Half of Clinton's State visitors donated to Foundation
Stephen Braun, Associated PressWashington — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.
Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton’s help with a visa problem and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm’s corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa.
They are among at least 85 of 154 people with private interests who either met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton and also gave to her family’s charities, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. The 154 does not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives.
The AP’s findings represent the first systematic effort to calculate the scope of the intersecting interests of Clinton foundation donors and people who met personally with Clinton or spoke to her by phone about their needs.
The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors.
Donald Trump’s vice presidential candidate, Mike Pence, said Tuesday the overlaps identified by AP were “further evidence of the pay-to-play politics at her State Department” and called for a special prosecutor to investigate.
Last week, the Clinton Foundation moved to head off ethics concerns about future donations by announcing changes planned if she is elected. Those planned changes would not affect more than 6,000 donors who have already provided the Clinton charity with more than $2 billion in funding since its creation in 2000.
“There’s a lot of potential conflicts and a lot of potential problems,” said Douglas White, an expert on nonprofits at Columbia University. “The point is, she can’t just walk away from these 6,000 donors.”
Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said in a statement Tuesday the standard set by the Clinton Foundation’s ethics restrictions was “unprecedented, even if it may never satisfy some critics.”
Muhammad Yunus, a Bangladeshi economist who won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for pioneering low-interest “microcredit” for poor business owners, met with Clinton three times and talked with her by phone during a period when Bangladeshi government authorities investigated his oversight of a nonprofit bank and ultimately pressured him to resign from the bank’s board. Throughout the process, he pleaded for help in messages routed to Clinton, and she ordered aides to find ways to assist him.
Grameen America, the bank’s nonprofit U.S. flagship, which Yunus chairs, has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the foundation — a figure that bank spokeswoman Becky Asch said reflects the institution’s annual fees to attend CGI meetings. Another Grameen arm chaired by Yunus, Grameen Research, has donated between $25,000 and $50,000.
In another case, Clinton was host at a September 2009 breakfast meeting at the New York Stock Exchange that listed Blackstone Group chairman Stephen Schwarzman as one of the attendees. Schwarzman’s firm is a major Clinton Foundation donor, but he personally donates heavily to GOP candidates and causes. The next day, according to Clinton emails, the State Department was working on a visa issue at Schwarzman’s request. In December that same year, Schwarzman and his wife, Christine, sat at Clinton’s table during the Kennedy Center Honors.
Blackstone donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Eight Blackstone executives also gave between $375,000 and $800,000 to the foundation. And Blackstone’s charitable arm has pledged millions of dollars in commitments to three Clinton Global aid projects ranging from the U.S. to the Mideast. Blackstone officials did not make Schwarzman available for comment.
And in June 2011, Clinton met with Nancy Mahon of MAC AIDS, the charitable arm of MAC Cosmetics, which is owned by Estee Lauder. The meeting occurred before an announcement about a State Department partnership with MAC AIDS to raise money to finance AIDS education and prevention.
The MAC AIDS fund donated between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation and several million more in commitments to programs through the Clinton Global Initiative.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/08/23/clinton-foundation-state/89217208/
Well, I guess there's nothing new about greasin' the palms of politicians. Folks have been doin' it for years. Kinda sad, though when nobody seems to see anything wrong with it anymore. There's an old Russian proverb: people eventually get the leadership they deserve. Yeah, it's a double edged sword. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
Well, I guess there's nothing new about greasin' the palms of politicians. Folks have been doin' it for years. Kinda sad, though when nobody seems to see anything wrong with it anymore. There's an old Russian proverb: people eventually get the leadership they deserve. Yeah, it's a double edged sword. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
If she were running against a candidate who had even the slightest integrity or sensibility the Foundation and email stories would be a huge problem for her. But when measured against Trump they seem almost trivial. The Clintons acting in unethical ways to better themselves seems preferable to Trump acting in irrational ways to harm our country. It's a sad commentary on the current state of politics.
Well, I guess there's nothing new about greasin' the palms of politicians. Folks have been doin' it for years. Kinda sad, though when nobody seems to see anything wrong with it anymore. There's an old Russian proverb: people eventually get the leadership they deserve. Yeah, it's a double edged sword. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
If she were running against a candidate who had even the slightest integrity or sensibility the Foundation and email stories would be a huge problem for her. But when measured against Trump they seem almost trivial. The Clintons acting in unethical ways to better themselves seems preferable to Trump acting in irrational ways to harm our country. It's a sad commentary on the current state of politics.
