That seems to be a persistent problem for the Clintons. Always tangled up in some kind
of fundraising question. That's been their history, if it's not sex it's money.[Edited on 2/22/2015 by alloak41]
Sex...really, alloak? That was Bill & not Hillary? How many years ago for Bill? Bill will be quite the asset on the campaign trail should Hillary run. And to this day, Bill's popularity & skill set surpasses most anything the GOP can march out as candidates.
Sex...really, alloak? How petty!
Totally avoids the fundraising part.
To be fair, you brought up the sex angle.
_____________________________________________________________________
That was Bill Clinton, a sex predator.
As a liberal I'm sure that is just fine with you.
That seems to be a persistent problem for the Clintons. Always tangled up in some kind
of fundraising question. That's been their history, if it's not sex it's money.[Edited on 2/22/2015 by alloak41]
Sex...really, alloak? That was Bill & not Hillary? How many years ago for Bill? Bill will be quite the asset on the campaign trail should Hillary run. And to this day, Bill's popularity & skill set surpasses most anything the GOP can march out as candidates.
Sex...really, alloak? How petty!
____________________________________________________________________
Yes, adultery and a sitting president lying under oath are all good with the liberals.
Who presumably is running for President? Is it Bill or Hillary? Has Hillary ever been a sitting President? If not, than your most recent drivel is irrelevant.
That seems to be a persistent problem for the Clintons. Always tangled up in some kind
of fundraising question. That's been their history, if it's not sex it's money.[Edited on 2/22/2015 by alloak41]
Sex...really, alloak? That was Bill & not Hillary? How many years ago for Bill? Bill will be quite the asset on the campaign trail should Hillary run. And to this day, Bill's popularity & skill set surpasses most anything the GOP can march out as candidates.
Sex...really, alloak? How petty!
Totally avoids the fundraising part.
I thought I'd just chime in on the trite portion of your post.
alloak41:
It would seem our liberal friends are unable to discuss the salient points so they crawl into the gutter with a comment not on point.
The pattern continues.
The far-left Salon.com hits Hillary (Salon.com is pushing for Liz Warren) aka: Hillary continues to lose support amongst liberals.
Glenn Greenwald blasts Hillary Clinton: “The ultimate guardian of bipartisan status quo corruption”
Journalist says Clinton's glide path to Democratic nomination is "depressing"
Glenn Greenwald (Credit: AP/Silvia Izquierdo)
Calling Hillary Clinton “the ultimate guardian” of a broken political system, The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald on Monday lamented that her likely nomination as the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential candidate will prevent a real debate on issues like National Security Agency spying.
Asked during a Reddit Q & A how citizens could ensure that surveillance is front-and-center in next year’s elections, Greenwald responded that the key obstacle to a genuine debate on such issues is “bipartisan consensus.”
“When the leadership of both parties join together – as they so often do, despite the myths to the contrary – those issues disappear from mainstream public debate,” Greenwald wrote, noting that President Obama, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Speaker John Boehner joined forces to block legislation killing the NSA’s metadata program after whistleblower Edward Snowden laid bare the scale of the agency’s surveillance operations.
That legislation, Greenwald pointed out, was introduced by Tea Party conservative Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) and liberal stalwart Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), underscoring that the debate boils down more to “insider v. outsider” than Democrats versus Republicans. What’s needed, he argued, is for leaders of one of the major parties to commit to making NSA reform a political issue.
“That’s why the Dem efforts to hand Hillary Clinton the nomination without contest are so depressing,” Greenwald continued. “She’s the ultimate guardian of bipartisan status quo corruption, and no debate will happen if she’s the nominee against some standard Romney/Bush-type GOP candidate. Some genuine dissenting force is crucial.”
In an interview with NPR’s Terry Gross last summer, Clinton criticized the NSA’s surveillance of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, but criticized Snowden’s leaks, asserting that he could have “expressed his concerns,” possibly “by reaching out to some of the senators or other members of Congress or journalists in order to convey his questions about the implementation of the laws surrounding the collection of information concerning Americans’ calls and emails.” Though she hasn’t backed specific reforms, she did applaud then-Sen. Mark Udall’s (D-CO) work on NSA reform during a campaign-stump appearance last year, calling it “an important and challenging task that he took on.”
