At this point, the media stories are too numerous to mention individually so I’ll try to give a little rundown of what is happening as a result of the “Clinton Cash” book which has recent come out. The book is a scathing look at the financial dealings of the Clinton Foundation, a charitable organization operated by Bill and Hillary Clinton. The book raises numerous points of concern with financial filings, foreign donations, and conflicts of intersted between Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State and Bill Clinton’s speaking and lobbying efforts.

Report on the various stories from New York Magazine:

The qualities of an effective presidency do not seem to transfer onto a post-presidency. Jimmy Carter was an ineffective president who became an exemplary post-president. Bill Clinton appears to be the reverse. All sorts of unproven worst-case-scenario questions float around the web of connections between Bill’s private work, Hillary Clinton’s public role as secretary of State, the Clintons’ quasi-public charity, and Hillary’s noncompliant email system. But the best-case scenario is bad enough: The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy.

The news today about the Clintons all fleshes out, in one way or another, their lack of interest in policing serious conflict-of-interest problems that arise in their overlapping roles:

The New York Times has a report about the State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium mines to a Russian company that donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, and that a Russian investment bank promoting the deal paid Bill $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.

The Washington Post reports that Bill Clinton has received $26 million in speaking fees from entities that also donated to the Clinton Global Initiative.

The Washington Examiner reports, “Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.”

And Reuters reports, “Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.”

The Clinton campaign is batting down the darkest and most conspiratorial interpretation of these stories, and where this all leads remains to be seen. But the most positive interpretation is not exactly good.

As noted, the Clinton campaign has the issue, via CNN:

Hillary Clinton on Monday dismissed an upcoming book that will reportedly outline favorable treatment from her State Department in exchange for foreign donations to her family foundation, saying it comes with the territory of running for president.

“We are back into the political season and there are all kinds of distractions and attacks,” Clinton told reporters in New Hampshire on Monday, her first comments to the media. “And I am ready for that. I know that that comes, unfortunately, with the territory. It is, I think, worth nothing that the Republicans seem to be talking only about me. I don’t know what they would be talk about if I wasn’t in the race. But I am in the race and hopefully we will get onto the issues and I look forward to that.”

Hillary’s statement was on Monday. The new stories are out over the past two days so the dust has yet to settle. My guess is she’ll lay quite low and let the majority of the backlash burn out over the next few days. It will be easy by some to discount the book given the author’s Republican-leanings and connections to the right-leaning Hoover Institute. However, as noted in the New York Times piece above, the Times built on some of the author’s claims and then uncovered even further details which indicate some level of conflict within the foundation’s financial dealings.

The “Clinton Cash” author, Peter Schweitzer, claims to be taking on Jeb Bush with a similar look at the Bush family financial dealings.

We’ll see how this plays out. I’m interested to revisit the story in a week and see whether the general public actually cares or not.

46 COMMENTS

  1. The Clinton Foundation is a charitable organization and the facts are: since Clinton Global Initative was created in 2005, nearly 3,200 commitments to improve more than 430 million lives in 180 countries have been fulfilled. These commitments help address climate change, economic development, global health, access to education, and the empowerment of women and girls. CHAI is helping dozens of countries and hundreds of thousands of people in the world access high-quality, low-cost care and treatment plus medicine. Only the most sanctimonious could fault this.

    Can you name one person, Republican, Democrat, or others, on the Talk Circuit that does not charge a fee to speak? Do Republicans scrutinize a donor to determine if there is a hidden motive? Anyone donating to
    a political candidate, regardless of affilation, wants something in return. Who, with one ounce of self respect, would allow their campaign and term of office be up for sale to the greedy demands of Sheldon Adelson or the Koch Brothers? Just each prospective Republican Candidate is the answer.
    Bill Clinton isn’t running for office. Just as Ted Cruz’s wife, an executive on leave from Goldman Sachs, isn’t running for office. Of course, Goldman Sachs is contributing to and helping Ted’s campaign. A natural
    response.

    • I have two comments:

      (1) In America, no good deed will go unpunished.

      (2) “the media stories are too numerous to mention”

      –So much for the “liberal media” fantasy. They’ll jump on any negative story about anybody, and “beat it like a cheap drum.” That’s their job.

      We’re going to hear about every speeder and jaywalker who has given a buck to the foundation (not to the Clintons, personally). If it can’t be proven that there was a quid pro quo, there is no story. And if money didn’t go directly into Hillary’s campaign, she’s being unfairly attacked. But, again, it’s the job of the media to attack anybody.

      • I could have pre-written the comments from both of you and they’d have been probably 80% verbatim to what you both wrote.

        It’s like we’re all a family and can finish each other’s sentences.

