Paul Krugman is clearly correct that the reporting on the Clinton Foundation has been terrible, filled with innuendo, and has, to date, found nothing untoward or unethical. He’s also right to get a sinking feeling that we’re seeing a repeat of what happened to Al Gore in 2000, when he somehow came off as the dishonest candidate when matched up against an opponent whose entire platform was based on “fuzzy math,” with predictable catastrophic consequences once he became president.
Krugman is also disturbingly correct about this:
True, there aren’t many efforts to pretend that Donald Trump is a paragon of honesty. But it’s hard to escape the impression that he’s being graded on a curve. If he manages to read from a TelePrompter without going off script, he’s being presidential. If he seems to suggest that he wouldn’t round up all 11 million undocumented immigrants right away, he’s moving into the mainstream. And many of his multiple scandals, like what appear to be clear payoffs to state attorneys general to back off investigating Trump University, get remarkably little attention.
That story on the payoffs can be followed in the pages of the Washington Post, but it doesn’t seem to interest Krugman’s own New York Times. It might shock you to learn that Trump even has a charitable organization since he gives almost no money to charity, but the Donald J. Trump Foundation does in fact exist, and it was fined by the IRS this year for making an illegal political contribution to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. At the time, Bondi was supposed to be investigating claims that Trump University was a fraudulent organization designed to bilk people out of their money. After receiving the contribution (which she had solicited), Bondi decided to do nothing, effectively giving Trump impunity for ripping off unsuspecting Floridians.
It’s bad enough that Trump’s charity made a political contribution, which was illegal, but check this out:
The Post reported another error, which had the effect of obscuring the political gift from the IRS.
In that year’s tax filings, The Post reported, the Trump Foundation did not notify the IRS of this political donation. Instead, Trump’s foundation listed a donation — also for $25,000 — to a Kansas charity with a name similar to that of Bondi’s political group. In fact, Trump’s foundation had not given the Kansas group any money.
The prohibited gift was, in effect, replaced with an innocent-sounding but nonexistent donation.
Trump’s business said it was unaware of any of these mistakes until March, when it heard from the watchdog group and The Post.
That’s a very convenient mistake, taking an real illegal contribution and converting it into a legal fictional contribution. It’s almost what an unethical lawyer would come up with as a way to pay off an overly inquisitive Attorney General while minimizing the likelihood of creating any significant legal jeopardy.
But the New York Times seems to think that the Clinton Foundation is a better story, despite the fact that they can’t find anything with even a whiff of the same scandalous nature as the Post has found here on the Trump Foundation.
And, to be clear, the arrangement Trump made with Bondi may have been repeated in Texas. But, unless you watch MSNBC or read the Washington Post or liberal blogs, you wouldn’t know any of this, because it’s not being covered by the New York Times, Fox News or CNN. And even MSNBC has only done one segment on it.
Karl Rove made himself famous by taking his opponent’s strengths (e.g., John Kerry’s military service) and turning them into weaknesses while shifting his own bosses weaknesses (dishonesty) and getting them assigned to Al Gore. But Rove couldn’t do this by himself. He needed the media to go along with it.
So far, it looks like Trump doesn’t even need a Karl Rove to manipulate the press because they’re doing it all by themselves.
The Clinton Foundation is a very large and active charitable organization that has a better rating from Charity Watch than the American Red Cross. The Trump Foundation is a complete fraud:
Trump started the Donald J. Trump Foundation in the late 1980s, to give away proceeds from his book, “The Art of the Deal.” He remains the foundation’s president, but — in recent years — Trump has stopped putting his own money into its coffers. Tax records show no gifts from Trump himself to the foundation since 1988; it has instead received donations from a smattering of Trump’s friends and business associates.
The Trump Foundation has no paid staff and relatively little money for a superwealthy man’s personal charity: At the end of 2014, it had $1.3 million in the bank. The foundation’s giving is small and scattershot, with its gifts often sent to people whom Trump knows, or charities that hold their galas at his properties in New York and Florida.
Finally, even though the press reports that Bernie Sanders will soon hit the campaign trail for Hillary Clinton, he’s been more busy providing Trump with talking points with which to bash her.
Donald Trump’s campaign seized on Bernie Sanders’ comments Sunday about Hillary Clinton’s relations to her family foundation, taking license to make them sound more critical of her than he said in a television interview.
