitting HRC's shortcomings will make her a stronger candidate.
After all, the thirds of Americans don't trust her.
Nor does Republican corruption excuse Hillary's corruption.
We shouldn't be playing the victim. Admitting HRC's shortcomings will make her a stronger candidate.
3
@Rick: You say "Mrs. Clinton can't even do charitable work without her critics tagging along berating her..." But the issue is, she can't even do charitable work without doing something seamy. She and her husband, who will be with us God help us for another 8 years, are like that. They just don't ever have clean hands.
8
Whether or not there is any crossover or evidence of "pay-for-play", it is merely the perception or suspicion of a conflict of interest that is so damaging, HRC really needs to cut her ties with the foundation now.
The alternative to a victory by her in November is unthinkable.
The alternative to a victory by her in November is unthinkable.
17
"Cut ties now?" The Clintons ARE the ties.
27
No matter how the foundation is handled, we'll still have the Clintons' web of money and influence, and Hillary's judgment that continues building problems.
$2 billion to the foundations, $100+ million to the Clintons personally--nobody's ever done it on this scale. And through the money flow the same people, as friends, corporate leaders, lobbyists, advisors. Banks pay millions personally to Hillary, while their executives donate to the campaign, advise on economic policy, and party with her. Hillary's campaign chairman is a longtime friend, and major lobbyist for corporations and foreign nations. Friendship, money, and politics--all intertwined, inseparable.
Beyond the money and the relationships, is the judgment behind it. Hillary's judgment led her to break State Department rules with the email server, and to be "extremely careless" with classified material. Her judgment led her to break agreements with the Obama administration about the foundation and the State Department, in several different ways--not reporting all foreign donations, not obtaining required approvals for foreign donations, etc.
The foundation is a problem. But the much bigger problem is the Hillary web of money, politics, and influence; and the judgment that it's OK to break rules and agreements.
$2 billion to the foundations, $100+ million to the Clintons personally--nobody's ever done it on this scale. And through the money flow the same people, as friends, corporate leaders, lobbyists, advisors. Banks pay millions personally to Hillary, while their executives donate to the campaign, advise on economic policy, and party with her. Hillary's campaign chairman is a longtime friend, and major lobbyist for corporations and foreign nations. Friendship, money, and politics--all intertwined, inseparable.
Beyond the money and the relationships, is the judgment behind it. Hillary's judgment led her to break State Department rules with the email server, and to be "extremely careless" with classified material. Her judgment led her to break agreements with the Obama administration about the foundation and the State Department, in several different ways--not reporting all foreign donations, not obtaining required approvals for foreign donations, etc.
The foundation is a problem. But the much bigger problem is the Hillary web of money, politics, and influence; and the judgment that it's OK to break rules and agreements.
251
OMG! Hillary is guilty of working in the same field for a long time and having a large professional network. Closing the foundation would sentence a large number of people to death just to make you feel better! It's not all about you.
13
yes, Richie, it is not about F.T. it's about all of us as US citizens - and our faith in the legitimacy of our democratically-elected republic.
12
@ F.T. The email server did *not* break any rules at the State Dept. That falsehood keeps getting repeated -- the lie that gets half way around the world before the truth can get its pants on. Read the Inspector General's report. Particularly page 19. The only Sec. of State who broke any laws through the use of emails was Colin Powell (he violated the Federal Records Act when he destroyed all of the official emails that he had sent and received from his private email account).
6
You tie yourselves in knots trying to be both kind and critical of Hillary. The relationship of secretary of state, presidential candidate and the Clinton Foundation was and is unethical.
199
NYT is like the proverbial figure whose left hand does not know what its right hand is doing. NYT also has its brains tied up in knots, left side brain does not know what the right side brain is doing.
4
Where's the evidence? There is none but you know the NYT will publish any negative comment about Hillary Clinton. Congratulations on spreading more gossip.
6
Agree. If true public service were in the Clintons' minds, they would have looked to the Carter Center and the Habitat for Humanity as models for their foundation.
3
I'm sick of all the moralizing about the Clinton Foundation.
Foundation or not, a power couple like the Clintons will always have people wanting to get close to them through any means necessary. Of course some donations to the foundation are made with expectations. But at least the Clintons are funneling them into improving lives around the world, without taking any profit for themselves.
