Bill Clinton defends foreign donations to foundation

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By KEN THOMAS and KELLI KENNEDY

CORAL GABLES, Fla. (AP) — Former President Bill Clinton defended his foundation's acceptance of donations from foreign governments on Saturday, pointing to the track record of his global philanthropy as Hillary Rodham Clinton nears an announcement on a 2016 presidential campaign.

In an interview at the Clinton Global Initiative University, the ex-president sought to address critics who have questioned the receipt of donations from foreign governments while the former first lady served in the State Department and after she departed in early 2013.

"My theory about all of this is disclose everything and then let people make their judgments," Clinton told moderator Larry Wilmore of the cable channel Comedy Central. "I believe we have done a lot more good than harm and I believe this is a good thing."

He spoke shortly after Hillary Clinton appeared on stage along with the couple's daughter, Chelsea Clinton, but steered clear of addressing criticism involving her use of a private email account while she served as secretary of state under President Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton also did not talk about the recent scrutiny of the foundation's fundraising practices, instead giving college students a preview of an upcoming report on the progress of women and girls by her foundation's "No Ceilings" project.

FULL story at link.



Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, left, and Chelsea Clinton speak at a university conference sponsored by their Clinton Global Initiative at the University of Miami, Saturday, March 7, 2015, in Coral Gables, Fla. (AP Photo/Gaston De Cardenas)

Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20150308/us--dem_2016-clinton-18912f57b4.html

[JDPriestly]

1. The donations would be fine if Hillary weren't running for the presidency.

But at it is, the donations encourage a perception of corruption.

People give things to their friends and family or to people they want to have as friends or family.

The work of the foundation is no doubt wonderful, but the gifts raise questions about the potential buying of influence or the potential belief in the buying of influence. Sometimes the possibility of corruption is just as damaging and as dirty as the actual corruption. And most of the time we can't tell the difference.

This is asking for trouble.

[tularetom]

8. Clinton ought to know better

In the era of 24 hour news cycles and propaganda posing as information, it doesn't matter whether the buying of influence is real or imagined. Once the story is out there, perception becomes reality.

I'm not a fan of Ms Clinton, but this kind of help she doesn't need.

[JDPriestly]

9. "Politically inept" are the words we are looking for.

These scandals and pseudo-scandals are no accident.

The Republicans are even more "ready for Hillary" than the Hillary fans.

We can expect one long drum roll of scandals and unscandals. People are going to be deaf to anything positive about Hillary by the time the Republican machine has finished with her.

We need a different candidate if for no other reason.

It's like setting things up for a Democratic fail -- picking a candidate too far in advance, holding no primary to put her up to scrutiny and give everybody a chance to see who she really is and then nominating the wife of a former president. Not a good choice at all. Hillary's message, assuming she has one that will interest anyone, is not going to be heard above the cacophony of Republican propaganda.

I don't think Hillary should be the Democratic candidate. She did not run well in 2008, and she is not getting off to a good start now.

All this bad news is going to drown out or delay the announcement of her candidacy. She is politically inept and all this Republican phony scandal news makes her look even more so.

[wordpix]

12. except for the politically inept part, I agree and I'm Ready for Warren!

[JDPriestly]

14. I'm also Ready for Warren.

[RBInMaine]

44. Then you are going to wait a LONG TIME because she IS NOT RUNNING. Please, enough nonsense.

[JDPriestly]

67. Have you read her book? I think she can be persuaded to run.

We need, for once, a candidate who is not overly ambitious about being president, but who will serve well if elected. That's Elizabeth Warren.

Elizabeth Warren needs to be drafted.

[RBInMaine]

45. So the Warren fantasy car still trudges along. She WILL NOT BE A CANDIDATE. Enough already.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. The base still HATES the Clintons.....

....uh,....except for the part about the good economy.

