Breaking: Clintons Got Millions from Swiss Bank Sec Clinton Shielded from IRS
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by itsrobert (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: Daily Kos
Here's the long and short of it. Shortly after she became Secretary of State, Clinton went to Switzerland at the request of her Swiss counterpart. The IRS had sued UBS demanding the identities of some 50,000 account holders. A few months later, Secretary Clinton announced a deal whereby UBS provided information on only 4450 accounts. It was a bit odd that the Secretary of State (any secretary of state) would have been involved in this kind of matter at all.
This is all a bit odd and another instance of a Clinton helping out a giant financial institution. But what is really troubling is what came after. Because it seems that after this intervention, UBS became rather magnanimous toward the Clintons. How so?
1) UBS contributions to the Clinton foundation jumped from 60K prior to 2008 to 600K by 2014. That's a 1000% increase.
2) UBS partnered with the Clinton Foundation to lend $32 million to inner-city entrepreneur programs.
3) Bill Clinton was invited to have some Q & A sessions with UBS big wigs. He was paid $1.5 MILLION for these appearances. It made UBS the single biggest source of corporate speech income since he left office.
Read more: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/31/1407615/-Breaking-Clintons-Got-Millions-from-Swiss-Bank-Sec-Clinton-Shielded-From-IRS
This is a compilation of two other articles -
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/?UTM_SOURCE=yahoo
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubs-deal-shows-clintons-complicated-ties-1438223492
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Rolf21
(22 posts)The crowing of the rooster does not make the sun rise. There is no evidence of a link.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)
jonno99
(2,620 posts)Entirely possible - even probable (unless you believe every instance of HRC's "trouble" is merely coincidence).
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)saying there is no link. Links are not needed to convict. It may be hard to prove quid pro quo, but why elect someone with that baggage when you don't have to?
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)fbc
(1,668 posts)lol, of course not really shocking at all.
In a sane democracy, not only would people refuse to justify this kind of behavior, they would demand lengthy prison terms.
This is "pay to play"
peacebird
(14,195 posts)And in all fairness, neither the Atlantic nor the Wall Street Journal claims there is a direct link between helping UBS as Secretary of State on the one hand and the sudden increased generosity of UBS toward the Clintons on the other. And no one is suggesting that anything illegal took place or that there was any kind of quid pro quo deal. I'm not suggesting that, either.
In fact, it is most likely just one more example of the very kind of perfectly legal soft corruption that is strangling our democracy. Right after the big banks bankrupted the global economy, Secretary Clinton was going out of her way to help out the big banks. It's no wonder the IRS and the AG were unable to prosecute the masterminds of this catastrophe given all their friends in high places.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)agreed peacebird. those who refuse to believe their girl is a crook will say it isn't actually illegal. Of course, if someone in congress gets a contract to a firm and gets funding for campaigns back that is evidence of the anti-Christ. 
KoKo
(84,711 posts)
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)were the more than 90% of 1%er accountholders who no doubt got to keep evading paying millions or even billions of dollars of taxes on hidden money. What tied the less than 10% of accountholders whose information was revealed together? Why were they thrown to the wolves, when so many others were protected?
fbc
(1,668 posts)Too bad our media is shit or someone might actually decide to ask it.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)to get coverage in the 1%'s protection racket.
OnlinePoker
(6,119 posts)
appalachiablue
(43,962 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)I'd have to weed through all the Financial Data to answer..but, if you look at our Bank Bailouts that let the Heads of the Worst Banksters "Go Free" with "Fine after Fine" avoiding "Criminal Indictment" and they STILL PROFIT with BONUSES....I'd say that the lesser ones like "Bill Clinton" who approved the End of Glass-Stegall and his other Deregulation which helped cause the Meltdown were Equally Rewarded for their cooperation.
And that's a huge part of why I can't support Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton assuming the White House is Theirs...
Too much Pain and Suffering to the American People by their constant "Clulessness" ....or Did they know Full Well what they were doing?