Then we have Donald Trump, whose donations seem to be mostly self-interested political ones. And when he raised money for veterans' groups, he sat on it for months until the Washington Post forced him into action. Trump is also a powerful person, yet where is his foundation? There's scant evidence of him using his supposed vast fortune to do any good in the world except for himself. For Trump, charity begins at home.
I suppose the Clintons could have been wiser about untangling their government and charitable work, but unless hard evidence emerges of pay-for-play, or personal gain - both if which I doubt exist - let's drop the moral purity and accept that in the rarefied world of wealth and influence, stuff happens. All the time.
The media, in allowing this to be a distraction from a focus on the insanity that is the Trump campaign, is playing a risky game in the name of "balance". The risk being that a psychopath could end up in the Oval Office.
Foundation or not, a power couple like the Clintons will always have people wanting to get close to them through any means necessary. Of course some donations to the foundation are made with expectations. But at least the Clintons are funneling them into improving lives around the world, without taking any profit for themselves.
Then we have Donald Trump, whose donations seem to be mostly self-interested political ones. And when he raised money for veterans' groups, he sat on it for months until the Washington Post forced him into action. Trump is also a powerful person, yet where is his foundation? There's scant evidence of him using his supposed vast fortune to do any good in the world except for himself. For Trump, charity begins at home.
I suppose the Clintons could have been wiser about untangling their government and charitable work, but unless hard evidence emerges of pay-for-play, or personal gain - both if which I doubt exist - let's drop the moral purity and accept that in the rarefied world of wealth and influence, stuff happens. All the time.
The media, in allowing this to be a distraction from a focus on the insanity that is the Trump campaign, is playing a risky game in the name of "balance". The risk being that a psychopath could end up in the Oval Office.
116
No one is ever able to defend Hillary Clinton without pointing to someone else that they believe is unethical, and making a compare/contrast exercise of it, ending with how much worse the other person is. This is a sign of having a ethical code that applies only to those whom one favors. It is also a sign that Mrs. Clinton has no solid merits upon which she can stand, according to the characteristics of the defense used by of her own defenders.
23
"I suppose the Clintons could have been wiser.....but........"
"The risk being that a psychopath could end up in the Oval Office."
She's not doing much to make sure that doesn't happen, is she?
Running out the clock by just attacking Trump and avoiding the press and not answering all these nagging questions may bite her hard before this is over. It's a stupid strategy, believing she can run out the clock by attacking him but not doing anything to clean up some of her ethical problems.
"The risk being that a psychopath could end up in the Oval Office."
She's not doing much to make sure that doesn't happen, is she?
Running out the clock by just attacking Trump and avoiding the press and not answering all these nagging questions may bite her hard before this is over. It's a stupid strategy, believing she can run out the clock by attacking him but not doing anything to clean up some of her ethical problems.
5
Donald Trump did contribute $100,000 (and more in another installment) to the Clinton foundation, no? http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/aug/28/david-plouff...
15
Only in America can an impeached president and disbarred lawyer scheme a racket for self-enrichment and call it a charity.
The Clintons brazenly and shamelessly peddled access for cash since their days in ARK. And no prosecutor in the land have the guts to investigate.
This piece is another gem from the Daily Clinton editorial-formerly NYT-who never see or heard,let alone investigate, how the Clintons keeps using their public office as their private hedge fund.
The Clintons brazenly and shamelessly peddled access for cash since their days in ARK. And no prosecutor in the land have the guts to investigate.
This piece is another gem from the Daily Clinton editorial-formerly NYT-who never see or heard,let alone investigate, how the Clintons keeps using their public office as their private hedge fund.
160
The Clintons do NOT receive one cent from their foundation work.
8
No, it happens elsewhere as well. it is known as politics.
3
Other than you having your facts completely wrong (a guy named Comey did investigate - FBI I think), this is truly a misinformed piece. Your comment would be welcomed by Fox Noise, where the facts of the matter don't matter.
5
"The foundation should stop foreign and corporate donations now " That's the Times advice to the Clinton campaign? Ok. I give up. I cant vote in this presidential election. Excuse me. I have to go vomit.
105
I just can't vote this year. Just cannot do it.
5
And you feel compelled to tell us so why?
1
This should have been forcefully brought up during the primaries.
But of course The New York Times was worried about a certain Bernie Sanders threatening their establishment choice.
But of course The New York Times was worried about a certain Bernie Sanders threatening their establishment choice.
341
This myth of some kind of anti-Sanders conspiracy persists for no reason.
