Conflict of interest: Sanders assails Clinton over Foundation

[Henhouse]

Conflict of interest: Sanders assails Clinton over Foundation

Bernie Sanders has largely been silent in the debate about the Clinton Foundation’s ties to foreign governments – including some with poor human rights records. But in the final week of the primary season against Hillary Clinton, the Vermont senator finally unleashed a few jabs on the issue.

“If you asked me about the Clinton Foundation, do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of state and a foundation run by her husband collects many millions of dollars from foreign governments, governments which are dictatorships … yeah I do,” Sanders said in an interview Sunday morning on CNN’s “State of the Union.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/06/sanders-clinton-foundation-223915#ixzz4AiY09oFb
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[Henhouse]

1. Charity Watch give Clinton Foundation an A rating.

Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation
1271 Avenue of the Americas
42nd Floor
New York, NY 10020
www.clintonfoundation.org
Tax Status: 501(c)3

RATING: A

[Octafish]

4. Gimme Tax Shelter

How Charity Navigator puts it:

Why isn't this organization rated?

We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204#.V0ByAvkrK00

[Surya Gayatri]

22. Enough said...

Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity.

A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

[Lord Magus]

38. Seems bizarre to me that doing charible work itself instead of farming out to others is "atypical."

[grasswire]

48. talking point nt

[Lord Magus]

57. No, reality. -nt-

[Duval]

151. +1

[Cal Carpenter]

12. Charity Watch's ratings are based on very specific

and mostly budget-oriented information.

They are not a statement on anything else - certainly not on the points Sanders or others have brought up in terms of conflict of interest and concerns about influence in US politics.

[enid602]

81. odd

Seems odd that he who has not set up a charitable foundation (and does not seem to hold charity in high regard) is criticizing one whose family has set up such a considerable one.

[larkrake]

94. very considerable one, yet take a look at Haiti

and other "recievers"

[Cal Carpenter]

112. I think Sanders, like me

agrees with these wise thinkers:

It is justice, not charity, that is wanting in the world. -- Mary Wollstonecraft

Overcoming poverty is not a task of charity, it is an act of justice. -- Nelson Mandela

In practical terms, I appreciate the day-to-day work done by many charities, particularly those which address root causes to the extent they legally can. I also support several front-line local organizations in various ways. In fact, my longest-held job was at a hunger relief organization. I can't speak for Sanders but even his tax returns show significant donations to charities. I'm no Bernie worshipper, for the record.

None of that has anything to do with most international NGOs including the Clinton Foundation. Criticism of the real interests of the Clinton Foundation is important with or without Bernie, and with or without this election cycle, but given the likelihood of Clinton winning the WH, they are all the more important.

What is odd is how so many people who seem to pay a lot of attention to politics are completely naive when it comes to the nature of these sorts of organizations which are quite clearly not the same as most 'charities' in the colloquial or local sense. In other words, to conflate an organization like the Clinton Foundation with, say, a Children's Hospital or a food pantry, is absurd.

But I have to believe this is willful ignorance, which means there's no point in wasting my time trying to explain it any further.

[enid602]

149. justice

You can have all the justice you want in all countries, but that does very little to alleviate the burdens of the poorest in very poor countries. Would they be better off without international foundations, such as those of the Clinton Family or Bill and Melinda Gates?

[larkrake]

91. and can be bought, its not a govt agency

[imagine2015]

30. A for welcoming money from dictatorships?

[grasswire]

49. ...with human rights violations!

you forgot that part.

[Walk away]

58. To do good work around the world. Bernie hates charities and is on record as being against them...

Bernie "Let the eat Cake" Sanders has never given a penny to any charity that we know of. Nothing! He makes Trump look human!

[pandr32]

79. Yes, he said "I don't believe in charities"

Now let's see if he claims them on all the tax returns he never released.

[larkrake]

82. he did give to charity according to the tax return he released

[Walk away]

104. One year....I am guessing that's one of the many reasons he is hiding his returns...

Why else would he be hiding them????? Maybe you can guess what he's hiding if it isn't that. I'd be interested.

[larkrake]

144. one is enough for someone who doesnt invest or make millions, no one in DC calls him corrupt

and they would know

[Walk away]

148. Is one enough for the man who just illegally spent $600,000.00 on a trip to stalk the Pope...

for himself and 10 family members?????? Let's hope his net worth really is a half a million.....he going to need it! The FEC will make him pay every penny.