[MyNameGoesHere]

46. The Republicans are even more "ready for Hillary" than the Hillary fans.

What down is it? 3rd and 10? 4th quarter? Are the fans cheering like crazy? I bet they are wearing cheese hats.

[7962]

47. I've said many times here; SHE is her worst opponent.

But she still beats all GOP opponents wherever you look

[wordpix]

11. I'm with you, JD, this will be huge if she's the nominee and then

The election will be about her donors vs. Jeb's "give me a million at a time" donors, instead of about jobs, the environment, improving the ACA/health care/costs thereof, education, etc. Yes, the election should also be about campaign finance and associated legalized bribery but people will be stuck on how many millions the Saudis gave the CF, etc.

Bring on Eliz. Warren!

[RufusTFirefly]

2. The hits just keep on coming

[DeSwiss]

5. ....

[Spitfire of ATJ]

18. If you like oldies.

[Thinkingabout]

3. Well, for those who has a problem with the CGI from foreign countries should step up to the

Plate with replacement funds. I did not see a lot of crap coming when the Bush family was being funded by the bin Laden family. Yes I know, now she is Probably going to be running on a DNC ticket.
For those without a valid candidate with a good record the idea is to attempt to discredit a front runner but never provide good winnable points with their candidates.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. Really? Cause I saw people all the time bitching about the Bushes and their cushy little

love affair with the Saudis, and the bin Ladens specifically.

Now admittedly, I was on Daily Kos most often back then, and not DU, but still a lot of folks on the left were NOT happy about the Bush family's Saudi connections.

[blm]

58. PLUS: Bushes' BILLIONS in money, ink, airtime via Rev Moon and Rupert Murdoch...

a Korean cult leader and an Australian extortionist.

Funny how you always manage to pop in to reply to references to Bush and defend Bushes by pretending that Democrats are no different….when anyone with any working memory braincells KNOWS differently.

I am NOT a coincidence theorist, so playing the 'just a coincidence' card would be a waste of time.

[cheapdate]

4. Sure, the Clinton's Global Initiative "raises questions"

about "corruption" and "buying influence", but Mitt Romney's business dealings with foreign business and multinational corporations is hunky dory.

[tularetom]

7. "Hillary in 2016 - She's Just Like Romney"

Does that sound like a good campaign slogan to you?

[cheapdate]

20. I suppose if I was unable to make distinctions, it might.

[JDPriestly]

15. Romney's anti-American labor business deals were a big factor in his loss in 2012.

His business dealings with foreign business and multinational corporations was/is not at all hunky dory.

We need a clean candidate.

Hillary does not fit the bill even if the donations were free of strings or corruption. They still have the appearance of corruption or potential corruption.

Democrats think differently about these things than Romney's Republican Party did. That's what makes us Democrats. When at all possible we want sterling, ethical, morally upright candidates. Hillary my be all those good things, but the Republicans have been working for years to find ways to make her look like she is none of those things. And they are really good at negative campaigning.

We need a candidate that the Republicans are not so well prepared for. They have had eight years to get ready for Hillary and all the money in the world to spend on their preparations.

[cheapdate]

21. Donations to a global charity shouldn't have any appearance of corruption,

at least not to a reasonable person. I understand this is the real world, where JFK's Catholicism "raised questions" about Vatican control. But holy crap, it's a global charity and it gets donations from around the world. In a sane and morally grounded world, it should be a f%$king plus.

[JDPriestly]

26. True. But this is the real world. Don Siegelman is in jail for something even less

substantial. It's unfortunate but this is how the Republicans work. It's nice to say you don't care about Republicans, but they are going to pile stuff on. And people will begin to think where there is smoke there is fire.

Even if you are a Hillary fan, you should understand that we need strong back-up candidates at the very least.

I am not a Hillary fan. But even if I were, I would not put all my eggs in one basket. And that is what the Democratic Party is doing. Very unwise. It makes it easy for Republicans to concentrate all their venom on her.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Don Siegelman is in prison for running a global charity?

