Bill Clinton: Foundation has done nothing wrong
Source: AP
WASHINGTON (AP) Former President Bill Clinton defended his family's charitable foundation, saying there's nothing "sinister" about getting wealthy people to spend their money to help poor people in developing countries.
"There's been a very deliberate attempt to take the foundation down," Clinton said in an interview aired Monday on NBC's "Today" show. "And there's almost no new fact that's known now that wasn't known when she ran for president the first time."
Clinton and his daughter, Chelsea, are on a nine-day tour of Clinton Foundation projects in Africa. The global charitable effort was set up by the former president after he left office.
Critics have raised questions about possible connections between donations made by foreign governments and policies his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, pursued while serving as secretary of state. And now that Hillary Clinton is running for president, critics have questioned whether long-term political donors are trying to win favor with the politically powerful Clinton family by supporting its charitable arm.
FULL story at link.
Former President Bill Clinton, center, and daughter Chelsea Clinton, 2nd right, arrive to speak about their foundation\'s "No Ceilings" project about the participation of women and girls globally, at the Farasi Lane Primary School in Nairobi, Kenya Friday, May 1, 2015. Former President Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea Clinton are in the East African nation of Kenya as part of a wider tour of projects run by the family\'s Clinton Foundation. (AP Photo/Ben Curtis)
Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a0cff7d95c224c21a93dbadbdfe4b6e5/bill-clinton-foundation-has-done-nothing-wrong-helps-poor
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Tap the wealthy to help the poor? Of course the CGI has done nothing wrong. But that won't stop the anti-Clinton folks from spouting right wing horseshit!
CanadaexPat
(496 posts)Just pray the electorate does, also.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)truthisfreedom
(23,145 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)candelista
(1,986 posts)How many times are you going to get conned before you wake up?
Larry Engels
(387 posts)It's stronger than "appearances." Suggests veridicality. And there is plenty of evidence for that.
mopinko
(70,078 posts)dunno about some other people around here.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)of this shit, bill. Go home.
candelista
(1,986 posts)Angel Martin
(942 posts)"... and in response to the latest allegations of wrongdoing, Bill Clinton denied any impropriety."
Angel Martin
(942 posts)"... and in response to the latest allegations of impropriety, Bill Clinton denied that any laws were broken."
Scuba
(53,475 posts)The question is this: Did Hillary as SOS and leading candidate for President offer a quid pro quo for those donations?
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)But, you keep right on believing the right wing scum.
candelista
(1,986 posts)Uranium One deal is VERY suspicious. Or have you even read about it?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The guy had sold his interest in the uranium company well before his dealings with Bill. Clinton Cash did not have the facts or do he said and it did not hold up.
candelista
(1,986 posts)candelista
(1,986 posts)The Times says that the donations were not properly disclosedthe paper confirmed them by looking at Canadian tax records. Complicating matters, Uranium Ones corporate forebear had acquired the Kazakh interests after its major shareholder, Frank Giustra, travelled with Bill Clinton to Kazakhstan in 2005 and met with the countrys leader. Giustra sold his interest in the company in 2007, according to the Times, and so was not involved in the ARMZ dealings. But Giustra has put tens of millions of dollars into the foundations work; the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, which bears his name, is a formal component of the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. And Ian Telfer, the Uranium One chairman, whose family foundation donated the $2.35 million dollars, said that it had done so because he wanted to support that coöperation: Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-company
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Just as I stated Guistra had sold his interest before Hillary became SOS. In fact the remainder of the shares in Uranium One transferred to Russia during the time Hillary was SOS but her department was not the department giving the ok.
candelista
(1,986 posts)Apparently you haven't understood the article or its implications. Good luck with your delusions.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I understand what Clinton Cash tried to imply. Look at the years in your link, my goodness it was spelled out and Guistra said He had gotten rid of his interest before 2009.
Larry Engels
(387 posts)Ian Telfer, old business pal of Giustra, gave the $2.5 million. You don't think friends do business with each other? One gives to the Foundation, another reaps the benefits, then rewards the original guy. Or do you not understand how the world works?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)others guilty, just those pushing a conspiracy. You are trying to be tricky and deceptive. Don't judge others by what you would do.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Why are you regurgitating right wing talking points that have no basis in fact?