If Sander's followers are so impassioned, then they would vote for him regardless of any imagined or real slights from the press, no?
They are also a bunch of crybabies. They believe that they should have what they want, ignoring logic and all of U.S. political history.
Sanders' people also take the prize as being among the dumbest third party believers, right up there with the Tea Party and segregationists.
If Sander's followers are so impassioned, then they would vote for him regardless of any imagined or real slights from the press, no?
They are also a bunch of crybabies. They believe that they should have what they want, ignoring logic and all of U.S. political history.
Sanders' people also take the prize as being among the dumbest third party believers, right up there with the Tea Party and segregationists.
4
Ah the wikileaks likely has so much scoop on the NYT, especially on Paul Krugman since his change of heart admitting Obama was finally doing some good (from being his biggest critic whining daily Obama was just not doing enough for progressives blah blah)...all the way to setting the stage for Hillary to carry on same Obama policies (because somehow Hillary need not be as progressive as Bernie, but instead be more pragmatic and incremental etc etc....? Yeah?
2
Ah, incoherence from a Palin voter.
2
Simple: avoid appearances of conflict of interest.
26
Her campaign is already tainted -- fairly or not, justifiably or not; a self-inflicted indelible stain. That old legal proverb, "possession is nine-tenths of the law", applies to perception, too. Perception isn't just nine-tenths of reality, it becomes it.
I don't pretend to know what the Clinton Foundation is or might be under the hood. But many Americans whose thinking about charitable foundations and the good work they do is "unsophisticated" (to put it charitably) think they smell a rat. "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is", that goody-two-shoes aspect, must be factored into the equation.
The credibility equation.
The story lacks credibility.
It can't be on the up-&-up. The world that power-people inhabit (the Clintons being consummate power-people) only works one way: "there is no free lunch". You give to get. That means it's some new kind of shakedown, a sleazy scam; like everything else.
Unfair? Unjustified? Untrue?
Prove it.
Hillary's notorious secretiveness actually plays into her skeptics' and enemies' hands here. Many casual observers are left pondering this question: "what is she trying to hide?" She insists "nothing". But "nothing" also sounds too good to be true because, were that so, she wouldn't be so evasive. Catch-22.
Her penchant for secrecy -- more like a mania, actually -- only reinforces vague yet widespread skepticism about what the Clintons are really up to.
Whether any of this will matter come November remains an open question.
I don't pretend to know what the Clinton Foundation is or might be under the hood. But many Americans whose thinking about charitable foundations and the good work they do is "unsophisticated" (to put it charitably) think they smell a rat. "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is", that goody-two-shoes aspect, must be factored into the equation.
The credibility equation.
The story lacks credibility.
It can't be on the up-&-up. The world that power-people inhabit (the Clintons being consummate power-people) only works one way: "there is no free lunch". You give to get. That means it's some new kind of shakedown, a sleazy scam; like everything else.
Unfair? Unjustified? Untrue?
Prove it.
Hillary's notorious secretiveness actually plays into her skeptics' and enemies' hands here. Many casual observers are left pondering this question: "what is she trying to hide?" She insists "nothing". But "nothing" also sounds too good to be true because, were that so, she wouldn't be so evasive. Catch-22.
Her penchant for secrecy -- more like a mania, actually -- only reinforces vague yet widespread skepticism about what the Clintons are really up to.
Whether any of this will matter come November remains an open question.
24
What secretiveness? Clinton's released their tax returns, you can read them. The Clinton Foundation's financials are available for everyone to see on their website.
Please stop imagining things and think!
Please stop imagining things and think!
11
The Clinton Foundation has always owed much of its success to the fact that its founders belonged to political royalty in the US. At the very least, many donors, both foreign and domestic, contributed out of a sense of loyalty to or respect for a charismatic ex president and former first lady, the latter who had entered politics on her own account through election to the Senate.
Some former presidents (Reagan among them) exploit their prominence to fatten their bank accounts on the speaking circuit. Others, like Jimmy Carter, choose to work with organizations that do good in the world. Bill and Hillary decided to do both, and they have achieved astounding success in each endeavor. In either case, the individual uses a status conferred on him by the American people to accomplish personal goals.
A purist might regard this behavior as a form of corruption, but the fact remains that powerful people always enjoy options not open to the rest of us. Fair evaluation of the Clintons on this issue faces a major obstacle, because their genuine desire to help other people seems fused to a passion to acquire substantial personal wealth.
