Now that Hillary is the presumptive nominee, it's time

[cali]

for Bill and Chelsea to step away from the Clinton Foundation. Now look, maybe those of you who see both Hillary and Bill as paragons of virtue who could never be corrupted, are right. That is irrelevant. The appearance of conflicts of interest are serious, and they have, sometimes with good reason, dinged the both of them. Anyone remember Marc Rich?

We don't need to be put in the position of defending Hillary and Bill because he insists on remaining involved in the Foundation business.

And it goes without saying that Bill should make no more paid speeches. I think it's been some months since he has made a speech for personal profit. But he did make several after she announced she was running. That cannot be repeated.

Again, they may be the purer than the driven snow, but the broad perception of the voting public holds a different view. They can't afford to feed that perception.

[SwampG8r]

1. I have no intention of

Defending any clinton or any associate of the clintons
Been there done that and history shows i was a.fool to.do.so.as everything i defended against turned out to be true.
Im not wasting that time again they deserve no benefit of any doubt.

[Tarc]

2. Well, we'll miss you.

[boston bean]

3. They will do what they feel is best.

[cali]

4. jaysus. that comment really reveals your blind support

that is a dangerous and less than intelligent position. people like you, whatever their political persuasions, people who simply bestow complete unthinking support on a politician, are frightening. And it is impossible to hold a reasonable discussion with such people.

[boston bean]

7. Yes, I am a blind supporter without any brain. LOL

[cali]

9. You said it.

[boston bean]

18. You are so kind. nt

[Florencenj2point0]

5. maybe but since they take no salary and never have and since it is non-profit

I see no reason why they should stop their charitable work.

[cali]

10. it is a conflict of interest. Period.

they need that like a hole in the head.

[Scuba]

11. Wake up and smell the reality ...

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/clintons-659698-foundation-clinton.html

Biggest beneficiaries of Clinton Foundation are the Clintons

However, in a rare feat of balanced journalism, the New York Times did ask some questions. The paper looked into the nefarious activities of the Clinton Foundation and came up with instances of influence peddling on a grand scale. The Times used the upcoming book “Clinton Cash,” by Peter Schweizer as a road map to determine that, while Hillary was secretary of state, the Clintons got money when she approved the sale of important U.S. uranium reserves to seedy foreigners, including Russia (read Vladimir Putin). Largely unaccounted for, the money flowed to the Clinton Foundation, with $500,000 going to Bill Clinton for a one-hour speech.

...

According to The Federalist, which reviewed Clinton Foundation tax documents covering 2008-12, only 15 percent of the take was donated to pragmatic programs. $25 million went to fund travel and $110 million to salaries. An astounding $290 million, 60 percent of all money raised, was classified as “other expenses."

[randome]

14. This bullshit again from Peter Schweizer and Alex Jones!

No matter how much money Clinton asks to be donated to it, it is the CF Board that decides how to disburse it. And the 'only 15 percent' figure is disingenuous, to say the least.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina says that “so little” of the charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation “actually go to charitable works” — a figure CARLY for America later put at about 6 percent of its annual revenues — but Fiorina is simply wrong.
Fiorina and others are referring only to the amount donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work is performed in-house. One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity.
Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation — which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly.

So you and Crazy Frank and Carly Fiorina are all wrong. Because you don't care about anything but trashing a Democrat.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Scuba]

17. Your reply does nothing to counter the claims in the New York Times ...

Did or did not Bill Clinton receive $500,000 from the foundation for a one-hour speech?

Is The Federalist's claim true or false that only 15 percent of the take was donated to pragmatic programs. $25 million went to fund travel and $110 million to salaries.

Is their claim that $290 million, 60 percent of all money raised, was classified as “other expenses" true or not?

Please include links to back up your claims. Your ad hominem attacks are lame.

[randome]

19. Your bogus worship of the likes of Peter Schweizer and Alex Jones is 'lame'.

You're right, I don't know the exact expenditures of the CF. Neither do I care. Is the $290m 'other expenses' part of their in-house charity work? I don't know. You didn't provide a link and apparently the Federalist didn't bother to investigate. Is $25m in travel expenses legitimate? I don't know. Neither do you nor, apparently, the Federalist. Is $110m in salaries justified? I don't know. Neither do you nor, apparently, the Federalist.