It seems for the Clintons it is "POWER over MONEY" and yet those they enable Grow More Wealthy and they stand buy and perpetuate that SYSTEM, while they Pretend Otherwise! 
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)supporter simply because of her ties to BIG money! This is just another reason that makes me even more uncomfortable and unless this country wakes up we're going to get "More" of what we've had for far too many years!
All I can do is keep supporting Bernie even though I know that TPTB will be pulling out ALL the stops to keep him down! It's such a shame what has happened to this country! Actually it's a CRIME!
Rolf21
(22 posts)That's how it works. But when a woman does it, then some people get upset.
Hillary's a winner, and she will play the guys' money game because she has to do so to win.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Take that bullshit back from whence you came, we don't need that garbage here.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)need this shit from her or anyone else. a crook is a crook is a crook.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)
PufPuf23
(9,789 posts)
BeyondGeography
(41,014 posts)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)
heaven05
(18,124 posts)for inner city entrepreneurs(POC). That's a plus in my book. More than some words about something that happened 50 years ago.
BeyondGeography
(41,014 posts)$32 million for inner city entrepreneurs, and $1.5 million in Bill's pockets for speaking fees. Everyone's a winner! They've got the game down cold.
But, there's this little issue of quid pro quo going forward, isn't there? What kind of treatment can UBS expect from an HRC Administration? They can be forgiven for thinking, "preferential," can't they? It would be nice if the price of a qualified, been-around-the-block candidate like Hillary wasn't having to excuse a post-presidential lifetime of tacky running-up-the-score behavior, but there it is.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)she did something for "inner city" people. Not words, did something concrete. That counts in my book when #BlackLivesMatter.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Saying the Foundation did "something"
should mean there is "something" to show
for the $32 Million "donation".
Do you know how much if any went
to the "Entrepreneurs", and what
were the terms of the loans?
Did the money go to "friends" of Clinton's?
What exactly is the "program"
Links?
heaven05
(18,124 posts)link it yourself. I did. I get sick of doing others work. Just the fact that this money was out there for "inner city" businesses says all I need to know. It's concrete. Not just empty words referring to something that happened 50 years ago. All the sudden money to "inner city" businesses is a bad thing? Right? I'm confused I thought this was the leg up that a certain other candidate touts as the end all be all to all inner city blues"?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)She's your candidate, and you should be willing to support her with a little proof of claims about how wonderful she is, yet you expect Bernie supporters to take their time to go look that up?
That's not supporting your candidate.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)that large numbers are inherently sinful and fraudulent.
a) ALL public charities are required to have audited financial statements
b) ALL public charities are required to spend a bulk of their contributions to charity less overhead and admin costs
c) ALL public charities have to file income tax returns
It is not like Bill Clinton can say "hey, put $20 million in my pocket and call it some charitable work" like Bernie supporters would like to believe.
Lastly, both Clintons are lawyers who have been constantly investigated over one thing or another ... it is not likely at all that they would keep skeletons with their bones sticking out of closet in such a way that even a Bernie supporter can find.
questionseverything
(11,732 posts)not exactly the corner barber shop
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)The only reference I can find on this is
from the Wall Street Journal.
It does not say who the entrepreneurs are, or if any of this goes to the poor (who are mostly POC). And the money did not come from her. It came from the Swiss Bank. 32 million from the swiss bank is zilch to them, especially if they are getting QPQ from the Clintons. Yes Hillary has a foundation (from which I'm sure she earns good money as a founder/director), and she is a well-known good fund raiser. Hurrah! Now lets she her actually get out there and see that the money is used to help the actual POC. Lets see her pass legislation that actually helps the poor and POC.
And you know what? If wealth was more fairly distributed in this country, and we had laws preventing racial discrimination, that actually worked, we wouldn't need wealthy people and wealthy people funded charities to take care of the less fortunate. the system would be fairer so everyone had a fair chance to not "need" charity.