Not even Clinton, herself, moreover, could isolate her driving ambition to win the presidency from an equally strong commitment to use that office to make America a better country for all its people. Our political culture promotes both of these aspirations, making Hillary Clinton an authentic native daughter.
Some former presidents (Reagan among them) exploit their prominence to fatten their bank accounts on the speaking circuit. Others, like Jimmy Carter, choose to work with organizations that do good in the world. Bill and Hillary decided to do both, and they have achieved astounding success in each endeavor. In either case, the individual uses a status conferred on him by the American people to accomplish personal goals.
A purist might regard this behavior as a form of corruption, but the fact remains that powerful people always enjoy options not open to the rest of us. Fair evaluation of the Clintons on this issue faces a major obstacle, because their genuine desire to help other people seems fused to a passion to acquire substantial personal wealth.
Not even Clinton, herself, moreover, could isolate her driving ambition to win the presidency from an equally strong commitment to use that office to make America a better country for all its people. Our political culture promotes both of these aspirations, making Hillary Clinton an authentic native daughter.
47
@ James. No matter how many more comments appear here concerning this topic, and no matter what they might say, yours will surely be the most balanced and thoughtful.
9
I'm not at all surprised by this story of Foundation activity, after all, the Clinton's are political and politics involves networking with everyone to effect an outcome.
No good deed goes unpunished.
No good deed goes unpunished.
18
Poly Sci 101:
Today students we will be studying political influence peddling.
We will be learning about the Clinton Foundation, a classic example if there ever was one.
Today students we will be studying political influence peddling.
We will be learning about the Clinton Foundation, a classic example if there ever was one.
142
There's no evidence of influence peddling except in your hateful fervid imagination.
2
A claim with zero evidence. Thankfully, after we have the first female president the second's job will be a little easier.
2
Terrific. Now the Times is giving crecdence to "charges" by Donald Trump of pay-to-play, and whatever else he makes up. Trump lies multiple times daily. It is shameful that this newspaper would assume, or predicate an opinion, on any of his lies. This is the same guy who says the president is not an American, that Cruz's father associated with JFK's assassin, that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, etc etc etc. The list would go into the hundreds. And you actually use him as a pivot point in an editorial. Are you conned that easily by this grifter? Still waiting for the Times to get hold of his tax returns and to lay out where he invests his money and how deeply he is debt to the Russians and Chinese. Maybe crack reporters like Haberman and Dowd, who toss out lazy, insidious accusations, could work in that area. Just a suggestion.
24
This editorial brings to mind the Feb 25 editorial saying that Hillary must disclose the transcripts of the Wall Street speeches for which she took big money.
She did not do that either.
Now we are told "is an ethical imperative for Mrs. Clinton."
Then we were told, "“Everybody does it,” is an excuse expected from a mischievous child, not a presidential candidate. . . . By refusing to release them all, especially the bank speeches, Mrs. Clinton fuels speculation about why she’s stonewalling. . . . Mrs. Clinton is laboring to convince struggling Americans that she will rein in big banks, despite taking their money. . . . By stonewalling on these transcripts Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules."
The NYT is presenting some important caveats to its endorsement of Hillary, and she utterly ignores that. So do her true believer supporters.
Her attitude seems to be that she can do no wrong. They seem to accept that.
She did not do that either.
Now we are told "is an ethical imperative for Mrs. Clinton."
Then we were told, "“Everybody does it,” is an excuse expected from a mischievous child, not a presidential candidate. . . . By refusing to release them all, especially the bank speeches, Mrs. Clinton fuels speculation about why she’s stonewalling. . . . Mrs. Clinton is laboring to convince struggling Americans that she will rein in big banks, despite taking their money. . . . By stonewalling on these transcripts Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules."
The NYT is presenting some important caveats to its endorsement of Hillary, and she utterly ignores that. So do her true believer supporters.
Her attitude seems to be that she can do no wrong. They seem to accept that.
247
HERE! After all the propaganda-grousing, this is a Hillary Clinton SPEECH TO WALL STREET for you to see & hear. Notice how she's "promising them billions!!!!!" NOT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXha_AJv_B0&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXha_AJv_B0&feature=youtu.be
3
Not necessary to bash Hillary supporters as ignoring the caveats presented by the NYT, or as accepting that she can do no wrong. (Hard, I know for a Bernie supporter). I, for one, do not.
