Stop picking on Hillary, how could she have known:

[ProSense]

Hillary Low-balled Bill's Pay in Forms

By Robert Parry
April 6, 2008

In her disclosure forms for the U.S. Senate and her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton downplayed Bill Clinton’s income from two key financial backers, billionaire investor Ronald Burkle and consumer-data executive Vinod Gupta, when compared with the Clintons’ recently released tax filings.

Sen. Clinton’s earlier disclosure forms listed the former President’s compensation as “over $1,000” each from Burkle’s and Gupta’s firms – when the actual amounts ran into the hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars, according to the tax returns.

The Clintons received as much as $15 million from Burkle’s Yucaipa investment firm from 2003 through 2007, starting with $1 million a year in 2003, peaking at $5 million in 2005 and leveling off at more than $2.5 million the past two years, according to tax forms and other data released by the campaign on Friday.

In January 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that Bill Clinton also stands to make $20 million as he unwinds his complicated business relationship with Yucaipa, which has connections to the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum. (WSJ, Jan. 22, 2008)

In her presidential disclosure form, signed on June 13, 2007, Sen. Clinton also put the value of her spouse’s assets in Yucaipa Global Partnership Fund LP at between $1,001 and $15,000. The form listed interest from Yucaipa Global Holding as between $5,001 and $15,000.

Sen. Clinton’s disclosure forms displayed a similar vagueness regarding Bill Clinton’s earnings from Gupta’s InfoUSA. The forms listed “non-employee compensation, over $1,000” – however, the tax material released by the Clinton campaign on Friday showed that InfoUSA paid the ex-President $400,000 last year alone.

Legal papers, which surfaced in 2007, showed that Bill Clinton had earned more than $3 million from Gupta’s firm. (Washington Post, April 5, 2008)

more

InfoUSA and Burkle:

Moreover, there are unanswered questions about some of Bill Clinton's business ties that could cause trouble for his wife's campaign.

<...>

The former president earned $15.4 million from billionaire Ron Burkle's Yucaipa Cos. investment firm since 2003, according to the tax documents. Tax lawyers said the Yucaipa partnership income for Clinton, 61, looks to be a form of salary because it was in round numbers for most years, raising questions about what services he performed for Los Angeles-based Yucaipa, whose investors include the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid al-Maktoum.

InfoUSA

Bill Clinton also earned $800,000 in 2006 and 2007 as an adviser to infoUSA Inc., a data-mining company owned by Vinod Gupta, a longtime supporter.

InfoUSA shareholders sued over the payments to Clinton and over the more than $146,000 it spent to fly the Clintons to Acapulco in 2002. Gupta has said the expenditures were legitimate. In December, the company's chief financial officer said the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating.

Clinton also invested in an offshore hedge fund, Quellos Alpha Engine LP, run by Seattle-based Quellos Group LLC. In 2006, a Senate panel detailed in a report how Quellos Group had ``designed, promoted and implemented'' an illegal tax shelter based on fake securities transactions and shell companies.

link

The Dubai connection:

Initially, the question seemed like a bump that could be handled with a few calls to the senator. Instead, it snowballed into a political disaster, one that has become a paradigm of failed crisis prevention here. It has also spawned bizarre alliances, putting President Bush on the same side as two former members of Bill Clinton's cabinet and at least briefly pitting former Senator Bob Dole against his wife, Senator Elizabeth Dole, Republican of North Carolina.

<...>

Lawyers and lobbyists at Alston & Bird, the big law firm based in Atlanta, put together the commercial deal for Dubai Ports, quietly helping win approval from the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States of the $6.8 billion acquisition of the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company, the British company that has contracts to manage several United States ports.

No one, it appears, mapped a strategy to break the news to Congress that the country where two Sept. 11 attackers were born would be running ports here, an obvious thicket, even if it posed no real security risk.

<...>

At another point, Ms. Browner contacted Joe Lockhart, a press secretary for President Bill Clinton, about taking up the Dubai Ports cause. That arrangement would have added an even more unusual alliance. But Mr. Lockhart said he declined.

link

The WPP, Burson Marsteller connection:

More Clinton Campaign Cash Conundrums

April 07, 2008 5:49 PM

A few weeks ago, Howard Paster -- who during the Bill Clinton presidency served as the White House liaison to Capitol Hill -- joined Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign as "chief operating officer."

Paster is in charge of the cash, in other words, who gets the contracts, how much they're paid, and so on.

Paster, it should be pointed out, is also the executive vice president for public relations and public affairs for the advertising conglomerate powerhouse WPP Group.

WPP Group owns: Burson Marsteller...Mark Penn's polling group Penn Schoen and Berland Associates...Dewey Square Group...the latter two are the largest campaign vendors for Clinton -- with the mail, phone and polling contracts.

Does it seem odd to anyone else that the COO of the Clinton campaign -- the guy in charge of the contracts for companies working for the campaign -- also likely has a financial stake in the contracts those companies get?

Does anyone even care anymore?

What was it that Hal Holbrooke whispered?

link

The Columbia trade deal connection:

HRC Colombia ties don't stop with Penn

Mark Penn isn’t the only Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter on the wrong side of the Colombia trade agreement.

The Democratic-leaning advocacy firm the Glover Park Group, former home to Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson, signed a $40,000 per month contract with the government of Colombia in April of 2007 to promote the very agreement that Clinton now rails against on the presidential campaign trail.

That means Glover Park Group was arguing the same position on the free trade agreement as has Penn, the contentious Clinton strategist and Burson-Marsteller chief executive who lost his campaign job over the weekend after The Wall Street Journal revealed that he’d met with Colombian officials to plot strategy on the pact.

Several other Glover Park employees have deep connections with the Clintons, including founding partner Joe Lockhart, who served as the White House press secretary under President Bill Clinton, and Joel Johnson, who was a senior communications adviser in the Clinton White House.