George II
(67,782 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I'm sure not finding anything there about inner city loans or help. Everything there is so generic. I don't see anything showing how much $ is spent and results. It looks like most of the work she does is aimed at gender issues or 3rd world nations (not that that's a bad thing). I'm just not seeing her "help" for POC in this country.
George II
(67,782 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)with facts and links. I did for Bernie. Seems like you should want to do that for Hillary.
I don't support Hillary, so why would I want to waste my day looking for proof of things you say?
I even took the time to check out her web page for her foundation and still couldn't find what I was looking for.
questionseverything
(11,732 posts)Barganza, Inc. is owned and operated by Ronald and Helga Gordon, a husband and wife team who have provided women's handbags to major national retailers since 1983. Many of these larger retailers rely on Barganza’s expertise in the India and China manufacturing system and international distribution channels. Barganza’s sales and business grew steadily until it was deeply affected by the 2008 financial crisis. As the company began to stabilize in 2012, they were further impacted by Hurricane Sandy and the cancellation of the 2012 NYC Fashion Market Week, an event critical to Barganza’s 2013 winter and spring orders. The Gordons approached five different financial institutions before they were referred to VEDC. The $500,000 loan will allow Barganza to continue operations and fulfil new purchase orders.
//////////////////////////////////////
that import handbags made by slave wage earners
hopefully there are better stories to site that gave low income folks a chance at starting their own businesses
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I'm not including his strictly economic votes, of which there are plenty, but I'm including his yea votes that affect women, minorities, poor, elderly, immigrants, unemployed, and students and military. And many of the groups he helps are largely POC.
Some are yea votes and some show he was a cosponsor of this bill.
July 16, 2014 S 2578 Protect Women's Health From Corporate Interference Act of 2014. (co-sponsor).
July 9, 2014 PN 1736 Nomination of Julian Castro to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
June 11, 2014 S 2432 Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act
March 31, 2014 HR 4302 Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014
March 13, 2014 HR 3370 Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014
March 6, 2014 S 1752 Military Justice Improvement Act of 2013
Dec. 17, 2013 S 1845 Emergency Unemployment Compensation Extension Act (co-sponsor)
Nov. 7, 2013 S 815 Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013
June 27, 2013 S 744 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Ac
I could have added the nay votes too, but didn't want to overwhelm you. These are all votes to help all people, often POC, just from page one of twenty seven. Most within the last two years and if you want to see all his votes, going back to forever, here is the link.
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VbvgWPNVikr
Now tell me again that Bernie's attempt to help or stand for POC is all 50 years ago.
Good grief! Do you have blinders on?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)So the bird must have done it 
There could be legitimate reasons why all 50,000 accounts were not required such as
a) They had very small amounts in them (<$10,000)
b) The owners could not be confirmed as US citizens
c) The 50,000 was just a number thrown out and the actual accounts were fewer
d) The other accounts were already disclosed by taxpayers to the IRS
e) The accounts belonged to diseased persons, corporations or charities and not individuals
In any event, the IRS and the lawyers for Justice signed off on the deal.
Lastly, any money received went into a FOUNDATION for CHARITY WORK.
Would you have kvetched if Mother Teresa had met some Swiss bankers and received millions for her charity?
The attempts by Bernie supporters to smear HRC for the work of a CHARITABLE FOUNDATION are nefarious, specious and downright despicable.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts) 
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Charitable foundations are audited and all their income and expenses are reported to the state and the IRS.
For someone to insinuate corruption from this really needs a communist confiscatory mindset -- or should I use the PC term "democratic socialist?"
arcane1
(38,613 posts)I understand the urge to deflect and change the subject, however. I sympathize.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)You don't have a shred of evidence that there was any connection.
Have you stooped down to innuendos now like KKKarl Rove?
Clintons have been investigated by someone or other for all of their public and private lives. Nothing has ever been found.
Next you'll be bringing back Vince Foster ................
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)An honest reply like "Yes, I don't have a shred of evidence that the UBS deal and the foundation donations are related and my use of the word favors was wrong" would have sufficed.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)but your contention that you can draw conclusions from shadows is nonsense.