Anyone can throw large numbers into the open and point and say, with a tone of betrayal, "LOOK AT THAT! JUST LOOK AT IT!"

But without any accompanying explanation or even rudimentary analysis, it's meaningless.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Scuba]

20. So you're not disputing the NYT report, but will cast aspersions on it. Lame, like always.

[randome]

21. Reporting without context, when something just happens to coincide with one's politics...

...is always suspect.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Scuba]

22. I provided context. You, on the other hand, defended lies by attacking the messenger.

You must be very proud.

[democrattotheend]

6. That's probably a good idea

The Clinton Foundation does a lot of good work, there's no dispute about that. But it could continue to do so without active engagement from Bill and Chelsea, although the latter concerns me less because as far as I know Chelsea won't be living in the White House or as actively engaged in her mother's administration.

[randome]

8. How much more can you 'step away' from a public charity organization?

Are you saying the Clintons should never communicate to the CF while she's in office?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[cali]

13. Pretty much. I'm saying neither Bill or Chelsea should

have any official position with the foundation. You realize, virtually every pundit is saying much the same thing, right?

[karynnj]

12. It would be a great PR move and maybe protect HRC to some degree if they announced

how they would prevent the CF from potentially being a conflict of interest.

Given the international nature of the work, it might be hard to structure something that used Bill and Chelsea in a good way avoiding any conflicts. At minimum, they should be far from fund raising.

[HumanityExperiment]

16. This is problematic and goes to the point that many stated about Clinton Foundation...

Last edited Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:34 AM - Edit history (1)

http://abc11.com/news/how-clinton-donor-got-on-sensitive-intelligence-board/1379818/

pay to play.. if more of this is found and uncovered it's bad leadership and it will be used to paint HRC into a corner

[cali]

23. exactly. That story is a perfect example.

[geek tragedy]

24. that's sound political advice, then again Hillary not giving her speeches

in the first place would also have been sound political advice.

It's almost like they think "this is legal, I'm not breaking any rules, so why shouldn't I do it?"

They should borrow a page from Obama and avoid any possible inference of impropriety.

[Turin_C3PO]

26. I like Hillary a lot

but I've never understood why she's so secretive and stubborn about certain transparency issues? It turns out usually when things are revealed that she's actually quite ethical. It's just that the appearance of non-transparency gives fuel to right wing cretins.

[geek tragedy]

29. damned if she does, damned if she doesn't

transparency means fodder for rightwing fishing expeditions, so no matter where she draws the line, there will be accusations of a lack of transparency.

the speeches thing is a perfect example. why do we know about the speeches? because she provided full transparency as to her sources of income.

so her reward for revealing that she gave speeches for money--something she was not required to do--was to be accused of hiding something by not publishing the transcripts.

and then if she publishes transcripts, it would be "where's the video?" etc etc.

[cali]

31. She had no choice regarding the speeches.

forget the transcripts of her speeches. That is not the problem. This story is.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624


Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.

The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.

Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.

A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.

[geek tragedy]

33. he's more than just some e-trader

http://www.americansecurityproject.org/about/board-of-directors/raj-fernando/

[cali]

34. Surely you can see that this story illustrates the points made in the op

appearances of conflicts of interest, coupled with the broad distrust of Hillary on matters of ethics, provide unnecessary fodder.

[geek tragedy]

35. there's an obvious reason he stepped down two days later.

we've been really spoiled by Obama.

[Turin_C3PO]

32. Good points.

The Republican slander of Hillary Clinton these past decades has been vile and despicable. And you're absolutely right that she seemingly can't win no matter her actions.

[Adrahil]

25. I think they should if she wins.

But I also think that it's not a terrible idea to appoint others now, either.

[Sivart]

27. It is clearly a freaking huge conflict of interest.....

If Clinton supporters don't see it, or don't admit it, then, WOW.

[bigwillq]

28. I agree

It's a conflict of interest.

[Maven]

30. I agree. It's likely to cause problems. nt