As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton joined 97 other senators in voting for the U.S.A. Patriot Act.
That seems to be a persistent problem for the Clintons. Always tangled up in some kind
of fundraising question. That's been their history, if it's not sex it's money.[Edited on 2/22/2015 by alloak41]
With the amount of money spent in politics these days, it is a slippery problem for everyone.
You have a point. But with the absence of a challenger, the Clintons shouldn't have a
problem raising boatloads of money without bending any rules.
Wait a minute. Muleman posted an article implying that Hillary's donors are running away and implying that Hillary won't be ablate raise any money. Now you're implying that Hillary shouldn't have problem raising boatloads of money without bending nay rules. You conservatives need to have some kind of meeting to get your stories straight.
That seems to be a persistent problem for the Clintons. Always tangled up in some kind
of fundraising question. That's been their history, if it's not sex it's money.[Edited on 2/22/2015 by alloak41]
Sex...really, alloak? That was Bill & not Hillary? How many years ago for Bill? Bill will be quite the asset on the campaign trail should Hillary run. And to this day, Bill's popularity & skill set surpasses most anything the GOP can march out as candidates.
Sex...really, alloak? How petty!
Totally avoids the fundraising part.
To be fair, you brought up the sex angle.
_____________________________________________________________________
That was Bill Clinton, a sex predator.
As a liberal I'm sure that is just fine with you.
Seeing how Republicans just elected Mark Sanford to the house after disappearing from office to see a mistress, using public money to see his mistress, and then lying about the extramarital affair and everything else, it seems like lying about extramarital affairs is just fine with Republicans as well.
That seems to be a persistent problem for the Clintons. Always tangled up in some kind
of fundraising question. That's been their history, if it's not sex it's money.[Edited on 2/22/2015 by alloak41]
Sex...really, alloak? That was Bill & not Hillary? How many years ago for Bill? Bill will be quite the asset on the campaign trail should Hillary run. And to this day, Bill's popularity & skill set surpasses most anything the GOP can march out as candidates.
Sex...really, alloak? How petty!
Totally avoids the fundraising part.
To be fair, you brought up the sex angle.
_____________________________________________________________________
That was Bill Clinton, a sex predator.
As a liberal I'm sure that is just fine with you.Seeing how Republicans just elected Mark Sanford to the house after disappearing from office to see a mistress, using public money to see his mistress, and then lying about the extramarital affair and everything else, it seems like lying about extramarital affairs is just fine with Republicans as well.
_______________________________________________________________________
I'll have to ask John Edwards about that.
BTW - "The Republicans" didn't elect Mark Sanford. The citizens of South Carolina did.
That seems to be a persistent problem for the Clintons. Always tangled up in some kind
of fundraising question. That's been their history, if it's not sex it's money.[Edited on 2/22/2015 by alloak41]
With the amount of money spent in politics these days, it is a slippery problem for everyone.
You have a point. But with the absence of a challenger, the Clintons shouldn't have a
problem raising boatloads of money without bending any rules.Wait a minute. Muleman posted an article implying that Hillary's donors are running away and implying that Hillary won't be ablate raise any money. Now you're implying that Hillary shouldn't have problem raising boatloads of money without bending nay rules. You conservatives need to have some kind of meeting to get your stories straight.
Perhaps, but I still submit that they will be able to raise more than enough money
playing by the rules. In light of their past history, that would be advisable IMO.
That seems to be a persistent problem for the Clintons. Always tangled up in some kind
of fundraising question. That's been their history, if it's not sex it's money.[Edited on 2/22/2015 by alloak41]
Sex...really, alloak? That was Bill & not Hillary? How many years ago for Bill? Bill will be quite the asset on the campaign trail should Hillary run. And to this day, Bill's popularity & skill set surpasses most anything the GOP can march out as candidates.
Sex...really, alloak? How petty!
Totally avoids the fundraising part.
To be fair, you brought up the sex angle.