[pandr32]

122. So he claimed it

Hmmmm...it is an option, so whether he actually gave or not--he believes in the charitable deduction

[larkrake]

98. well thats an outright lie, look at his tax return

he no doubt disparages the money laundering charities and I am in complete agreement with him. Like TV evangelists, they are crooks.

[Jitter65]

155. "We are the world", remember. Dictatorships have people to care for too.

And since when is charity contribution a bad thing eve for tax purposes? millions of taxpayers use charitable giving as a tax writeoff. Complain more about the billions taken in in religious congregations all over the country and not a dime given to taking care of people in need.

[Octafish]

2. It's a great way to do good and make a buck at the same time. Ask Frank Giustra and George W Bush.

From his association with a former president, Frank got a great deal in Kazakhstan:

After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton

By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
The New York Times, JAN. 31, 2008

EXCERPT...

Upon landing on the first stop of a three-country philanthropic tour, the two men were whisked off to share a sumptuous midnight banquet with Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.

Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Within two days, corporate records show that Mr. Giustra also came up a winner when his company signed preliminary agreements giving it the right to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom.

The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said.

SNIP...

Mr. Giustra foresaw a bull market in gold and began investing in mines in Argentina, Australia and Mexico. He turned a $20 million shell company into a powerhouse that, after a $2.4 billion merger with Goldcorp Inc., became Canada’s second-largest gold company.

CONTINUED...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html

From his association with a future president, George got a great deal in Bahrain.

Harken Energy And Insider Trading

by Stephen Pizzo
Mother Jones, September / October 1992

EXCERPT...

Harken Energy was formed in l973 by two oilmen who would benefit from a successful covert effort to destabilize Australia's Labor Party government (which had attempted to shut out foreign oil exploration). A decade later, Harken was sold to a new investment group headed by New York attorney Alan G. Quasha, a partner in the firm of Quasha, Wessely & Schneider. Quasha's father, a powerful attorney in the Philippines, had been a staunch supporter of then-president Ferdinand Marcos. William Quasha had also given legal advice to two top officials of the notorious Nugan Hand Bank in Australia, a CIA operation.

After the sale of Harken Energy in 1983, Alan Quasha became a director and chairman of the board. Under Quasha, Harken suddenly absorbed Junior's struggling Spectrum 7 in 1986. The merger immediately opened a financial horn of plenty and reversed Junior's fortunes. But like his brother Jeb, Junior seemed unconcerned about the characters who were becoming his benefactors. Harken's $25 million stock offering in 1987, for example, was underwritten by a Little Rock, Arkansas, brokerage house, Stephens, Inc., which placed the Harken stock offering with the London subsidiary of Union Bank -- a bank that had surfaced in the scandal that resulted in the downfall of the Australian Labor government in 1976 and, later, in the Nugan Hand Bank scandal. (It was also Union Bank, according to congressional hearings on international money laundering, that helped the now-notorious Bank of Credit and Commerce International skirt Panamanian money-laundering laws by flying cash out of the country in private jets, and that was used by Ferdinand Marcos to stash 325 tons of Philippine gold around the world.)

SNIP...

Suddenly, in January 1990, Harken Energy became the talk of the Texas oil industry. The company with no offshore-oil-drilling experience beat out a more-established international conglomerate, Amoco, in bagging the exclusive contract to drill in a promising new offshore oil field for the Persian Gulf nation of Bahrain. The deal had been arranged for Harken by two former Stephens, Inc., brokers. A company insider claims the president's son did not initiate the deal -- but feels that his presence in the firm helped with the Bahrainis. "Hell, that's why he's on the damn board," the insider says. "...You say, 'By the way, the president's son sits on our board.' You use that. There's nothing wrong with that."

Junior has told acquaintances conflicting stories about his own involvement in the deal. He first claimed that he had "recused" himself from the deal; "George said he left the room when Bahrain was being discussed 'because we can't even have the appearance of having anything to do with the government.' He was into a big rant about how unfair it was to be the president's son. He said, 'I was so scrupulous I was never in the room when it was discussed.'"

Junior alternately claimed, to reporters for the Wall Street Journal and D Magazine, that he had opposed the arrangement. But the company insider says, to the contrary, that Junior was excited about the Bahrain deal. "Like any member of the board, he was thrilled," the associate says. "His attitude was, 'Holy shit, what a great deal!'"

CONTINUED...

http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/harkenenergyandinsidertrading.htm

Amazing how much good and money one can make at the same time.