The article mentions that UBS contributions to the Clinton Foundation through 2008 were $60,000 but grew to a cumulative total of around $600,000 by endof 2014.
It might be interesting to note that in 2008 UBS "over 21 billion Swiss francs in 2008, the biggest annual loss in Swiss corporate history" .. In 2013 and 2014 they had a net earnings of $3.5 Billion in both years. (I couldn't find data for 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2012)
How the U.S. cracked open secret vaults at UBS
This, insiders said, helped create what they called a "certain atmosphere" that made it possible for Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy Rey to have numerous phone calls with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and to meet her face to face three times in the run-up to the August deal.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)
closeupready
(29,503 posts)
whathehell
(30,428 posts)I actually liked what you were saying until you equated Communism with Democratic Socialism...:Red bait much? :
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)mouth ad nauseum ... enough to scare all small businesspeople and independents away.
I am just preparing the Bernie supporters for what is coming down the pike and is nearly impossible to counter.
Darb
(2,807 posts)She cannot run. Not to mention that she wasn't a citizen. Don't let reality get in the way of your hysteria.
As for the Clinton Foundation attacks? Well, that's Karl Rove 101, attack their strength. The Clinton Foundation does a trainload of good things, yet Karl throws that "pay to play" ball out there and the Sanders folks pick it up and run with it. Good on ya!
Not.
Darb
(2,807 posts)If you can think of one that is reality based.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)than ridiculously hysterical.
Darb
(2,807 posts)
postatomic
(1,771 posts)It's like playing 'whack-a-mole'. You've touched on all the relevant points. These links will help support what you are saying:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2013/02/13/suit-claiming-ubs-made-me-cheat-irs-laughed-out-of-court/
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=axZmpp36b_OA
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-reports
don't worry about the BS supporters. They will destroy it for him. And IT IS heading that way. No support from AA, Latinos, HRC doing something concrete for AA. I will be pointing that out. Until that BS campaign starts showing some diversity, they have lost many AA votes, that by default, WILL go to HRC. Just the way things are, even if she is tainted by the appellation of being a old school politician with many dark secrets and deals. Just the way the system is. BS has plenty of time to save his bacon, because that first pan full berned to a charred crisp, all because, #BlackLivesMatter.
Chakab
(1,727 posts)talking about the same Hillary Clinton that tried to play working class whites and Latinos against blacks and more progressive white Democrats in '08?
Most of Bernie's difficulties with minority communities have to do with his lack of name recognition.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)#BlackLivesMatter
George II
(67,782 posts)No wonder Sanders repeats over and over again he won't criticize Hillary Clinton - he's got 100,000 "foot soldiers" ready and willing to do it for him.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)which is what many of them want and mention repeatedly.
A communist, confiscatory revolution ... stuff that Stalin's and Mao's dreams are made of. Except that now the PC term is "democratic socialist."
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)The GOP is smiling & wringing their evil dirty hands in anticipation of a bernie Primary Win. Sanders will be an eady take down with those words alone. And they will use those exact words to do it.
Expect a flame out in a split second.
Hope his troopers are ready for the big swift burnout the RW has planned for him.
He'll never make it.
Pffftt
ish of the hammer
(444 posts)is that CHARITY WORK?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)which comes to $222,222.22 per speech. He charges between $200K and $250K per speech.
I doubt the numbers would convince you anyway.
You probably want a confiscatory, communist "revolution" ... I mean "democratic socialist" ..
George II
(67,782 posts)
I don't freaking believe it.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts) L0oniX
(31,493 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)And in all fairness, neither the Atlantic nor the Wall Street Journal claims there is a direct link between helping UBS as Secretary of State on the one hand and the sudden increased generosity of UBS toward the Clintons on the other. And no one is suggesting that anything illegal took place or that there was any kind of quid pro quo deal. I'm not suggesting that, either.