_____________________________________________________________________
That was Bill Clinton, a sex predator.
As a liberal I'm sure that is just fine with you.Seeing how Republicans just elected Mark Sanford to the house after disappearing from office to see a mistress, using public money to see his mistress, and then lying about the extramarital affair and everything else, it seems like lying about extramarital affairs is just fine with Republicans as well.
_______________________________________________________________________
I'll have to ask John Edwards about that.
BTW - "The Republicans" didn't elect Mark Sanford. The citizens of South Carolina did.
Why would you ask John Edwards about that since he never won an election after his scandal? Although I'll bet he would know that the Republicans of South Carolina didn't seem to care about his lying, stealing from the taxpayers, or his sex scandel when he won the GOP primary.
Seeing how Republicans just elected Mark Sanford to the house after disappearing from office to see a mistress, using public money to see his mistress, and then lying about the extramarital affair and everything else, it seems like lying about extramarital affairs is just fine with Republicans as well.
_______________________________________________________________________
I'll have to ask John Edwards about that.
BTW - "The Republicans" didn't elect Mark Sanford. The citizens of South Carolina did.
Why would you ask John Edwards about that since he never won an election after his scandal? Although I'll bet he would know that the Republicans of South Carolina didn't seem to care about his lying, stealing from the taxpayers, or his sex scandel when he won the GOP primary.
Who ran against Sanford? That may be part of the equation.
Seeing how Republicans just elected Mark Sanford to the house after disappearing from office to see a mistress, using public money to see his mistress, and then lying about the extramarital affair and everything else, it seems like lying about extramarital affairs is just fine with Republicans as well.
_______________________________________________________________________
I'll have to ask John Edwards about that.
BTW - "The Republicans" didn't elect Mark Sanford. The citizens of South Carolina did.
Why would you ask John Edwards about that since he never won an election after his scandal? Although I'll bet he would know that the Republicans of South Carolina didn't seem to care about his lying, stealing from the taxpayers, or his sex scandel when he won the GOP primary.
Who ran against Sanford? That may be part of the equation.
I certainly am no expert on the 15 other candidates on GOP primary ballot that he beat. But there were 15 other choices, yet the Republican voters still thought that a lying, stealing, cheat was the best of the bunch. Hey, maybe he was the best of the bunch, but certainly moral high ground wasn't a big consideration in their decision. Either that or none of the Republican voters watch the news, you know, low-information voters.
Seeing how Republicans just elected Mark Sanford to the house after disappearing from office to see a mistress, using public money to see his mistress, and then lying about the extramarital affair and everything else, it seems like lying about extramarital affairs is just fine with Republicans as well.
_______________________________________________________________________
I'll have to ask John Edwards about that.
BTW - "The Republicans" didn't elect Mark Sanford. The citizens of South Carolina did.
Why would you ask John Edwards about that since he never won an election after his scandal? Although I'll bet he would know that the Republicans of South Carolina didn't seem to care about his lying, stealing from the taxpayers, or his sex scandel when he won the GOP primary.
Who ran against Sanford? That may be part of the equation.
I certainly am no expert on the 15 other candidates on GOP primary ballot that he beat. But there were 15 other choices, yet the Republican voters still thought that a lying, stealing, cheat was the best of the bunch. Hey, maybe he was the best of the bunch, but certainly moral high ground wasn't a big consideration in their decision. Either that or none of the Republican voters watch the news, you know, low-information voters.
Then again, maybe the Democrat on the ballot was such a stiff that Sanford won by default.
Seeing how Republicans just elected Mark Sanford to the house after disappearing from office to see a mistress, using public money to see his mistress, and then lying about the extramarital affair and everything else, it seems like lying about extramarital affairs is just fine with Republicans as well.
_______________________________________________________________________
I'll have to ask John Edwards about that.
BTW - "The Republicans" didn't elect Mark Sanford. The citizens of South Carolina did.
Why would you ask John Edwards about that since he never won an election after his scandal? Although I'll bet he would know that the Republicans of South Carolina didn't seem to care about his lying, stealing from the taxpayers, or his sex scandel when he won the GOP primary.