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Here are the facts:
The foundation is largely an American creation. No doubt the accumulation of vast wealth was one reason for its rise; another-at least in the days when Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others perpetuated their names through their now world famous bequests-was unquestionably a desire of wealthy and successful men to purge their consciences before God and man and to justify the acquisitive society which had enabled them to accumulate enormous riches by leaving a vast proportion of their wealth for the benefit of mankind.6 But in recent years these reasons for the earlier foundations have become less important, and the incorporated foundation or trust has become predominantly a business device, a paramount instrument in the struggle between the demands of the modern Welfare State and the wish of the individual entrepreneur to perpetuate his fortune and his name. The greatest and most influential of the foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie) are the creations of individuals or families, but the large foundations of the future will increasingly be the creations of corporations. The desires to give and to perpetuate the name of the individual or corporate donor are undoubtedly still important motivations, but the immense growth in the number and size of foundations in recent years7 suggests that business considerations play an increasing role. By either bequeathing or giving during his lifetime a proportion of his estate to a permanent institution established for officially recognized charitable purposes, the donor, usually the controller of an industrial or business empire,8 achieves a number of purposes.9 In the United States gifts to such organizations are exempt from gift taxes, and bequests to them are deductible for estate tax purposes. The organizations themselves are normally exempt from income tax, property tax, and other taxes. A charitable gift intervivos is an allowable deduction from the taxable income of the donor.10 The absence of the latter privilege in English law may be one reason why incorporated charities are not so widespread in Britain (apart, of course, from the vastly greater capital wealth of United States business). Otherwise, motivations for the establishment of charitable companies are very similar." The arithmetics of these benefits vary from year to year and are, of course, subject to legislative changes. Unless, however, there were to be a fundamental change in legislation in regard to charitable gifts,12 the advantages of transferring both capital and annual income away from the personal estate of a taxpayer in the high income brackets or away from a corporation are very considerable.13 But in the age of the managerial revolution and the Welfare State, a motive at least equal to that of providing a suitable mechanism for philanthropy and a tax free reservoir for an otherwise highly taxable income is the power which the foundation gives to the controller of a business or industry to perpetuate his control.14
Friedmann, W. G. (1957). Corporate power, government by private groups, and the law. Columbia Law Review, 57(2), 155-186.
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/main/our-work/by-initiative/clinton-foundation-in-haiti/about.html
The Clinton Foundation has been actively engaged in Haiti since 2009, focusing on economic diversification, private sector investment and job creation in order to create long-term, sustainable economic development. After the devastating earthquake in 2010, President Clinton formed the Clinton Foundation Haiti Fund and raised $16.4 million from individual donors for immediate earthquake relief efforts. Since 2010, the Clinton Foundation has raised a total of $34 million for Haiti, including relief funds as well as projects focused on restoring Haiti's communities, sustainable development, education and capacity building. In 2012, the Clinton Foundation concentrated on creating sustainable economic growth in the four priority sectors of energy, tourism, agriculture, and apparel/manufacturing, working to bring new investors, develop and support local organizations and businesses, and create access to new markets. The Clinton Foundation also continued working to support government efforts to improve Haitis business environment and supported programs in education and capacity building.
http://www.haiti-liberte.com/archives/volume4-47/Washington%20Backed%20Famous.asp
The U.S. Embassy in Haiti worked closely with factory owners contracted by Levis, Hanes, and Fruit of the Loom to aggressively block a paltry minimum wage increase for Haitian assembly zone workers, the lowest paid in the hemisphere, according to secret State Department cables.
The factory owners refused to pay 62 cents an hour, or $5 per eight-hour day, as a measure unanimously passed by the Haitian parliament in June 2009 would have mandated. Behind the scenes, the factory owners had the vigorous backing of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Embassy, show secret U.S. Embassy cables provided to Haïti Liberté by the transparency-advocacy group WikiLeaks.
The minimum daily wage had been 70 gourdes or $1.75 a day.
The factory owners told the Haitian parliament that they were willing to give workers a mere 9 cents an hour pay increase to 31 cents an hour 100 gourdes daily to make T-shirts, bras and underwear for U.S. clothing giants like Dockers and Nautica.
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/17/headlines#10179
A new report by the Worker Rights Consortium has found the majority of workers in Haitis garment industry are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally owed due to widespread wage theft. The new evidence builds on an earlier report that found every single one of Haitis export garment factories was illegally shortchanging workers. Workers in Haiti make clothes for U.S. retailers including Gap, Target, Kohls, Levis and Wal-Mart. The report highlighted abuses at the Caracol Industrial Park, a new factory complex heavily subsidized by the U.S. State Department, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Clinton Foundation and touted as a key part of Haitis post-earthquake recovery. The report found that, on average, workers at the complex are paid 34 percent less than the law requires. Haitis minimum wage for garment workers is between 60 and 90 cents an hour. More than three-quarters of workers interviewed for the report said they could not afford three meals a day.