In an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, Sanders downplayed the importance of the controversies surrounding the Clinton Foundation, but said he thinks Hillary Clinton should cut ties to it if she beats Trump in November.
“I would certainly suggest that as president of the United States she should cease all operations, all contact, with the Clinton Foundation,” Sanders said.
Citing the “good things with AIDS and so forth” the Clinton Foundation has done, the Vermont senator who challenged Clinton in the Democratic primary, said he “can’t definitively answer” if it should be shut down, or the former secretary of state just shouldn’t be involved.
“At the very least she should not be involved. At the very least,” Sanders said.
That’s some serious surrogacy fail, right there. That’s right up there with Cory Booker blasting President Obama for being critical of Bain Capital.
There may be political reasons why a President Clinton would want to close down the foundation, but there are no reasons on the merits. As president, she’d have better things to do than be involved in its operations, but that doesn’t mean that a squeaky clean A+ rating charity should close its doors just because the New York Times has a bug up its butt.
What’s more important, after all, the people helped and lives saved by the Clinton Foundation or the gnats who keep swarming around it trying to smear and libel its reputation?
If to leads to a trump presidency then the gnats right?
The bias is unbelievable. People are saying Clinton’s charity – from which she receives no benefit – needs to have her name taken off.
Why does nobody say Trump’s numerous businesses -from which he receives substantial benefits, possibly fraudulently – need to have HIS name taken off?
Clinton rules, as usual. Now going to new levels, it seems.
P.S. Boo, can you keep your titles under 46 characters? It’s really annoying to get a “title too long” error when I hit the reply button.
My thought too. The NYTimes had a lot to do with the appointment of President Boyblunder. But for the NYTimes cheer leading, and especially if they had done their job, we might not have gotten into Iraq and, oh, I don’t know, a million or so lives might have been saved and there would be no ISIS. And now the NYTimes is doing what it can to give us a President Trump. What has happened to my country and what has happened to the NYTimes?
Decreased profits for print media.
The Clinton Foundation took donations from foreign governments while she was secretary of state.
To pretend that isn’t a conflict of interest is ludicrous.
Yawn.
You’re boring me.
C’mon, Boo. You can do better than that!!!
You know better.
AG
I know better than to waste my time on such trolling.
You’re not just boring me; you’re angering me. The claim you make here does not hold up, and other claims you’ve made recently are not supported by the record.
Bullshit.
AG
Not bullshit at all. On Saturday, fladem twice made the claim that Clinton had discussed targets for drone strikes in her email. This was the only specific thing he could point to as to what she had done wrong. When I asked him to point to the evidence for this claim, he never replied. But he was quite quick to call anyone who disagreed with him about the perfidy of the Clintons deluded.
How is foreign governments paying for AIDS prevention and food aid a conflict of interest?
Well, you know. Her name is Clinton.
Even the Trump counterexample fails unless there is evidence of what exactly other than the stated purpose the donation is for.
For example, a Russian donation of $1 million (or in rubles) to a Trump charity for training Apprentices does not raise eyebrows if Trump actually in fact trains a significant number of Apprentices in Russia.
A lot of foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation are for projects in the foreign donor’s own country or in the global region. Charity watchdogs are satisfied that the money coming in is actually going to its stated purposes.
The “brands have value” stuff is exactly the pitfall of framing a political campaign as a marketing exercise and candidates as products. That frame has had a corrupting consequence on the processes that were to be democratic mechanisms of selecting the leaders of the Republic.
A Russian donation of $1 million to the Trump foundation for, say, providing lightbulbs to the Russian poor, would raise eyebrows even if the bulbs were provided. It’d sure as hell raise mine.
It may be a pitfall, but it’s also true. Brands do have value. (Trump has no other value, really.) The Clinton Foundation is a powerful brand, and I can’t imagine that you don’t agree that the Clintons, and the foundation managers, aren’t perfectly aware of how it helps in terms of political positioning and networking. Which isn’t to say that it doesn’t do a lot of good, too. It does. The two things aren’t contradictory.
How about Laurent University?
shh — the WaPo rag is being mean to the Clintons again today — Inside Bill Clinton’s nearly $18 million job as `honorary chancellor’ of a for-profit college
What Trump did — fleecing rubes — is really really bad (goo-goo would protect people from high-priced snake-oil products, but that’s so contrary to the American faith in the free-market, that there’s no political will for government to be that good). WJC merely got a fat payday for being an ‘honorary chancellor’ for a school that fleeced government grants and federal loans that rubes are now indebted for. IOW Trump was the crooked entrepreneur and Clinton was an employee of a crook.