In fact, it is most likely just one more example of the very kind of perfectly legal soft corruption that is strangling our democracy. Right after the big banks bankrupted the global economy, Secretary Clinton was going out of her way to help out the big banks. It's no wonder the IRS and the AG were unable to prosecute the masterminds of this catastrophe given all their friends in high places.
So what is the real meaning of all of this? It is just one more crack in the crumbling wall of credibility the Clintons have when it comes to fighting for progressive economic issues. The Atlantic piece sums it up nicely:
Democrats are hurtling toward a farce. The coalition that insists on the corrupting effect of Citizens United and the unlimited campaign contributions it permits is poised to nominate a couple that has seen riches flow from big banks to their personal accounts.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Like so much of what went on when the finance industry crashed the economy, this was all legal. And that's a worse indictment of the system than it is of any particular politician making use of what legislators collectively have decided should be legal and what shouldn't.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)By the way, there are 1,645 billionaires worldwide. There are about 5,000 Americans with a net worth over $100 million.
I'll be waiting for your proof of anything nefarious. A long time I suspect.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)I see you got nothing. Stick to promoting your guy. If you want to get hysterical and make accusations about someone without a shred of proof, making unfounded, contorted connections, direct them toward Jeb.
Thanks in advance.
7962
(11,841 posts)How many times have I heard that here when the "subject" is a republican?
Which SHOULD be the test for anyone here; what would I think if this was a republican doing the exact same thing?
The answer is: I'd be pissed.
Darb
(2,807 posts)You've ingested too much fluoride.
7962
(11,841 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)The answer is still "No". There shouldn't be an investigation.
George II
(67,782 posts)
Justice
(7,254 posts)http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/10/25/73-0f-100-swiss-banks-in-bed-with-the-irs-are-eyeing-the-sofa/
UBS was the beginning the unraveling of the Swiss secrecy. It cannot be viewed in a vacuum.
As a result of UBS plea and payment of $780 million, over 100 Swiss banks sign up for the DOJ amnesty deal that would mean no prosecution, no conviction or closure, no disgrace, just some penalties and life goes on.
For example, Credit Suisse plead guilty and paid a $2.6 billion.
Without UBS, not sure the rest of them would have fallen. That might have been the deal Clinton made - be first, and we will give you a break. http://www.forbes.com/sites/irswatch/2014/02/03/swiss-bank-secrecy-succumbs-to-u-s-tax-enforcers/
By the way, UBS under investigation again now.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And if they bring this up people will just laugh at them...who would believe that she would ever do something with the intent to gain from it?
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts) (For the sarcasm challenged.)Darb
(2,807 posts)Fucking duh.
Who's idea is it to attack their opponents strengths? Karl Rove. Who came up with the idea to attack a charity that does tons and tons of good work throughout the world? That's right, Rove. The GOP began connecting Hillary to donations to a charity and now a bunch of useful idiots are pushing it further.
WooHoo!
rateyes
(17,460 posts)Why 4450? Why not 4500? Why not all 50,000?
Just who is being protected here?
hamsterjill
(17,470 posts)n/t
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)... after she's elected
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)Quelle surprise.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)right after she cashes their checks. 
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)"The IRS had sued UBS demanding the identities of some 50,000 account holders. A few months later, Secretary Clinton announced a deal whereby UBS provided information on only 4450 accounts."
And how many account ID's would the IRS have gotten without some sort of government-to-government deal with Switzerland in order to get what they did?
"It was a bit odd that the Secretary of State (any secretary of state) would have been involved in this kind of matter at all."
I guess a pool table is odd if you've never seen one, which was the premise for the flim-flam artist in Music Man.
The IRS could sue all it wanted to, it wasn't going to get that information in violation of Swiss laws from a Swiss bank, without the Swiss government getting involved.
But you find it a "bit odd" that the Department of State would get involved in a matter requiring the cooperation of a foreign government with a US government agency?
Really?