Six employees of Glover Park Group contributed a total of nearly $20,000 to Clinton’s campaign in 2007, according to data kept by the Center for Responsive Politics.

more

The lobbyist connection:

Meet Janice Enright, Hillary’s Lobbyist Friend and Fundraiser

BY Ken Silverstein
March 21, 2008

Here’s a story from CQ that deserves more play:

A small number of lobbyists are super insiders. They don’t just donate money to their favorite congressional causes — they serve as treasurers of the lawmakers’ campaign committees. One of them is Janice Enright, a registered lobbyist who is also treasurer of HillPAC, one of the political committees of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton… Enright is the lobbying partner of Harold Ickes, a Clinton presidential campaign adviser, and they both worked in the Clinton White House. The Senate Appropriations Committee listed Clinton as having jointly requested, with Sen. Charles E. Schumer , D-N.Y., hundreds of millions of dollars that the spending law earmarks for New York projects. About $4 million of that funding went to clients of Enright and Ickes, including $292,000 designated for a United Auto Workers training program that is a part of an umbrella group, Consortium for Worker Education, that Enright represents.

How could anyone expect the Clintons to know everything going on right under their noses:

Polling Czar

After the 1994 election, Democrats had just lost both houses of Congress, and President Clinton was floundering in the polls. At the urging of his wife, he turned to Dick Morris, a friend from their time in Arkansas. Morris brought in two pollsters from New York, Doug Schoen and his partner, Mark Penn, a portly, combative workaholic. Morris decided what to poll and Penn polled it. They immediately pushed Clinton to the right, enacting the now-infamous strategy of "triangulation," which co-opted Republican policies like welfare reform and tax cuts and emphasized small-bore issues that supposedly cut across the ideological divide. "They were the ones who said, 'Make the '96 election about nothing except V-chips and school uniforms,'" says a former adviser to Bill. When Morris got caught with a call girl, Penn became the most important adviser in Clinton's second term. "In a White House where polling is virtually a religion," the Washington Post reported in 1996, "Penn is the high pri est."

Penn, who had previously worked in the business world for companies like Texaco and Eli Lilly, brought his corporate ideology to the White House. After moving to Washington he aggressively expanded his polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland (PSB). It was said that Penn was the only person who could get Bill Clinton and Bill Gates on the same line. Penn's largest client was Microsoft, and he saw no contradiction between working for both the plaintiff and the defense in what was at the time the country's largest antitrust case. A variety of controversial clients enlisted PSB. The firm defended Procter & Gamble's Olestra from charges that the food additive caused anal leakage, blamed Texaco's bankruptcy on greedy jurors and market-tested genetically modified foods for Monsanto. PSB introduced to consulting the concept of "inoculation": shielding corporations from scandal through clever advertising and marketing.

In 2000 Penn became the chief architect of Hillary's Senate victory in New York, persuading her, in a rerun of '96, to eschew big themes and relentlessly focus on poll-tested pothole politics, such as suburban transit lines and dairy farming upstate. Following that election, Penn became a very rich man--and an even more valued commodity in the business world (Hillary paid him $1 million for her re-election campaign in '06 and $277,000 in the first quarter of this year). The massive PR empire WPP Group acquired Penn's polling firm for an undisclosed sum in 2001 and four years later named him worldwide CEO of one of its most prized properties, the PR firm Burson-Marsteller (B-M). A key player in the decision to hire Penn was Howard Paster, President Clinton's chief lobbyist to Capitol Hill and an influential presence inside WPP. "Clients of stature come to Mark constantly for counsel," says Paster, who informally advises Hillary, explaining the hire. The press release announcing Penn 's promotion noted his work "developing and implementing deregulation informational programs for the electric utilities industry and in the financial services sector." The release blithely ignored how utility deregulation contributed to the California electricity crisis manipulated by Enron and the blackout of 2003, which darkened much of the Northeast and upper Midwest.

more

[Yael]

1. Well, I guess they were right about not wanting to release their returns since "all of the data"

was already "reported" in her senate disclosure files.

I hope this takes the media by a shitstorm.

[NanceGreggs]

2. I guess this explains the ...

... "And my husband, to my surprise, made a lot of money" quote.

[Diane R]

6. "To my surprise". She didn't know how much her husband made, but she's ready on day 1?

[PoliticalAmazon]

58. She didn't even know what Bill was doing with Lewinsky in their home...

...we can't expect too much from Hillary.

[PBS Poll-435]

60. Cute!!!

I love when you say things like the idiots on the right!

[PoliticalAmazon]

80. And I love when Hillary acts like Bush Jr. Makes it that much easier for Obama to win. n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

103. When you say things like that....

It makes your intent appear so transparent.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[niceypoo]

128. The smear campaign rolls on...

When you do not want to talk about the issues, you smear.

A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smear_campaign">smear campaign is an intentional, premeditated effort to undermine an individual's or group's reputation, credibility, and character. "Mud slinging", like negative campaigning, most often targets government officials, politicians, political candidates, and other public figures. However, private persons or groups may also become targets of smear campaigns perpetrated in schools, companies, institutions, families, and other social groups.

Smear tactics differ from normal discourse or debate in that they do not bear upon the issues or arguments in question. A smear is a simple attempt to malign a group or an individual and to attempt to undermine their credibility.

Smears often consist of ad hominem attacks in the form of unverifiable rumors and are often distortions, half-truths, or even outright lies; smear campaigns are often propagated by gossip spreading. Even when the facts behind a smear are shown to lack proper foundation, the tactic is often effective because the target's reputation is tarnished before the truth is known.

Smears are also effective in diverting attention away from the matter in question and onto the individual or group. The target of the smear is typically forced to defend his reputation rather than focus on the previous issue.