[snot]

54. You go, Octafish!

[CrowCityDem]

3. It's over. Give up the attacks.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Are you as sad as I am to see him to see him reduced to these petty attacks?

[Henhouse]

19. How the mighty have fallen...

Really makes me wonder what the Sanders' campaign internal polling looks like. Seems like a desperate last ditch effort....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Interesting point. His internals must be dismal.

[Surya Gayatri]

25. "...desperate last ditch effort....", indeed.

[Henhouse]

28. I guess parachuting in to a rally was a bit to risky...n/t

[panader0]

137. The Clinton Foundation is under investigation.

Does the FBI work for Bernie? Does the FBI do "petty attacks"?
I am unable to understand how HRC supporters can just wave all of this off.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

138. There is no proof the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation

There is no proof the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation outside the deranged minds of anti-Clinton fantasists.

[CorporatistNation]

11. What You Consider Attacks Are Necessary IF There Is To Be ANY Semblance Of DEMOCRACY! TRUTH

IS FAIR AND PROPER!

THE SHENANIGANS AND HIDING OF TRUTH TO PROTECT THE GIRL FROM WALL STREET IS NOT... NO MORE FIBBS!

e.g., MSNBC To the deniers... Watch THIS Video... It is not comforting to think that she may well be the Democratic Nominee...

Hillary really betrayed Andrea Mitchell... The entire context of this report was of a solemn nature... A Funeral so to speak...

Andrea Mitchell "I do not see this report as ...ANYTHING BUT... DEVASTATING!"

Chuck Todd "After this I don't think that she could get confirmed for Attorney General!"

Lots of FIBBING by Hillary here.. for more than a year!

[reddread]

33. Lying is OK. Nixon did it.

[puffy socks]

67. bernie does it too

but all is forgiven from the "savior" by the Berners
andf how much of his campaign funds are from foreign sources? strange how that doesnt bother him.
FEC cant get the ol codger to reply.
oh and the family vacay to Rome
Bernard is about as honest as ...

[libdem4life]

69. Foreign Sources? Do tell. Links, help. That's a new one for me.

[puffy socks]

76. here you go

"As more and more states vote, voters deserve to know, definitively, whether Bernie Sanders is accepting illegal campaign donations from foreign nationals, and just what is keeping them from implementing a technologically simple check on who's donating how much money.

Since October of 2015 to the end of January, the FEC counted a total of 665 potentially illegal foreign donations to the Sanders campaign, and hundreds of donors who have exceeded their contribution limits. The FEC noted more foreign contributions in just the month of January than in the previous three months combined, and has flagged over 3,500 contributions as over-limit. Through the end of December alone, the Sanders campaign had collected more than $23 million in donations without sourcing them or certifying that those came from donors whose aggregate total giving is below $200."



I''ll be waiting for the dismissal of source, or minimizing the importance when Sanders breaks laws, or justification of Sanders campaign finance incompetence because there are just too many contributions.

[libdem4life]

83. i don't see a source. I know there have been problems with campaign

money that hopefully they are remedying. I also think he got in over his head with such public voting support in so little (comparatively speaking) time. But, I don't dismiss facts...even if they are inconvenient. I'll await the link, however.

And I'm sure the same tenacity will be applied to discover flaws in the Experienced Candidate who knows very well what she's doing.

Both of these situations need close supervision, now that so much money is needed to run a democratic election...small d.

[puffy socks]

95. sorry

Did you know that you can just take a part of the article and find the article easily through Google?

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/3/14/bernie-sanders-potentially-illegal-campaign-contributions

[libdem4life]

99. No I really didn't know that. However, link notwithstanding,

is this not a blog?

I know these potential partisan sources are frowned upon, actually made fun of on my side of things. So, I'm surprised to see them touted as truth.

That is all.

[choie]

107. You may not care about sources..

but it's important to know where allegations are coming from. In this case, People's View is a third way, Hillary shilling blog, and has all the credibility of "correct the record" and other such Brockian blather.

[libdem4life]

115. Now how did I suspect that? Thanks for the added info.

[larkrake]

100. I have not heard a lie from his lips, please inform me of one

he doesnt take corporate donations, just unions, and I cant think of foreign entities right off hand- maybe the vatican?

