Hillary Clinton's conflict-of-interest problems

[cali]

Note: This is not an anti-Hillary column. It was penned by Doyle McManus, the antithesis of a right wing commentator.

The harshest charges against Hillary Rodham Clinton — that she made decisions that favored donors to her family's charitable foundation when she was secretary of State — aren't sticking. Yes, the Obama administration approved a donor's sale of U.S. uranium mines to a Russian firm, but Clinton does not appear to have been involved. Yes, the administration concluded a trade treaty with Colombia that benefited Clinton Foundation donors, but that was President Obama's decision, not Clinton's. And yes, Clinton lobbied foreign governments on behalf of donors such as General Electric and Boeing — but that's part of every secretary of State's job description.

Still, that doesn't mean candidate Clinton has emerged unmuddied from the swamp of accusations and innuendoes stirred up by conservative author Peter Schweizer in a book scheduled for publication this week. The front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination still has some explaining to do.

When she was nominated as secretary of State in 2009, Clinton promised that she would bend over backward to avoid potentially compromising situations.

“Out of [an] abundance of caution and a desire to avoid even the appearance … of a conflict,” Clinton said, the foundation would agree to strict rules: It would disclose all its donors and clear new contributions from foreign governments with the State Department.
lRelated

Only that didn't happen. The biggest branch of the Clintons' charitable network, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, never complied with the agreement at all, according to the Boston Globe. It neither disclosed its donors nor cleared new contributions. (A spokesman said they didn't think it was necessary. After media inquiries, the program published a list of donors last month.) The Clinton Foundation also failed to clear a donation of $500,000 from Algeria. (An oversight, the foundation said.) And the foundation's Canadian affiliate collected millions of dollars without disclosing donors' names. (Canadian law guarantees privacy to donors, but the foundation could have asked them to voluntarily disclose their identities; it didn't until last week.)

<snip>

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0503-mcmanus-clinton-foundation-20150503-column.html

[RiverLover]

1. The fact that they took foreign donations in through the Canadian organization

while she was SoS in order to hide the identity of those giving the money is the worst part of it to me.

Clinton promised that she would bend over backward to avoid potentially compromising situations.

Was she just referring to her emails being kept off public record, was that her only action of bending over backwards?

This is our frontrunner? Oy.

[marmar]

2. K/R

[cali]

3. More:

<snip>

Thanks to the Washington Post, we have learned that Bill Clinton made almost $105 million giving speeches from 2001 to 2012 — and his biggest fees came from foreign hosts while his wife was secretary of State: $1.4 million from a Nigerian media firm (for two visits to Lagos); $750,000 from the Swedish telecommunication giant Ericsson; $600,000 from Dutch financial firm Achmea; and $500,000 from Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to Vladimir Putin's Kremlin.

The former president did take one sensible precaution: He cleared his speech gigs with State Department ethics lawyers. According to records obtained by the gadfly group Judicial Watch, the lawyers approved every one of the 215 speeches that were proposed.

There's nothing illegal about any of that; other former presidents have accepted giant speaking fees, too. Ronald Reagan once picked up $2 million for a trip to Japan — and that was in 1989 dollars.

But there's nothing pretty about that picture, either. Even though the lawyers approved the deals, dozens of the firms that paid Bill Clinton were doing business with the U.S. government at the time. Surely Hillary Clinton's 2009 promise to avoid “even the appearance” of any conflict of interest should have applied to her spouse as well as the family foundation — right?

<snip>

[pipoman]

5. I'm sure that 1.4 from Nigeria was all returned but maybe the .4

Per the email they answered....

[cali]

4. What Clinton and her campaign can do to improve this:

Hillary Clinton can't undo the past. But here are four things she can do to improve the situation now: She can press the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates for disclosure of all donors, in belated compliance with the agreement they made in 2009. She can ask the foundation to tighten its limits on foreign donations — for example, to cover individuals with close ties to foreign governments. She can ask her husband to tighten his criteria for speaking fees, too, and make it clear that he'll donate his biggest paychecks to charity. Most important, she can spell out the rules she expects her family to live under if voters decide to put her in the White House.

Last week, I asked the Clinton campaign if they saw merit in any of those ideas. I haven't heard back.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0503-mcmanus-clinton-foundation-20150503-column.html

[pipoman]

6. And you really expect to hear back?

Even if they said they would do all or any of these things do you really think they would. Mistake after mistake, oversight after oversight, apology after apology....it begins sounding a little disingenuous after about the 10th time. ...