I better warn the Red Cross.

[JDPriestly]

31. Running a global charity is not the perceived or suspected problem.

It is doing favors in exchange for donations to a favorite cause or charity.

The facts are somewhat difference. The point is that when a candidate accepts donations for a favorite cause or gifts, there can be a suspicion of corruption. And that may be very unfair, but it is nevertheless a problem.

We should not put all our eggs in one basket at such an early date.

Hillary Clinton could be vulnerable in many ways. We need a primary with solid contenders campaigning to be our candidate. I would like Elizabeth Warren and/or Bernie Sanders to run against Hillary. I think some other, more conservative candidates might run also. But I am from California, and the more progressive the better.

Corruption is the order of the day in our government. It is often called "privatization." At the beginning of the 20th century, Roosevelt among others, worked hard to try to reform our government to get rid of the terrible corruption of the Gilded Age. We need a Democrat who is strongly committed to fighting corruption. I don't think that Hillary is believable as a candidate fighting corruption.

Hillary is strong on issues regarding women and children. But I see my children trying to raise their children with two parents working, and I think how impossible it must be for parents in very poor families, minimum-wage earning families, to raise their pre-school babies and children while they work. Bill Clinton signed the welfare "reform" bill. I would like to have a review of the effect that bill has had on poor families, especially poor children. It is only one of a number of bills that Bill Clinton signed that have placed onerous burdens on ordinary and poor Americans. NAFTA, the Telecommunications Bill, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, etc. I just don't see Hillary as a credible candidate. The problems with the Foundationn and whether the donations to it give rise to a perception of corruption is just one of her problems.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. Nobody is preventing Senators Warren Or Sanders from running./NT

[CanadaexPat]

54. The Clinton's and their coterie benefit from the donations.

They get salaries, expenses, glory, all as part of a foundation named after them. The Clinton's could encourage donors to donate to other reputable orgs - indeed, a lot of their work appears to be joint efforts with other orgs.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Last I checked the Clintons are 8-2 in their battles with the Republicans ...

Last I checked the Clintons are 8-2 in their battles with the Republicans and two of those losses were when The Big Dog was a "freshman" and "junior" politician.


Every night before DemocratSinceBirtrh goes to bed he thanks his maker he doesn't cower in the face of the Republicans.

[JDPriestly]

33. Hillary twice won a seat in the Senate.

Hillary lost the primary in 2008. And that was within the Democratic Party. If she were a strong candidate, she would have won against Obama.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. "Hillary twice won a seat in the Senate."

So she's undefeated in general elections?

Here record is even better than Bill who was 6-2.

You can call the Clintons the Republicutioners.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

17. ANYTHING about the Clintons "raises questions"....

Bill Clinton mocked that at a White House Correspondence Dinner.

"So many unanswered questions. For instance, I recently lost 15 pounds. (ominously) Were did they go? Why did I not declare them to the special prosecutor?"

[DeSwiss]

6. How else are they supposed to buy influence.....

...without breaking the law? Seesh! These do-gooders want all the loopholes closed.

- Soon you won't be able to make a ''honest buck'' at this game......

[George II]

10. The donations were to a PRIVATE charitable foundation, NOT a campaign committee!!!!!!

[wordpix]

13. We know that; however, those giving large sums to CGI will have influence

or will appear to have it and those people include some in foreign governments. Read the posts to get a gist of the problems for the HRC campaign.

[cheapdate]

22. JFK's Catholicism "raised legitmate questions" about Vatican control, too.

[JDPriestly]

34. Yes. It did. I was alive at that time.

Kennedy made his stance on the issue very clear. A lot of people did not believe him.

[George II]

53. If people (republicans mostly) want to find an appearance of influence, they'll find it....

...but that doesn't make it true. If not that, they'll find something else. We're 18 months away from the election, no doubt they'll start harping on other things about her - Whitewater, Vince Foster, pants suits, etc.

