2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNow that Hillary is the presumptive nominee, it's time
for Bill and Chelsea to step away from the Clinton Foundation. Now look, maybe those of you who see both Hillary and Bill as paragons of virtue who could never be corrupted, are right. That is irrelevant. The appearance of conflicts of interest are serious, and they have, sometimes with good reason, dinged the both of them. Anyone remember Marc Rich?
We don't need to be put in the position of defending Hillary and Bill because he insists on remaining involved in the Foundation business.
And it goes without saying that Bill should make no more paid speeches. I think it's been some months since he has made a speech for personal profit. But he did make several after she announced she was running. That cannot be repeated.
Again, they may be the purer than the driven snow, but the broad perception of the voting public holds a different view. They can't afford to feed that perception.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Defending any clinton or any associate of the clintons
Been there done that and history shows i was a.fool to.do.so.as everything i defended against turned out to be true.
Im not wasting that time again they deserve no benefit of any doubt.
Tarc
(10,472 posts)boston bean
(36,219 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)that is a dangerous and less than intelligent position. people like you, whatever their political persuasions, people who simply bestow complete unthinking support on a politician, are frightening. And it is impossible to hold a reasonable discussion with such people.
boston bean
(36,219 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)boston bean
(36,219 posts)Florencenj2point0
(435 posts)I see no reason why they should stop their charitable work.
cali
(114,904 posts)they need that like a hole in the head.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)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.
...
According to The Federalist, which reviewed Clinton Foundation tax documents covering 2008-12, only 15 percent of the take was donated to pragmatic programs. $25 million went to fund travel and $110 million to salaries. An astounding $290 million, 60 percent of all money raised, was classified as other expenses."
randome
(34,845 posts)No matter how much money Clinton asks to be donated to it, it is the CF Board that decides how to disburse it. And the 'only 15 percent' figure is disingenuous, to say the least.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina says that so little of the charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation actually go to charitable works a figure CARLY for America later put at about 6 percent of its annual revenues but Fiorina is simply wrong.
Fiorina and others are referring only to the amount donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Clinton Foundations charitable work is performed in-house. One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity.
Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly.
So you and Crazy Frank and Carly Fiorina are all wrong. Because you don't care about anything but trashing a Democrat.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Did or did not Bill Clinton receive $500,000 from the foundation for a one-hour speech?
Is The Federalist's claim true or false that only 15 percent of the take was donated to pragmatic programs. $25 million went to fund travel and $110 million to salaries.
Is their claim that $290 million, 60 percent of all money raised, was classified as other expenses" true or not?
Please include links to back up your claims. Your ad hominem attacks are lame.
randome
(34,845 posts)You're right, I don't know the exact expenditures of the CF. Neither do I care. Is the $290m 'other expenses' part of their in-house charity work? I don't know. You didn't provide a link and apparently the Federalist didn't bother to investigate. Is $25m in travel expenses legitimate? I don't know. Neither do you nor, apparently, the Federalist. Is $110m in salaries justified? I don't know. Neither do you nor, apparently, the Federalist.
Anyone can throw large numbers into the open and point and say, with a tone of betrayal, "LOOK AT THAT! JUST LOOK AT IT!"
But without any accompanying explanation or even rudimentary analysis, it's meaningless.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
Scuba
(53,475 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)...is always suspect.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
Scuba
(53,475 posts)You must be very proud.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)The Clinton Foundation does a lot of good work, there's no dispute about that. But it could continue to do so without active engagement from Bill and Chelsea, although the latter concerns me less because as far as I know Chelsea won't be living in the White House or as actively engaged in her mother's administration.
randome
(34,845 posts)Are you saying the Clintons should never communicate to the CF while she's in office?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
cali
(114,904 posts)have any official position with the foundation. You realize, virtually every pundit is saying much the same thing, right?
Response to cali (Reply #13)
randome This message was self-deleted by its author.
karynnj
(59,498 posts)how they would prevent the CF from potentially being a conflict of interest.
Given the international nature of the work, it might be hard to structure something that used Bill and Chelsea in a good way avoiding any conflicts. At minimum, they should be far from fund raising.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:34 AM - Edit history (1)
http://abc11.com/news/how-clinton-donor-got-on-sensitive-intelligence-board/1379818/pay to play.. if more of this is found and uncovered it's bad leadership and it will be used to paint HRC into a corner
cali
(114,904 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)in the first place would also have been sound political advice.
It's almost like they think "this is legal, I'm not breaking any rules, so why shouldn't I do it?"
They should borrow a page from Obama and avoid any possible inference of impropriety.
Turin_C3PO
(13,911 posts)but I've never understood why she's so secretive and stubborn about certain transparency issues? It turns out usually when things are revealed that she's actually quite ethical. It's just that the appearance of non-transparency gives fuel to right wing cretins.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)transparency means fodder for rightwing fishing expeditions, so no matter where she draws the line, there will be accusations of a lack of transparency.
the speeches thing is a perfect example. why do we know about the speeches? because she provided full transparency as to her sources of income.
so her reward for revealing that she gave speeches for money--something she was not required to do--was to be accused of hiding something by not publishing the transcripts.
and then if she publishes transcripts, it would be "where's the video?" etc etc.
cali
(114,904 posts)forget the transcripts of her speeches. That is not the problem. This story is.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624
Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the departments professional staff.
The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to protect the name of the Secretary, stall the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.
Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.
A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernandos only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)appearances of conflicts of interest, coupled with the broad distrust of Hillary on matters of ethics, provide unnecessary fodder.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)we've been really spoiled by Obama.
Turin_C3PO
(13,911 posts)The Republican slander of Hillary Clinton these past decades has been vile and despicable. And you're absolutely right that she seemingly can't win no matter her actions.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But I also think that it's not a terrible idea to appoint others now, either.
Sivart
(325 posts)If Clinton supporters don't see it, or don't admit it, then, WOW.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)It's a conflict of interest.