[Kool Kitty]

127. My ex cheated on me and it took me ages to find out.

You don't know 'til you've been there, believe me. There's things that you see and things that you don't, or won't, see. She's strong, she got through it, and she's a better person for it. I wasn't, I didn't, and I got divorced. So give it a rest.

[TahitiNut]

20. Well, she did the best disclosure she could "... as far as she knew."

:evilgrin: I have a bridge for sale.

[Yael]

24. Lemme guess

Its in Brooklyn and only used by little old ladies crossing over to go to church in the city on Sundays?

I will open the bidding in honor of the poor deluded soul down thread that thinks this is appropriate because "Hillary didn't mislead anyone -- it WAS over $1,000".

Heres $20 to start the show...

[PBS Poll-435]

136. Nah...she wasn't even required to state ANY amount.

[Yael]

3. “over $1,000”

Once again. Stunned silence.

[ProSense]

5. Somewhere in the range of

$1,000 to $15 million!

[berni_mccoy]

7. That's only a factor of 15,000.... small potatoes.

:sarcasm:

[Yael]

9. One can only hope that Jon Stewart or KO get their hands on this

[PBS Poll-435]

125. Tee hee...Go here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5422190&mesg_id=5424077

[rocktivity]

10. DING DING DING! Yael, you're our grand prize winner!

Once again.

Once again, I'm wondering why she's missing the obvious, not thinking things through, not taking charge, not anticipating possible consequences. She's acting more like Bush than McCain is.

:headbang:
rocknation

[dchill]

"over $1,000" - Well, you know...

it could be described as an uncharacteristic understatement for Hillary to make. If you want to cast it in the most favorable light.

[merh]

4. If she were to win

do you think I could get away with filing my tax returns using low ball approximates?

[merh]

8. K&R

:kick:

[PBS Poll-435]

11. Do you know about Senate Disclousure Forms?

Data ranges, etc?

[Yael]

13. You mean things like "dates ranging from 2000-2006" and

disclosures like "over $1,000" vs "$15,000,000"?

And you all wonder why we wanted the tax records released while Camp Hillarity kept harping about us "having everything" because it was in her "senate disclosures".

Maybe Hillarity was too strong. HilLIARy is more appropriate?

Thanks, but we just went through 8 years of a psychotic liar. Not looking to continue that trend.

She makes me positively nauseated with this stuff.

[PBS Poll-435]

15. I don't think that I was asking you, but you will do...

The tax returns were released. They proved everything except what you wanted to prove. The Clintons are STILL generous and STILL pay their fair share of taxes.

Really, what is your deal?

[Yael]

18. What does that have to do with your challenge on "date ranges"

and what does it have to do with IRS filings of $15 million vs Senate Disclosures of Over $1,000 (which, BTW, happens to be the POINT (!!!!) of this thread)?

[PBS Poll-435]

22. I will say again.

Did she lie? Did she fill out the form accurately?

[Yael]

26. So she has good penmanship and can fill in circles with a #2 pencil. Hillary for Pretzeldent!!!

No, you <deleted>. It is because she said that everything about her income was disclosed on her senate disclosure forms", which obviously, it wasn't.

Then again, have some more HillaryAide. Its only another lie. Not newsworthy at all at this point. Hillary telling the TRUTH is newsworthy these days. Her lies just generate yawns anymore as they are expected.

[PBS Poll-435]

29. How did she lie?

You saying she did doesn't make it so.

[Yael]

33. Are you seriously this obtuse or just paid to make my head explode?

She said "everything was disclosed" on her Senate disclosure forms.

In her mind (and apparently yours), "Over $1,000" is the same as "$15,000,000".

To the rest of us, it is a lie that "everything was disclosed" on her Senate disclosure forms.

Let it sink in for a few minutes.

[PBS Poll-435]

37. I will say again. How did she lie?

When did she lie? What part of the Senate Financial Questionnaire did she lie on? When are we going to bring her up on charges?

Is this your first election cycle?

[Yael]

40. I asked you to let it sink in for a few minutes

:P

No, not hardly my first election. Been voting since 1986. ;)

[PBS Poll-435]

42. Congrats!

However...What calendar year did she lie on her Senate disclosures?

[ProSense]

41. Is there a box on the form that can be checked to more accurately reflect $400K, $2.5 million?

Are you trying to claim she "miswrote"?

What were these monies, totaling $15 million for?

What was the $3 million for?

[PBS Poll-435]

43. There is a range for financial disclosure amounts.

What year did she lie?

When are we going to write the Ethics Committee?

Do you put up a Christmas Tree?

[ProSense]

49. "Do you put up a Christmas Tree?" Huh?

Put down the pipe!

[Yael]

50. What does that have to do with the price of eggs in France?

[PBS Poll-435]

53. It is from an earlier thread...

Just a simple question, really.

[Yael]

61. Have you seen the movie Rainman? (Dustin Hoffman/Tom Cruise)

Because that is what this is reminding me of. Really.

I am all for a game of "random unquoted posts" but what in blazes are you talking about?

I am referring to this thread. This one right here that you are posting in. This thread where you are saying that "over $1,000" and "$15,000,000" are the same.

[PBS Poll-435]

64. Ok...here we are.

Yeah, defiantly 1 dollar.

Jeez...


Senator Yael -

Please fill this out completely. Follow the directions and examples, please. Thanks!

http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/cover1.pdf

[ProSense]

66. Why are you asking people to fill out the form? Hillary is the one running for president.

This is about her disclosure.

[PBS Poll-435]

69. Did you even bother to look?

The answers you are looking for are on that freaking form.

[ProSense]

72. No they are not. Options are on the form. The questions are: Why Hillary tried to keep the amounts

secret? And, what the $15 million from Burkle was for (and the $3 million from Vin Gupta)?

