Bill Clinton: Foundation's done nothing 'knowingly inappropriate'

[cali]

Former President Bill Clinton dismissed the controversy over foreign donations to his family's foundation, saying in a testy interview that the charitable organization has "never done anything knowingly inappropriate."

"There is no doubt in my mind that we have never done anything knowingly inappropriate in terms of taking money to influence any kind of American government policy," he said in an interview that aired Monday on NBC's "Today" show. "That just hasn't happened."

The Clinton Foundation's fundraising practices have drawn scrutiny as Hillary Clinton launches her second run for president. Critics have raised questions about donations from foreign governments that had projects or financial interests under Clinton's jurisdiction during her time as secretary of State.

<snip>

But his defense of the Clinton Foundation weren't his only comments from Monday morning that are likely to spark controversy. Republican attack group America Rising was already blasting Clinton's comments confirming he'd continue giving paid speeches — which can draw half a million dollars in speaking fees — even as his wife runs for president.

"I gotta pay our bills," he said. "And I also give a lot of it to the foundation every year."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/04/politics/bill-clinton-defends-clinton-foundation/

[L0oniX]

1. That depends on what "knowingly" ...is ...is.

[cali]

6. they're gonna have to keep Bill on a short leash- that line about

how he's gotta pay the bills isn't helpful, and it echoes her "dead broke" shit. out of touch. They're worth, jointly around a hundred million bucks and poor ol' Bill is concerned about paying the bills?

[B2G]

19. Hey, it's hard out there for a pimp.

[cali]

20. I am not calling him anything of the sort

but I do think it would be better for her campaign if he just stopped taking big bucks for speeches. No matter what anyone says, money does buy access. It may very well not buy anything else, but that's troubling enough

[B2G]

27. Settle down, I'm not saying you were

Lol.

[cwydro]

30. Nail on head. nt

[GeorgeGist]

2. I guess it depends on what he means by ...

'knowingly inappropriate'. To me that seems to be a pretty large loophole.

[MosheFeingold]

3. Of course

I will be shouted down as a Bernie supporter (which I am), but the Clintons are out for themselves first.

They are no more progressives than Bush Jr is a MENSA member.

The progressive movement is just the convenient horse they hitched their wagon to.

They are 1%ers out for their fellow 1%ers (or whomever else will make them rich).

[L0oniX]

8. "They are no more progressives than Bush Jr is a MENSA member" Bwahahahaha

[NYC_SKP]

4. You can have an International Foundation, or you can be Secretary of State. You can't have both.

And now, along with the "using email on a server at your private residence" and "deleting those emails that aren't important" while you are SOS.

Jesus Christ, talk about setting yourself up for failure.

So now Bill has dug the pit a little deeper, his ego got ahead of his judgement.

Please go on, Mr. President.

[cali]

9. that actually is the bottom line

the screaming denialist horseshit about how this all made up right wing lies, notwithstanding.

You know what's sickening? That if this was a republican the condemnation from the HDF would be deafening.

[L0oniX]

10. Wouldn't be the first time he "got ahead of his judgement".

[cali]

15. what gets me, is that even after all this negative focus on

him, he plans to still keep getting paid PERSONALLY for speeches.

That doesn't help her.

[stevenleser]

5. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6617467

[NCTraveler]

22. They just don't care.

Getting pretty obvious.

[stevenleser]

26. The period plus that link will be my standard response to these OPs.

Certain posters seem to post pretty much the same OPs every day.

[JayhawkSD]

7. I don't think anyone has suggested it has.

Bill Clinton misses the point, which politicians are prone to do; defending against an accusation by answering a question other than the one which was asked. The suggestion has been that Hillary Clinton did something wrong, not the foundation, by granting favors as Secretary of State to people and organizations which had contributed to the foundation. Thus he says the foundation has done nothing wrong. He does not say that Hillary has done nothing wrong.

I'm not suggesting that she is guilty of anything. I'm not saying that she did any favors. I don't really care. This is the nattering of the chattering class and is nonsense. I'm just saying that "Slick Willy" did his usual artful dodging of failing to actually answer the question.

[cali]

12. I don't think that is correct. What liberal critics are saying isn't that

anyone was actually granted favors, but that they put themselves in a position for it to be easy to make such a claim. What could they have done differently?

1) instituted the recent ban on foreign donations from most countries, when she became SoS. If everything was just so impeccably above board then, why are they making this change now?

2) Bill should not have taken paying gigs from foreign countries while she was SoS.

