It comes out on Countdown why Hillary will not accept VP request

[JMDEM]

Whether or not you want Hillary as VP, she cannot accept the job. The reason was exposed on Countdown last night:

In order to be Obama's VP choice, the Clintons would have to reveal the donors to Clinton's library, and the Clintons will NOT do this -- under any circumstances.

Interesting -- who is hiding in that donor's list?

[JeanGrey]

1. This is getting ridiculous - if it is this much of a deal to hide

it then they did something awful.

[MonkeyFunk]

5. No, it's not

it's a big deal because the people who donated did so with the expectation of privacy. Charitable donations are NOT public information.

Clinton said if she were elected, she'd change the rules moving forward so that people would know their donations would be made public - but those who donated in the past did so with the expectation that it would be kept private.

The old "What's she hiding?" bullshit was used by you guys again and again over the tax returns, which turned out to be a baseless attack.

[Kittycat]

8. Obama wouldn're release it to the public, but it is necessary for the vetting process.

If they're unable to proved documentation proving there are no skeletons in their closet, then he can't consider her. The last thing he needs is an October Clinton surprise. It would be difficult enough getting his supporters to approve of her, and trying to keep her name from energizing the republican base and donors.

[Cha]

32. 2nd spot wouldn't do, huh? So it

had to be # 1.. only that didn't work out as planned.

[Generic Brad]

41. If you're not first, you're last

That's what Ricky Bobby said in "Taladega Nights".

[nebula]

9. It begs the question

Why would his donors be so eager to remain anonymous?

Because some of those 'donors' might be members of the Saudi royal family, or an oil company, or an Indian outsourcing firm, or a defense contractor, etc.?

[MonkeyFunk]

20. Doesn't matter why...

Bill Clinton himself has said there are people on that list who would be embarrassed if it were known they gave to his library. The fact is, charitable donations are private - and that's a good thing.

How would you like it if somebody published Planned Parenthood's donor list? It would be terrible.

Again, the notion that they're hiding something is nonsensical - you guys pulled it for months over their tax returns, and it was yet another baseless attack from the haters.

[hokies4ever]

30. Any of you embarrassed by donations to charity?

Sorry, this argument falls flat on its face.

[populistdriven]

40. ur kidding right? seriously

[hokies4ever]

45. Um, well they shouldn't be accepting illegal donations then

[JackBeck]

42. If they are private donations

then why did the library sell portions of the list?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/clinton-library.html

[Cha]

34. It begs so many questions... who knew

clinton's library would give us a break?

I remember when I got that flyer in the mail with his pic & others digging a shovel full of dirt for the groundbreaking..little did I know how I would come to loathe that name.

[Renew Deal]

14. I disagree on this one.

I think the library donations can be a vehicle of corruption and should be made public if she wants higher office. It's a legal way of doing kickbacks. I don't like it.

[JeanGrey]

18. Yup! But some would have us believe that Hillary would

give up a VP spot (which I don't believe for one minute he'd ever offer) just to keep donors "private"................of course nothing wrong ROTFLMAO

[MonkeyFunk]

21. So she should violate the privacy of the thousands of people

who donated to her husband's library?

You do realize that the library is a registered charity, right? It's not cash that goes into the Clintons' pockets.

[Whisp]

29. all I can say is:

:rofl:

there are 'certain' times, only allowed to certain people, and circumstances, where 'privacy' if more important than transparency in government. and those private thingies are sacrocant and the pugs will stay the hell away from that in the runup to GE.
actually, maybe they will, seeing as the clintons and bushes have been bedded for so long and tag teaming falseties for us idiots.

yep yep

:rofl:

[JeanGrey]

17. I see you still haven't gotten over your loss. You should

try to work on it. If Hillary is willing to give up VP to keep it secret, it is NOT as simple as you believe.

[MonkeyFunk]

23. I have nothing to get over.

I've always said I like Obama, and I think he'll make a fine candidate and a fine president. You guys can't comprehend not hating the opponent of your chosen candidate. Some of us are more grown up than that.

I'm making a valid point about donations to charitable organizations. Why do you want to personalize it?

[stillcool]

19. I don't get it...

Clinton Library Sells Secret Donor List

November 19, 2007 1:47 PM
Three years after the William J. Clinton Presidential Library opened its doors, the list of donors who helped the former president build his $165 million complex remains a secret from the public.

Yet the Blotter on ABCNews.com has learned that the Clinton Foundation sold portions of the list through a data company headed by a longtime friend and donor.

"The fact that they've sold the list and then turned around and said that these names must be kept anonymous completely undercuts their argument," said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based government watchdog group that tracks the influence of money in politics.