[PBS Poll-435]

74. LOL....broken record, again.

Tell me about IRS Form 8829 again...

[ProSense]

75. I see you have no response. You have simple posted a series of irrelevant questions and spin. n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

77. Yep. No Response At All...

I just showed you the form she has to fill out. I showed you the instructions. I showed you the examples. But according to you, she LIED!!!

What year did she lie? You Don't Know...
What section did she lie on? You Don't Know...
Should she be brought up on ethics charges? No answer...

Same spin, different topic.

Please post some more links to your own posts, though. They are rather insightful.

[ProSense]

79. Point out where I wrote the word lied in this OP or stop clogging up the thread with your BS. n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

91. No... You never said lied. I will give you that.

You link to someone else's words.

You post links in your OPs. It is when your links, or your interpretation of them, are challenged that everything seems to fall apart for you.

Never Forget Form 8829!!

[ProSense]

95. The word "lied" isn't in this OP. That was not the point, but you are determined to distort! n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

96. I just agreed with you, (kind of)

Lied wasn't there. In fact none of your words were there.

Never Forget Form 8829!

[PBS Poll-435]

51. You still won't answer the question. It isn't that tough...

Christmas Tree or no?

[ProSense]

62. It isn't relevant and proves again you are trying to distract. Now about Mark Penn, Dubai and

the lobbyist, got a response?

[PBS Poll-435]

65. You never answered the question.

Answer mine first, please.

[ProSense]

68. No. If you want to ask about Christmas trees, find the appropriate forum and start a thread. Back to

the issues in the OP.

[PBS Poll-435]

70. Obviously you don't want to answer. That is fine. Noted.

[Yael]

84. CHRISTMAS TREES ARE NOT IN PLAY HERE

Sorry for the faux outrage there. What is that about anyway and (honestly) who cares?

[PBS Poll-435]

85. It is analogous to building a criminal case. That is all

[Yael]

86. You are building a case against Christmas trees?

Are you also protesting the Today show on Friday?

[PBS Poll-435]

92. LOL, should I? Who is on?

[Yael]

48. Apparently "nope".

Just "Over $1,000"

That way, no one gets to be called a "liar".

[FatDave]

176. Nice tactic.

It's often used by RW nutjobs. It's what Al Franken called "a weasel". It is also commonly known as a lie of omission. By the letter of the statement, it is technically true. $15,000,000 is, after all, more than $1000. But in a disclosure statement, the phrase "more than $1000" implies not much more than $1000. I mean, why not say "more than $2000"?

Now was the question being answered multiple choice or fill-in-the-blank? Either way, it looks bad. If it was multiple choice, I doubt the choices where $0 to $999 and $1000 to $20million. If it was fill-in-the-blank, "more than $1000" while technically true, is still way off. "A shitload" would have been more appropriate. At least "a shitload" implies more than 5 digits. "More than $1000" implies less than $2000.

It's a weaselly answer used to hide the whole truth. This is the problem.

[karynnj]

90. exactly - because the Senate form is identify potential conflict of interest

[PBS Poll-435]

93. Please try again. I don't think I am getting the whole thought behind your post. Thanks

NT!

[karynnj]

99. You can't see how there could be a very big difference

in motivation to "help" a company giving you $15,000,000 versus the motivation to help one giving you $1000? It seems kind of obvious to me.

[PBS Poll-435]

100. Call your Senator!

Demand immediate changes to Senate ethics requirements!!!

Yes We Can!

[QC]

106. We are the change in Senate ethics requirements we have been waiting for!

There's no need to call the Senate, dude!

[PBS Poll-435]

107. But, But....

They didn't ask the tough, *probing* questions that needed to be asked.

They need to fix that form.

I need to know 2007 toilet paper expense, alcohol sanitizer use frequency, and # of Correctol tablets used since 2000.

[greguganus]

144. Why are you supporting Bush in a pantsuit? Shouldn't you be at "the other site"? n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

146. Because she is Hillary Fucking Clinton.

That's why.

[ProSense]

150. Shouldn't that be Hillary "Losing" Clinton? n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

151. Only if you want to be ugly and divisive.

[SwampG8r]

117. generous?

generous?omg
the majority of their charitable "giving" was to their own foundations
in other words they took the money out of their left pocket and tucked it into the right pocket


know what folks? i no longer believe that any of these hillary supporters are for real
no one
i repeat no one
is this intentionally stupid or blind

[PBS Poll-435]

121. The 990s have been on the internet for some time...

Really...

Here is a thread with a link to the Forms 990 from 05 & 06...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5396874&mesg_id=5396874

[SwampG8r]

118. generous?

generous?omg
the majority of their charitable "giving" was to their own foundations
in other words they took the money out of their left pocket and tucked it into the right pocket


know what folks? i no longer believe that any of these hillary supporters are for real
no one
i repeat no one
is this intentionally stupid or blind

[johnnydrama]

12. I find it extremely strange

That when there are many many boxes with various earnings amounts, from 0 to over 5,000,000, that she decides to not X a box and write in "over $1,000"

Why not just check one of the boxes with $1,000 included.

[Yael]

14. Because she was 'stunned and surprised' to find out in April 2008 how much money Bill made

in the last 7 years. "Over $1,000" was all he would tell her (as she signed off on the tax documents as required by law every year. I guess the Yale Law graduate was just 'misinformed' about the whole tax return procedure and didn't know she was legally able to review said documents before inking them).

[PBS Poll-435]

17. You wish...

Did she lie on those forms?

[Yael]

19. Dear Lord in heaven

If you think there is nothing wrong with reporting "over $1k" when the actual amount was "over $15m" then there is simply no hope for you in our polite society. Please turn yourself in now and we will make sure that you are fed, clothed and sheltered.

Edit: for shameful grammar

[PBS Poll-435]

23. LOL

You are a pistol! However, prove she lied on Senate financial disclosure forms.