Who ran against Sanford? That may be part of the equation.
I certainly am no expert on the 15 other candidates on GOP primary ballot that he beat. But there were 15 other choices, yet the Republican voters still thought that a lying, stealing, cheat was the best of the bunch. Hey, maybe he was the best of the bunch, but certainly moral high ground wasn't a big consideration in their decision. Either that or none of the Republican voters watch the news, you know, low-information voters.
Then again, maybe the Democrat on the ballot was such a stiff that Sanford won by default.
__________________________________________________________________
Maybe he won because of all those dead people in SC that still vote.
Oh wait, those are fraudulent votes by the democrats.
Never mind.
Seeing how Republicans just elected Mark Sanford to the house after disappearing from office to see a mistress, using public money to see his mistress, and then lying about the extramarital affair and everything else, it seems like lying about extramarital affairs is just fine with Republicans as well.
_______________________________________________________________________
I'll have to ask John Edwards about that.
BTW - "The Republicans" didn't elect Mark Sanford. The citizens of South Carolina did.
Why would you ask John Edwards about that since he never won an election after his scandal? Although I'll bet he would know that the Republicans of South Carolina didn't seem to care about his lying, stealing from the taxpayers, or his sex scandel when he won the GOP primary.
Who ran against Sanford? That may be part of the equation.
I certainly am no expert on the 15 other candidates on GOP primary ballot that he beat. But there were 15 other choices, yet the Republican voters still thought that a lying, stealing, cheat was the best of the bunch. Hey, maybe he was the best of the bunch, but certainly moral high ground wasn't a big consideration in their decision. Either that or none of the Republican voters watch the news, you know, low-information voters.
Then again, maybe the Democrat on the ballot was such a stiff that Sanford won by default.
You're probably right. I guess the other 15 Republicans on the ballot that he beat in the Republican primary were stiffs too.
Seeing how Republicans just elected Mark Sanford to the house after disappearing from office to see a mistress, using public money to see his mistress, and then lying about the extramarital affair and everything else, it seems like lying about extramarital affairs is just fine with Republicans as well.
_______________________________________________________________________
I'll have to ask John Edwards about that.
BTW - "The Republicans" didn't elect Mark Sanford. The citizens of South Carolina did.
Why would you ask John Edwards about that since he never won an election after his scandal? Although I'll bet he would know that the Republicans of South Carolina didn't seem to care about his lying, stealing from the taxpayers, or his sex scandel when he won the GOP primary.
Who ran against Sanford? That may be part of the equation.
I certainly am no expert on the 15 other candidates on GOP primary ballot that he beat. But there were 15 other choices, yet the Republican voters still thought that a lying, stealing, cheat was the best of the bunch. Hey, maybe he was the best of the bunch, but certainly moral high ground wasn't a big consideration in their decision. Either that or none of the Republican voters watch the news, you know, low-information voters.
Then again, maybe the Democrat on the ballot was such a stiff that Sanford won by default.
__________________________________________________________________
Maybe he won because of all those dead people in SC that still vote.
Oh wait, those are fraudulent votes by the democrats.
Never mind.
Maybe he won because in Obama's America even the fine Republicans in the great state of South Carolina have been fundamentally changed into losing their moral compass, and therefore it is Obama's fault. Obama, what a failure.
Seeing how Republicans just elected Mark Sanford to the house after disappearing from office to see a mistress, using public money to see his mistress, and then lying about the extramarital affair and everything else, it seems like lying about extramarital affairs is just fine with Republicans as well.
_______________________________________________________________________
I'll have to ask John Edwards about that.
BTW - "The Republicans" didn't elect Mark Sanford. The citizens of South Carolina did.
Why would you ask John Edwards about that since he never won an election after his scandal? Although I'll bet he would know that the Republicans of South Carolina didn't seem to care about his lying, stealing from the taxpayers, or his sex scandel when he won the GOP primary.
Who ran against Sanford? That may be part of the equation.