Laureate University not Laurent.
For the sake of discussion let’s assume you are correct: let’s say it is a conflict of interest.
So what?
I made the argument yesterday here that in about 65 days we’ll have as our next President:
I think that you, I, and all the other people and movements I care about stand a marginally better chance of success (not to mention survival) with #2 than we do with #1. If you’re interested in more details I’ll refer you to the link. So I’m going to vote for Clinton and I’m going to urge other people to do so as well.
Voting for her will not be the proudest day of my life, by a long shot. But over the years I’ve made much bigger compromises with my values than that decision will represent. This is not about my conscience, this is about power. I’d rather see Clinton in power, even given the possible downside consequences of that outcome, than Trump. And the most useful and direct thing I can do to stop Trump is vote for Clinton.
Your mileage, of course, may vary. But it seems to me that whether the Clinton Foundation does/does not represent a conflict of interest for Clinton herself is kind of academic. Nobody is going to come out of this feeling both relevant and virtuous so why even bother to try?
Good points, but one small quibble with your post.
I don’t even see the choice as somehow compromising my values – if anything the choice is a clear test of how I use my values to guide my decision-making.
Clinton is certainly a flawed candidate (for the reasons you stated), but to do anything that might allow Trump to win (i.e., vote 3rd party/leave top line blank) would be a complete abandonment of my core values. I think the choice we are faced with is that stark.
On a different note, we cannot forget the importance of filling the open SCOTUS seat with someone who will not continue Scalia’s rape of the Constitution. Many reasons to vote for Clinton are phrased in the negative, and they boil down to “at least she is not Trump.” Filling the empty SCOTUS seat is a very positive way to look at a vote for Clinton.
In short, you live here in objective observable reality where there are exactly two people who can become the next President of the United States, and you’re going to choose the less insane of the two.
…and of course, Vida implies that those that don’t vote for Clinton but rather vote for third party candidates (even more than those that don’t vote at all because they’re disenfranchised or just disgusted) will be to blame for Trump, if he wins over Clinton. This removes the proposition from objective observable reality somewhat: It’s not up to those of us that don’t plan to vote for Clinton (or Trump) to help her get elected by pledging to vote for her.
(meant NoCal not Vida in comment above)
You are right – I did not mean to imply that not voting/voting 3rd party would mean that you are to “blame” if Trump wins.
We all have to follow our conscience, and if your’s leads you to a different conclusion, so be it.
Any “blame” will fall on all of us who see the staggering risks of a Trump presidency, but did not do enough to sway voters who cannot stomach the notion of voting for Clinton.
I personally think filling empty SCOTUS seats is reason enough to vote for Clinton, but I am sure that others will see it differently.
an adult.
Capable of making adult decisions.
Like an adult.
I am going to vote for her.
I will also work for legal protection in Florida in the last 10 days.
I am not going to do so mindlessly, and I am not going to make excuses for them.
To pretend that donors to the Foundation were not seeking influence with someone who was likely the next President is so hopelessly naive that I kind of laugh.
Does anybody REALLY think that? That this was all just about charity. That Saudi Arabia woke up one morning and decided to help the Clinton Foundation for altruistic reasons.
DOES ANYBODY really believe that?
I actually think the defense Booman offers here hurts her. Because few buy the defense, and it undermines the credibility of those who make the argument.
I think its reasonable for you to believe that a country like Saudi Arabia is possibly buying goodwill by contributing to the Clinton Foundation.
However, you’d need to point to proof that she solicited donations in exchange for favors or that HRC delivered something. And, you haven’t done that. If such proof existed you’d have written about it instead of moralizing.
That in and of itself is not a conflict of interest absent additional evidence. Nitpicky moralism does not in the end prevent actual corruption.
In this case, the media is straining at a gnat while a camel is running wild.
Then there’s his relationship to Frank Giustra. Kazakhstan, Columbia …
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-07/the-billionaire-whose-clinton-foundation-ties-
could-be-trouble-for-hillary-clinton
The appearance of impropriety (even though the actual email dump shows a very active firewall between donors and the SecState) should never be conflated with actual impropriety.
That the work of his day measures more than the planting and growing
Oh ffs — Trump isn’t running on being some big wheel in the charity game or even giving a rat’s ass about charity in general. He set up a chump change charity that’s as fraudulent as his university. So small and easy to audit that the IRS busted him.