        Awkward Thanksgiving dinners..

        • Because I was just proving the point I’ve been alleging. If there’s something negative to say about ANY politician, the media will be all over it. They are SWARMING on this story–as they should. Only–you’re not hearing any “Poor Me” about it. It’s their job.

          Actually, we have good Thanksgiving dinners. I disagree with almost everything my ex-wife’s second husband believes, BUT we have very friendly, spirited discussions–mostly about things we do agree on. I love when we get animated, because it gives my ex an ulcer. . .

    • Who is arguing the Clinton foundation hasn’t accomplished much good over the course of the years? Nobody that I’ve seen. That’s immaterial to what’s going on here.

      The angle about Bill Clinton is only a small part of the entire investigation. The bigger issues, I think, are the Russian/Uranium/Canada connection. Those details are still emerging but the Times covered it:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

      Doing good doesn’t immunize anyone from scrutiny, especially when you’re asking citizens to trust you with the highest office in the land.

      George W. did more than any modern president for the continent of Africa with regard to the HIV epidemic. Did that mean you couldn’t disagree with the Iraq war or criticize him in other ways? Of course not.

      Mitt Romney has donated tens of millions to charities and done a lot of positive things for people. Did that put him off limits in terms of criticism? I think not..

      Don’t worry though, it’s so early in the process, she’ll likely make it out unscathed.

      • There is an outstanding difference between the help given Africa by George Bush and the help given by Bill Clinton. George Bush raised no money from supporters, he didn’t need to, he simply used American taxpayer dollars from the US Treasury to pay for his good deed. Just a stroke of the pen.

        After a lot of accusations, the New York Times was careful to insert: “Whether the
        donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown”. That is how newspapers write trash without libel suits.

        My point being, Bill Clinton isn’t running for president. Just as Columba Bush isn’t
        running for president and their son Prescott Bush won’t be looking for the presidency for another twelve years so concentrate on the person(s) that have announced.

        Mitt Romney did give large sums to charity, primarily to the Mormon Church, which means Romney did not have to pay taxes on this money. The Mormon church is tax exempt so it didn’t have to pay taxes on this money. That leaves the little taxpayers to carry the load for Mitt’s charity and for the church’s exemption.

    • Your head is so far up . . . , you should be working for moveon.org or MSNBC or Carville or maybe even Goethe’s media.

      http://cryandhowl.com/2015/04/24/15-of-clinton-foundation-money-goes-to-charity/

      http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/23/krauthammer-unbelievable-arrogance-that-clintons-thought-theyd-get-away-with-it-video/?advD=1248,1673781

      Tess, you are synonym to Harry Reid using the Senate Floor to falsely say Romney doen’t pay taxes

      both (Tess / Goethe) of your goals for the U.S. are divergent to once again making the U.S. the greatest nation in the world.

      • Sam…Put on your glasses…I did not say Romney did not pay taxes. I said “Mitt Romney
        did give large sums to charity, primarily to the Mormon Church, which means Romney did not have to pay taxes on this money. The Mormon church is tax exempt so it didn’t have to pay taxes on this money”. I call this “double dipping”.

        Cry and Howl was a very apt name for the author of the article you suggested for that is exactly the writing style that was used.

        Charles Krauthammer did a tremendous amount of character assassination but toward the end had to admit he might be untruthful by saying “You know, you may not be able to prove an actual quid pro quo, which is what you’d need for a criminal prosecution”. Plain language,
        he was blowing in the wind.

        That I may have a different thought pattern (divergent, as you called it) is probably true. However, I believe that the United States is the greatest country in the world. It was the greatest yesterday, it is the greatest today, and will be the greatest tomorrow.

        • Tess – At least Romney was donating HIS OWN money to a religious organization that then provides help to needy world wide in the marketing of their religion. Their was a time when i couldn’t get back to the ship and i would listen to a preacher for an hour at the Y to get two half sandwiches or a bowl of soup.

          Please Protect your buddy Sen. Robert Menendez he was indicted for one instance of the eleven specific (probably 10’s more) of H.’s non-standard bullshit where trackability is murky. And even if Clintons hide the quid-pro-quo the pattern is present – if pattern can be shown then we have the equivalent of insider trading – wall street.

          you are correct – My compadres and my ideology is to regroup the foriegn policy to “right” our position world wide. Further promulgate we are a fundamental Democratic-Republic and a Capitalistic economy model with close adherence to the Bill-Of-Rights.