[cali]

7. sorry, I should have made clear that that was a continuation of of Doyle's L.A. Times

piece. He's a pretty eminent columnist, so yeah, I'd think they'd want to respond.

[Laser102]

8. Small, small petty people.

There will ALWAYS be something. I don't believe Hillary was involved in anything nefarious. Quite frankly I don't see anything in any of these reports that say she was. Innuendo is not fact. During the civil war the good ladies of the South quietly accepted donations for the soldiers from prostitutes. They didn't ask what they wanted in exchange for it. How many men she slept with to earn it. As Bill Clinton put it, the 500,000 from Algeria was a one time donation for one country in trouble. He used it for that purpose. The good Christians out there can discuss whether he should have taken it.

[cali]

9. yeah, people like Doyle and Zephyr Teachout are just small,petty people.

and ain't that a huge steaming pile of shit.

This is about her promise to avoid even the slightest appearance of conflict of interest. She did not.

and this is real problem- for her, and as she's the likely nominee, for us.

[Agschmid]

10. MIRT?

[sabrina 1]

35. MIRT? For what?

[Agschmid]

37. Doing exactly what MIRT does.

Your cool with a new person coming in and calling everyone "small and petty"?

[sabrina 1]

45. Sorry, you posted one word which seemed to be agreeing with that new person. Obviously I

misunderstood.

[Agschmid]

47. Yah no agreement, more like a call to action.

[sabrina 1]

48. I see that now, my apologies!

[greatlaurel]

12. I would advise you to put this poster on ignore. They never post anything but negative info on Dems.

This is the last straw. It is clear there are trolls with very high post counts that are allowed to post anything negative about Democratic candidates. The only way to deal with this is to put them on ignore or just recognize that they are trolling and ignore all the posts.

Head over to the Hillary Clinton room. I tend to see GD as an area where the trolls lurk.

[cali]

13. really? you think I'm a troll?

do go rah rah and cheer lead now in a safe little environment; you wouldn't want to strain yourself actually discussing issues.

And who are you to call anyone a troll?

[greatlaurel]

19. Could you provide some links to some posts you have made praising a Democrat?

I could have missed it.

Thanks for your help.

[cali]

26. I really shouldn't be bothering with this, but here, laurel. just for you

cali (99,996 posts)
2. I really like Welch. He's my rep and he had a hard act to follow- Bernie

I really dig his style as well as his substance. He's as progressive as anyone in the Congress and he works effectively within the constraints of the House. He also has plum committee assignments.

(I've praised Peter Welch (D) repeatedly on DU.

And Pat Leahy

And President Obama who I voted for twice.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023111737

and sorry, I'm not going to post anymore for you. You called me a troll. No amount of proof would satisfy the likes of
you.

[Agschmid]

43. You are not a troll.

[eloydude]

61. You're not a troll..

You're one of us, cali!

[H2O Man]

69. Too funny!

I have to admit to being mildly surprised -- offset by being greatly amused -- by anyone attempting as weak of shit as calling you a "troll."

[leveymg]

53. Laurel seems to think that anyone who isn't for Hillary is against Democrats, and the HRC room is DU

while GD is just a troll breeding ground.

Laurel is apparently quite confused by all the walls she sees.

[jwirr]

27. The point is that it really does not matter if it is true or not - THIS is what the Rs are going

to hit her with and with their big money donors and pacs harping on it ALL the time many are going to believe she did something wrong even if they do not understand what it was. All they will see is doubts.

I watched them crucify George McGovern, Mondale, Kerry. etc. and that is what they are going to do to her. To be honest I don't think after they get done with her that she will have anymore chance to win the general than all her supporters think Bernie will have.

I will be voting for whoever wins the primary but we should not fool ourselves that it is going to be easy.

[fadedrose]

11. I didn't read your OP

because I'm up to my ears with talk about the front runner.

But I do commend you on not calling her names with profane adjectives, as I have seen in stuff about Bernie.

[DanTex]

14. Does anyone seriously think that Clinton was trading favors with foreign governments

for donations to the Clinton foundation?