On the other hand, even though she speaks for it, it's not even Hillary's foundation, it's Bill's!

Show me one charitable foundation that doesn't have the dreaded "foreign investments".

[Spitfire of ATJ]

16. Bush gets Saudi money = Republican Outrage Meter reads zero.

[JDPriestly]

35. It isn't fair, but it is reality.

The Republicans make almost nothing about corruption. Elect a Republican and you know what you are getting: corruption.

Republicans think corruption is something to be proud of.

Think of Cheney and Halliburton. Just on of many examples.

[adieu]

24. It's the Clinton Global Initiative

fer gawdsakes.

As long as the funds are being used in a transparently shown way, who cares where the money came from?

[JDPriestly]

36. The question is not about where the money goes. It's about whether any favors are exchanged

directly or indirectly for the money and whether the Clintons might be influenced to think more positively or act more positively or even just recognize those countries or individuals or companies that donate to the charity.

The question is not about misuse of the donations but about whether the donations buy friendship or encourage some sense of indebtedness or even gratitude on the part of the Clintons that could result in more favorable treatment for the donors.

[DeSwiss]

39. !

As long as. Geeze......

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. I want them to stay.

I still have 995 words to go.

[MADem]

28. Good grief, the BUSH FOUNDATION takes foreign donations! And keeps them ANONYMOUS!!!!

What a load of CRAP--how many more non-stories about activity that is not illegal are we going to be subjected to, I wonder?

http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2009/01/bush-library-donors-can-remain-anonymous-but-click-here-for-foundations-990s/

The Dallas Morning News has the news of the library's plans not to make public its donors:

The nonprofit foundation that aims to raise $300 million for President George W. Bush's library in Dallas won't disclose the names of past or future donors, organizers say.

The George W. Bush Presidential Library Foundation, which will oversee construction of the facility at Southern Methodist University, had raised less than $3 million when the latest tax reports were filed in August.

The story goes on to point out that the foundation will not take foreign donations until after Bush leaves office, then offers this peek at the library foundation's finances.

So far, the Bush foundation has spent money primarily on consultants, the tax documents show. It paid $294,382 to a Houston firm for project management services, $237,202 to a Virginia firm for planning, and $132,972 to Robert A.M. Stern Architects, which was previously selected to design the library complex. Stern is dean of the Yale School of Architecture.

These headlines using scare words like "defends"--as if he has anything to "defend" are just nonsense. The Clinton Foundation operates around the WORLD--it's no surprise that people from around the WORLD would donate to it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Good research./NT

[JDPriestly]

37. And that is ootential corruption. No more Bushes in the White House.

It's OK to take the donations for your charity. But don't take donations from foreign countries or large donations and then run for office.

[MADem]

63. So long as it's LEGAL, it is folly to demand that one team do it and not the other.

Personally, I'd love public financing of elections.

However, my wishes and desires do not hold sway.

Absent my stomping my foot and demanding, successfully, that things change (like that would happen), I want MY TEAM--the team that cares about choice, health care, social programs, seniors, kids, education, SCIENCE, etc.--to stay in the White House and regain control of Congress. If they've got to do it by using the same fundraising tactics as the other side, LET THEM.


I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Besides, anyone who confuses The Clinton Foundation, a charitable institution that does shit like bring safe, clean drinking water to disease-infested and drought stricken areas and give micro-loans to women in desperate economies, with a political PAC is a moron, and if they think they can buy access by donating to a charity, let them think it. They're STUPID, and their dumbass money will be put to good use.

You think that the Clintons, the most investigated, bullied, brutalized and accused couple in in the history modern-day politics, don't know where that bright line is, and how to walk it? I mean, please.

[JDPriestly]

65. I'm not throwing out the baby with the bathtub.

We have Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders -- two potential candidates who think independently and critically.

Judge people by the results of their work.