I have always been a Hillary supporter because of her intelligence, her depth of knowledge, her policy wonkishness, and her biography starting when she was still in law school - showing deep caring followed by continuous action to right wrongs and get help for people who had no champion. Her "heart" I guess you could say.
And I totally agree with everything you have said here. I am also sorely disappointed that she does not have the press corps on her campaign trips. And I hope she will turn these things around promptly, and once elected, that she will not let me down. And maybe surprise you, too.
I have always been a Hillary supporter because of her intelligence, her depth of knowledge, her policy wonkishness, and her biography starting when she was still in law school - showing deep caring followed by continuous action to right wrongs and get help for people who had no champion. Her "heart" I guess you could say.
And I totally agree with everything you have said here. I am also sorely disappointed that she does not have the press corps on her campaign trips. And I hope she will turn these things around promptly, and once elected, that she will not let me down. And maybe surprise you, too.
5
Well said. In our household we are agreed in supporting Hillary but feel she should cut ties with the foundation starting immediately.
2
Turn the ENTIRE 11 sections of the CGI over to the very capable hands of Melinda Gates.
She is a remarkable steward of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Clinton Global Initiative will lose a remarkably charismatic Bill Clinton who wrangled many donations. But he will now be First Gentleman.
Let Chelsea stay on the Board--but a clean cut, a COMPLETE cut needs to be made..now.
She is a remarkable steward of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Clinton Global Initiative will lose a remarkably charismatic Bill Clinton who wrangled many donations. But he will now be First Gentleman.
Let Chelsea stay on the Board--but a clean cut, a COMPLETE cut needs to be made..now.
10
Melinda Gates may be a remarkable steward but also a colossal bumbling and clueless meddler when it comes to "improving" education.
2
@Darker
Care to illuminate this statement from a credible source? Drudge report and Breitbart? Alex Jones perhaps?
Care to illuminate this statement from a credible source? Drudge report and Breitbart? Alex Jones perhaps?
1
Believe that horse left the barn a couple hundred million ago.
84
Best post related to this article.
3
"Does the new batch of previously undisclosed State Department emails prove..."
Of course it does not "prove". Mrs. Clinton is always on the cusp. Still legal, but just barely and upsetting enough for the Editorial Board to be concerned.
"A wiser course would be to ban contributions from foreign and corporate entities now".
Who is the candidate here? Mrs. Clinton or the Editorial Board? This is a good idea. Perhaps Mrs. Clinton should have thought of it or Mr. Clinton should have thought of it, he is a past president after all.
That fact that they did not, and especially that she did not is deeply disturbing.
"The Clinton Foundation.....but also of their tangled alliances and operation opacity...Achieving true distance from the foundation ....is an ethical imperative for Mrs. Clinton."
Absolutely correct. And yet Mrs. Clinton did not think of this, much less implement this or other suggestions here.
The fact that neither she, nor her staff have thought of this before is quite telling.
Of course it does not "prove". Mrs. Clinton is always on the cusp. Still legal, but just barely and upsetting enough for the Editorial Board to be concerned.
"A wiser course would be to ban contributions from foreign and corporate entities now".
Who is the candidate here? Mrs. Clinton or the Editorial Board? This is a good idea. Perhaps Mrs. Clinton should have thought of it or Mr. Clinton should have thought of it, he is a past president after all.
That fact that they did not, and especially that she did not is deeply disturbing.
"The Clinton Foundation.....but also of their tangled alliances and operation opacity...Achieving true distance from the foundation ....is an ethical imperative for Mrs. Clinton."
Absolutely correct. And yet Mrs. Clinton did not think of this, much less implement this or other suggestions here.
The fact that neither she, nor her staff have thought of this before is quite telling.
104
The title is correct in more than one way. Simply remove the words " the foundation".
5
Let’s see now. There are his:
Taxes
Major Debts to China and Possibly to Russia
Bankruptcies
Lawsuits
Trump University
Paucity of Charitable Giving
Bone Spurs
Medical Records
Positive Feelings About Putin
Rip-Offs of Lending Institutions and Small Businesses He Owes Money To.
Unwillingness to Commit Himself To His Policy Promises For More Than Just A Few Days.
Former Campaign Manager With Ties To Ukraine.
Multiple Marriages.
Record as a Serial Philander.
Wife Who Plagiarizes and Fakes a College Degree
Trashing of Atlantic City.