          Your protection of H. and B.O. indicates you approve of these Sleazy type politicians running your country and the huge Mama type Government and driving towards a democratic socialim that eventually will lead to total economic collaspe and will soon lead to not being top dog militarily. just another “dog” in the alley

          Yes we are very dirverse and i will soon be dead and my kid and grandkids will have to deal with The United Socialist States of America who will soon have a Totalitarian leader who will re-write the Constitution and Amendments.

          Good luck on your ideology and life 5 year from now

          • Sam makes the correct point. Why can’t we demand politicians who do not have entire filing cabinets worth of liabilities and possible wrongdoing.

            Demand better… get better. Demand nothing, get the worst.

      • I just get tired of the character assassination. I’ve known a lot of reporters, and they take their job seriously.

        What does that have to do with the “divergent” BS??

  2. “The Clinton campaign is batting down the darkest and most conspiratorial interpretation of these stories, and where this all leads remains to be seen” — In Jail for both Clintons…if there is any Justice left in America!

    The litmus test of whether there is still Justice for All is whether the high-and-mighty get a free pass or get prosecuted and jailed for such OBVIOUS crimes, like regular Joe who gets jailed for THE INNOCUOUS SILLINESS of catching the “wrong” fish !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    http://boingboing.net/2011/08/09/man-too-poor-to-pay-fishing-fine-sent-to-jail.html

    For a 19 year-old trying to catch fish to feed his wife and baby to get jailed for catching the “wrong” fish — while the Clintons are enriching themselves with Millions of Dollars by currying Favors for Dollars to America’s Enemies, and get away with it, would mean only one thing: The Rule of Law is NO LONGER VALID in USA!

    If there is any Justice left in USA — both the Clinton and the Bush clan must be jailed for Life!

    It’s time to save the Republic, and put such scumbag trash away where it belongs — Behind Bars!

  3. Amazing that almost none here are capable of deductive reasoning.

    Over a year ago I posted that a Hillary run will end in exposing all the Clintons’ dirty laundry — assuring Hillary can NEVER win, but will most likely land her in jail.

    This is what happens when Trailer-park-trash like the Clintons become so uppity, that think themselves omnipotent.

  4. Nate…the points given to start this discussion were primarily focused on the contributions that the Clinton Foundation received from foreign countries. The good deeds from these large foreign contributions cost the American taxpayer not one penny. You can surmise that these contributions shaped the Clinton’s actions but the fact remains that there is NO absolute proof.

    There is no politician that doesn’t have a hidden closet full of covert actions. One way or another, each candidate is out to win and accepting money from disreputable sources is how they do it.

    Just a thought…in the final judgment…really good deeds do cross out the bad ones.

    • “Just a thought…in the final judgment…really good deeds do cross out the bad ones.”

      My how the standards for our elected officials have fallen to all-time lows. They can do bad things (possibly breaking various laws) as long as they do good things at the same time? Really? That’s the measurement now? That’s pretty sad.

      • But it’s a fact. I think history will weigh Nixon’s actions, and while he was a character of Shakespearean proportions, he will be seen as transformative. Likewise, I think Bush43 will be remembered for acting boldly after 9/11 and for what he did in Africa, to balance the Iraq blunder.

  5. Measurements for human nature has always fallen short of expectations. It is a sad report card. Do you have anyone in mind that is without flaws that can lead us out of the desert?

    • Someone without flaws? No.

      Someone without allegations of criminal activity at a variety of levels? Yeah about a couple dozen.

      Probably put names in hat and draw one.

  6. I would be very interested in the twenty four or so names. Surely you must know that allegations are simply unsubstantiated gossip until found guilty by a jury or unless the accused confesses. Neither has happened to the Clintons.

  7. If you’re so fired up on charities, then you should review them all. Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, is currently asking the American Red Cross to explain inaccuracies in how it has said it uses public donations. According to their tax documents, the Red Cross has spent as much as 26 percent of what people donate on fundraising.That doesn’t even include management or overhead costs which would have a much higher percentage. Marsha J. Evans, President and CEO of the American Red Cross… her salary for the year ending in 2009 was $651,957 plus expenses. Enjoys 6 weeks – fully paid holidays including all related expenses during the holiday trip for her and her husband and kids. including 100% fully paid health & dental plan for her and her family, for life. This means out of every dollar they bring in, about $0.39 goes to related charity causes. So far, the Red Cross has declined to provide the actual number or a breakdown of its expenses.

    Brian Gallagher, President of the United Way receives a $375,000 base salary (U.S. funds), plus so many numerous expense benefits it’s hard to keep track as to what he’s worth, including a fully paid lifetime membership for 2 golf courses (1 in Canada, and 1 in the U.S.A.), 2 luxury vehicles, a yacht club membership, 3 major company gold credit cards for his personal expenses…and so on. This equates to about $0.51 per dollar of income goes to charity causes.