I think you are underestimating the significance of how damaging HC's willingness to sell influence is. Not only does this mean just about any foreign government or international cooperation will dictate policy and spending but it also means that ANY irrational billionaire @sshole willing to write a check will have influence over our govt.
Our govt has steadily been losing credibility since Vietnam and Watergate. As bad as it is now, it's going below rock bottom once Hillary gets in there. I think she'll be on par or worse than Grant and Harding. Certainly has a case for the most openly corrupt candidate in history between being investigated by the FBI, her foundation contributions and rigging the primaries.
People need to write in a candidate. Any candidate but these two. If the aggregate of votes cast for someone other than Trump or Hillary is large enough, it may make a difference. Voting for a crook or a clown will not.
I think you are underestimating the significance of how damaging HC's willingness to sell influence is.
I think you are overestimating her willingness to do so.
People need to write in a candidate. Any candidate but these two. If the aggregate of votes cast for someone other than Trump or Hillary is large enough, it may make a difference. Voting for a crook or a clown will not.
What about the Libertarian ticket? Don't know anything about Gary Johnson but Bill Weld did a good job as Gov. in the 1990s
Could be a write in possibility....the elections campaigns are mostly just posturing for the media -- it's a different riff on the same theme every 4 years, "if you want a prosperous future, vote for me"...& so forth
good luck to the candidates
Well, I guess there's nothing new about greasin' the palms of politicians. Folks have been doin' it for years. Kinda sad, though when nobody seems to see anything wrong with it anymore. There's an old Russian proverb: people eventually get the leadership they deserve. Yeah, it's a double edged sword. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
If she were running against a candidate who had even the slightest integrity or sensibility the Foundation and email stories would be a huge problem for her. But when measured against Trump they seem almost trivial. The Clintons acting in unethical ways to better themselves seems preferable to Trump acting in irrational ways to harm our country. It's a sad commentary on the current state of politics.
I think you are underestimating the significance of how damaging HC's willingness to sell influence is. Not only does this mean just about any foreign government or international cooperation will dictate policy and spending but it also means that ANY irrational billionaire @sshole willing to write a check will have influence over our govt.
Our govt has steadily been losing credibility since Vietnam and Watergate. As bad as it is now, it's going below rock bottom once Hillary gets in there. I think she'll be on par or worse than Grant and Harding. Certainly has a case for the most openly corrupt candidate in history between being investigated by the FBI, her foundation contributions and rigging the primaries.
People need to write in a candidate. Any candidate but these two. If the aggregate of votes cast for someone other than Trump or Hillary is large enough, it may make a difference. Voting for a crook or a clown will not.
I agree about the potential damage that could be done by HRC. Back when Bill was President and having his dalliances I could never get people to understand that it was a national security issue. He placed himself in a position to be blackmailed and demonstrated his intent to cover-up. That should have made people extremely nervous, but instead it seemed that most thought, and still think, it was a private matter.
As far as voting 3rd party I sort of agree, but in the end one of these two will win. If you live in a red or blue state then I'd definitely say vote 3rd party, but if you live in a swing state and have extremely grave concerns about one of the major candidates you may want to vote for the other. That is the only way you could affect the outcome.
Well, I guess there's nothing new about greasin' the palms of politicians. Folks have been doin' it for years. Kinda sad, though when nobody seems to see anything wrong with it anymore. There's an old Russian proverb: people eventually get the leadership they deserve. Yeah, it's a double edged sword. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
If she were running against a candidate who had even the slightest integrity or sensibility the Foundation and email stories would be a huge problem for her. But when measured against Trump they seem almost trivial. The Clintons acting in unethical ways to better themselves seems preferable to Trump acting in irrational ways to harm our country. It's a sad commentary on the current state of politics.
OK, lets measure against Trump. Trump has spent a career in legitimate businesses with varying
levels of success, albeit. However, most would view him as a successful private-sector businessman.
He's never been elected to public office under the guise of serving the public with the true intention
of padding his own bank account.
The Clintons have made their fortune in politics. They essentially have "gone into" the business of
enriching themselves through a history of some pretty shady dealings. Not necessarily illegal, but the
Clintons are masters at walking that fine line. You don't have to do something illegal to be a slimeball.
You think if Hillary gets elected they will finally go legit and leave the shady deals, influence peddling,
selling access, ect, ect behind?
Far worse than Bill's philandering was his selling military technology to China. But the other stuff probably wasn't good either.
I see your point on the swing states but I have a different view for a couple of reasons.