During the primary season, HRC supporters made a big deal out of the FEC finding a few excessive donations to Sanders’ campaign. HRC ran into a similar problem in past campaigns, but had enough experience by this time around that her team had the systems in place to avoid or quickly correct this problem before the FEC filing deadlines. (It’s even common for maxi-donors to write a second $2,700, forgetting the first one or not understanding the limits. Scroll through HRC’s FEC filings and there are plenty of cash returns in the hundreds and thousands of dollars.)
However, when a Sanders’ supporter brought up the issue of HRC “dark money” that was poo-pooed. Well, no way to make a case about campaign “dark money” because it can’t be seen. But the response was the same when someone reported on the Hillary Victory Fund monies, some of which was hinky and highly misleading and some of which was technically illegal. It was an exhausting effort to follow those funds through 2015 and impossible after that unless a team worked on it 24/7 because the FEC filings were too voluminous and too many the filings by too many other operations had to be cross-checked.
Yet, sometimes something that should give others pause is out in the open and overlooked. The Madoff podunk accountant was one of those somethings. As was the CF podunk accountant until recently. And when a complex operation brings in a new and reputable CPA firm to prepare its financial statements and tax filings, it takes some time (years) to clean up the books and for those financial statements to be as reliable as the CPA’s general reputation warrants. (And that assumes that the reputable new CPA is being completely above board.)
So the fact that it is easy to bust exonerates Trump and the fact that no one can find any actual wrongdoing but “appearances” means that the Clintons have spent hours scheming how to use the charity for influence peddling?
Really! I do believe that Occam’s Razor applies here.
I think you’ve captured the gist of the argument. You see, we know that Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt politician ever to run for president. We already know that.
When President-elect Clinton announces her cabinet, perhaps she’ll pick a bunch of celibate Buddhist monks who’ve taken vows of poverty. The Times would still try to take them down for corruption, of course.
Buddhist monks won’t kill mosquitos. So if Clinton associates with them, she obvious wants to bring malaria and Zika to America.
And is then responsible for all malaria deaths, and Zika birth defects.
.
Nope — (and at the moment unlike many I’m not concerned that Trump can win in November regardless of how wanting HRC becomes in the eyes of the average voter) — but you don’t give a shit what someone that has skill in accounting and financial analysis and spent a considerable amount of time two or three years ago trying to understand the CF financial statements is pointing out. Just as people didn’t give a shit when a voice or two rejected that “Enron was the best run company in the world” (I did have a fight with an associate in real time on that one) or when a few people began shorting the collective wisdom of all those high paid quants.
In real time, outsider observers can’t identify specific fraudulent institutional or operational activities, but that doesn’t mean some can’t detect when things aren’t adding up. It’s a signal to look closer and find out what the issue/problem is. To determine the extent of it; not good but limited and correctable or endemic and can’t be overcome. Glossing it over even if the unidentified problem/issue is small means that the rot will continue to fester and get larger and at some point can’t be covered up. That’s when we hear all “nobody could have known or predicted” excuses.
And, if you look at charity watch, the Foundation gets an “A”:
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
But never mind. The Clintons are up to no good. You know this.
If there is evidence online, there must be a link to it.
Say more about what from an accounting standpoint is hinky about the financial reporting for the Clinton Foundation, given that Charity Watch rates it an A. Not just “smell” but particular evidence.
I smell something hinky in a business when an accountant or financial officer never takes a vacation. But until someone demonstrates where the books are being cooked there is no evidence for an investigation and certainly no evidence for dismissal.
Yes Enron is an interesting case because the outside accountants doing the audit were compromised. In this situation, you would be arguing that Charity Watch can be compromised for whatever reason.
Shorter Marie3: I didn’t read a word BooMan wrote. Neoliberals suck!
The Clintons have been investigated more throughly than any poltical family in history and held to a different standard than other politicians. As it was with Gore, it is a form of journalistic bullying that becomes a vicious cycle as the politician reduces access, which then becomes a new complaint.
If we are going to have a new standard of ethics in politics, it must be applied to all candidates and parties to be fair.
On Krugman’s grading Trump on a curve, I agree. Just a W was cheered if he could tie his shoes, Trump’s ability to restrain himself to just what a teleprompter says is celebrated as looking Presidential.