Hillary vote for the Iraq War Resolution. She did not carefully review the evidence that supported the grounds for invading Iraq. If she had, she, who after so many years in the White House should have known how to judge the evidence for and against that war, would have voted against it. Bad judgment. I don't want that kind of carelessness in the White House. I want a president who can think very critically about complex issues and explain her thoughts and reasoning to the public so that the vast majority of us can understand her. That's Elizabeth Warren. Whether she wants to run or not, she is the one we need.

Further, Bill Clinton re-appointed Greenspan to the Fed Chair. Greenspan, one of the pals of Ayn Rand, a free market advocate, author of crazy economic policies. And that appointment was made at a time when, more and more, wars are fought not on the traditional battlegrounds and not with traditional weapons but with financial weapons. I want a president who understands financial transactions, banking, who can recognize fraud when she sees it and who can discuss economics with the experts. I want a president who will appoint truly capable minds to the cabinet and regulatory agency posts that will guide our economy through the tough times ahead. That's why I want Elizabeth Warren.

Hillary won't do. I know that the Democratic Party has invested huge sums of credibility and material where-with-all in getting ready for Hillary. But unfortunately, so have the Republicans. Her candidacy has not even begun and look at the bogus scandals the Republicans are filling the news with. Next thing you know it will be her wave or her grin, and it isn't going to stop.

Any Democrat with both a Republican friend or relative and an e-mail account knows that the Republicans have been ready for Hillary for many years. I think we need to consider very carefully what she and we are in for if we limit the candidates we consider to Hillary.

We are going in the wrong direction.

[MADem]

66. You keep confusing "Bill Clinton" with "Hillary Clinton."

Everyone knows she's the more liberal of the two, and she regrets that vote and has SAID so (don't you think Warren "regrets" being a member of the social-programs-hating, drown-the-government-in-the bathtub Republican Party all those years? Until 1996??? You don't hold HER feet to the fire over supporting the racist and homophobic Saint Ronnie, I notice) and they aren't interchangeable. That you have to say "But her husband did X" is lame as hell. She's had more time in federal service than her husband, and she's served in more branches of the federal government than he has--but hey, whatever.

And if Hillary is the nominee, she will "have" Elizabeth Warren (and I forgive EW for her horrible support of the racist/sexist GOP, FWIW--I believe that people can and do evolve) and Bernie Sanders (who was happy to be supported by Clinton in his Senate run). They will campaign for her, they'll fundraise for her, and they'll do it gladly. Warren signed the Run-Hill-Run letter, and Bernie accepted campaign donations for his Senate run from HILLPAC. They don't "hate" her, even though that's the cartoonish vibe that people who stir shit for no reason try to put forward.

Ask yourself the question, cui bono? Who benefits from division and strife amongst Democrats? The answer is "Not Democrats." You need more than a grain, more like a shaker of salt to buy some of the bullshit those people are shopping.

Hillary will "do" just fine AFAIC. I think she will take us in a direction that improves and uplifts this nation and her people. YMMV, and that's fine. Let the games begin. If she runs, and is nominated, she's my candidate. If she says "Fuck it, and fuck y'all, too" well, I'll go with whoever wins the nomination. Why? Because the worst Democrat is ALWAYS BETTER than the best Republican.

[JDPriestly]

68. Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton.

They are two branches from the same tree.

Hillary has the same friends Bill has. She will defend his legacy.

We don't get to do 2016 twice. We need a candidate who will carry the party to majority status in both houses of Congress as well as win the White House. There is no way Hillary can come close to that. The anger against her among Republicans and thus among wavering Republicans is too great. Elizabeth Warren will appeal to a broader spectrum of voters. Her message is clear, easily understood and she delivers it well. Plus, her message conveys in tone and content the message America needs to hear.

Is anyone posting Hillary's speeches on DU? I don't seem to have seen any here much.