3) When she became SoS, they all three should have sharply limited their involvement with the Foundation.

[JayhawkSD]

44. Did you read the part where I said that...

"I'm not suggesting that she is guilty of anything. I'm not saying that she did any favors," at all? It's right there in my post, so why are you "correcting" me by saying that I am not correct and that no one is sayig she did favors? I know that. I'm not saying it either. My comment is about what Bill Clinton had to say, not about what Hillary may or may not have done.

[closeupready]

11. Even the appearance of impropriety should have been eschewed.

At best, that shows a stunning lack of good judgment.

[cali]

13. yes,the lack of judgment is a big honking problem and they don't seem to

get it. they keep repeating the same mistakes- mistakes that are avoidable.

[closeupready]

14. Agreed.

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. "...no controlling legal authority."

[cali]

17. could you elaborate on what you're saying by using that quote?

[cherokeeprogressive]

36. Sure. "knowingly inappropriate" are "weasel words" just like Gore's testimony was.

[trumad]

18. Yawn

[cali]

21. does money buy access?

[boston bean]

25. Did money buy access?

Waiting for some proof.

[cali]

29. of course it bought access-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/03/travels-with-bill-and-frank-a-look-at-the-clinton-giustra-friendship/

it's not about the very low bar of "it's legal". Same can be said of money flowing to repukes and repuke organizations. For one thing, the optics suck.

<snip>



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

And his comment about how he's going to keep getting paid personally for speeches because he's "gotta pay the bills"? Who knew that $100 million or so, isn't enough to pay the bills.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0503-mcmanus-clinton-foundation-20150503-column.html

[boston bean]

32. Ridiculous. You are making it seem like there

Was some prid pro quo. That is innuendo and not factual.

[cali]

33. NO. I did not infer that there was any quid pro quo. And I posted Facts

not innuendo.

I am suggesting the optics of it suck. that appearance of a conflict of interest is not a good thing. and that she did not keep her word to the administration regarding disclosure or clear new donations by foreign nations to the Foundation, as she promised she would.

THAT IS FACT.

[boston bean]

34. That is exactly what Schweizer says too.

IE..... No evidence of any wrong doing. But we think it looks bad.

Your concern has been noted.

[cali]

35. wrong. he strongly infers that there are quid pro quos

And that is not what Teachout, McManus and others on the left are saying.

How about her pledge to the WH that she didn't uphold, bean? No problem that she broke her word, right?

[boston bean]

37. I'll wait for Obama to make a stink about it.

There is no there there.

Only innuendo and lots and lots of what some call concern. I'm not concerned at all about innuendo.

[cali]

38. of course you will. why think for yourself when you can have Obama do it?

[boston bean]

39. Better than zephyr and teachout, no??

[Bonobo]

45. Did you wait also for Obama to make a stink about Abu Ghraib and US war crimes

before deciding for yourself?

After all, that's clearly the way one should decide on the morality of all political issues.

[trumad]

42. Double Yawn

[onehandle]

23. Right-Wing media and DUers unite to attack Democrats. nt

[LordGlenconner]

24. +1

[cali]

31. sorry, Zephyr Teachout? NOT right wing. far fucking from it.

Doyle McManus? Nope, left wing.
The New Yorker's Cassidy? Not right wing.

It is utterly delusional to think it is only the right wing.

If the Clintons were republicans, DUers would be highly critical of their behavior. HRC pledging to the White House that she'd disclose all donors and clear foreign contributions with the WH? She did NOT live up to her word:

<snip>

“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.

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.

<snip>

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

That's Doyle McManus, btw, about as far from being a right winger as you can get. But keep on with the excuses and the mendacious crap that it's all from the right wing. It's not. and it is a problem. They need to fix it.

[kentuck]

40. The GOP wishes you would stop talking about it...

...they want it to be fresh when they make it an issue next year. They don't want it to be worn out.

[AtomicKitten]

41. The repeated violations of the Memorandum of Understanding says otherwise.

Hillary signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Admin as a condition of taking the job as SOS, and then went on to repeatedly violate it by not reporting new/increased foreign donations.

[Dems to Win]

43. Once upon a time, Bill was just Slick Willie

Now, he's Slick Willie AND obnoxious one-percenter rubbing people's noses in his high-flying lifestyle.

Really, Bill? You and Hillary couldn't pay your bills on Hillary's $400K salary if she becomes Prez?

Next he'll be telling us $400K per year is just barely middle class.

My fingers are crossed that Bill does not become the husband of the Democratic nominee.