[Yael]

28. ...

:D

[ProSense]

25. Excuse me, was Hillary clueless about everything revealed in the OP?

Are Mark Penn's action's a shock to her? Did she receive $15 million from Ron Burkle? Has she disclosed what that money was for? Did she receive $3 million from InfoUSA? Has she disclosed what that money is for? What about the $900,000 in flights?

[PBS Poll-435]

27. Gag....

Is NY a community property state?

[ProSense]

30. That's not an answer to any of the questions? n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

31. Did she get the 15mil in one tax or calendar year?

Did she even give receipt of the 15 mil?

Are you grasping at straws? Yes

[ProSense]

36. Does $1,000 = $400,000? Are you desperate, yes! n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

39. No...it isn't

You answer the questions on the page.

If she lied, lets bring her up on ethics charges!

[ProSense]

44. Oh, what about the rest of the OP, Mark Penn and the lobbyists gang?

Got a spin for that?

[PBS Poll-435]

45. I already proved you were full of it earlier today.

Do you really want to do this again?

[ProSense]

54. No, you did just what you're doing here, trying to distract. If you have a response lay it out. n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

57. Right...Keep telling Yourself that....

Since you live in "fairy-tale" land, you too can be a US Senator for a day. Please fill out this form. Remember to follow the directions and examples!

http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/cover1.pdf

[Yael]

63. Friends don't let friends post drunk

:hug:

I care too much about you, anonymous internet person, than to see you go through this.

Put up the keyboard. Its time to call it a night.

:hug:

[PBS Poll-435]

67. Please, Senator Yael -

Fill this out completely and to the best of your knowledge. Follow the directions very carefully, and feel free to use the examples to guide your responses.

http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/cover1.pdf

[Yael]

76. Between Hillary and I, one is running for President and the other is not

I will leave discovery on which is which up to you.

:P

[PBS Poll-435]

78. Haha...

I posted the form for you to review and to understand that the answers that were given fully satisfied the requirements of the disclosure. It really isn't that tough.

[Yael]

81. Der

I am mot challenged by the form -- my concern is that she said she was "disclosed" and "vetted".

More Tuzla-ing of the actual facts.

No surprise. Just enjoying the schadenfreude.

:hi:

[PBS Poll-435]

87. Apparently you ARE challenged by the form.

She followed the rules, but apparently you have a different set of rules for her.

[Yael]

89. Um, not challenged -- but then again, I am not a senator

Maybe thats the problem.

:P

[PBS Poll-435]

94. If you had to seriously answer the question,

You wouldn't. Because answering the question would make your argument sophomoric and petty.

[TahitiNut]

59. No, New York isn't a community property state. For divorce, it's "equitable distribution."

For salary income, a spouse's earnings are considered their separate property. There are complexities in the treatment of separate property for tax, estate, and divorce purposes if a couple move to a community property state in which quasi-community property treatment is statutorily required.

[PBS Poll-435]

71. Textbook!

Thanks.

[Yael]

32. Facts? Math?

Sweetie (and I use the term in endearment, not as a sexist slam), you are dealing with a Clintonite.

No facts, no math -- only emotion is allowed in this circumstance.

Repeat with me:

1. Hillary did not lie!!!!!!!
2. $15,000,000 IS more than $1,000

Now, keep repeating it, dammit. She has an election to win!

[PBS Poll-435]

34. How did she lie?

It is not that tough of a question.

If she received income of more than the selected data ranges in the Senate Financial Questionnaire, what year did she do it?

When will she be brought up on ethics charges?

When will YOU testify?

[Yael]

35. Scroll up

[PBS Poll-435]

135. No...Scroll Down :-)~

[Fredda Weinberg]

16. Be warned ... all the crap you're throwing will come right back at you

HRC is prepared ... is your candidate?

[Yael]

21. Fredda -- she tried to withhold information thinking that she was

coasting to the nomination. "Over $1k" was actually "Approx $15m".

You are OK with this from your president?

Did you vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004?

[PoliticalAmazon]

82. Sweet Baby in the Manger!@! n/t

[PoliticalAmazon]

83. You got it wrong. All of the crap Hillary has thrown has come back and hit her. n/t

[SwampG8r]

120. another one runs out from under the bridge

[FogerRox]

38. Shit, this is a hell of a post, lots of research.

[cliffordu]

46. ANY QUESTIONS????

:patriot:


Nice work!

[TahitiNut]

47. There seems to be a huge loophole in the Senate's Financial Disclosure requirements.

It appears that "earned and non-investment income" for a spouse need not be reported beyond the fact that it might "aggregate $1,000 or more during the reporting period."

PART II. EARNED AND NON-INVESTMENT INCOME

Report the source (name and address), type, and amount of earned income to you from any source aggregating $200 or more during the reporting period. For your spouse, report the source (name and address) and type of earned income which aggregate $1,000 or more during the reporting period. No amount needs to be specified for your spouse. (See p.3, CONTENTS OF REPORTS Part B of Instructions.) Do not report income from employment by the U.S. Government for you or your spouse.

See http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/cover1.pdf

As I scratch my brain, I seem to vaguely recall such "Ohmigolly!" discoveries regarding the pay and compensation given Congressional spouses in many investigative reports regarding suspected or proven conflicts of interest over the years. I'd suspect that it's a favorite way of 'laundering' payola.
:shrug:

[Yael]

55. Well, it is a good thing that congress has oversight to stop this kind of misleading reporting.

Oh wait...

[PBS Poll-435]

73. Could be.

Obviously, the forms were filled out to the satisfaction of the requirements, however.

[TahitiNut]

105. I hope by now you've found that the Socratic Method isn't effective in this forum

It was fairly clear that you could've actually composed a post for #11 that laid it out pretty explicitly ... and the bandwidth invested in that subthread might've gone to more productive purposes.