I certainly am no expert on the 15 other candidates on GOP primary ballot that he beat. But there were 15 other choices, yet the Republican voters still thought that a lying, stealing, cheat was the best of the bunch. Hey, maybe he was the best of the bunch, but certainly moral high ground wasn't a big consideration in their decision. Either that or none of the Republican voters watch the news, you know, low-information voters.
Then again, maybe the Democrat on the ballot was such a stiff that Sanford won by default.
__________________________________________________________________
Maybe he won because of all those dead people in SC that still vote.
Oh wait, those are fraudulent votes by the democrats.
Never mind.
Maybe he won because in Obama's America even the fine Republicans in the great state of South Carolina have been fundamentally changed into losing their moral compass, and therefore it is Obama's fault. Obama, what a failure.
______________________________________________________________________
The citizens of South Carolina know better than to believe the hyped allegations.
The low-information Republican voters of South Carolina aren't smart enough to believe proven facts.
There, I fixed your post for you.
Hillary Clinton’s war on women analysis: As senator, Clinton paid women 72 cents for each dollar paid to men
By Brent Scher - Published February 23, 2015 - Washington Free Beacon
Hillary Clinton portrays herself as a champion of women in the workforce, but women working for her in the U.S. Senate were paid 72 cents for each dollar paid to men, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis of her Senate years’ salary data.
During those years, the median annual salary for a woman working in Clinton’s office was $15,708.38 less than the median salary for a man, according to the analysis of data compiled from official Senate expenditure reports.
The analysis compiled the annual salaries paid to staffers for an entire fiscal year of work from the years 2002 to 2008. Salaries of employees who were not part of Clinton’s office for a full fiscal year were not included. Because the Senate fiscal year extends from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30, Clinton’s first year in the Senate, which began on Jan. 3, 2001, was also not included in the analysis.
The salaries speak for themselves. The data shows that women in her office were paid 72 cents for every dollar paid to men.
Despite the numbers, Clinton and her allies have long-touted her as “a fighter for equal pay.”
Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton organization that fights negative reporting on her, pointed out as a senator she chaired hearings on the issue and sponsored legislation to address it.
Clinton herself has raised the issue, saying last year that there is still “more work to do,” and that 20 years ago women made just “72 cents on the dollar to men”–a figure identical to the gender pay gap in her own Senate office.
Click for more from the Washington Free Beacon.
Fiorina to Clinton: ‘Flying is an activity, not an accomplishment’
Published February 24, 2015 - The Associated Press
Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who is flirting with a Republican presidential bid in 2016, took some tough shots Tuesday at the likely Democratic front-runner – effectively accusing Hillary Clinton of running for office on a record of air travel.
"Like Hillary Clinton, I too have traveled hundreds of thousands of miles around the globe,” Fiorina said. “But unlike Hillary Clinton, I know that flying is an activity, not an accomplishment.”
Fiorina spoke in Atlanta at a luncheon hosted by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp. It marked at least the second time in as many months she has gone hard after Clinton; Fiorina previously criticized Clinton during an address last month at the Iowa Freedom Summit in Des Moines.
On Tuesday, Fiorina said that despite Clinton’s extensive travel as secretary of state, “every place in the world is more dangerous today than it was six years ago."
She also went after Clinton over recent reports on how the Clinton Foundation had lifted its own ban on foreign donations, and potential conflicts of interest that could arise from that should Clinton run for the White House.
“Really? This is the best we can do is to have yet another decade of campaign finance scandals?" Fiorina said.
Fiorina, who ran unsuccessfully for Senate in California in 2010, is often overshadowed by other big-name GOP presidential hopefuls, like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. But she has been making the moves to prepare for a potential candidacy.
Later Tuesday, Fiorina supporters announced they were launching a SuperPac entitled Carly for America to "help lay the groundwork for a potential presidential candidacy."
Fiorina's searing criticism was delivered shortly before Clinton herself spoke at a Silicon Valley women's conference, her first U.S. speech of the year.
Tuesday’s speech opens a stretch of public appearances in the next month ahead of an all-but-certain launch of her bid for the Democratic nomination.