But I have seen Elizabeth Warren's speeches. They are stirring, clear and very appealing. I think Elizabeth Warren will be a stronger candidate.

I could change my mind, but this is where I stand now, and I don't expect to change my mind.

[MADem]

69. No, they aren't. But it's telling that you think so. It's indicative of your knowledge base

regarding the two individuals and their attitudes and philosophies.

Go on and support your candidate--absolutely NO ONE is stopping you, so playing the victim and pretending that you're being thwarted is unseemly-- that straw man doesn't fly.

I'm voting for the Democratic nominee, no matter who he or she is. There are a lot of people who pretend to be Democrats who can't say the same.

[Geronimoe]

32. Disclose everything?

Sure thing Slick. Which will likely depend on what is, is.

Does anyone need to connect the dots? Mr WTO, that shafta American workers with NAFTA and gave China most favorable trade status. Then he has the Sec of State's email server in his home, and foreign governments donating to his foundation. A foundation that can keep 95 cents out of every dollar and keep its non-profit status.

Many here are claiming the economy was great under Clinton. First off, OPEC fell apart and oil was selling for an average of $10 a barrel. Secondly the irrational exuberance blew up with the dot.com bomb. At the end of his two terms, all market indexes fell below what they were before he assumed office. Thirdly he ended Glass-Steagall giving us the World economic collapse of 2008.

The Clintons can not energize the Democratic base and this could allow Walker to win. Amazing as this seems, Bush who had spent his first 40 years on coke and booze beat Gore. Well it was close enough to steal the election. This is all the GOP needs, to just get it close enough.

[DeSwiss]

40. The 'ol Boogeyman approach is a tried and true method of using FEAR in politics.

- But it gets old after the first couple of centuries.......

[Sienna86]

38. NYT article that speaks to possible conflicts of interest

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/us/politics/unease-at-clinton-foundation-over-finances-and-ambitions.html?hp&_r=1&&pagewanted=all

[DeSwiss]

41. Only ''possible?''

- Didn't someone once say that it's not illegal if the President does it? I think this is what they were speaking of.

For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

And concern was rising inside and outside the organization about Douglas J. Band, a onetime personal assistant to Mr. Clinton who had started a lucrative corporate consulting firm — which Mr. Clinton joined as a paid adviser — while overseeing the Clinton Global Initiative, the foundation’s glitzy annual gathering of chief executives, heads of state, and celebrities.

[Sienna86]

42. Leaving it up to personal interpretation.

In my opinion, it doesn't look good for HRC, as part of the Foundation, to see large donations from the likes of Blackwater and Dow Chemical, along with certain foreign donations.

One question: Do any of the Clintons receive a salary or morey from the Foundation? I imagine certain business/foundation expenses such as travel and lodging are reimbursed.

[DeSwiss]

71. Expenses related to the foundation's work.....

...would be a likely source of foundation funds used to reimburse them, but this is nominal (in most cases). On the other hand though, if you or I were working for the foundation we would no doubt be forced to stay at a Holiday Inn or maybe a Motel 6 and have to order-in pizza. They'd stay at the Waldorf and eat chocolate-covered truffles.

What the NYT article raises as a legit question however, is whether Bill used his influence to hire someone to run the place (Douglas J. Band) and then later after they leave to setup their own business, they hire the old boss as a ''paid-advisor.''

This is how the government works now. You can now find countless corporate Boards of Directors slots filled, and similar paid-advisor gigs abounding among many of former elected and appointed higher-ups in government. They do the corporation's bidding while in office and get paid for their service later.

Quid pro quo.

- I'm sure we'll see it again......



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor

[quadrature]

43. does the BHC.Clinton.Foundation have a building? if so ...

what is in the Algeria Wing?
the Kingdom of Saudi.Arabia. Wing?

[7962]

48. To me, the email issue is a LOT worse than this.

There's only ONE reason to never use a govt email address and have your own private server in your home to handle your email.