I'm not saying I don't value that approach as a teaching tool or for discussion in a more egalitarian and less divisive setting. I do. It's just that this isn't an approach that works well here. In fact, I rather doubt many actually "get it" or bother to scroll down this far.

Nonetheless ... it was entertaining. Sorta. :shrug:

[PBS Poll-435]

109. You are right.

So undeniably right.

I just put a lot of faith is people's ability to research things for themselves. (That's what I do...doesn't everyone? No.)

That is what is different about online conversations vs. IRL.

Thanks. I mean it.

[ProSense]

111. No you're not right! The disclosure forms don't require exactness, but it's disingenuous to be vague

and claim full disclosure, chiding everyone who says otherwise in the process. This has nothing to do with the form, it has everything to do with Hillary's character.

She was forced to release her tax returns, and the questions that remain unanswered are legitimate ones.

[PBS Poll-435]

114. Over Here...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/fin_dis/2005/c001041.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/fin_dis/2006/c001041.pdf

[Major Hogwash]

52. Good gawd, this is devastating information.

How can anyone say they would back someone like this to be the President?

[Yael]

56. Scroll up

Apparently "Over $1,000" and "$15,000,000" are the same thing and not misleading in the least. She reported "honestly" and we had no right to request her tax records as her Senate disclosure was "thorough".

Or something like that. I am still working on my HillSpeak.

Not in the club, you see -- I am taking night courses and that goes a bit slower.

[PBS Poll-435]

97. Following directions is not difficult.

It is not Hillary Clinton's fault that the form didn't ask the questions you want answered.

[Catherina]

88. Great post! Thanks ProSense

:hi:

[PBS Poll-435]

98. Except for like facts and stuff...

Other than that, Woohoo!!! :woohoo:

[Catherina]

101. The facts just go swoosh over your head don't they, you poor thing?

I hope you're wise enough to take advantage of Obama's great educational plan. The more uneducated among Hillary's supporters need it bad. :hug:

[PBS Poll-435]

102. Now, now...

Facts are one thing. Innuendo is always slimy (and usually dead-wrong.)

[ProSense]

104. Isn't it bizarre that Hillary is bragging about full disclosure when there are still questions?

From HillaryHub, this claim:

This is entirely false. President Clinton's income from paid speaking engagements, including the source, date, and amount of income for every single speech, is fully disclosed on Senator Clinton's public financial disclosure forms and has been for every year that she has been a Senator. These forms are released annually, are available on the internet, and have been widely written about by news organizations such as the Washington Post and New York Times.

[PBS Poll-435]

108. Just what income did she receive that isn't on her forms?

[ProSense]

110. You know, you're either being a jerk or you didn't read the statement!

Either way, read it again, but take off the rose-colored glasses before you do.

[PBS Poll-435]

112. Have a look at this....then tell me who is wearing the glasses...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/congress/fin_dis/2006/c001041.pdf

[ProSense]

115. What does it say when it gets to InfoUSA and Yucaipa? n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

116. Exactly what is given in the examples section?

:shrug::shrug:

[ProSense]

119. Oh, the shrugging smilies. Now go back and read the comment at post 104.

Does your examples section response = full disclosure, including the amounts or are they vague?

[PBS Poll-435]

122. ...

From page 6, 2006 Disclosure

"Report the source (name and address), type and amount of earned income to you from any source aggregating $200 or more during the reporting period. For your spouse, report the source (name and address) and type of earned income which aggregate $1000 or more during the reporting period. No amount needs to be specified for your spouse. (See p.3, CONTENTS OF REPORTS Part B of instructions.) Do not report income from employment by the U.S. Government for you or your spouse."

Emphasis added by me

[ProSense]

123. Right, and the previous question remains? Let me repeat:

Does "No amount needs to be specified for your spouse" = full disclosure, including the amount?

Does that match Hillary's statement at post 104 that she disclosed the amount?

[PBS Poll-435]

124. Yes...it sure does....

From your post...

President Clinton's income from paid speaking engagements, including the source, date, and amount of income for every single speech, is fully disclosed on Senator Clinton's public financial disclosure forms and has been for every year that she has been a Senator.

Emphasis added by me




From Page 6, 2006 Disclosure

"Invididuals not covered by the Honoraria Ban:

For you and/or your spouse report honoraira income received with aggregates $200 or more by exact amount, give the date of, and describe the activity (speech, appearance or article) generating such honoraria payment. Do not include payments in lieu of honoraria reported on Part I."

[ProSense]

126. "including the source, date, and amount of income...is fully disclosed "

Show me where the $400,000 (full disclosure) for Yucaipa appears on the form.

[PBS Poll-435]

130. Are you kidding me?

It is NOT honoraria income.

For non-honoraria income -

No amount needs to be specified for your spouse.

[ProSense]

131. What is it you do not understand? The requirement is one thing. Claiming to have made

full disclosure is another thing. In fact, one of Hillary's excuses for not releasing her tax returns was that she made full disclosure in her Senate filings.

That obviously wasn't the case, and I suspect part of the reason she held off so long in releasing her returns.

[PBS Poll-435]

132. FROM YOUR OWN POST:

This is entirely false. President Clinton's income from paid speaking engagements, including the source, date, and amount of income for every single speech, is fully disclosed on Senator Clinton's public financial disclosure forms and has been for every year that she has been a Senator. These forms are released annually, are available on the internet, and have been widely written about by news organizations such as the Washington Post and New York Times



Every single speech is detailed with a source, a date and an amount. It is on the Disclosure form. Show me how anything that is in the excerpt that you provided is false!

[ProSense]

133. What was the money from Burkle and Gupta for? Where is the full disclosure there

What about Mark Penn? What about the Columbians? What about the lobbyists?