The former secretary of state until now has steered clear of the spotlight -- her only two speeches in 2015 came in Canada last month -- choosing instead to huddle with advisers as a large field of Republican presidential hopefuls compete for attention.
Clinton was speaking Tuesday at the Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women in Santa Clara, Calif., an appearance before 5,000 attendees.
Clinton is scheduled to step up her public appearances in March, appearing at a gala for EMILY's List, which supports female Democratic candidates who support abortion rights, an awards ceremony in Washington for political journalists and a United Nations meeting on women's rights.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Seeing how Republicans just elected Mark Sanford to the house after disappearing from office to see a mistress, using public money to see his mistress, and then lying about the extramarital affair and everything else, it seems like lying about extramarital affairs is just fine with Republicans as well.
_______________________________________________________________________
I'll have to ask John Edwards about that.
BTW - "The Republicans" didn't elect Mark Sanford. The citizens of South Carolina did.
Why would you ask John Edwards about that since he never won an election after his scandal? Although I'll bet he would know that the Republicans of South Carolina didn't seem to care about his lying, stealing from the taxpayers, or his sex scandel when he won the GOP primary.
Who ran against Sanford? That may be part of the equation.
I certainly am no expert on the 15 other candidates on GOP primary ballot that he beat. But there were 15 other choices, yet the Republican voters still thought that a lying, stealing, cheat was the best of the bunch. Hey, maybe he was the best of the bunch, but certainly moral high ground wasn't a big consideration in their decision. Either that or none of the Republican voters watch the news, you know, low-information voters.
Just wondering if Sanford is one of the family values candidates that the GOP seems to be full of. You know... kind of like David "I love prostitutes" Vitter of Louisiana.
Seeing how Republicans just elected Mark Sanford to the house after disappearing from office to see a mistress, using public money to see his mistress, and then lying about the extramarital affair and everything else, it seems like lying about extramarital affairs is just fine with Republicans as well.
_______________________________________________________________________
I'll have to ask John Edwards about that.
BTW - "The Republicans" didn't elect Mark Sanford. The citizens of South Carolina did.
Why would you ask John Edwards about that since he never won an election after his scandal? Although I'll bet he would know that the Republicans of South Carolina didn't seem to care about his lying, stealing from the taxpayers, or his sex scandel when he won the GOP primary.
Who ran against Sanford? That may be part of the equation.
I certainly am no expert on the 15 other candidates on GOP primary ballot that he beat. But there were 15 other choices, yet the Republican voters still thought that a lying, stealing, cheat was the best of the bunch. Hey, maybe he was the best of the bunch, but certainly moral high ground wasn't a big consideration in their decision. Either that or none of the Republican voters watch the news, you know, low-information voters.
Just wondering if Sanford is one of the family values candidates that the GOP seems to be full of. You know... kind of like David "I love prostitutes" Vitter of Louisiana.
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/01/21/prostitute-loving-gop-senator-david-vitter-run-governor-louisiana.html/blockquote >
___________________________________________________________
Maybe they'll get invited by Bill Clinton to Orgy Island.
Newt Gingrich wants an invitation..........
The left-wing Washington Post revels the ethics and fundraising violations by Hillary and The Clinton Foundation.
Will there be an investigation by the FEC of the Hillary campaign?
Will there be an investigation of The Clinton foundation by The IRS?
Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State Dept.
Clinton Foundation fundraising, particularly from foreign governments, came up repeatedly at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s confirmation hearings for secretary of state. (Liam Richards/AP)
By Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger February 25 at 8:54 PM
The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.
Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.
The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.
The new disclosures, provided in response to questions from The Washington Post, make clear that the 2008 agreement did not prohibit foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government from giving money to the charity closely linked to the secretary of state.
In one instance, foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government.
The money was given to assist with earthquake relief in Haiti, the foundation said. At the time, Algeria, which has sought a closer relationship with Washington, was spending heavily to lobby the State Department on human rights issues.
While the foundation has disclosed foreign-government donors for years, it has not previously detailed the donations that were accepted during Clinton’s four-year stint at the State Department.