[puffy socks]

126. Take out the ear plugs

He took corporate donations for every election
Microsoft , Apple, Amazon, Boeing, Intel, At&T
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000528

Bernie's PAC donations
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/pacs.php?cycle=Career&cid=n00000528&type=I

lied about elections being rigged
lied about endorsements, lied about HC saying he wasn't qualified to be president.
lied about polls showing he's the only candidate that can beat Trump in the GE
lied about Wall Street tax covering the costs of free college.
lied about NAFTA (which HC had nothing to do with) costing 800,000 jobs
lied about defense budget claiming less than 10% actually goes toward fightin terrorism
lied about helping to write the ACA
lied about stealing info from the DNC computer
lied about the largest low wage employer being the government , not mcds or Walmart

When Stephanopoulos asked whether he thought Clinton has ignored the suffering of the Palestinian people, Sanders reiterated that her AIPAC speech had "one line on the Palestinian people."

Bernie:
"Wall Street banks shower Washington politicians with campaign contributions and speaking fees," the ad says. "And what do they get for it? A rigged economy, tax breaks and bailouts, all held in place by a corrupt campaign finance system. And while Washington politicians are paid over $200,000 an hour for speeches, they oppose raising the living wage to $15 an hour. $200,000 an hour for them, but not even 15 bucks an hour for all Americans. Enough is enough."

Senators and representatives have been prohibited from accepting money for speeches since 1991. Before then, members of Congress would often accept speaking fees from the industries they oversaw, which critics characterized as a form of bribery.
And it's not just members of Congress. In the House, for example, even senior staff can't be paid for speeches, appearances or writing an article. Junior staff also can't do it if the topic relates to their official duties.

But once a person leaves government service, those rules no longer apply, and they're free to charge for speeches.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/statements/byruling/false/




oh and I posted the article in this thread and you can look up on the FEC site about the illegal and foreign donations he refuses to answer for

[larkrake]

140. I dont see a single lie here. retired politicians are still politicians-and Hill wants to return

I think Scalia was paid for a speech too, Lord knows he got alot of perks. Is a Supreme not a politician? He was when he gave W the presidency. You seem to think DC laws are black and white

[puffy socks]

145. of course you dont

please show me the endorsement from the Valley News with the word "endorse"


"But a campaign ad titled "Endorsed," might have given people a different impression.

The ad, which was first posted online Wednesday Feb. 3, touts endorsements from unions, an environmental group and The Nation magazine.

"From postal workers to nurses, he’s been endorsed for real change," a narrator says in the ad.

The narrator goes on to quote editorials from two New Hampshire newspapers, The Telegraph, of Nashua, and the Valley News, which covers both Vermont and New Hampshire from West Lebanon, N.H."



Like most of Sanders supporters at this point , you see what you wish to see and disregard the rest..la la la.

[liberal from boston]

143. Senator Sanders

Because of Citizens United we do not know where most of Hillary's donations, Super Pacs, etc., are comlng from.

Sanders Candidacy Has Evolved Into an Inspiring World-Changing Success


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/-sanders-candidacy-has-ev_b_10215786.html

[larkrake]

146. thank you liberal

[libdem4life]

73. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Ya know.

[KingFlorez]

5. He needs to be introduced to a comb

And a better attitude. Sit down, Sanders.

[JudyM]

16. She needs to be introduced to a lie detector.

[CorporatistNation]

18. See VIDEO Above!

[nc4bo]

56. !

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. When you are balding your hair looks nicer if you keep it short.

Longer hair just accentuates the balding.

[JonLeibowitz]

62. Can you imagine if we were criticizing Hillarys hair and appearance?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. You can criticize her appearance if you want. You are free to speak freely.

My old man was blinded in one eye from shrapnel and contacted malaria during the Battle of El-Alamein to uphold that fundamental principle.

[JonLeibowitz]

84. Point is it would be called sexist. Your old man has nothing to do with it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. And him and I would defend your right to be a sexist.

I disapprove of a person being a sexist, but I will defend to the death his or her right to be one.

[JonLeibowitz]

97. But it isn't sexist to make fun of an older man for being balding and having unkempt hair?

So how is it sexist to do so for a woman? Either both are unacceptable (my preference) or both acceptable. It isn't sexism if both are being maligned.

[Haveadream]

154. No

97. But it isn't sexist to make fun of an older man for being balding and having unkempt hair?

.

But it is ageist.