[cali]

15. I seriously believe that they created a sticky conflict of interest appearance

by not hewing to the promises made- and Doyle is clear about what those promises were.

I don't believe that she was trading favors. I do think that it's clear Bill benefited financially from her position. I don't believe that it was quid pro quo.

[DanTex]

16. And? Sure, she should have been more careful. Or, more precisely, the foundation should have been.

[cali]

17. and as Doyle and Zephyr Teachout both say, it's a problem that needs

to be addressed

[DanTex]

18. It has been addressed. At this point, it's just another irrelevant excuse to take a shot at Clinton

If there wasn't any quid-pro-quo, which you agree there wasn't, then it's just a question of perception. I.e. the right could use it against her. But since when are Bernie Sanders supporters concerned about things like perception and electability?

Because if you are, then the fact that Bernie can't raise any money and describes himself as a "socialist" are much, much bigger "problems that need to be addressed" than this.

[cali]

22. It's a problem. a significant one. read Zephyr Teachout's "history lesson" and

get back to me:

I'll be interested in what you have to say after reading it.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/03/the-clintons-snuff-box-problem.html

No, Bernie doesn't have a problem, that's just silly. And his being a Democratic Socialist has jack to do with it.

If she's the nominee, this is going to be a big problem. I suspect it'll be a big problem prior to that, and I want her to fix it. Both Teachout and McManus have some ideas on that that I think are good.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/03/the-clintons-snuff-box-problem.html

[DanTex]

25. "Bernie doesn't have a problem." Really? Not being able to raise money isn't a problem?

Being a self-described "socialist" in a country where that's a bad word? Polling at 7%?

Here's the problem with your argument. This isn't about corruption, it's about perception. The only issue here is that Republicans might use this against her in the GE. But in the GE, the Republicans would utterly wallop Bernie Sanders, so even with this pseudo-scandal (and there will be more), Clinton is still far more electable than Bernie.

PS. One thing Zephyr Teachout is definitely qualified to write about is how to not raise any money and then get crushed in a primary by an establishment candidate.

[1StrongBlackMan]

28. I don't know about the "PS" part; but ...

But I suspect we both know this isn't about the electability of Bernie ... Right?

[DanTex]

31. The "PS" part is about Zephyr Teachout, who ran against Andrew Cuomo in the NY

primary in 2014. She actually did better than expected, got over 30% of the vote, but still, inevitably, lost, partly because she couldn't come close to Cuomo's fundraising.

[1StrongBlackMan]

36. Okay, that's what I thought you were talking about ...

But isn't it fun to ignore what is the political reality, in favor of how you wish it was?

[DanTex]

40. Fantasy is great!

Last night at about 4am, the minimum wage was $15, there was no more racism or sexism, and Israel and Palestine had declared peace. Although my memory is a bit hazy, I drank to much champagne to celebrate my stunning victory over Floyd Mayweather...

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. LOL ...

That was me that knocked Mayweather out, 20 seconds into the 1st round!

[cali]

30. huh. He doesn't have a problem with big money donations.

Yes, it's about perception. and Bernie is unlikely to be the nominee. I've said that repeatedly, genius.

Is she more electable? Yep. Is she electable. I doubt it. I think she'll lose the GE. I've said that for over a year.

And you clearly know nothing about Teachout.

[DanTex]

34. Yes he does. He doesn't get any of them. That's a big problem.

Ok, so you agree that Clinton is likely going to win the primary, and is more electable than Bernie. You also agree that this is about perception and not corruption.

So what's the point? How is this any different than pointing out that Obama's middle name is "Hussein" and that he hasn't released his "long-form" birth certificate? And that he used to hang out with some reverend who said some strange things on youtube? Or that some of John Kerry's war buddies don't like him that much? Or that Gore sometimes appears to exaggerate things? Or that Dukakis let a black man out of prison? ....


And I do know that Teachout lost to Cuomo after running a similarly low-budget campaign. Unless I missed something.

[cali]

42. you are deliberately avoiding the points I'm making.

so we are done.

but before I waltz away from this rather frustrating exchange:

No, it is not only about perception. It's about her breaking her promise to the administration.

The appearance of conflict can be very damaging as both Teachout and McManus point out. This will not be going away. They need to address it.

Yes, Teachout lost to Cuomo, but she's also an expert on fundraising, anti-trust issues and media.