Attractiveness To Haters and Racists Whom He Is Slow Or Unwilling To Reject.
Obvious Ignorance of World Affairs
Continuous Slander of His Political Opponents.
Wall. The One Mexico Isn't Going To Pay For.
Ties Through His Latest Campaign Manager to Far-Right-Wing Groups.
Insulting Characterization of A Gold Star Family.
Inability to Brave Face-to-Face Meetings with Blacks, Hispanics and Other Minorities Who Fail To Embrace Him.
Multiple Campaign Managers With Dubious Histories.
Inability to Apologize to the Multiple People He has Insulted.
Still Believes President Obama Was Born In Kenya. Just Ask Him.
And we are supposed to care about Hillary’s stupid emails -- none of which appear to have caused any damage to the country -- and her Foundation which seems to be doing a considerable amount of good throughout the world? Really? Why? What for?
Taxes
Major Debts to China and Possibly to Russia
Bankruptcies
Lawsuits
Trump University
Paucity of Charitable Giving
Bone Spurs
Medical Records
Positive Feelings About Putin
Rip-Offs of Lending Institutions and Small Businesses He Owes Money To.
Unwillingness to Commit Himself To His Policy Promises For More Than Just A Few Days.
Former Campaign Manager With Ties To Ukraine.
Multiple Marriages.
Record as a Serial Philander.
Wife Who Plagiarizes and Fakes a College Degree
Trashing of Atlantic City.
Attractiveness To Haters and Racists Whom He Is Slow Or Unwilling To Reject.
Obvious Ignorance of World Affairs
Continuous Slander of His Political Opponents.
Wall. The One Mexico Isn't Going To Pay For.
Ties Through His Latest Campaign Manager to Far-Right-Wing Groups.
Insulting Characterization of A Gold Star Family.
Inability to Brave Face-to-Face Meetings with Blacks, Hispanics and Other Minorities Who Fail To Embrace Him.
Multiple Campaign Managers With Dubious Histories.
Inability to Apologize to the Multiple People He has Insulted.
Still Believes President Obama Was Born In Kenya. Just Ask Him.
And we are supposed to care about Hillary’s stupid emails -- none of which appear to have caused any damage to the country -- and her Foundation which seems to be doing a considerable amount of good throughout the world? Really? Why? What for?
409
Change the subject to the other guy.
That means she can get away with anything, so long as you say the other guy is worse?
That means she can get away with anything, so long as you say the other guy is worse?
192
No, Mark. But to date what specifically has she gotten away with? We've seen countless investigations into numerous allegations by Repubs in Congress who have the $$$'s (ours BTW), the time (since they can't do any legislating with that no-good, obstructionist Muslim in the White House), and certainly the white-hot motivation to snag HRC big time and they have, to their unending frustration, come up empty every time.
That being said I do agree that Clinton should have our support for what she brings to the table (I happen to think she brings a lot), that she needs to make the case for her programs and not just against Trump, and that once elected - she, particularly, needs to deliver and show that she was, in fact, the right choice for the right reasons. I know she can do it - I hope she does.
That being said I do agree that Clinton should have our support for what she brings to the table (I happen to think she brings a lot), that she needs to make the case for her programs and not just against Trump, and that once elected - she, particularly, needs to deliver and show that she was, in fact, the right choice for the right reasons. I know she can do it - I hope she does.
31
Which, of course, he is!
2
Mrs. Clinton has major-league enemies, especially those in Congress. If she wins on November 8th, her enemies will ensure that the Clinton Foundation follows her into the White House. The Republicans will have a ready-made excuse to not cooperate with her, much as they used race to sabotage Barack Obama's presidency.
I've never been a great admirer of Mrs. Clinton but she needs to understand that people want her to fail. Mitch McConnell in the Senate and Paul Ryan in the House will not work with her because she's (a) a Clinton; (b) a woman, and (c) a Democrat. She needs to limit the reasons and excuses the GOP will bring to the court of public opinion for doing nothing, a habit into which they've sunk since 2009.
The Clinton Foundation is laudable in its purpose but it also smells of rich people around the world wanting something for their money. If she's tone-deaf to this reality, then Donald Trump is free to rummage around the curbs and sewers until something happens his way--say, an October surprise, a heretofore-unrevealed email that unequivocally dots the i's an crosses the t's and shrills "corruption" and "favoritism." The Foundation's good will can all come undone in one day with one damning email or lost letter suddenly discovered.