Also, a "both are acceptable or unacceptable" rule doesn't usually work when considering most isms because what is a stereotypical insult for one group frequently isn't the case for another. Certain descriptors of marginalized groups are problematic for a reason. Using them in reference to someone outside that group might be uncomplimentary but rarely carries the weight of history and all the offensive implications.

Example: the word, "radical". When used to describe a white man, it is perhaps a compliment, perhaps not. When used as a descriptor for a Muslim, it has a far different implication.

All that said, I agree with you: making fun of anyone for physical attributes is, at best, very weak tea and at worst, depending upon to what group they belong, uses their minority status to undermine them.

[libdem4life]

68. That's one thing I remember...it was ugly...those who critized...as it

should have been. Her hair, her pantsuit, just about everything. I didn't vote for her, but I was ashamed of the level of personal attack.

Sadly, here it is again. Old Geezer, department store suits, (like he should spring for a tailor), finger-pointing (ever watched HRC in a crowd...lord she punched a lady in the chest.), bill uses a fist with a pointing thumb for emphasis. I've noticed other politicians do, as well. Know any good bald jokes? Ugh.

[Skink]

7. I have a feeling the Foundation is going to be in the news quite a bit now.

[CorporatistNation]

14. FOUNDATION "NEWS" AND INSIGHTS IS FORTHCOMING I BELIEVE... IT WILL BE INCREASINGLY...

UNPLEASANT AS MADAM SECRETARY CONTINUES TO RELENTLESSLY PURSUE HER LIFELONG AMBITION... Will get ludicrous I am certain as well.... shortly! The NEWS of this will overwhelm the Corporate medias drive to cover it up!

[nc4bo]

59. Assault the font so as to miss the message.

[randome]

60. There was no message in the post to which I replied. Only hyperbolic shouting.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[larkrake]

101. so what?

[TexasTowelie]

55. Yes, let them compare the Clinton Foundation

with the Trump Foundation and Donald's record of giving.

[nc4bo]

61. Republicans are expected to be scoundrels, Democrats are expected to be better than that.

Much better than that.

There IS a difference.

[larkrake]

102. Two wrongs dont make a right

[TexasTowelie]

116. Do you think that Trump is going to attack the Clinton Foundation

considering all of the issues regarding his own foundation and his meager donations to his own foundation over the years? Despite what is said by Sanders or anyone on DU it is not going to be an issue in the general election.

[larkrake]

120. Yes he will, the madman thinks he is invincible- dont credit him with common sense

[TexasTowelie]

128. Then he is playing with fire

and he will get burned. I'm certain that she will be ready to respond to any of his attacks whether it be in the press or during a debate.

[larkrake]

130. Donald is a master at planting seeds of doubt and so far she has had no defence

against allegations against the Foundation. I think , if she could, she would have put it to bed.I suspect the e-mail was delayed to distract from the real crimes---"Squirrel!!!!

[grasswire]

52. and I suspect that Sanders is VERY aware of the ..

...Clintons' vulnerability before the law vis a vis the Foundation.

He may know something we don't about the extent of the FBI investigation. We know they are reviewing the Foundation.

[KULawHawk]

66. It's not a review.

It's an FBI investigation for criminal activity.

[libdem4life]

74. Yeah, Hillary tried that one and got it slapped down post haste

by the Director himself, IIRC.

[larkrake]

89. yes, her silence on the subject is very telling, but the Repugs have real meat here and will use it

they drag on nonsensical things, this is a true crime. Charities and non profits are money makers for administrators and rarely follow through for the victims."administrative costs" eat up donations.

It is also a great money laundering system, without taxes. The fact the Foundation isnt rated tells me alot

[Faux pas]

8. Kickin'

[boston bean]

9. He is regurgitating lines from "clinton cash"

The much debunked book?

[libdem4life]

75. Where can I find information about this debunking? I don't have the book

so didn't read it. So when I do, please let me know which chapters and information I should take my black Sharpie to so as not to be misinformed.

Oh, and just MSM sources...we know those are the Only Ones that have any credibility...at least when they are agree with one's position.

[larkrake]

103. Really? who debunked it?

[libdem4life]

129. If it was "much debunked" surely there is one credible source,

an inquiring mind would think.

[boston bean]

139. The author had to remove many false accusations for the Kindle edition.

I am not your teacher, nor am I your brain. Look it up on wiki, that will give you place to start.

[larkrake]

141. Kindle reminds me of book banners, they just cannot tolerate disturbing truths

[boston bean]

142. Yeah, I can tell you are interested in the truth.

Your truth only. That nothing you don't believe can be believed.