HRC is not nearly a good enough campaigner or politician to pull off winning- even with her billions.

[DanTex]

44. Well, let's hope this nonsense goes the way of the birth certificate and not the Swift Boats.

[NCTraveler]

57. Being a fan can cloud ones vision. As is being done by you.

"No, Bernie doesn't have a problem"

You should take a more outside approach. Not so much "a fan of personality" as shown here. I remember when posters from the BOG were laughed at for comments like this. Not from me.

[sabrina 1]

39. Bernie COULD raise money, it's the fact that he is refusing money from Corporate interests that

is what makes him a very desirable and definitely serious candidate in a country where the overwhelming majority want money out of politics.

That is the main reason why I am supporting him. And so far, just telling other people about his position on that, has garnered enough interest that people who never heard of him before, now want to know more.

What you are saying is sad to me. It is condoning the horrible system created by all this money.

To be able to say this about any Democrat 's/he will not receive or accept corporate/special interest' should catapult them to the top of the list of viable candidates.

So far it seems to be happening.

[DanTex]

41. What I am saying is sad to me also. But it is what it is.

Bernie is great and supporting him is great. But that can be done without pushing pseudo-scandals that the GOP is going to use against Hillary Clinton.

[eloydude]

63. You can thank the GOP and the media for creating those 'pseudo-scandals'.

As they are trying to beat Hillary Clinton to an ineffective person (which they are succeeding, sad to say) and Bernie is stepping out, and there is nothing to attack Bernie except that he's "socialist" and "his hair is ugly". Bernie's policies are rock solid, and every single American should be backing this guy 10,000%.
RW assholes called Obama socialists for 8 years, and set the boundaries.

Bernie is my socialist, and I want him elected as the President.

[uponit7771]

21. ... notice they left out Roger Ayles (sp) and Reverend Right...

[uponit7771]

20. Obama had "conflicts of interest" during the 08 elections too, Americans ignored that pettiness then

... and Americans will ignore it now

[cali]

23. It wasn't ignored. It wasn't a big issue.

this is a much bigger deal and it already is an issue. I really doubt Americans will ignore this. She needs to fix it.

[uponit7771]

24. For the right it was, the left knew it was overt pettiness.. roger ayles and rev right shit didn't..

...make too much of a difference because his character was seen and known

[NCTraveler]

58. "It wasn't ignored."

Correct. Right Wingers were all over it. See where it got them. A new tactic is in order for the results they desire.

[tularetom]

29. In every Clinton scandal, and there have been too many to count

theres's always that annoying little grain of truth.

It gets magnified to ludicrous dimensions by republicans, and pooh poohed into insignificance by the Clinton faithful.

But it never gets denied. Or disproved.

This is no different. I doubt that many observant people actually believe that the Clintons got suitcases full of cash in return for favorable treatment by the Clinton-run State Department.

But the fact remains that the Clintons failed to live up to a disclosure agreement they made with the Obama administration and by extension, with the American people.

Are they so arrogant, or so naive, that they believe, this kind of behavior can continue to be swept under the rug?

[cali]

32. that's it exactly.

[thesquanderer]

33. It's the old "the Clintons play by their own rules" problem.

I'm not sure how serious it is, though. Because looked at that way, it's nothing new. As always, her detractors who have always made that claim were unlikely to vote for her anyway; and her supporters who have been through similar in the past will, again, not consider it important enough to reconsider their support.

[kentuck]

38. Best to clear it up now...

...than wait for the general election campaign.

[cali]

49. yes. but just today Bill said he was going to keep taking speaking gigs

for which he is paid personally because he needs to bay his bills. That doesn't help. And presumably, they have joint accounts and that money is co-mingled. It just looks sucky.

[kentuck]

50. I think this may be the Clinton's response to Citizens United?

How else can the Democratic Party keep up with the Koch Brothers?

[cali]

52. not sure what that has to do with

Bill continuing to profit personally from speeches while HRC runs for President.

And yes, I understand the CU quandary, but the Clintons have long had, predating CU, a cozy relationship with big money donors and Wall Street.

[MineralMan]

51. Former Presidents speak publically and are paid for it.

I don't see any conflict there in any way. Bill Clinton is not the candidate. He's a former two-term President. You think he shouldn't get paid for speaking engagements? Really?

[cali]

54. Yes, there's the appearance of conflict

and presumably the Clintons co-mingle their funds.