A foundation spokesman said Wednesday that the donations all went to fund the organization’s philanthropic work around the world. In some cases, the foundation said, foreign-government donations were part of multiyear grants that had been awarded before Clinton’s appointment to pay for particular charitable efforts, such as initiatives to lower the costs of HIV and AIDs drugs and curb greenhouse gas emissions.
“As with other global charities, we rely on the support of individuals, organizations, corporations and governments who have the shared goal of addressing critical global challenges in a meaningful way,” said the spokesman, Craig Minassian. “When anyone contributes to the Clinton Foundation, it goes towards foundation programs that help save lives.”
Some of the donations came from countries with complicated diplomatic, military and financial relationships with the U.S. government, including Kuwait, Qatar and Oman.
Other nations that donated included Australia, Norway and the Dominican Republic.
The foundation presents a unique political challenge for Clinton, and one that has already become a cause of concern among Democrats as she prepares to launch an almost-certain second bid for the presidency.
Rarely, if ever, has a potential commander in chief been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from foreign governments. Clinton formally joined the foundation in 2013 after leaving the State Department, and the organization was renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.
Foreign dollars
The Washington Post reported last week that foreign sources, including governments, made up a third of those who have given the foundation more than $1 million over time. The Post found that the foundation, begun by former president Bill Clinton, has raised nearly $2 billion since its creation in 2001.
Foreign governments and individuals are prohibited from giving money to U.S. political candidates, to prevent outside influence over national leaders. But the foundation has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political limits.
In a presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton would be likely to showcase her foreign-policy expertise, yet the foundation’s ongoing reliance on foreign governments’ support opens a potential line of attack for Republicans eager to question her independence as secretary of state and as a possible president.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the foundation had accepted new foreign-government money now that the 2008 agreement has lapsed.
A review of foundation disclosures shows that at least two foreign governments — Germany and the United Arab Emirates — began giving in 2013 after the funding restrictions lapsed when Clinton left the Obama administration. Some foreign governments that had been supporting the foundation before Clinton was appointed, such as Saudi Arabia, did not give while she was in office and have since resumed donating.
Foundation officials said last week that if Clinton runs, they will consider taking steps to address concerns over the role of foreign donors.
“We will continue to ensure the Foundation’s policies and practices regarding support from international partners are appropriate, just as we did when she served as Secretary of State,” the foundation said in a statement.
Foreign governments had been major donors to the foundation before President Obama nominated Clinton to become secretary of state in 2009. When the foundation released a list of its donors for the first time in 2008, as a result of the agreement with the Obama administration, it disclosed, for instance, that Saudi Arabia had given between $10 million and $25 million.
In some cases, the foundation said, governments that continued to donate while Clinton was at the State Department did so at lower levels than before her appointment.
Foundation officials said Wednesday that the ethics review process required under the 2008 agreement for new donors — or for existing foreign-government donors wishing to “materially increase” their support — was never initiated during Clinton’s State Department years.
But, they added, on one occasion, it should have been.
Algeria donation
The donation from Algeria for Haiti earthquake relief, they said, arrived without notice within days of the 2010 quake and was distributed as direct aid to assist in relief. Algeria has not donated to the foundation since, officials said.
The contribution coincided with a spike in the North African country’s lobbying visits to the State Department.
That year, Algeria spent $422,097 lobbying U.S. government officials on human rights issues and U.S.-Algerian relations, according to filings made under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Data tracked by the Sunlight Foundation shows that while the Algerian government’s overall spending on lobbying in the United States remained steady, there was an increase in 2010 in State Department meetings held with lobbyists representing the country — with 12 visits to department officials that year, including some visits with top political appointees. In the years before and after, only a handful of State Department visits were recorded by Algeria lobbyists.
The country was a concern for Clinton and her agency.
A 2010 State Department report on human rights in Algeria noted that “principal human rights problems included restrictions on freedom of assembly and association” and cited reports of arbitrary killings, widespread corruption and a lack of transparency. Additionally, the report, issued in early 2011, discussed restrictions on labor and women’s rights.
“Algeria is one of those complicated countries that forces the United States to balance our interests and values,” Clinton wrote in her 2014 book, “Hard Choices.” She said that the country was an ally in combating terrorism but that “it also has a poor human rights record and a relatively closed economy.”