Please, Mrs. Clinton, let it go. Which is more important? Money or power? You can't really have both with a straight face and clean hands.
I've never been a great admirer of Mrs. Clinton but she needs to understand that people want her to fail. Mitch McConnell in the Senate and Paul Ryan in the House will not work with her because she's (a) a Clinton; (b) a woman, and (c) a Democrat. She needs to limit the reasons and excuses the GOP will bring to the court of public opinion for doing nothing, a habit into which they've sunk since 2009.
The Clinton Foundation is laudable in its purpose but it also smells of rich people around the world wanting something for their money. If she's tone-deaf to this reality, then Donald Trump is free to rummage around the curbs and sewers until something happens his way--say, an October surprise, a heretofore-unrevealed email that unequivocally dots the i's an crosses the t's and shrills "corruption" and "favoritism." The Foundation's good will can all come undone in one day with one damning email or lost letter suddenly discovered.
Please, Mrs. Clinton, let it go. Which is more important? Money or power? You can't really have both with a straight face and clean hands.
46
If Hillary Clinton is President, a Republican Congress likely "has another thing coming". She is not Mr Obama to put up with their GOP frat-bratty shenanigans. We'd see some cultural change there.
3
Also, what is more important: money/power or America? A Clinton loss would certainly imperil all of us, not just ruin her desire for a place in history.
3
Darker,
If Hillary will not put up with Republicans the way Obama did (and, you're right, Obama was way too accommodating of Republicans), she'd better start her slamming of Republicans now, while they're not yet re-elected.
Instead, her strategy now seems to be to embrace all those Republicans who aren't ready to embrace Trump, regardless of their obstructionist pasts.
Sorry to say, Hillary will be the same kind of Republican appeaser that Obama was.
If Hillary will not put up with Republicans the way Obama did (and, you're right, Obama was way too accommodating of Republicans), she'd better start her slamming of Republicans now, while they're not yet re-elected.
Instead, her strategy now seems to be to embrace all those Republicans who aren't ready to embrace Trump, regardless of their obstructionist pasts.
Sorry to say, Hillary will be the same kind of Republican appeaser that Obama was.
1
As we know from the Film Cabaret and from observing American Democracy “money makes the world go around”. You should save your carefully chosen, politically correct, thoughts. There is a simple solution to the conflict of interest.
The Clintons should resign en masse from the Foundation, rename it, say ‘Black Lives Matter’, and give total legal control to the parent(s) of all black people shot dead by the Police in the past year.
It can be done, but it won’t be, because Money does make the world go around.
The Clintons should resign en masse from the Foundation, rename it, say ‘Black Lives Matter’, and give total legal control to the parent(s) of all black people shot dead by the Police in the past year.
It can be done, but it won’t be, because Money does make the world go around.
11
I would like to see all the money donated the bereaved black parents, but I don't think the Clintons care that much about black people.
5
This is the inevitable problem that will arise when family members of a former president run for or are appointed to high office. Too late to admit that now, however. Hillary Clinton is our only hope of keeping Trump out of the White House. Yes, strong steps need to be taken long before November to minimize the effect of influence peddling accusations.
4
Nothing that surfaces will surprise many of us who regard the Clintons as one of the most corrupt and self-serving political actors in America. We are essentially forced to vote for her because of Trump, but we still need to recognize this power broker team for who they are and know that they will continue business as usual (only on a grander scale) while in the White House. This is a truly unfortunate period in American politics.
285
Amen!
8
"We are essentially forced to vote for her because of Trump"
Why? Don't you see that this is her strategy? "Vote for me because if you don't Satan personified will win and our country will be ruined" is pretty much her strategy. I've literally never heard of a single US presidential candidate who is so weak that they use fear mongering as their chief weapon.
There is a third party. We are in this position because the DNC and the media anointed Clinton. But we don't have to vote for her. And I don't care if people try to bully me or shame me into voting for her--indeed that says everything about their candidate. If we all vote for the anointed candidate, who is not only extremely corrupt but also (in my opinion) incompetent, who got there purely through cronyism, then what message are we sending to the DNC and the media next time around?
Why? Don't you see that this is her strategy? "Vote for me because if you don't Satan personified will win and our country will be ruined" is pretty much her strategy. I've literally never heard of a single US presidential candidate who is so weak that they use fear mongering as their chief weapon.