[HerbChestnut]

10. "Assails" is a bit of a strong term...

He was asked whether or not he was concerned with how the charity operates, and he said, "Yeah, I am."

[larkrake]

105. they have resorted to exaggerating everything and they have to feel a little

sick in the stomach that it makes perfect sense to suspect any charity involving gigantic foreign donations from evil leaders

[BootinUp]

13. Way to go Bernie, attack a great philanthropic org for political gain. JERK nt

[CorporatistNation]

17. The Charity That Engages In Money Laundering... The Money Laudering Operation That Occassionally

performs some charitable works....

[BootinUp]

34. TRANSPARENCY. You wouldn't know about the contributors unless CLINTON FOUNDATION released it.

Pull your head outa where ever it is.

[libdem4life]

78. Well, there was this one...from a Canadian Money Repurposing source...

Wow. Caps and insults. Classy.

[Lord Magus]

36. More Fox News smears getting repeated on DU. Sickening. -nt-

[Tortmaster]

32. He's going to attack ...

... Jimmy Carter building houses next. He shows himself to be a passive-aggressive hypocrite and liar daily, now.

[libdem4life]

93. The Carter derision has already been done. Decades ago.

The rest of the post....pfffft. People who live in glass houses..........etc.

[larkrake]

106. HA! take foot from mouth

[seabeyond]

15. See, gutter. Castro, Russia? Using where they get funds to help people as an attack.

In his only tax return, his charity his 8k. Gutsy to call someone else out on helping others.

[Agnosticsherbet]

21. Desperation is an ugly thing.

No one wants to admit they've lost.
It is not unusual to see people lash out to destroy everything around them rather than admit their failure.

[underthematrix]

26. You hit the nail on the head

[libdem4life]

96. So why the constant derision, attacks, hating on "the loser"?

Surely it can't be such a "done deal" as advertised given the increased hysteria from the HRC folks? Maybe?

Me...it's not over until it's over. Lots of shoes left to drop. That's a fact.

[Arazi]

24. The Foundation will prove to be very dangerous waters for Hillary

This is where the corruption is and where she's in a terrible position

[Henhouse]

31. Wash, rinse, repeat.....

The Clinton's put Donna Shalala in as head of the Clinton Foundation in March of 2015. HRC, recognized the potential claims of conflict of interest and removed herself from the situation.

The rest of what you say is just recycled right-wing talking points.

[Arazi]

39. Nah, FBI investigators aren't RW puppets.

I understand this is hard to accept. I'll be thinking of you when they make their report

[larkrake]

136. This involves foreign donators, so would involve the CIA, and FBI, and Justice system

this is not just a US crime, it is an International crime and a total embarrassment to the POTUS who gave her the position that enabled her to swap donations (bribing the SoS)for lucrative weapon sales. The Pentagon is totally right wing, as are most of the alphabets.The FBI is the last alphabet with morals and ethics.

[libdem4life]

71. Oh well, that settles it. Oh, they were fabulously wealthy by that time.

Just a coincidence, I'm sure. I like the term "potential claims" which is actually true. The emails may say, in writing, something different.

The RW did not write or wipe the emails. Try again.

[larkrake]

108. follow the money, Im sure Donna is just getting a salary

[libdem4life]

41. Yes, it was thought so at the beginning and has proven to be so.

It is my Opinion that the information in the recovered emails...those she was terrified of anyone seeing...except the hackers, are more the subject now, as well.

Pay to Play does not get out with a slap on the wrist, no matter how popular the individual. But, it is going to take some time and there are a whole lot more Is to dot and Ts to cross. The Romanian hacker has possibly speeded up the investigation by supposedly having downloaded many of them before The Wiping. And No One Knows Anything about it at this time. Leaks will likely start when the decision is either made or close...but not until. Paul Thompson, here on DU, has a good grasp on the situation. I don't encourage HRC folk to read it.

Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, this will likely emerge during the GE...when all Hell will break loose. This is not the VRWC that likely the FOIAs from Judicial Watch involves. But clearly they did know something. This surpasses a "coverup".

[Arazi]

47. I didn't entirely get it until I read Paul Thompson's timeline.

Interestingly Paul's OP got locked and he got flagged for review when he started asking questions about Justin Cooper, Bill Clinton's top aide at the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512072459

[libdem4life]

64. Inconvenient facts. Got to keep them hidden and out of the hands

of the Peasants/DUers.