Explain why that is a "bit odd" to you.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Posting in LBN is a bit different from posting in other forums/groups. You get separate boxes for text from the article and your own comments, and your commentary shows up below the line. The only comments I added were the two extra links. Everything else was verbatim from the linked story.
George II
(67,782 posts).....without some sort of government-to-government deal?"
Probably ZERO.
jomin41
(559 posts)We are so effing lucky to have all the candidates that we have. They have a clown car, we have two powerful, rule-ready, popular candidates and a great bench. Let's not blow it.
Agreed. Actually, we have three solid candidates. O'Malley is a good guy, I wish he had more visibility.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)And we have one candidate neck-deep in Swiss banking money.
peequod
(189 posts)
pscot
(21,044 posts)It's so quintessentially Clintonesque. Not that there's anything provably wrong with that.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)azureblue
(2,717 posts)At least make sure you have a solid series of links. You just jump from on tenacious association to another, the only common thread being the word "Clinton" As in Hillary, Bill and their foundation.
Your first link is so specious as to be stupid: " Shortly after she became Secretary of State, Clinton went to Switzerland at the request of her Swiss counterpart." Followed by "The IRS had sued UBS demanding the identities of some 50,000 account holders. A few months later, Secretary Clinton announced a deal whereby UBS provided information on only 4450 accounts." You expect people to be stupid enough to buy that?
The first sentence is nothing more than a request from Switzerland NOT the US, to have a chat. We do not know what, but you go for the conspiracy jugular by following it with the next statement that conflates the IRS with the State dept, and you try to make us believe that Hillary had something to do with it, personally. Are you daft? Read it without your tin foil hat on, in the real world -she was mediating an agreement between the Swiss banks and the IRS. That, my poo throwing friend is all that it boiled down to. IOW, she had no skin in the game, she was doing her job of being a diplomat. A fact that goes right over your head.
Then you try to smear the world renown Clinton Foundation. Do yourself a favor and look up what the foundation does, then come back and apologize, if you have any balls at all. You have no tit for tat proof what so ever, and what the hell is wrong with giving money to a foundation that, crap, I should charge you for an education, that Hillary has no direct control over, and so what, anyway? The money goes to help women around the world, so apparently, you hate women, too. Go here and read:
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/
How about admitting you are part of that bunch that will continuously publish these half truths, innuendo laden, etc., craptastic pieces in hopes of wearing her down?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)The only commentary I added is below the dividing line, where I point out that the Daily Kos piece drew from two other articles.
If you want to attack the person who wrote all the things you find so objectionable, go comment under the original Daily Kos piece.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)turbinetree
(27,388 posts)and I support the value of trust and that is the issue in this campaign its about trust.
And you have presented the issue as trust
Thank you
Honk ---------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)And add something unrelated and those who do not listen or read all of the story will associate the name with a story which belongs to someone else. Bingo, mission accomplished.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I seem to remember some pieces in the New York Times ....
Hillary ain't all that LOL-
But, I guess if you have been just DREAMING for her to be president for the last 15 years it would be hard to change that line of thinking.
jomin41
(559 posts)and not an "R". Any argument?
Turbineguy
(39,963 posts)and the republican shit-slinging machine taught them how to play the game.
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Hillary is the threat to them. Bernie is nothing at all.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Bernie's threat is to the centrists of 'both parties'. If he'll never be President, it's because he won't bow down to the folks with the serious money. They'll pour in as much as needed to make sure it's 'left money' vs 'right money' when the general comes around.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Rabid Right Wing, Kochs, Alec et al, are not waiting with the socialist, communist heap of doo they have fermenting in a bucket, for just the moment bernie becomes disposable?
He will never become President. They will see to it.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)I'm sure independent voters are just
itching to vote for Hillary now!
And this will surely stain the party as a whole.
Is this what the right-wing means by
"Limousine Liberals"?
OnlinePoker
(6,119 posts)If that's the case, then Clinton did nothing as SOS and the bank got to keep hiding 95% of the accounts.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)If its mentioned at all.