An employee of Walter Karl, a subsidiary of the data company InfoUSA, told ABCNews.com that the company made a list of more than 38,000 donors to the Clinton presidential library available for sale to foundations and other nonprofit groups from June 2006 to May 2007. A spokesman for the company would not say how the profits from the sale of the partial list were distributed.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/clinton-library.html

[MonkeyFunk]

24. I'm sure you don't get it

selling mailing lists is pretty common among charitable organizations. They didn't sell a list of who gave how much and when. They sold a mailing list.

[stillcool]

51. that's not what I read...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/clinton-library.html
Clinton Library Sells Secret Donor List

November 19, 2007 1:47 PM
Three years after the William J. Clinton Presidential Library opened its doors, the list of donors who helped the former president build his $165 million complex remains a secret from the public.

Yet the Blotter on ABCNews.com has learned that the Clinton Foundation sold portions of the list through a data company headed by a longtime friend and donor.

"The fact that they've sold the list and then turned around and said that these names must be kept anonymous completely undercuts their argument," said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based government watchdog group that tracks the influence of money in politics.

An employee of Walter Karl, a subsidiary of the data company InfoUSA, told ABCNews.com that the company made a list of more than 38,000 donors to the Clinton presidential library available for sale to foundations and other nonprofit groups from June 2006 to May 2007. A spokesman for the company would not say how the profits from the sale of the partial list were distributed.

[hokies4ever]

28. It's just the official story as to why Obama's camp doesn't want her.

Hard to see any other interpretation of this.

[hokies4ever]

31. Turned out that she had made $100+ million

while trying to sell the image of a working class girl from Scranton. :rofl:

[mzmolly]

35. Thanks for the info MonkeyFunk,

makes much sense.

[cliffordu]

39. And, remember from all the Rezko/Wright/Ayers bullshit

some of your posts, the APPEARANCE of impropriety is as good as a body in a trunk.


Tuzla. John McCain talks about Tuzla once....and that just about ends it.

Whitewater, the Colombians, the Chinese.... blah de blah

[newmajority]

47. Who would hide a donation to a library?

I could see, for example, how a closeted individual might not want their contributions to a gay rights organization made public, and I suppose confidentiality is warranted for those reasons. But why would anybody want to conceal a donation to a Presidential Library?

[MonkeyFunk]

53. republicans who gave to Clinton

nonetheless, it's not up to YOU to decide.

Charitable donations are private. If they want to change the rules, it's fine - but only going forward.

[JackBeck]

48. Looks like privacy wasn't that big of a concern.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402124.html

A handful of major donors' names to the Clinton library were disclosed in 2004 when a New York Sun reporter accessed a public computer terminal at the library that provided a list of donors. Soon after the article appeared, the list of donors was removed.

So not only was part of the list accessible in 2004, but then a portion of that list was sold:

"The fact that they've sold the list and then turned around and said that these names must be kept anonymous completely undercuts their argument," said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based government watchdog group that tracks the influence of money in politics.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/clinton-library.html

Not so private after all.

[Chulanowa]

50. Agreed (put on your crash helmet!)

I could care less who's on the library donor list. It's unimportant, and none of my business besides. Even if I were interested... Pffft. Everyu library has a few scummy donors. It's no big whup.

[Abacus]

6. I honestly think she is simply obsessed with secrecy

which concerns me far more than the donor list. There was the similar level of suspicion by the right surrounding her thesis, which I understand to have been rather mundane. Then there is her infamous ""I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president" line from the 90s. Her fixation on closing the public (and, when it came to health care, fellow Democrats) out of the process weighed on me more than her IWR vote.

[Celebration]

43. Yup--

This was my biggest beef with her all along, until the campaign turned up many other idiosyncrasies. She is very secretive. Since open government is my biggest issue..........well, I am not a big Hillary fan.

[mod mom]

11. Here is a glimmer as to how Bill made his money (& it ain't purty):

After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton

By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: January 31, 2008
Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.

Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton.

-snip

snip

"Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent."

"Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy."

-snip

Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.

LINK:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html

[mod mom]

13. and here he makes more money off of mining:

When the Clintons Mine Big Bucks
By Steve Weissman
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Thursday 03 April 2008

-snip

In June 2005, Giustra provided his luxurious MD-87 jet for Clinton to make speeches in Mexico, Colombia, Chile and Brazil. According to Bloomberg News, the tour earned Clinton $800,000 in personal income. Giustra "has since put his plane at Clinton's disposal at least a dozen times to raise money for charity, his wife's presidential campaign or himself," Bloomberg reported.

American law does not permit Giustra, as a Canadian, to contribute directly to Hillary Clinton's campaign. Whether providing his plane to raise campaign money counts as a contribution, I leave to the legal eagles.

A far more telling payoff involved Colombia, which has long faced international condemnation for its well-documented violations of labor and other human rights. In the oval office and after, Bill Clinton never let this get in his way, steadfastly backing a free trade agreement with the country along with a $3 billion "Plan Colombia" to fight drug traffickers and guerrillas. As he publicly told Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and others in Bogota, he was "absolutely convinced that it was vital to American interests that Colombia succeed" against the left-wing narcotraficantes.

