Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bkkyosemite

(5,792 posts)
Sat May 14, 2016, 12:16 PM May 2016

The Clinton Business Model . . .

"The story makes clear that the financial transaction was facilitated mainly by Bill Clinton. Meanwhile, the Journal reports that Messrs. Weiner and Tobias have each donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation, the nonprofit that Bill and Hillary have used to promote their public image and employ their political aides and friends between election campaigns. Mr. Weiner owns a company that has provided products for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaigns.

Clinton Foundation spokesman Craig Minassian is spinning this as “common practice” and “mission-driven investing.” But the law says nonprofits, which are exempt from most taxation, aren’t supposed to act on the financial behalf of for-profit businesses. Whatever Energy Pioneer’s good intentions about energy efficiency, its purpose is to make money for these friends of Bill and Hill.

Even more curious, details about the Energy Pioneer investment were stripped from the CGI website a few months later. The Clinton Foundation says this was done at the request of the Canadian investor—Ms. Samuel—but the Journal quotes sources who say the information was hidden “to avoid calling attention to Mr. Clinton’s friendship” with Ms. McMahon. You don’t have to be Ken Starr to understand that motivation."

"What we have here is a crystalline illustration of the Clinton political business model. Stretch the nonprofit laws to help political friends, who help the Clintons in return. Use political influence to leverage cash from government for a supposedly virtuous cause that is also a for-profit venture. Then when this sleazy deal-making is exposed, claim that everybody does it and hope the media give them another pass.

Voters can’t be sure of what they’ll get if they vote for Mr. Trump this fall, but they certainly do know what they’ll be getting if they vote for Mrs. Clinton. More crony capitalism, ethical corner-cutting and self-serving political deals."


http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clinton-business-model-1463178638

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Jackie Wilson Said

(4,176 posts)
1. I have something to say that is liberal and pro Democrat, but as this is Democratic
Sat May 14, 2016, 12:17 PM
May 2016

Underground, I dont dare say it or I will be censored.

notadmblnd

(23,720 posts)
3. Say it. Censorship doesn't mean a thing here these days
Sat May 14, 2016, 12:26 PM
May 2016

with the exception of being allowed to serve on a jury- the admins have made certain that HRC supporters will suffer no real harm.

Or is being called on to vote to hide the occasional Sander's supporters posts that important to you?

C'mon. Dare ya.

Jackie Wilson Said

(4,176 posts)
4. I have something to say that is liberal and pro Democrat, but as this is Democratic
Sat May 14, 2016, 12:27 PM
May 2016

Underground, I dont dare say it or I will be censored.

Thank you for confirming, with the way you answered, that liberals do NOT belong here.

notadmblnd

(23,720 posts)
11. Such drama.
Sat May 14, 2016, 12:41 PM
May 2016

Maybe you should take a break, wipe your tears and have yourself a nice cup of tea to calm yourself?

emulatorloo

(44,070 posts)
2. What's with all the op-eds from Rupert Murdoch's WSJ today?
Sat May 14, 2016, 12:23 PM
May 2016

Can't see the name of the author of this opinion piece as I am not a subscriber.

My Republican neighbor is, but he tells me the editorial op Ed pages are worthless. Too much bias and bullshit. Which makes sense, as it is a Murdoch paper.

bkkyosemite

(5,792 posts)
5. I saw the article and there are many other articles out there of the same sense.
Sat May 14, 2016, 12:27 PM
May 2016

But however I did not know it was a Murdoch paper..it's called Wall Street Journal

emulatorloo

(44,070 posts)
9. Yeah, he bought WSJ in '07. Before that they had a great political reporter named John Harwood.
Sat May 14, 2016, 12:33 PM
May 2016

The editorial page was still crazy, but reporting was pretty solid. Neighbor says reporting is still pretty good.



In the US he owns the New York Post and Wall Street Journal newspapers.

Marketwatch is one of his websites.

If you ever get bored, full list of what he owns around the world:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_News_Corp

All interesting to read.

bkkyosemite

(5,792 posts)
8. DU should have a list of those sites we should not list here because many of us do
Sat May 14, 2016, 12:30 PM
May 2016

not know (like those smart well informed here DUers) exactly what sites we should NOT post and many do not know the origins of some sites.

emulatorloo

(44,070 posts)
10. Oh WSJ editorials just need to be taken with a big grain of salt IMHO
Sat May 14, 2016, 12:35 PM
May 2016

Always Interesting to read what they are thinking.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The Clinton Business Mode...