How much more federal money in investigations are the GOP and the media going to waste during a future Clinton Presidency. They wasted $100 million during the Bill Clinton Presidency. For what? A lawyerly parsing of the word “is” and a stain on a little black dress.
What did they find about Gore’s supposed illegal foreign contributions as compared to what the GOP was doing with foreign contributions?
Instead of investigating the Clinton Foundation with the idea of appearances being reality, how about an investigation of all anonymous contributions to 501(c)(4) corporations making campaign ads.
BTW, here is a WaPo article about the State Inspector General launching an investigation into exactly this issue. The investigation began in fall of 2015 and this article was reported February 11, 2016, during the primary campaign cycle. The reporters are Tom Hamburger and Rosalind Heiderman. The article fails to identify what triggered the IG to begin the investigation, leading me to suspect that it was a request from one or more members of Congress (likely Republican). I can’t believe that the investigation has not concluded. Likely the IG found nothing but the media continue to hype this to those with a guilty until proven innocent mindset.
The elaboration of a quid pro quo scenario and asserting without evidence that it was so is problematic. As with other allegations, motive, opportunity and means require that an event actually occurred that other than the normal business of the Clinton Foundation. A Secretary of State has foreign colleagues with interests other than political influence for contributing to a program of the Clinton Foundation.
Few other politicians are so scrutinized for appearances of corruption; neither Max Baucus was at the relevant moments; nor Evan Bayh; nor Kent Conrad. Few were interested in Joe Lieberman. Or the Bush and bin Laden family associations. To. The. Same. Degree. As. The. Scrutiny. Here.
No one investigates Sheldon Adelman as a courier of Chinese campaign contributions. Or so scrutinizes the candidates he supports. Given his dependence on Chinese licenses, there is the “appearance” of impropriety there.
It really bothers me that Democrats, Democratic progressives, and even lefties fall for this character assassination when their fundamental issues with Clinton are matters of policy difference.
For me, the issue is one of proportion and equal accountability. And the knowledge that the sole purpose of this whole flap is to put the campaign off stride in what it should be doing at the moment — turning out the vote in 50 states.
If we are going to have repetition of allegations of scandal, hammer Trump University and the contribution to Pam Biondi during the AG’s consideration of private fraud allegations as well.
And what shady things have Jill Stein and Gary Johnson done in their careers?
How about the shady appearances of all the members of Congress and all of their challengers.
But Bernie Sanders is correct. The prudent course of action if Hillary Clinton is indeed elected President is to take her name off the officers and directors of the Clinton Foundation. She will be too busy to conduct its business anyway. It is reasonable to leave Chelsea Clinton as the person doing due diligence for the family. Bill should occupy himself with First Spouse duties; being seen mowing the White House lawn or building some gizmo in the workshop would be good. Or having a First Spouse skybox at a sports stadium or two, paid out of his own income. Something that he can bring a few reporters along to feed and booze. Oh, but that in itself is the appearance of trying to buy off press scrutiny.
It really is a no-win situation for the Clintons.
Excellent.
Hillary Clinton, the only serious nominee. Who could have possibly seen this coming?
Oh well, that was then, this is now. So yeah. But don’t blame Bernie.
It occurs to me that the motive for this attack on the Clinton Foundation might be to shut it down like ACORN has already be shut down by a media attack that parroted right-wing accusations and like the continuing battle that Planned Parenthood faces against all sorts of false charges.
And if the Obamas start a foundation that is actually doing something, expect at some point a similar attack.
A scorched earth policy means that no Democratic President post-Carter (and maybe not even him) can leave a positive legacy in any way. We’ve not yet crossed that Rubicon, but the atmosphere in the political culture is getting more desperate and vitriolic.
Containing the effects of the modern conservative meltdown might become very important for the survival of Constitutional government in the US. And the media environment is as toxic as any since 1803-4.
I’ve thought this way too. When I look at what the Republican past presidents do compared to the Democratic presidents, I just can’t believe the difference. This could be a talking point — about how Democrats devote their entire lives to serving while Republicans retire with the paint box.
well yes, for the Rs no dem has a legitimate presidency. for my questions about the Foundation, it’s about the spouse of former president running for public office and the degree to which the Foundation is about advancing that agenda. but I’m also of the opinion that spouses of living ex presidents shouldn’t be allowed to run unless we abandon the 2 term limit because his/ her presidency functions as a 3rd or 4th term for the spouse; that’s certainly the way Latin American countries have used it. I don’t expect anyone on this thread to agree with me.