Hillary claims to be disappointed with Penn's dealing with the Columbian government, what about Blackwater? What did Hillary know and when did she know it?

I'm not interested in the form requirements. I'm interested in Hillary's claims of full disclosure and her campaign being run by someone like Penn.

[PBS Poll-435]

134. LOL....

Moving the goalposts?

This is entirely false. President Clinton's income from paid speaking engagements, including the source, date, and amount of income for every single speech, is fully disclosed on Senator Clinton's public financial disclosure forms and has been for every year that she has been a Senator. These forms are released annually, are available on the internet, and have been widely written about by news organizations such as the Washington Post and New York Times...

You posted that! That was your shining example. You backed it up with:


Either way, read it again, but take off the rose-colored glasses before you do.

You know, you're either being a jerk or you didn't read the statement!

Right, and the previous question remains? Let me repeat:

Does "No amount needs to be specified for your spouse" = full disclosure, including the amount?

Does that match Hillary's statement at post 104 that she disclosed the amount?

Does your examples section response = full disclosure, including the amounts or are they vague?

...including the source, date, and amount of income...is fully disclosed "

Show me where the $400,000 (full disclosure) for Yucaipa appears on the form.



Those were your statements. I showed you where every source of income was listed and every amount was listed when required. Every speech was detailed.

Now you want to change the subject.

[ProSense]

137. Nothing has changed, not even your determination to spin a distraction.

I still don't see full disclosure of InfoUSA or Yucaipa in the Senate filings.

As for the rest of the OP, Hillary will have to deal with these issue, especially Mark Penn.

[PBS Poll-435]

138. LOL -

According to the Senate Ethics Committee, her reports represent FULL DISCLOSURE. Every honoraria item was detailed. Every other addtional source of income was listed as required. That is full disclosure. Not what you want it to be, but what was required.

You originally said that it wasn't. Then I showed you that it was. Now you want to distract & distort by bringing up that loser Mark Penn. And you accuse me of spinning. Wow.

[johnnydrama]

139. the problem is

She didn't say her disclosures adhered to senate ethics laws, she made believe they were full disclosures when talking about being vetted for President.

If you're in the camp that says >$1,000 is full disclosure of millions in income, than more power to you.

I kinda doubt that most people would call that full disclosure though.

[PBS Poll-435]

140. Every single piece of information requested was given.

It was listed per the instructions of the form.

Every piece of honoraria income was listed with source, amount, location. The speeches are what has made huge news for the last 5 years. Everything was detailed.

The OP claimed that a statement from the HillaryHub was false or misleading. That claim has been proven false.

Keep moving those goalposts...

[MethuenProgressive]

148. There are no "real" questions. Just yipping from disappointed pups.

Honest. Generous. Successful.
If you hate those things so much, why are you an American?

[PoliticalAmazon]

157. Bush Jr supporters used the same line when we tried to pin him down on issues...

...And as far as her being "honest"--Honest, she is not, and to state an obvious lie destroys the credibility of the rest of your posts.

[ORDem]

129. K&R

:kick:

[Evergreen Emerald]

141. More right-wing drivil from a known Clinton hater...have you ever read his crap?

What happened to DU that right-wing distortion and hate automatically becomes "truth?"

[ProSense]

143. It that makes you feel comfortable, keep saying it. n/t

[MethuenProgressive]

149. DUers once had enough integrity to not repeat RW smears from RW websites.

What happened to DU?

[PBS Poll-435]

153. An infiltration. Right-wing revenge because the media picked McCain

Real Dems don't play this game.

[ProSense]

155. How about

this game?

[PBS Poll-435]

156. I see you have your links.

How cute.

:-)

[MethuenProgressive]

158. The HillHaters call it a "game"?

Don't they know what's at stake? Or don't they care?

[PBS Poll-435]

160. Well...to be fair,

I called it a game. Because it is. It is a sick, and fucking disgusting. It is bullying and a form of entertainment for some people.

And every time they are wrong, or lie, I will call them on it; with the evidence to back it up. Not links to spam and rw/unsubstantiated bullshit.

[blm]

171. Reporter who uncovered IranContra is RW and Clinton who COVERED UP IranContra crimes is a victim

of that reporter's RW distortion, is THAT what you want the gullible to believe?

[dailykoff]

142. You weren't supposed to check.. CNN never does!

:cry:

[ProSense]

145. The reports of Penn’s ouster may have been greatly exaggerated

The reports of Penn’s ouster may have been greatly exaggerated

Posted April 8th, 2008 at 9:15 am

Dems everywhere, most notably at Clinton campaign headquarters, breathed a sigh of relief late Sunday when the campaign announced that Mark Penn was no longer Clinton’s top campaign strategist. There was some talk that Penn would maintain some kind of role with the team, but no one took that seriously — when the campaign replaced Patti Solis Doyle as Clinton’s campaign manager, they said the same thing, but it was just a courtesy to lessen the blow of being fired.

Indeed, consider how Sunday night’s news was perceived. The political world learned that Penn was “forced out.” He’d been “replaced.” It’s the latest campaign “staff shake-up.” Penn “stepped down,” involuntarily.

<...>

The interesting angle to watch, then, moving forward is whether the same voices urging Penn’s ouster late last week pick up again in response to reports that Penn didn’t actually step down. Most notably, Gerald McEntee, head of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union and one of Clinton’s most prominent supporters, reportedly pushed aggressively for Penn’s dismissal, which contributed to Sunday’s announcement.

If McEntee sees reports that Penn is still a key figure in the Clinton campaign, will he start working the phones again? I suspect he will.

On CNN yesterday, Paul Begala added, “I’m not going to lie to you, there’s a lot of pressure among pro-Clinton labor leaders, but also non-labor leaders who’ve been unsatisfied with Penn’s strategy, who’ve been disappointed in Penn’s conflict of interest and there’s still a clamor to eliminate him entirely from that campaign. And, and I don’t think the Clinton campaign has done that yet. I think Penn is still very much involved.”