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/16-4
Haiti's Caracol Industrial Parkthe U.S. State Department and Clinton Foundation pet project to deliver aid and reconstruction to earthquake-ravaged Haiti in the form of private investmentis systematically stealing its garment workers' wages, paying them 34 percent less than minimum wage set by federal law, a breaking report from the Worker Rights Consortium reveals.
Critics charge that poverty wages illustrate the deep flaws with corporate models of so-called aid. "The failure of the Caracol Industrial Park to comply with minimum wage laws is a stain on the U.S.'s post-earthquake investments in Haiti and calls into question the sustainability and effectiveness of relying on the garment industry to lead Haiti's reconstruction," said Jake Johnston of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in an interview with Common Dreams.
Caracol is just one of five garment factories profiled in this damning report, released publicly on Wednesday, which finds that "the majority of Haitian garment workers are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally due as a result of the factories theft of their income." This is due to systematic employer cheating on piece-work and overtime, as well as failure to pay employees for hours worked.
...
Financers included the Inter-American Development Bank, the U.S. State Department, and the Clinton Foundation, who invested a total of $224 million with promises to uphold high labor standards. Its anchor tenant is the Korean S&H Global factory, which sells garments to Walmart, Target, Kohl's, and Old Navy, according to the report.
The Clinton-Bush Fund has closed up shop in Haiti: Here are the fruits of neoliberal "charity"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415607
candelista
(1,986 posts)The foundation can serve as a mechanism for a pass through. The donor gives to the foundation, and the foundation gives to a government that buys stuff from the donors or supports them with wage ceilings, etc. A neat little scam. Actually, not so little.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)That democrats are actually accusing Clinton of illegal activities while Secretary of State....with no evidence I any way except of course the right wing talking point so.
candelista
(1,986 posts)I'm not "accusing" anyone of anything. I do think that the Clinton Foundation is very suspicious. And there are plenty of grounds for suspicion. To ignore them or mock them or jeer at the people who point them out is not to refute them. And that's what needs to be done if your candidate is to be successful.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-company
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Ahhhh.... What is the use. When did stop beating your wife?
candelista
(1,986 posts)Larry Engels
(387 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)that Chelsea Manning gave to WikiLeaks. You know, the ones she's spending 35 years in prison for releasing.
Oh, but True Believer does not want to hear that; no, these are merely right wing talking points. Lies! Lies, I tell you!
Mrs. Clinton is... an angel.
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. -PUBLIUS (James Madison), The Federalist No. 51
candelista
(1,986 posts)"No basis in fact"? What do you call this? Chopped liver?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Such as the case with the King of Morocco and his recent $1 million donation. He already spends about #3 million per year in efforts in US lobbying & PR efforts which had the effect of the US becoming a better friend than the UN. I think they clearly made it in hopes she is elected and she will remember his kind donation. I can't think of an obvious explanation and have a hard time buying into the idea it will have no effect, donations certainly help influence her policy
candelista
(1,986 posts)I am always learning some new potentially scandalous behavior on the part of the Clintons. And the Republicans have not even gotten started. Wait until the campaign.
truthisfreedom
(23,145 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)candelista
(1,986 posts)So suppression of the truth is your agenda?
cali
(114,904 posts)Both Zephyr Teachout's and Doyle McManus' recent pieces go into detail the problems the Clintons created for themselves vis a vis the foundation.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Wealthy people, sometimes through the corporations they run, enjoy access to power. Donations buy access. There is no conflict of interest, as legally defined, because the foundation is just another charitable organization. We have a rather tolerant view when it comes to conflict of interest. We allow this kind of stuff because this is the way it has always been. This is why the wife of a Supreme Court Justice can be the head of the Tea Party Express.
candelista
(1,986 posts)postulater
(5,075 posts)He was questioning the tripling (?) of Bill Clinton's speaking fees when Hillary Clinton became SOS.
I was actually listening to hear more about the Brewers manager being fired, since the sports station doubles as a right - wing talk show station.
candelista
(1,986 posts)If a right wing radio show said that the weather was terrible during Katrina would that make it untrue?