I would expand the no spouses rule to include no relatives at the first cousin level or closer.
Family dynasties bother me at such a deep level I have a hard time figuring out why I feel that way.
yes, good point. dynasty = the opposite of what our country was founded on
All this comes from the same rag that gave us Judith Miller and the Iraq War. At Mother Jones you can read an article about Trump’s model agency. After I read it, the bottom line seemed to be is that Trump engages in human trafficking and should have the full force of law slapped upon him.
Give it a day or two — that “rag” will be back to it’s standard 2016 narrative that Trump is the greatest evil ever nominated (which may be true, but some real doozies have been nominated in the past, including a man with unmistakable signs of dementia).
A year or so ago I tried to find out what the Clinton Foundation does. I did not find an answer, really. The webpage made it clear that they are not a grant-giving foundation (like the Ford Foundation), but other than that it was unclear what their work actually is.
So, new chance. Anyone got any links to what it does? If they work with AIDS, is it research grants, paying for treatments or what do they do?
Here is a good start:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
it doesn’t tell me much more than the web site does – what precisely are they doing, the seed project for example.
would love a link with more concrete details.
They directly operate programs in specific countries that implement one of their global initiatives. The one I looked at in detail was a database of Kenyan forests that provides targeting of reforestation efforts and efforts to improve local agriculture. The implementation of that database involved a local employee, titled a manager, to network with local governmental and private entities. The Clinton Foundation in the US networked with technical resources worldwide to support the task of building the database. That partnership continued and expanded locally and globally to become a program that deals with local agriculture as a means of preserving forests.
The use of networking and partnerships seems to be a more recent business model in NGOs. There is more flexibility and less stepping on “not invented here” toes.
Here’s one thing the did with respect to HIV/AIDS:
Improving Access to Viral Load Testing for HIV Patients in Developing Countries
This project was sponsoring conferences that allowed the negotiation of viral load testing pricing involving country-to-country negotiation.
The second had professionals provide technical information and clinical reports on what that means for the daily lives of those living with HIV/AIDS.
So the business model does lots of little, short-term things that seek to kick off relationships and and provision of critical intermediary resources that can create more self-sustaining local programs within partner organizations.
That’s my reading of a web site that is struggling to present a coherent view of all those little projects globally within their strategy of initiatives.
The Clinton Foundation runs a budget of roughly $250 million – $350 million.
One would have to have more detail to the financial report than is online to say more about how the cash flows through the organization.
“That’s a very convenient mistake, taking an real illegal contribution and converting it into a legal fictional contribution. It’s almost what an unethical lawyer would come up with as a way to pay off an overly inquisitive Attorney General while minimizing the likelihood of creating any significant legal jeopardy.”
As an aside, this is why people hate fucking lawyers.
on another thread someone brought up the analogy of the Obamas, supposing they started a foundation. – well, if Michelle were planning to run for national public office, possibly attain a cabinet position and run for president twice with the high liklihood of winning, I would recommend they wait and create the foundation after Michelle finished her years of elective office. And I don’t think the Obamas would set up a foundation of the sort that enmeshed with the contacts she would want to cultivate to advance her seeking public office.
Of course Trump’s scam charity should be investigated, and Adelson and all the rest.
Let me introduce you to the Obama Foundation. Nothing wrong with it — no different from the Clinton Foundation that was set up 1999.
thanks. very interesting.
so my point is, if Michelle is running for public office, and programs of the Obama Foundation coincide with her areas of activity – etc, etc. the point was also made about HRC receiving no benefit from the Foundation.
Lots of ifs there. Depends on the meaning of “benefit.” As presidential libraries include a presidential museum, they are always a monument to the former president and his family; so, a benefit is inherent, but doesn’t include any direct financial benefit. iirc, WJC’s library/museum includes an apartment in Little Rock for his use. Perhaps he personally pays rent for it.
Expect Obama will be able to tap all his wealthy friends and ordinary people that admire him to raise sufficient funds for the building and endowment for his library/museum foundation before Michelle considers a run for public office. Not that she seems inclined to do that, but who knows what she may be considering in private. However, you do raise a good point on this issue. Did HRC’s run and then win of the NY Senate seat assist in the Clinton library/museum fundraising? A question with no answer.