Good question, onlinepoker
WDIM
(1,662 posts)45,000 super rich 1% got to keep their illegal and ill-gotten gains.
This proves Hillary cares more about the favor of the super wealthy than enforcing tax law. Why would she be any different as President?
And yes the donations and monies earned after helping UBS cover for their tax evading criminal elite was a big thank you Sec Clinton.
Corruption of the wealthiest of the 1% is sicking. Narcissistic greedy selfish rich criminals.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)to run her campaign. After all the Koch brothers have a lot more.
Think that this will hurt her with all of her supporters?
That depends on who you ask.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)or have decades of Clinton fatigue, won't sweat the details. It'll be enough to not vote for her.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)tools 
NO BUSH NO CLINTON-
GO MARTIN GO!
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I plan on supporting Bernie, but would be happy with Martin.
I just do not want another Clinton or Bush.
question everything
(52,007 posts)This story was first reported in the WSJ where is added:
There is no evidence of any link between Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the case and the bank’s donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, or its hiring of Mr. Clinton.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubs-deal-shows-clintons-complicated-ties-1438223492
Rolf21
(22 posts)But some people just don't want a strong woman in power, and will do anything to stop her.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Present your proof of misogyny or STFU.
still_one
(98,883 posts)isn't required for post, and your "STFU", is your opinion. Either view can be accepted or rejected
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Like it or not.
question everything
(52,007 posts)because she reminded them of their mother.. Or when people in the media made fun of her pantsuits, her makeup, her "thick" ankles.
And Rolf21 said "constant critics." That you interpreted this as DUers - well, this says something about you more than about Rolf21.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)That I'm against attacks on women based on their gender? I'll gladly own that.
frylock
(34,825 posts)FIFY
question everything
(52,007 posts)Looking forward for more insights.
postatomic
(1,771 posts)For something that happened several years ago, between the Justice Dept., the IRS, and UBS. The link isn't even "news". It's an internet distortion of the facts.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2013/02/13/suit-claiming-ubs-made-me-cheat-irs-laughed-out-of-court/
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=axZmpp36b_OA
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-reports
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Do you think it should have been in GD? Will anything really change depending upon the forum under which it's posted? Or are you just looking for an excuse to lock the thread?
postatomic
(1,771 posts)I don't care if it gets locked or continues on its merry way over the cliff.
Where are the links to the op-eds that are being used for this "news"? I can't seem to find them.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)She has this condition where money just sticks to her fingers.
Its a curse really.
AllFieldsRequired
(489 posts)Maybe not even Obama.
If the result of any of this bullshit is a con house, senate and wh, I hope those taking glee in this will be here after the motherfuckers on the right begin to piece by piece destroy what we have built.
Please be here and tell us if it was worth it?
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)but come on,trying to vaporize another democrat is pretty horrible.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)The story about Hillary and USB was first published yesterday in the WSJ, where it said:
"There is no evidence of any link between Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the case and the bank’s donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, or its hiring of Mr. Clinton. "
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubs-deal-shows-clintons-complicated-ties-1438223492
(repost from HRCGroup)
Just thought I'd clear up this ommission in the OP.
Your welcome.
still_one
(98,883 posts)no evidence part, and the DailyKOS has been anti-Hillary for some time, so it is no surprise it isn't in there.
I can hardly wait for someone at DU to post Peter Schweizer accusations as LBN
Funny when Schweizer was pressed by George Stephanopoulos, on his book, "Clinton Cash", he admitted that he has no hard evidence to support his allegations.
Gee, isn't that special. What is heck is wrong with the press in this country?
If I go to Amazon or Audible the book gets rave reviews, despite "no evidence for the claims in it"
The NY Times which recently put up a story saying that "criminal charges" were going to be pursued regarding Hillary's emails. IT WAS A LIE, but like the NY Times knowingly giving Schweizer a forum to spout his lies in his book, the NY Times has demonstrate that it is not a publication that can be trusted to fairly sort out the facts.