1) My vote counts. People say you are "throwing you're vote away" if you vote for a non Dem or Republican. Said another way, "By not voting for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton you are throwing your vote away." Let that sink in. I don't see not voting for these two as throwing my vote away.
2) I see your point, but I think these two are both so rotten it is more important for voters to cast a protest vote.
3) I am not voting for him but I think Trump is so unqualified and uninterested in being president electing him would do less damage. He is such a buffoon both parties would be forced to work together to make sure the govt kept functioning. I also don't see a Trump lasting 4 years. I think he'd resign and possibly be impeached.
He's never been elected to public office under the guise of serving the public with the true intention
of padding his own bank account.
That's exactly what he's doing right now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-campaign-rent_us_57bba424e4b03d51368a82b9?
Far worse than Bill's philandering was his selling military technology to China. But the other stuff probably wasn't good either.
I see your point on the swing states but I have a different view for a couple of reasons.
1) My vote counts. People say you are "throwing you're vote away" if you vote for a non Dem or Republican. Said another way, "By not voting for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton you are throwing your vote away." Let that sink in. I don't see not voting for these two as throwing my vote away.
2) I see your point, but I think these two are both so rotten it is more important for voters to cast a protest vote.
3) I am not voting for him but I think Trump is so unqualified and uninterested in being president electing him would do less damage. He is such a buffoon both parties would be forced to work together to make sure the govt kept functioning. I also don't see a Trump lasting 4 years. I think he'd resign and possibly be impeached.
1) Agree completely. No one throws away their vote unless they don't vote.
2) I think HRC is abhorrent but not as dangerous as Trump. I live in NC, a swing state, and may have to hold my nose and vote for Hillary unless something drastic happens. Right now she is leading in NC by less than 2%..
3) I don't think he'll win, but if he does I hope you're right. To a degree both parties have already come together to keep him out office, haven't they?
[Edited on 8/24/2016 by bob1954]
He's never been elected to public office under the guise of serving the public with the true intention
of padding his own bank account.That's exactly what he's doing right now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-campaign-rent_us_57bba424e4b03d51368a82b9?
So he's already been elected?
I think you are underestimating the significance of how damaging HC's willingness to sell influence is.
I think you are overestimating her willingness to do so.
How do you figure?
He's never been elected to public office under the guise of serving the public with the true intention
of padding his own bank account.That's exactly what he's doing right now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-campaign-rent_us_57bba424e4b03d51368a82b9?
So he's already been elected?
No, and he's ALREADY profiteering!
I think you are underestimating the significance of how damaging HC's willingness to sell influence is.
I think you are overestimating her willingness to do so.
How do you figure?
Based on what I have read/heard.
He's never been elected to public office under the guise of serving the public with the true intention
of padding his own bank account.That's exactly what he's doing right now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-campaign-rent_us_57bba424e4b03d51368a82b9?
So he's already been elected?
No, and he's ALREADY profiteering!
If only we had a few hundred thousand dollars to hire Hillary for 45 minutes to explain the finer points to us in secret. 😉
While none of this is good, giving to a foundation that actually helps people is different than the Clinton's "enriching themselves"......
3) I am not voting for him but I think Trump is so unqualified and uninterested in being president electing him would do less damage. He is such a buffoon both parties would be forced to work together to make sure the govt kept functioning. I also don't see a Trump lasting 4 years. I think he'd resign and possibly be impeached.
A president who is "unqualified" and seen as a "buffoon" gets to the point that he resigns out of disinterest in doing the job or is impeached (and presumably convicted if you are saying it would put him out of office) for doing something criminal or some otherwise impeachable/convcitable act would do "less damage" than what exactly? I mean that sounds pretty freakin' damaging to me!!!
I think you are underestimating the significance of how damaging HC's willingness to sell influence is.
I think you are overestimating her willingness to do so.
How do you figure?
Based on what I have read/heard.
TV and the NY Times told you Hillary would never do a thing like that? 😉
Jokes aside, please be more specific.
I have read plenty about the Clinton Foundation accepting tens of millions of dollars from parties with business before the state department and those seeking influence, the foundation then spending more on "expenses" then actual charity, of Billary accepting tens of millions of speaking fees from foreign and corporate interests - Hillary is still "looking into" making any of these speeches public, Hillary setting up a private server and hiding communications from the FBI(!) Chelsa getting a $600k a year gig at NBC, there is the article atop this thread. It's not good.