The emails are telling the story. And it doesn't end with the emails...seems it just began there.

[larkrake]

127. It all stinks and there is a cover-up

everyone political and media are discouraged from addressing the Foundation innards

[larkrake]

109. Im afraid you are absolutely right

[sufrommich]

27. Pathetic and desperate.

How low will Sanders go before he makes his exit? Forget about a dignified exit,that ship has sailed.

[Surya Gayatri]

29. Is that pic from this weekend? If so, he's looking more and more

like the proverbial nutty professor!

[BlueMTexpat]

40. Definitely not a Presidential look. eom

[Octafish]

46. Truer words were never typed.

Amiright?

[BlueMTexpat]

51. I knew that I would regret venturing

into GD-P. But YOU will NO longer provide me with any reason for that regret.

Buh-bye!

[Octafish]

85. Weird how it's OK to make fun of one person for his looks...

...and it's not OK to make fun of another person for her looks.

[libdem4life]

90. Well, perhaps you could elucidate on what a "presidential type" looks like?

Let's see...ageism, hairism, classism, sexism...so many labels, so little time.

That all you got? Maybe if some of the more handsome men had had the cojones to run, we'd all get to swoon over how sexy they are. That ought to be worth a few votes, think?

Disgusting. The man has been running rings around people half his age for a year and this?

Desperation.

[Octafish]

45. Camera does not lie, right.

[Scuba]

37. At best it's a huge conflict of interest. At best.

[randome]

43. It isn't her charity, despite it sharing her surname. It is a public charity.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Scuba]

50. Bwahaaaahaaaaaaaaa.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/clintons-659698-foundation-clinton.html

Biggest beneficiaries of Clinton Foundation are the Clintons

However, in a rare feat of balanced journalism, the New York Times did ask some questions. The paper looked into the nefarious activities of the Clinton Foundation and came up with instances of influence peddling on a grand scale. The Times used the upcoming book “Clinton Cash,” by Peter Schweizer as a road map to determine that, while Hillary was secretary of state, the Clintons got money when she approved the sale of important U.S. uranium reserves to seedy foreigners, including Russia (read Vladimir Putin). Largely unaccounted for, the money flowed to the Clinton Foundation, with $500,000 going to Bill Clinton for a one-hour speech.

[randome]

53. "Clinton Cash" -soon to be a major motion picture by Alex Jones and Peter Schweizer!

Bwahahaha, indeed.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Scuba]

131. Any comment on the FACTS or are you just going to attack the source?

[larkrake]

147. I'd love to see it

[larkrake]

110. that is very naive of you, and laughable

[BootinUp]

42. Chelsea Clinton talks about TRANSPARENCY policies of Clinton Foundation

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/politics/chelsea-clinton-defends-clinton-foundation/2015/04/23/95c1337c-e9d8-11e4-8581-633c536add4b_video.html

[Henhouse]

63. I heart Chelsea...I trust her at the helm of the Clinton Foundation...nt

[libdem4life]

113. Well then, let's hope she can keep a better rein on her husband.

His hedgefund lots bushels of money...betting on the Greek poverty plan. It was rumored that the magic Cash Cow family name was used as to encourage investors. Also, wasn't she the one who said Bernie would leave millions without healthcare?

Better not to bring her or her husband's lineage up much...both have had, um, problems.

The apple does not fall far from the tree.

[Henhouse]

117. Should Bernie keep a better rein on his wife....?

Maybe he should tell her to return the $200,000 Golden Parachute she received after burying Burlington College under a ton of debt.

[libdem4life]

125. She ran a start up business. 80% of them fail. If you knew about

business startups you'd know that.

Oh, just for the Goose and Gander discussion...should the same apply to Mr. Mezvinsky? Pretty sure he got paid handsomely...and kept it all.

I think they ought to both be required to pay it back...but that's not how it works.

So, I guess we kind of agree, no?

[MichMan]

72. Chelsea doesn't care about money......She said so ! n/t

[larkrake]

111. yet she married a vulture capitalist-duh

[libdem4life]

121. To carry on two shady family histories. Apple...meet ground.

[WhiteTara]

70. More spaghetti thrown at the wall

to see what sticks.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

77. Yup

[SunSeeker]

86. Says the guy who only gives 4% of his income to charity.

Way to go Bernie, dumpster diving for the worst trash from the right wing conspiracy theories.