Another shoe has dropped. Bill got a huge pile of cash from a for-profit college. From the WP today:
The sleaze never ends. Harry Truman refused to sit on corporate boards after the end of his presidency. Jimmy Carter has built houses and ended the scourge of the guinea worm. Bill set up a barker stall, and sold his influence, and the Secretary of State office, every chance he got.
These people are so tacky and tawdry, it make me puke. The Clinton Foundation did good works, but mostly it was just a big con to get Bill and Hill really good dinners.
Is everyone around here now either a dishonest hack or an aspiring Kremlin flack?
The article you’re citing is old enough that my memory of reading it has already faded.
It’s not in any way a shoe dropping today.
And, while I’m no fan of for-profit colleges (see our work on them at WaMo), this story is a big nothing burger.
Are you offended that a dinner on higher-education policy at the State Department had as a guest a man who runs “the fastest growing (foreign) college network in the world”?
It was a dinner and a policy shop talk.
There was nothing even remotely inappropriate about inviting Doug Becker to that dinner, nor was it ever going to be the reason why Bill Clinton would get a gig promoting Laureate nine months later.
The two men were friends and Bill is a pretty damn good ambassador.
This isn’t corruption. At worst, it’s Bill taking money to promote a company that perhaps doesn’t deserve his endorsement.
But you try to paint this is a breaking news and use it to smear them.
What’s wrong with you?
It’s today’s headline in the WP. It’s breaking news to amateurs like me. For pros like you, you’ve seen it all before. I don’t follow stuff as closely as you do; I’d never heard of it.
From the WP today:
Politics
Inside Bill Clinton’s nearly $18 million job as `honorary chancellor’ of a for-profit college
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Michelle Ye Hee Lee September 5 at 6:51 PM
You know, Boo, I suspect you neither like me nor respect my point of view. And that’s fine. However, I suggest you take me seriously, because I channel the Trump voter better than do you.
Ok, I apologize for snapping at you for regurgitating old news since the WaPo is the one guilty of that.
But you have been channelling the Trump voter a lot of late, dataguy, and maybe you should examine that.
This story is a hit job and you should be trained enough to recognize it. I do feel like my readers should pick up that talent after eleven years, you know?
This story is a hit job and you should be trained enough to recognize it. I do feel like my readers should pick up that talent after eleven years, you know?
That story about WJC and Laureate is not a hit job. You of all people should know better. Has every Democratic-leaning blog thrown their principles out the window? The election season really is turning people into zombies.
“This isn’t corruption. At worst, it’s Bill taking money to promote a company that perhaps doesn’t deserve his endorsement.”
Booman is correct here. You’re confusing “a thing I don’t like” with “a thing that is corrupt”.
I guess one can have different definitions of corruption. Taking money to promote a company that doesn’t deserve his endorsement would fit my definition of corrupt.
So, pretty much every athlete from Kobe Bryant to Joe DiMaggio has been corrupt.
Good to know.
In many respects, yes. I take it you don’t subscribe to the Bill Hicks belief on that:
However, sports stars aren’t politicians in charge of writing statutes and laws and shaping public policy…
Yeah, maybe I’m biased since my Dad getting Larry Bird to take language classes so he could enunciate Feelin’ 7UP is what put food on my table as a child.
Can’t find that one, but here’s one of my Dad’s:
Magic Johnson does an advertisement for 7UP. Now any time words leave his mouth in any regard to any issue concerning PepsiCo, immediately his words should be treated as suspect. That is the corrosion of public trust that happens when you sell yourself and your brand in, as Hicks says, the Capitalist Gang Bang.
Of course, everyone is implicated in some capacity because it’s how the system is set up and exists, and your choices are living off the grid in Wyoming or take part. How we choose to take part, given that not many people are living on the outside, matters. And Bill Clinton made his choice. Now you’re angry when people lose faith in institutions that are perceived as corrupt — and for good reason?
Yes, I know, Magic Johnson personally caused 146,985 unnecessary cavities, only 43,093 of which were filled, and that’s not even talking about all the people Magic killed by giving them diabetes.
What was he thinking? How can anything he says about liquid refreshment not be referred to The Hague.
I think you need to relax a bit. The world ain’t tidy.
Indeed, the 8-0 reversal of the Bob McDonnell conviction would make the average person think that politicians are incapable of corruption in a legal sense.
Legally, the reversal was more than likely proper (at least according to lawyers I trust). But this is exactly why pols are (supposed) to not even give a whiff of it because proving it — legally beyond a reasonable doubt — is pretty close to impossible.
