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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bill Clinton: Foundation's done nothing 'knowingly inappropriate' [View all]cali
(114,904 posts)12. I don't think that is correct. What liberal critics are saying isn't that
anyone was actually granted favors, but that they put themselves in a position for it to be easy to make such a claim. What could they have done differently?
1) instituted the recent ban on foreign donations from most countries, when she became SoS. If everything was just so impeccably above board then, why are they making this change now?
2) Bill should not have taken paying gigs from foreign countries while she was SoS.
3) When she became SoS, they all three should have sharply limited their involvement with the Foundation.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
45 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
You can have an International Foundation, or you can be Secretary of State. You can't have both.
NYC_SKP
May 2015
#4
Sure. "knowingly inappropriate" are "weasel words" just like Gore's testimony was.
cherokeeprogressive
May 2015
#36
The repeated violations of the Memorandum of Understanding says otherwise.
AtomicKitten
May 2015
#41