While none of this is good, giving to a foundation that actually helps people is different than the Clinton's "enriching themselves"......
Yeah, that does seem to get lost in the "debate". The Clinton Foundation is actually saving lives all over the world. That pales in comparison to presidential politics though I guess.
While none of this is good, giving to a foundation that actually helps people is different than the Clinton's "enriching themselves"......
Except when most of the money the foundation worth a few hundred million spends goes to "expenses."
I have been trying to insert smiley faces in my posts to convey the fact I am trying to keep it light but they have not printed.
I think you are underestimating the significance of how damaging HC's willingness to sell influence is.
I think you are overestimating her willingness to do so.
How do you figure?
Based on what I have read/heard.
TV and the NY Times told you Hillary would never do a thing like that? 😉
Jokes aside, please be more specific.
I have read plenty about the Clinton Foundation accepting tens of millions of dollars from parties with business before the state department and those seeking influence, the foundation then spending more on "expenses" then actual charity, of Billary accepting tens of millions of speaking fees from foreign and corporate interests - Hillary is still "looking into" making any of these speeches public, Hillary setting up a private server and hiding communications from the FBI(!) Chelsa getting a $600k a year gig at NBC, there is the article atop this thread. It's not good.
Yes, I know what FOX news and Brietbart are saying. The vast majority of it is ginned up political BS. And even it you accept all of it at face value, it is all mirrored by the questionable/unethical/illegal business practices that Trump has engaged in for decades. So I call that a push. Now, if I set all that aside and just look at the campaigns then to my eyes, Trump is the worst candidate for any office on any ballot that I have/will cast in my lifetime, bar none. Of the candidates that will appear on my ballot in Nov, he is the most dangerous BY FAR in my opinion among those running for POTUS. That does not mean I support Hillary (I've said that here at least two dozen times over the last however many months) and I will NOT be voting for her either. But between the two of them, I would be less distressed if she wins than if he wins. Hooray.
This isn't Fox BS. The article above is from the associated press for example. HC and BC don't deny all the speaking fee money they have accepted, only the publication of what it is they have been saying. The fact that HC has been under investigation by the FBI while running for president during an election year is not a made up fantasy. Chelsa Clinton's $600k a year gig with NBC isn't made up. Bill selling military tech to the Chinese while president isn't mad up. You can't tell me that sh*t don't stink.
I am not voting for that. No way, no how.
Just to be clear, and I have to laugh while typing this, I am not voting for Donald Trump. No way, no how.
I think a vote this time around really is better spent on a protest vote.
This isn't Fox BS. The article above is from the associated press for example. HC and BC don't deny all the speaking fee money they have accepted, only the publication of what it is they have been saying. The fact that HC has been under investigation by the FBI while running for president during an election year is not a made up fantasy. Chelsa Clinton's $600k a year gig with NBC isn't made up. Bill selling military tech to the Chinese while president isn't mad up. You can't tell me that sh*t don't stink.
None of that makes her look good, agreed, even though I do think the majority of it is ginned up political BS. We don't have to agree on that. But like I said, at worst it is a push when comparing to Trump and so when you look at the actual campaigns, Trump is way worse a candidate. But the problem with picking between the lesser of two evils is that you are still picking evil.
I am not voting for that. No way, no how.
Just to be clear, and I have to laugh while typing this, I am not voting for Donald Trump. No way, no how.
Ok, so we agree.
I think a vote this time around really is better spent on a protest vote.
It's not a protest vote for me...I will vote for who I think the best candidate is. If they were the only two available, I'm not sure I wouldn't write someone in (that would be a protest vote) but fortunately that isn't the case.
I have read plenty about the Clinton Foundation accepting tens of millions of dollars from parties with business before the state department and those seeking influence, the foundation then spending more on "expenses" then actual charity, of Billary accepting tens of millions of speaking fees from foreign and corporate interests - Hillary is still "looking into" making any of these speeches public, Hillary setting up a private server and hiding communications from the FBI(!) Chelsa getting a $600k a year gig at NBC, there is the article atop this thread. It's not good.
Yes, I know what FOX news and Brietbart are saying. The vast majority of it is ginned up political BS. And even it you accept all of it at face value, it is all mirrored by the questionable/unethical/illegal business practices that Trump has engaged in for decades. So I call that a push.
How is that a push? Trump wasn't hiding behind the government the whole time. Unlike the Clinton's,
he could have faced any number of penalties and the legal system for any malfeasance. Unlike the
Clintons, he could have actually faced prosecution.