Adding more, what’s really amusing to me is that I am constantly reading blog posts here lamenting that the people have lost faith in institutions, while at the same time getting annoyed with stories that feed the idea that said institutions are corrupt. Indeed, this is why it is so paramount to avoid the perception of corruption even when/if there is none (see Steggles posts above).
Indeed, the 8-0 Supreme Court reversal of the Bob McDonnell conviction would make the average person think that politicians are incapable of corruption in a legal sense.
In John Roberts’ immortal words, his behavior was “distasteful,” but not illegal. (I can almost see the scented handkerchief being waved.)
I am a sort of Democrat, although my association with the Democratic Party is getting more tenuous. One of the main reasons that I am a Democrat is that the Democratic Party supports and promotes public schools. It also supports public universities.
Now we find that the former president, who is also a sort of Democrat, has taken millions of dollars from a for-profit university. As part of this, his wife, while secretary of state, insisted on that corporation taking part in high-level meetings.
This is corruption. It is corruption from a corporation that Democrats should be eviscerating. Instead, purported Democrats are promoting this corporation.
I have problems with that. If others do not have problems with that, I wonder about those others. If we are standing up for for-profit universities, we have lost our education position. Obama has supported charters, which sucks. Charters are PSINO (public schools in name only), and are vampire organizations, sucking money out of public schools to pay owners vast sums.
If we don’t support public education, that’s a problem.
Squawk Squawk The market, the market…
Afraid that ship has sailed. Austerity demands that jobs with long term obligations for the middle class be disappeared. Even police, who once believed they were safe.
You’re making way more of this than is warranted by the facts.
Setting aside that the State Department Ethics shop signed off on Clinton taking the job and that the article itself acknowledges that Laureate received no special treatment from State, the thing was in informal dinner, not the Energy Task Force. What, after all, does the State Department have to do with education policy? On the domestic front, nothing whatsoever.
Moreover, for-profit universities are are a bad deal in almost every case, but that’s domestically where we have an excellent and diversified higher education system with many better public and private options, including ways to finance those educations that work better on average than the bang for the buck you typically get from a for-profit.
But Laureate is operating in a totally different set of theaters where options are of less quality and less numerous. I’m not going to shill for them, but this isn’t an assault on public education in America.
No offense taken.
I am not a Trump supporter. I agree with some of his positions, when I can figure out what those are.
I am not a Clinton supporter. I agree with some of her positions.
a dinner given by the state dept is a networking opportunity; that’s the whole issue here, networking, the intersection between Clinton Foundation and State dept, networking. and it is a benefit
I have a question I hope someone here can answer. WHO at the NYT is making the decisions about which stories to investigate and pursue? Who has decided not to highlight the Bondi quid pro quo? Surely it’s not just individual reporters making their own choices of what to write about. I want to know whom to barrage with emails complaining about the failure to investigate the Bondi bribe and whom to target for a meta-investigation of the NYT’s decisions about what not to investigate.
Better question…Where are the US AGs and FBI?
Maybe Supreme Court has basically told them not to waste their time? Cannot be convicted under today’s standards.
If Clinton was as squeaky clean and saintly as this post is pretending, she could, by week’s end, have the entire family sign legally binding agreements that they will never again hold positions in (or receive travel benefits from) the Foundation and have the name changed. (The Human Fund has a nice ring to it.) If the repressive regimes that have been funding it are truly being charitable, they can continue doing so. Or, if they feel their donations wouldn’t be as effective without that Big Dog magic, they can switch to one of the dozens of other charities doing the same work. On the other hand, if they were merely trying to purchase access to and influence in The White House, then it’s good to stop that. (Unless, like John Cole at Balloon Juice, you’re so craven a Clinton apologist that you’re prepared to endorse influence peddling for a good cause.
But you know that Clinton will never do this, unless ruthlessly forced to. And you know it is because that would defeat the true purpose of the Clinton Foundation, which is anything but squeaky clean.
Receiving “charitable funds” does by itself not constitute bribery for a public official. Judge Roberts must like the Clintons. 😉
HILLARY 2016: NOT PROSECUTABLE
…to start sounding like a bigger asshole than Trump does. Then the NYT et al could focus on that instead of her good works and why they’re compromised. At least then she’d get some press about something besides her fundraising with rich people and the emails.