And yes, I think when you're worth 100 million (jointly) that making a comment about how you "gotta pay our bills" is tone deaf. I do think he should just stop being personally paid while HRC is running for President.

As you think this if fine and dandy, I can only presume that you wouldn't have a problem with it if she is elected.

I think LIBERAL Doyle McManus hit the nail on the head- and anyone suggesting that he's a right wing mouthpiece, doesn't have a clue. He's one of the best commentators on the left. And his voice on this is not singular.

<snip>

Thanks to the Washington Post, we have learned that Bill Clinton made almost $105 million giving speeches from 2001 to 2012 — and his biggest fees came from foreign hosts while his wife was secretary of State: $1.4 million from a Nigerian media firm (for two visits to Lagos); $750,000 from the Swedish telecommunication giant Ericsson; $600,000 from Dutch financial firm Achmea; and $500,000 from Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to Vladimir Putin's Kremlin.

The former president did take one sensible precaution: He cleared his speech gigs with State Department ethics lawyers. According to records obtained by the gadfly group Judicial Watch, the lawyers approved every one of the 215 speeches that were proposed.

There's nothing illegal about any of that; other former presidents have accepted giant speaking fees, too. Ronald Reagan once picked up $2 million for a trip to Japan — and that was in 1989 dollars.

But there's nothing pretty about that picture, either. Even though the lawyers approved the deals, dozens of the firms that paid Bill Clinton were doing business with the U.S. government at the time. Surely Hillary Clinton's 2009 promise to avoid “even the appearance” of any conflict of interest should have applied to her spouse as well as the family foundation — right?

<snip>

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0503-mcmanus-clinton-foundation-20150503-column.html

[MineralMan]

56. There's no there there, cali.

It's a false flag being raised by the right wing. And you're falling for it head over heels. What will be next? What is the next "scandal" from the Right that you'll post here? I can hardly wait.

[cali]

59. optics matter in campaigns- particularly presidential campaigns. denial isn't a solution

and it's simply a flat out lie for anyone to claim that this is all from the right wing. it's not. and criticism of the Clinton Foundation from the left, started long before Sweitzer's book.

YOU know fucking well I posted NOTHING from the right. I posted Doyle McManus, for fuck's sake.

You are simply telling a flat out you-know-what when you claim that posting a liberal columnist is a right wing attack. Funny, the same dishonest shit is being said about Zephyr Teachout too, since she dared to criticize the Clintons re the Foundation.

It's disgusting that democrats are defending in the Clintons what they excoriate in republicans.

have fun with your misrepresentations and denial, mineral man. I think of those tactics as more right wing than liberal.

[Thinkingabout]

55. On the Algeria donation, I found the following article, yes Joe Scarborough got it wrong.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/28/joe-scarborough/scarborough-says-algeria-donated-clinton-foundatio/

There was many of the Clinton Cash facts debunked, I don't think I would use information for this source, too many lies.

[cali]

60. That link has exactly jackshit to do with what I posted. NOTHING

and sorry but Doyle McManus is one of the most respected liberal commentators in the country.

[Thinkingabout]

67. Why contining to repeat information which is debunked? It does not give integrity

To books, etc when the information is not correct. To discredit the Clintons through these stories is not going to get respect for other candidates.

[cali]

68. Nothing he wrote in that piece has been debunked. NOT ONE FUCKING THING

[closeupready]

62. Great. So she knows how to posture, even if it is 100% fake.

[AtomicKitten]

64. She repeatedly violated the Memorandum of Understanding she signed before taking the job of SOS.

Whether or not there was quid pro quo or other wrongdoing isn't clear, but she stepped right into the appearance of wrongdoing pile o' crap over and over again by failing to report new/increased foreign donations as she promised.

[cali]

65. not a problem at all, according to every single one of her supporters here who

have addressed that.

[AtomicKitten]

66. That blanket defense doesn't serve her well, or at all.

I get defending her against the hyperbolic attacks with accusations of wrongdoing when that has not been determined, but that is a strawman argument. The offense is violating an agreement she had with the Obama Admin as a condition to taking the job as SOS. The agreement was designed to waylay any appearance of wrongdoing. It was designed to protect her and the administration. The cavalier way in which it was violated repeatedly cannot be denied, and it is that her supporters need to face.