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)so therefore it must be a political slush fund.
We haven't heard a strong rebuttal before and I think they need to really define what this organization is and does.
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)about all of the good things they do. Why don't you try Google before you spew utter nonsense.
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)Lighten up!
I know better but the relentless propaganda from the right is non stop.
You expect the Fox GOP/tpers to do research?
Amishman
(5,555 posts)Huge donations from unusual sources to a charity whose structure and operating model is so unorthodox that the leading charity review (Charity Navigator) can't rate it.
Just saying that they did nothing wrong won't cut it given the circumstances. Bringing in an independent reviewer to clear their name would be best.
candelista
(1,986 posts)People have to be hypnotized not to notice it. There are so many examples. My "favorite" is Uranium One.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
Gman
(24,780 posts)That people who have nothing want of everyone else. They need to get a life and develop their own issues.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)or Qatar, Kuwait, & the King of Morocco. I can't pretend there aren't ethical concerns here, pretty much have the worst labor rights in the world.
TekGryphon
(430 posts)Take it from someone who raises funds for an endowment scholarship for under-privileged kids - you don't screen people who give you money.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)Their economy much like Qatar's & Kuwait's is built off the backs of imported poor from Asia & Africa. They abuse the workers, often taking of passports is a common thing when they arrive, Saudi Arabia beheads Sri Linka maids on a weekly basis often for witchcraft in religious courts that are conducted entirely in Arabic with no translators provided nor do they have the political muscle to gain adequate representation. Often the workers pay fees to bait & switch recruiters. That's about as under-privileged as it gets. I don't know if that what is the money being used for to give scholarships & can't see they would give money on the expectation it will be used for scholarships when they have replaced real education with their brand of faith religious universities. I think it is reasonable to wonder about ethical concerns but for me personal it starts with giving them back their money but they rather adopt their labor practices which is what Halliburton & KBR used to do most of the work in Iraq & Kuwait. Quite possibly Afghanistan but I'm not too familiar the labor pool used over their.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)One notable omission from his statement is that Hillary Clinton pledged absolute transparency to the Obama administration when she was appointed Sec of State in 2009. She agreed to divulge the names of major contributors to the foundation but she never did.
The failure to divulge is a large part of why questions are being raised at this point. Sloppy bookkeeping, unseemly secrecy, defensive reaction to questions, it's Clinton scandal #47.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)It only becomes a problem aside from the already ethical issues at play is if Hillary Clinton is elected and obvious or like the case with the King of Morocco is hopeful his $1 million donation will buy influence, he already spends 3x more than that in lobbying but it isn't like he's in it for world peace & he dominates the phosphate trade himself, he alone can affect the price by controlling supply.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)first, before charging $300,000 an hour to tell Africa how to fix theirs.
As it is, Bill and Hillary, your economic policy of Wall Street first, millions of jobs to low wage, unregulated countries, and reckless welfare reform has made things much worse in the USA.
Other countries would be wise to beware these corporate fronts.
Bill and/or Hillary charge $300,000+ per speech in foreign country.
The country knows this will buy some influence.
The money raised, goes to help Hillary advance policies like TPP that actually lead to massive job losses and more poverty and despair in USA. How much our job losses help Africa and Asia can be debated. But do we care?
Hipster Hillary centrists and moderates are bored with the US.
Ironically, the US is looking more more and more like a corrupt Asian Government.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Too much nonsense in the morning to sift through. I need more coffee.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)It is common for politicians, ex presidents, ex governors, ex sos... To get paid for speeches. I do not understand why this is a big deal. Before you judge her you may want to do your homework. The fact that she is more in demand and therefore makes more should not be a negative.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)I know what's hurting the middle class:
Wall Street plutocrats and multinational corporations buying influence at $300,000+ a speech is what is killing the middle class.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)$300,000 per is only if you qualify for academic discount.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)the world and enriching their fortunes one US job at a time.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)accept donations from anyone in the international community that wants to help the situation in the world.
Having said that it is the Rs that have to be convinced because not matter what any of us say they are going to use it as an issue.
merrily
(45,251 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)malthaussen
(17,187 posts)Certainly nothing against the law. There would be no point.