Maybe the NY Times can tell us again why they told us that Iraq had WMDs, but conveniently left out the opposing view from government officials in the know? Judith Miller when interviewed by Jon Stewart said it was because the paper did have "enough space" to put it in.
I guess Freedom of the press also means freedom to lie
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)HRC 2016
George II
(67,782 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)At least that's "what was reported"...yup.
NYCButterfinger
(755 posts)Kaine and Vilsack won't deflect attention from Hillary if she wins the nomination.
Vilsack brings MO, IA.
Kaine brings VA, MO, MN, IA. (Kaine grew up in Missouri)
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)BlueEye
(449 posts)They conveniently buried the fact that George W. Bush was also involved in the UBS-sponsored charity thing (meaning he too got speaking fees) in the last paragraph.
The matter regarding Switzerland is being blown out of proportion. Hillary was the sitting Secretary of State, and Switzerland was upset because the IRS was asking them to do something that violates Swiss law. Now, as liberals, we are supposed to defend the IRS when it try to combat P.O.S. 1% tax evaders, that is certain. BUT, I personally object to American Exceptionalism, and I think the IRS was being rather arrogant in just expecting the UBS in Switzerland to break their own laws just because the IRS is an American agency. I don't blame the Swiss for being upset, and Clinton was just doing her job resolving the situation.
The UBS charitable donations and even Bill's speaking fees all went to a good cause, and there is no direct causal relationship with Hillary's diplomatic efforts with Switzerland. UBS had been donating to the Clinton Foundation prior to that affair.
Bottom line: This is a conservative hit piece and unfortunately, many on the left are buying the narrative.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
wiggs
(8,769 posts)Headline identifies the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons as the same thing, when they are not. Same thing that Fox and much of attention-hungry MSM does. It should be clear without further comment, however with respect to the three points in the OP:
1) So this says that DURING the recession UBS was more charitable to a world-wide non-profit than after? And since Hillary left the state department in early 2013, how are the end-of-2014 numbers for charitable giving relevant?
2) Other than the words 'UBS' and 'Clinton' appearing in the same sentence, how is this relevant to the OP supposition that UBS paid off the Clintons for favors?
3) The article says that Bill Clinton has been speaking to the biggest financial institutions since 2004, all for a fee of course just like many many world figures.
I'm not saying that they shouldn't do a better job of creating a perception of separation between income and government activities...they should. I am saying that the headline goes beyond that to make an unfounded accusation. For what reason, I don't know. It's certianly not for reasons of accuracy in reporting.
Bernie doesn't benefit from these kinds of mud-slinging headlines. But we all lose...lowering the quality of public discourse diminishes us all, even the republicans who may actually gain a tic or two in polling numbers.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)First ... is there something illegal here?
Second ... I'm looking at item #2 ... we against that?
Third ... Bill is not Hillary. And, you do not mention who UBS has usually had come speak. Bill is a pretty big name, don't you think?
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)He has asked yall repeatedly to lay off,,,,
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)zentrum
(9,870 posts)It doesn't matter if it's eventually debunked. Details and nuances won't matter to the middle level voter. Her M.O. is going to be to fight and deny scandal after scandal. After scandal. And there will be no oxygen left in the room to talk about policy.
It makes me furious that the Clinton Machine may make sure she's crowned. The scandals may destroy our chance to take the WH.
Go Bernie.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Maybe this will move Bernie up another 2% in the polls!!! Whats he at now... 18? he might break 20!! woohoo!!!!!
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Even I ( not a supporter of HC ) dont believe this. Tax evasion??
Ford_Prefect
(8,572 posts)You just have to wonder just what promises were offered to UBS.
I have a pretty good idea what I could do with 600,000 or 1.5 million. How about you?
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)Analysis and opinion from other news sources. Please refer to SOP for more information. "No analysis or opinion pieces." Please feel free to repost in GD: Primaries http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1251 or GOOD READS forum.
Thank you.