Clinton met with the president of Algeria during a 2012 visit to the country.
A State Department spokesman referred questions about the ethics-office reviews to the charity. Nick Merrill, a Clinton spokesman, declined to comment.
Besides Algeria, a number of the other countries that donated to the foundation during Clinton’s time at the State Department also lobbied the U.S. government during that time.
Qatar, for instance, spent more than $5.3 million on registered lobbyists while Clinton was secretary of state, according to the Sunlight Foundation. The country’s lobbyists were reported monitoring anti-terrorism activities and efforts to combat violence in Sudan’s Darfur region. Qatar has also come under criticism from some U.S. allies in the region that have accused it of supporting Hamas and other militant groups. Qatar has denied the allegations.
The 2008 agreement laid out that the new rules were intended to allow the Clinton Foundation to continue its “important philanthropic work around the world,” while also avoiding conflicts. It was signed by Bruce Lindsey, then the foundation’s chief executive, and Valerie Jarrett, who was co-chair of Obama’s transition team.
Jennifer Friedman, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement that the agreement was signed “to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest” and “in keeping with the high standards we set for our nominees.” She said the deal went “above and beyond standard ethics requirements.”
Clinton Foundation fundraising, particularly from foreign governments, came up repeatedly at Clinton’s confirmation hearings for secretary of state.
Then-Sen. Richard G. Lugar (Ind.), who was the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called the foundation “a unique complication that will have to be managed with great care and transparency” and called on the organization not to take any new foreign-government money while Clinton was serving as secretary of state.
“The Clinton Foundation exists as a temptation for any foreign entity or government that believes it could curry favor through a donation,” he said then. “It also sets up potential perception problems with any action taken by the secretary of state in relation to foreign givers or their countries.”
Lugar also called on the foundation to release more information about its donors, including how much each gives annually. (Since 2008, the foundation has released only how much donors have given cumulatively over time.) He said ethics officials should review donations from all foreign sources, not just governments, because of the close ties in many countries between wealthy interests and government officials.
Then-Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), the committee’s chairman at the time, called Lugar’s concerns a “legitimate question.” Kerry, who succeeded Clinton as secretary of state, suggested the potential at least for appearance problems if her official duties seemed to coincide with her husband’s fundraising efforts.
“If you are traveling to some country and you meet with the foreign leadership and a week later or two weeks later or three weeks later the president travels there and solicits a donation and they pledge to give at some point in the future but nobody knows, is there an appearance of a conflict?” Kerry asked.
At the hearing, Clinton said foreign governments donated to the foundation in part because the U.S. government had been slow to press for reductions in the cost of HIV and AIDs drugs. She said the agreement went beyond what was required by law.
“I will certainly do everything in my power to make sure that the good work of the foundation continues without there being any untoward effects on me and my service and be very conscious of any questions that are raised,” she said. “But I think that the way that this has been hammered out is as close as we can get to doing something that is so unprecedented that there is no formula for it, and we’ve tried to do the very best we could.”
Rosalind Helderman is a political enterprise and investigations reporter for the Washington Post.
Tom Hamburger covers the intersection of money and politics for The Washington Post.
Wow - Qatar, Norway, the Dominican Republic, Kuwait, Oman and Australia - all the big hitters......... 😛
The Clintons can do no wrong.
Never.
The Clintons can do no wrong.
Never.
Said nobody. Ever.
On the morning after her daughter’s wedding, Hillary asked Chelsea is she had sex with her new husband last night.
Chelsea responded “not according to Dad”.
On the morning after her daughter’s wedding, Hillary asked Chelsea is she had sex with her new husband last night.
Chelsea responded “not according to Dad”.
You're always the class act Muleman.
On the morning after her daughter’s wedding, Hillary asked Chelsea is she had sex with her new husband last night.
Chelsea responded “not according to Dad”.
You're always the class act Muleman.
________________________________________________________
It is obviously a joke son.
What is not a joke is the liberals all bowing at a sexual predator's feet.