Meanwhile, the Change To Win labor federation, which supports Barack Obama, has posted a blog item that argues, “Mark Penn Still Has To Go.”

Looks like the campaign’s headache has not yet gone away.

[MethuenProgressive]

147. So, the tax returns showed they were honest, successful, and generous - and you Hate them for that.

We get it already.
Ever try supporting a candidate? Give it a try someday.

[ProSense]

152. Was the sniper story repeated moments of honesty? The "Shame on you Barack Obama" NAFTA moment? n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

154. The is not the MO.

Divide, conquer, repeat.

[PoliticalAmazon]

159. One thing the Clintons definitely are not:: honest (and that includes Chelsea). n/t

[MethuenProgressive]

161. Not even the most despicable RW quoting DUbama has found anything "dishonest" in the tax returns.

And save your Chelsea hate for your meetings.

[PBS Poll-435]

162. Right on!

They tried, they really tried.

Never Forget The Battle Form 8829:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5389148&mesg_id=5418021

[MethuenProgressive]

164. Ewwwwwww!! Warn a guy before you post links like that!!

It is funny when they're hoisted on their own petard, though!

[PBS Poll-435]

166. :-)

Sorry...I thought you would have a little pitty though. I felt bad afterwards!

:evilgrin:

[ProSense]

168. You link to that thread as if it justifies your attempt in this thread to distract from the lack of

disclosure, Mark Penn, the Columbian trade deal and the lobbyist.

As I said at the link you provided: enlighten me. Why did Ron Burkle and InfoUSA give the Clintons nearly $18 million?

[PBS Poll-435]

169. Distraction is your game, unfortunately...

Give it up already. You look so silly.

:dunce:

[ProSense]

172. Are you serious? Look at this thread: there's a clown in it who is trying to ignore Mark Penn n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

173. I am trying to figure out what that has to do with

The Senate Ethics Committee & financial disclosure...

:shrug:

[babylonsister]

163. As usual, your post is fabulous and full of info. I wish you'd

consider putting them in your journal so I'd know where to find them.

Thanks for all the effort and brainpower you share with us! :yourock::pals:

[MethuenProgressive]

165. Imagine! If ever that "brainpower" went to support instead of hate!

I see the "help me" o-mail has gone out...

[PBS Poll-435]

167. Please take the time to read a sub-thread here.

Start w/ post 104. Thanks ! :-)

[ProSense]

170. Hillary Spokesperson: Penn Still Playing An "Important" Role

Hillary Spokesperson: Penn Still Playing An "Important" Role

By Greg Sargent - April 8, 2008, 1:13PM

Mark Penn isn't going anywhere.

On the Hillary campaign's conference call moments ago, Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson left zero doubt: Camp Hillary will not be heeding the Obama campaign's demand that they fire Penn completely.

Asked about reports that Penn is still participating on internal campaign strategy calls, Wolfson said, "I'm not going to send out a daily email about who's on which calls and who isn't," clarifying: "Mark is no longer senior strategist, but he will be playing a continuing role in strategy."

Pressed by a reporter to explain the difference between Penn's former and current status, Wolfson said: "The difference would be between the editor in chief of your newspaper and one who plays an important role at your newspaper."

He added that "anyone at a workplace" would understand "the difference between someone who is playing the key role" and "someone who is playing an important role."

So there you have it: Penn will continue playing an "important" role.

[rateyes]

174. What's the big deal?

$15,000,000 IS more than $1000.00! :sarcasm:

[ProSense]

175. Bill Clinton and the Colombian trade deal

Colombia to honor Bill Clinton amid growing Democrat scrutiny

The Associated Press
Published: May 24, 2007

BOGOTA, Colombia: Colombia will honor former U.S. President Bill Clinton for his efforts to reverse the country's image for violence and drugs at a gala event next month in New York City.

The June 8 event may become a political lightning rod for Democrats who are increasingly scrutinizing the human rights record of Washington's closest ally in Latin America.

<...>

The Colombian government is trying to counter its negative image among Washington Democrats and secure congressional passage of a free trade agreement signed by Uribe and the Bush administration last year, a deal Uribe considers his biggest foreign policy achievement.

Colombia agreed this month to pay US$300,000 (€223,000) to public relations firm Burson-Marsteller to help "educate members of the U.S. Congress and other audiences" about the trade deal and secure continued funding for Plan Colombia, the U.S.-backed counter-narcotics program that has cost American taxpayers more than US$5 billion (€3.72 billion) since 2000.

<...>

Clinton was responsible for pushing Plan Colombia through Congress when he was president, and for years he said he wore a bracelet honoring a Colombian culture minister, Consuelo Araujo, who was kidnapped by leftist rebels and killed during a botched military rescue attempt shortly after they met at the White House in 2000.

link

(emphasis added)

So why are the Clintons pretending to be surprised by Penn's involvement?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush has jeopardized chances for approval of a free trade agreement with Colombia by forcing a vote in Congress on the pact, a top Democratic senator said on Tuesday.

"The president's unprecedented handling of the U.S.-Colombia trade agreement raises extraordinary questions about how we can move this agreement forward," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, said.

Bush formally submitted legislation to implement the controversial agreement to Congress on Tuesday, and urged lawmakers to approve it as quickly as possible.

<...>

Leading Democrats -- including presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- oppose the agreement because they say Colombia has not done enough to reduce killings of labor leaders and bring their murderers to justice.

link

[ProSense]

177. Hillary's campaign spins, then claims they're offended

Hillary campaign ad pushes BS claim that Obama takes money from oil companies:

"It's time for president who takes on the oil companies in real life, not just on TV," the narrator says.