In September 2005, Clinton hosted "a philanthropic event" at which one of his aides arranged for Giustra to meet Uribe. According to The Wall Street Journal, the two men sat in the hallway speaking for about ten minutes. A Clinton aide later told Giustra the meeting had gone well.

Giustra wanted Colombian oil. He was working with a Canadian group that subsequently paid more than $250 million to operate oil fields in conjunction with Colombia's state-owned petroleum company. Giustra's associates - now operating as Pacific Rubiales Energy Corp. - also signed an oil pipeline deal and was invited to do further oil-development work in Colombia, the Journal reported.

-snip

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040308R.shtml

this is the money that we know about-can you imagine what they are trying to hide?

[Barack_America]

2. That was exactly what I was thinking re: the "what's she doing" question...

She was trying to strong-arm her way onto the ticket without having to go through the vetting process (i.e. not having to release the donor names). She was holding her supporters hostage as a "getting out of vetting-free" card.

Fortunately, Rangel put the smackdown on that nonsense yesterday.

[JMDEM]

3. Why would she have to see a vet?

Rabies? Distemper?

[Binka]

46. DUzy!

LOL! Good call JM.

[nebula]

4. Sounds like a money laundering operation to me.

make a large 'contribution' to the Bill Clinton library,
and his wife in the Senate gives you a juicy political favor in return.

[Carl Yasutomo]

7. So if she had won the nomination she wouldn't have to disclose it?

but if she gets the VP nomination she does?

I don't get it.

[SoFlaJet]

10. the GOP was smacking their lips waiting and hoping

that Hillary would win the nomination for exactly that reason Carl. The Obama campaign had no right to do it for the republicans (you know like HRC was only too happy to do against Obama) but just in case anybody wondered why all the RWers took such a shine to the Clintons this time around...they had a dosier that couldn't be beat-including names of women that Bill had been with...I'd hate to have to go through all that again. Consider it a blessing in disguise Clinton supporters....

[CreekDog]

12. the voters "vet" the presidential nominee

the nominee vets the VP nominee and yes, though it seems odd, that second vetting is harder in different ways, easier in others.

[karynnj]

16. Because if she won, there would be no one in the party who could

demand anything - though the media likely would.

Now, it is Obama's decision on who to take. That info goes to potential liabilities if she is on the ticket. Obama has every right to know what the liabilities are and to reject her if they won't tell.

[JMDEM]

15. This needs to be made widelly known...

So that Clinton supporters don't blame Obama for failing to choose Hillary.

[sfam]

22. OK...I admit it...I'm the donor everyone is worried about...

Just don't give out my name!!! Please!!!

[TexasObserver]

25. Obama should tell the Clintons they must make all these as public disclosure NOW

Then let the media respond as it will. If the media gives the Clintons a pass, that means the Clintons pass that part of the vetting process.

[Auntie Bush]

26. Their privacy maybe?

"Interesting -- who is hiding in that donor's list?"

Promises of anonymity to those donors? Did any other President ever make their Presidential library donor list available to anyone? I doubt it!
Also, maybe Obama may want his own list private in the future. It's like revealing who voted for who...that's private.

It doesn't mean there is something sinister...though there likely is. :evilgrin:

[ampad]

27. What I don't understand is why even run?

Why did she even run for office when she knew there was the possibility for this donor list to become an issue. I mean obviously it is a big deal considering she doesn't want to show the list. I also heard on Randi that Hillary wanted Obama to waive the vetting process for her. If true talk about arrogance. She was willing to throw the presidency down the drain because she is who she is.

[Stephanie]

33. Here are a few clues >

Obama is too smart to get mixed up with these people.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Stephanie/94

[gulfcoastliberal]

36. Wonder if the Bin Ladens are on that list?

I really do.

[oviedodem]

37. When you get $10 Mil from the Saudis and other OPEC countries ... do the math.

[dysfunctional press]

38. she can only run in 2012 if obama has a failed presidency, or loses to mccain...

either way, being the veep in either scenario would also make HER damaged goods for 2012.

the prudent thing for her to do is to be a senate STANDOUT, and fill the void to be left by ted kennedy.

[The Backlash Cometh]

44. This kind of politicking is precisely why she lost the bid for president.

She is over-invested.

[Zodiak]

49. Reason #2 Peter Paul trial

No one wants a running mate who is going to be sitting in a courtroom on campaign corruption charges.

[jasmine621]

52. She lost the nomination. Have you and KO had enough of trashing

bashing, innuendo, allegations, and shit about Hillary and Bill. Give it a rest.
We will never get trough November unified if this shit keeps up.

[demokatgurrl]

54. Why would she "have to" reveal them to be VP

but not to be President? This makes no sense to me.