[still_one]

52. So let me understand this, a few of the posts on this thread are pretty much implying that the funds

the Clinton Foundation receives are going for their own personal use.

No, they are not saying that outright, but they are sure inferring that because this charity has the name Clinton associated with it, it must not be good.

As far as I am concerned, unless there was some actual evidence, hating the Clintons does not count as evidence, then this is just another example of some on DU jumping the shark so they can have an excuse to lash out at Hillary.

[blm]

59. and SOME here at DU pushing the 'no difference' meme to defend Bushes

Like DU is supposed to have forgotten, by now, who appoints the Supreme Court.

[still_one]

60. It is amazing

[jwirr]

55. This is an issue that I do not understand at all. To me it is a non-issue. This is an international

foundation addressing problems in many foreign countries. Problems of the poor for the most part. A lot like Habitat does with housing issues around the world.

I don't know about the rest of you but my family donate to several organizations like this. For one we support several children through Compassion. If I would have thought about it we would have supported Save the Children. Another organization I have donated to is Doctors Without Borders.

I suspect that foreign governments and rich foreigners may also want to donate to these organizations.

But we want all the money for the Clinton Foundation to come just from America?

What needs to happen in this case is the same thing that used to happen to the Presidents wealth when and if they were elected - a blind trust. She needs to step down off the board and let Bill and Chelsea run the Foundation if and when she is elected.

There is no other way to handle this without destroying this Foundation and I would guess that is what the Rs want.

BTW I am a Bernie supporter but I still think this issue is way out of bounds.

[DeSwiss]

70. Didn't read it did you?

So you're saying foreign governments and the mega-rich ''donating'' millions to Hills' & Bills' foundation is no problem for you?

Right.

- And people wonder how everything in this country got so fucked up........

[Sunlei]

56. Love the Clinton Foundation they help thousands-millions around the world

Contrast the Clinton Families global philanthropy with Republican 'non-profits' .

The republican 'family values' non-profits spend millions to send 50 or 60-RW congress members to Israel to push for war$$$$. No global philanthropy, no social good ever comes from ANY of the thousands of RW 'charities'. republicans created a bunch of scam charities.

[blm]

57. Only Reagans, Bakers, Kissingers, and Bushes are allowed foreign donations

to their various foundations.

Has anyone received MORE donation dollars, press ink, and broadcast air time than the Bushes from Rev Moon, the Korean cult leader, and Rupert Murdoch, the Australian extortionist?

[DeSwiss]

72. THEY DID IT TOO!!!

- Will we ever leave the playground?

[blm]

74. They have been doing it for decades. Why go along with the RW spin

being used?

Why resent any post pointing out the hypocrisy of the RW complaints on these donations to CGI?

[uwep]

61. Disgusting comments

I have been around since Truman, and I have never seen as many derogating comments. Nixon, Ford, Regan, Bushes all had the support of their party. I never hard such ugly and degrading comments form the majority of posters as I have here. Either we are allowing repubs to comment or the Democrats are continuing to devolve. Yes, lets give the presidency to the repubs also, then we can see them have their way on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, minimum wage, unions. As Democrats, are we so stupid to allow one party to rule this country. Our problem is we destroy ourselves. There are so many one issue Democrats, that we will vote against a candidate because he/she did not fully support, Blacks, Latinos, Gays, Unions, etc. Well, as far as I am concerned, go for it. I never realized there were so many incredibly brain dead insensitive people in this party.

[candelista]

62. "There are so many one issue Democrats...." - Good point.

The Party has become a front for identity politics.

[MADem]

64. Righteous rant, that! +1,000! nt

[DeSwiss]

73. Shocked are ya?

- Prefer the status quo attitude of party servitude -- no matter what the hell they do and stupid shit they pull -- that got us here in this shit hole instead, eh?

Well I'm sure it'll all work out in the wash. Here, this video is just the thing you need.....

Take the red pill.........