There is a third party. We are in this position because the DNC and the media anointed Clinton. But we don't have to vote for her. And I don't care if people try to bully me or shame me into voting for her--indeed that says everything about their candidate. If we all vote for the anointed candidate, who is not only extremely corrupt but also (in my opinion) incompetent, who got there purely through cronyism, then what message are we sending to the DNC and the media next time around?
11
Stop letting Limbaugh do your thinking for you.
2
"The foundation must distance itself from politics, and the foreign and corporate money that risks tainting Hillary Clinton’s campaign." too late for that. it's already happened.
155
But it's super funny to read this in the Times. What a buncha kidders!
9
Richard, just wait till wikileaks exposes more. They apparently have NYT involvement with Hillary as well. We have all known that NYT has been partial to Hillary from the get go but how the columnists worked to guarantee Hillary as the democratic nominee (just as the DNC did) will be quite the revelation, no? At least to us readers there seems to be a daily morning editors' round table with NYT staff to make sure twin objectives were achieved: Trump was bashed repeatedly at every utterance and Hillary's praises were sung to high heavens.
9
I think you overestimate the influence of NYT columnists! If you think they can "guarantee" anyone the nomination, I suggest you look back at 2008, and tell why you believe that.
I keep hearing about all the great work this foundation does but the NYT never mentions post earthquake Haiti . How did all the money spent there work out for the Haitians?
39
You should 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."
Oh and "Mr. Rodham and several partners also sought a $22 million deal to rebuild homes in the country while Mr. Clinton was leading the recovery commission. They were not successful."
The article also talks about accusations against the Clintons of rigging the Haitian election (including an extremely distasteful quote by Cheryl Mills - 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.
The NYTimes Editorial Board would do well to read its own newspaper, at least the parts that are real journalism, and not just pandering. And this same endorsed Hillary LONG before the end of the primary. One wonders sometimes if the Clintons have also bought the NYTimes.
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."
Oh and "Mr. Rodham and several partners also sought a $22 million deal to rebuild homes in the country while Mr. Clinton was leading the recovery commission. They were not successful."
The article also talks about accusations against the Clintons of rigging the Haitian election (including an extremely distasteful quote by Cheryl Mills - 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.
The NYTimes Editorial Board would do well to read its own newspaper, at least the parts that are real journalism, and not just pandering. And this same endorsed Hillary LONG before the end of the primary. One wonders sometimes if the Clintons have also bought the NYTimes.
215
@Emily. I did as you suggest and read the article. You cherry-picked the criticisms and ignored the reporting in the article on all the good the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons, themselves, have done in Haiti. You emphasized the "rumors" and ignored the facts relating to, for example, the earthquake relief the money from the Foundation provided. As for Uranium One, that deal was approved by the federal Committee on Foreign Investments, comprised of eight federal agencies, including Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce, and others. There is not a scintilla of evidence that Sec. Clinton had any influence or input whatsoever into that Committee's approval of the deal. But people will, it seems, parrot anything the charlatan and right-wing shill Peter Schweitzer might say about his enemy, Hillary Clinton.
30
@Porch Dad, as Secretary of State, she certainly was one of the people who signed off on the Uranium deal, just like she signed off on the Irak war among others.
There is a long unctuous quote, which I admittedly ignored, in the Haiti article from Clinton's now campaign advisor. However, when reading about the Clintons and sifting through the maze of their foreign dealings, Porch Dad, it's helpful to be careful about believing too much what the people paid by the Clintons say about the Clintons.
Regarding Uranium, I quote: "As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well."
After which Bill received 500 k to speak before a "Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."
WHY were the sums NOT publicly disclosed in flagrant disobedience of the president's request? You think 2.35 million is just because Tefler loves women's rights? he's very interested in "Education"? Does the Kremlin especially love charities? or is Bill just a great party guest?
There is a long unctuous quote, which I admittedly ignored, in the Haiti article from Clinton's now campaign advisor. However, when reading about the Clintons and sifting through the maze of their foreign dealings, Porch Dad, it's helpful to be careful about believing too much what the people paid by the Clintons say about the Clintons.
Regarding Uranium, I quote: "As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well."
After which Bill received 500 k to speak before a "Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."
WHY were the sums NOT publicly disclosed in flagrant disobedience of the president's request? You think 2.35 million is just because Tefler loves women's rights? he's very interested in "Education"? Does the Kremlin especially love charities? or is Bill just a great party guest?
23