[larkrake]

114. well, he has very little income. I give $500 a year, does that make me evil?

I dont think the right wing has discovered the Foundation problems, I'm pretty sure the first to question it were Dems vetting her

[Henhouse]

119. Little income....did you see the $13,000 a night hotel room he stayed in on his Roman holiday.

[larkrake]

123. I've gone to club med and couldnt afford it. What has that to do with opinions on charity?

[SunSeeker]

152. He does not have "very little income," his adjusted 2014 income was over $200k.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/campaign-2016-taxes-show-bernie-sanders-gave-4-percent-of-income-to-charity-in-2014/

[larkrake]

156. wow, thats a fortune in Dc life--not

[SunSeeker]

157. He owns a home in DC and several properties in Vermont.

Plus his travel expenses are paid by the Senate, so that is a rather comfortable income. It certainly puts him in top 1% of Vermonters.

[larkrake]

158. investments are just smart to leave to his kids I'm surprised he has money for charities

[SunSeeker]

159. Sanders only has one biological child...

Levi Sanders is his only biological child, who he had with a woman he never married. Sanders never had any kids with his first wife nor his second wife, Jane. Levi will do just fine, as will Jane's kids; Jane's ex-husband and her kids' father worked for IBM.

[larkrake]

160. with kids

[ucrdem]

88. LOL, "largely silent" my foot. He LAUNCHED his campaign the same day Clinton Cash

hit the street and didn't mind suggesting that the "issue" of Clinton Foundation contributions was "very troubling." And his entire stump speech is all about corruption and big money in politics, hint hint. He's just getting more desperate. And that pic is scary!

[larkrake]

124. I've seen many Hill pics more frightening

[libdem4life]

132. I'm afraid the FBI agrees with the "very troubling" aspect.

And no, it isn't a Review, it's an Investigation...per Dirctor Comey. That is intended to be "troubling".

Then, what has that to do with his hair...??? Care to share? (rhyme unintentional)

Spill the "hint, hint". Inquiring minds want to know.

You're scared of a photo? This post just hits all the highlights.

[ucrdem]

133. RW noise machine leaks RW noise. Rinse and repeat.

And yes I know all about the Obama appointment. Doesn't change a thing. Also that's a different matter.

[grasswire]

134. talking point nt

[2cannan]

92. Remember when Hillary promised Obama she would be transparent about the Clinton Foundation while she

served as SoS? She is the most mistake-prone candidate there is!

Exclusive: Despite Hillary Clinton promise, charity did not disclose donors
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-clinton-donations-idUSKBN0MF2FQ20150319

In 2008, Hillary Clinton promised Barack Obama, the president-elect, there would be no mystery about who was giving money to her family's globe-circling charities. She made a pledge to publish all the donors on an annual basis to ease concerns that as secretary of state she could be vulnerable to accusations of foreign influence.

At the outset, the Clinton Foundation did indeed publish what they said was a complete list of the names of more than 200,000 donors and has continued to update it. But in a breach of the pledge, the charity's flagship health program, which spends more than all of the other foundation initiatives put together, stopped making the annual disclosure in 2010, Reuters has found.

In response to questions from Reuters, officials at the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) and the foundation confirmed no complete list of donors to the Clintons' charities has been published since 2010. CHAI was spun off as a separate legal entity that year, but the officials acknowledged it still remains subject to the same disclosure agreement as the foundation.

Only took them 5 years to fix the problem.

Clinton Foundation, Aiming to Quiet Critics, Releases Donor Data
https://philanthropy.com/article/Clinton-Foundation-Aiming-to/232059

Clinton Foundation acknowledges ‘mistakes,’ emphasizes transparency
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-foundation-acknowledges-mistakes-emphasizes-transparency/2015/04/26/8832621a-ec32-11e4-8abc-d6aa3bad79dd_story.html

[larkrake]

118. bad decisions are her habit

Bush always failed, no matter how hard he tried, he was never successful at anything.

Hillary has always been propped up, always making terrible mistakes. She will be the Dem version of W with one exception. Her party does not respect her.

Transparency is her greatest fear. It would reveal she is a fraud

[grasswire]

135. plus they set up another charity in Canada..

....and claim that Canadian law does not require disclosure of donor names.

A lie.

[Duval]

150. And I do, too.

This and other things worry me about having Clinton in the White House. Yeah, Trump would be worse, but I'm holding out hope for Bernie as our nominee.

[noiretextatique]

153. her next scandal eom