This isn't Fox BS. The article above is from the associated press for example. HC and BC don't deny all the speaking fee money they have accepted, only the publication of what it is they have been saying. The fact that HC has been under investigation by the FBI while running for president during an election year is not a made up fantasy. Chelsa Clinton's $600k a year gig with NBC isn't made up. Bill selling military tech to the Chinese while president isn't mad up. You can't tell me that sh*t don't stink.
None of that makes her look good, agreed, even though I do think the majority of it is ginned up political BS. We don't have to agree on that. But like I said, at worst it is a push when comparing to Trump and so when you look at the actual campaigns, Trump is way worse a candidate. But the problem with picking between the lesser of two evils is that you are still picking evil.
I am not voting for that. No way, no how.
Just to be clear, and I have to laugh while typing this, I am not voting for Donald Trump. No way, no how.
Ok, so we agree.
I think a vote this time around really is better spent on a protest vote.
It's not a protest vote for me...I will vote for who I think the best candidate is. If they were the only two available, I'm not sure I wouldn't write someone in (that would be a protest vote) but fortunately that isn't the case.
Who are you voting for? I need suggestions. I saw the libertarian in an interview (Johnson?) and he said somethings to the effect of "the constitution is important, but international treaties like NAFTA and TPP [which hasn't even been ratified yet] are the supreme law of the land" so that guy is clearly a big fraud and a stooge.
Don't know a lot, well anything, about Jill Stein but I read on a comment board somewhere that she was a rambling mess on a CNN town hall and the comment poster was deeply disappointed.
Was considering Willie Nelson.
Who are you voting for? I need suggestions. I saw the libertarian in an interview (Johnson?) and he said somethings to the effect of "the constitution is important, but international treaties like NAFTA and TPP [which hasn't even been ratified yet] are the supreme law of the land" so that guy is clearly a big fraud and a stooge.
Don't know a lot, well anything, about Jill Stein but I read on a comment board somewhere that she was a rambling mess on a CNN town hall and the comment poster was deeply disappointed.
Was considering Willie Nelson.
As of today, Johnson/Weld. I've done a fair amount of looking into him/them and have watched most of both town halls they did on CNN and didn't see the comment you are citing and it is not what I would have expected based on what I have seen/read from them to this point. Do you know where/when he said it so I can go look it up?
Here is the way I see them, in general terms...Johnson and Weld are former republicans and have both have said they are not slaves to the libertarian platform, and have consistently shown resistance to the more "extreme" (not sure that's the right word) parts of libertarian doctrine. In that sense, I would equate them to the more "moderate" or middle of spectrum politicians that are part of the two major parties. Consider also that there is no libertarian party representation in the legislative branch. To me that means that while they may have an L next to their names, electing them would not lead to an automatic implementation of the libertarian platform. Rather, electing them would send a much needed shock to the all too comfortable 2-party system that has given us such flawed candidates. Now, I have no illusions that Gary Johnson will be POTUS this time next year, but that doesn't mean I consider it a "protest vote" and I would really like to seem him at the debate table this fall in the hopes that more people will become open to the idea that there is more to the world than Ds and Rs and the antiquated political system they represent. And FWIW, they will appear on the ballot on all 50 states.
Who are you voting for? I need suggestions. I saw the libertarian in an interview (Johnson?) and he said somethings to the effect of "the constitution is important, but international treaties like NAFTA and TPP [which hasn't even been ratified yet] are the supreme law of the land" so that guy is clearly a big fraud and a stooge.
Don't know a lot, well anything, about Jill Stein but I read on a comment board somewhere that she was a rambling mess on a CNN town hall and the comment poster was deeply disappointed.
Was considering Willie Nelson.
It seems to me the most effective protest vote would be for Gary Johnson regardless of whether or not you agree with him. Unless a 3rd party gets a significant percentage of the vote the major parties will continue to act as if there is no reason to pay attention. The only candidate who has the potential to get a significant share of the vote is Johnson. He won't reach the level of Perot in 1992 (19%, 0 electoral votes) or Wallace in 1968 (13.5%, 45 electoral votes) but if he doesn't get at least 10-12% nobody will take notice and there will be no impact on major party politics. A Willie Nelson vote would feel good, but would certainly have zero impact on anything.
Donald Trump wants the Clinton Foundation and its contributors investigated. Fine, I don't have a problem with that.
Donald Trump contributed to the Clinton Foundation. So, in effect, Trump is calling for an investigation into himself, among others.
We have gone beyond the pale.