-- Mal
closeupready
(29,503 posts)The appearance of impropriety is a phrase referring to a situation which to a layperson without knowledge of the specific circumstances might seem to raise ethics questions. For instance, although a person might regularly and reliably collect money for her employer in her personal wallet and later give it to her employer, her putting it in her personal wallet may appear improper and give rise to suspicion, etc. It is common business practice to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
According to some translations, the bible in I Thessalonians 5:22 warns: Abstain from all appearance of evil.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appearance_of_impropriety
merrily
(45,251 posts)proving wrongdoing is not always possible. Can you prove that Clarence Thomas rules a certain way because of his wife's activities? No. Can you prove his decisions are not influenced by his wife's activities? Also no. So, it is said that judges should avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)the mere appearance of same was scandalous in and of itself.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I am saying I cannot remember the time Bubba took responsibility for anything, including sending DADT to Congress for passage. So, I cannot give this statement much weight.
Also, his saying nothing changed since Hillary ran in 2008 is too slick by half. At least one thing at issue now is failure to report tens of millions of dollars of donations from foreign nations, some of which received awards from the Department of State while Hillary was Secretary of State. That had no counterpart in 2008. And, even if something were missed in 2008, so what? Does that mean it can't be looked at now?
Again, I am not saying anything wrong happened. I am saying his reference to 2008 is too slick by half.
As far as where the donations go and in what percentages, that is another issue.
Laser102
(816 posts)How dare he try to help people around the world. He should know how people talk. How this reflects badly on his wife. How this gives the republicans and some on DU fodder for all the bullcrap and innuendo they can spew. How small minded and petty people can be. Of course all the people he and his foundation have helped may not agree, but at least his critics will shut up. NOT!!!
candelista
(1,986 posts)I'm so relieved that a reliable witness has come forth to verify and validate the honesty and pureness of the Clinton Foundation. 'Cause ol' Bill wouldn't lie about anything, now would he?
Laser102
(816 posts)I'll take your sarcasm and point you to the people that have been helped. Clinton can lie about his personal life, but the good he does for millions is nothing to mock. Remember that!!!!
candelista
(1,986 posts)Does that make him a good guy?
Your knee-jerk support of Bill Clinton is touching, but not in any place I care to describe.
Kingofalldems
(38,451 posts)smear machine.
candelista
(1,986 posts)Well, that makes it all go away, doesn't it? Try saying that to an independent voter and see how it works.
Kingofalldems
(38,451 posts)Larry Engels
(387 posts)Unless you delete your earlier post. How is "hitch your wagon to the right" different from being right wing? Your post splits hairs to conceal the truth, just like your candidate.
Kingofalldems
(38,451 posts)who I was responding to. I stand by that post and will not delete it. Your post splits hairs to call me a liar. Talk about disingenuous.
Sgt Preston
(133 posts)Your post was tantamount to accusing the post of being right wing. But then, with all due respect, I feel that your candidate does the same thing.
Kingofalldems
(38,451 posts)I picked the Hillary avatar as a protest to the right wing attack sites, such as that lame book, being used against a Democrat. Got a problem with that? Too freaking bad.
And by the way, my original post was directed at Omaha Steve who is a great Democrat. So you just made up that accusation.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)It is an international foundation that receives money from large donors. How else would it be financed?
Bill Clinton would have still made millions of dollars through speeches and his books. He is one of the most famous and popular politicians alive today. He didn't need a foundation to make money. He did it because that's what both Clintons are about: they serve. Have they made money after leaving the WH? Heck, yes. So what? The Clintons didn't even own a house until 2000. They were the poorest couple in the WH in decades. Even the Obamas were worth a few million dollars by the time he took office.
Do some research. There are thousands of people who wouldn't be alive today if not for the Clinton Foundation. It's a discredit to us all to try to bring it down to satisfy some partisan political need.
Frankly, I don't give a crap who donates to the foundation as long as the funds are being used to help people.
Laser102
(816 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)I am disappointed daily over MSM's continuing failures to cover the News.
The Clinton Foundation is Not an issue, imo. They have accomplished great things and helped a Lot of people. But that is ignored. Bill And Hillary Both have a damned right to earn a living and for all this nonsense over the fees they're paid to speak? Hey, apparently those who paid the fees thought it was worth it. So what is the problem aside from trying to paint them, as always in the most negative light over petty crap instead of digging in to HRC's positions and vet her history like Adults.
We're in for a long and basically "dumb and gossipy" sorta campaign cycle...thanks but no thanks, media
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
candelista
(1,986 posts)Ah hope y'all vote for Hillary. Two for the prahce of one!
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)quadrature
(2,049 posts)(sarcasm)