    Bill Clinton does not draw a salary from his foundation. Neither Hillary or Chelsea are on the
    Clinton Foundation’s payroll.

    If you go over the income tax reports you will find that the Foundation’s accountant failed to separate government grants (those tax free 301’s which are the Paul’ favorites) from other donations on its tax filings. The New York Times reported this week that Giustra personally donated at least $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation. It was not donated to the Clinton Foundation but to the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership which was established in Canada, Canadian law preventing the charity from disclosing individual donors without their consent. Gossip mongers who think they are clairvoyant and connect dots that aren’t there should wait until the new filings are complete and verify the facts before the final war dance.

    The Salvation Army’s Commissioner receives a salary of only $13,000 per year (plus housing) for managing this $2 Billion dollar organization. Which means about $0.93 per dollar goes to charitable causes, readily available and goes back out to charity causes. Now, that is what charity is all about.

    • You’re very good at releasing a lot of squirrels in the backyard. Obfuscation is your strong point.

      Back to the Clintons.

      Neither the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, or the United Way are running for president that I’m aware of.

  8. My apologies..never
    intended to try to confuse or bewilder you.

    To say the Clinton Foundation didnot report millions of dollars in donations is totally false.The Accountant failed to categorize them properly. That is not fraud so don’t expect criminal charges here. Just a lot of talk.

    For your concern about Hilary Clinton’s purported role in approving the sale of the uranium mining company Uranium One to the Russian government. This process required the assent of at least nine
    different officials and agencies including the Defense, Treasury, and Energy Departments. Furthermore, the Uranium One deal also had to receive approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as Utah’s nuclear regulator. Are you suggesting that the heads of nine departments and agencies are on the take for bribe money?

    • You’re right.. clearly there’s nothing going on here.. just millions of dollars changing hands with cabinet officials, former presidents, corporations, charitable organizations, and foreign governments. We know none of those entities ever have a shred of impropriety when it comes to financial dealings or disclosures.

      http://www.ibtimes.com/firms-paid-bill-clinton-millions-they-lobbied-hillary-clinton-1899107

      No big deal.. who cares? I mean, I’m being too rigid in asking our elected and appointed officials to avoid using their official capacity for significant financial gain at the expense of taxpayers.

  9. Well, Sam, it looks like I have engaged in a heated debate concerning a presidential hopeful that I may or may not vote for. Regardless of what a woman accomplishes, it is still a man’s world and Hillary Rodham Clinton has always been a victim of this thinking. Putting aside sex, political
    preference, and Surfisher thinking, let’s just give the truth a chance.

    About Romney and the Church. The Constitution does not mandate that churches are tax exempt. Eventhe Supreme Court decision in the Walz case — doesn’t say that tax exemptions are required by the 1st Amendment. Governments at local, state and federal level made a decision early in our history to grant tax exemptions to churches and other bodies. The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on
    what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Of course, this law is mute today from accepted abuse. So, I believe giving tax exemptions on the same money twice is unconscionable whether it is Romney or any other US citizen or
    any other church.

    When you say ” be top dog militarily” I see flags waving and hear horns blowing. Being top dog and policing the world is a dangerous mission for it means the US will always be at war with another nation(s).

    As always, my best to you, Sam, Live Strong and Prosper

    • Tess Liehard — LOL, you haven’t mastered the pernicious art of sophism yet, but still give it a try.

      What hodgepodge of mixed metaphors, irrelevant “apples and oranges” comparisons, outright lies and excuses for what’s inexcusable in the defense of Dems, is what ALL your posts are here.

      As I’ve said before, keep on posting — for the longer you post, the more the people see how despicable Hillary and Obama must be…to have the likes of your ilk defend them.

  10. Nate…I realize this is a tit for tat conversation. But when all the dogs have fleas, why single out just one.

    • You really love these diseased dogs, don’t ‘cha?? 1st off, not all dogs have fleas, only the diseased ones, and these two diseased dogs have been contaminating the constituency, local and U.S., since the ’70’s.

      • You know, Sam, it is one thing to appear knowledgeable as you sometimes do. But failing to comprehend an age old adage and to write a senseless crude reply is not
        clever. You were not funny, Sam, you were a bully…a bully you am. (That is from Dr Suess but it is properly descriptive).

        • Tess Liehard — when caught peddling liberal tripe here (which is all the time), you cry croc tears: “I’m being bullied”.

          If you can’t take the heat — stop polluting this forum with your nonstop hatred of America.

      • Sam Reusser — Good one!
        Tess Liehard is nothing but an UBER Liberal, that will say and do anything to hurt our Nation…in the hopes that another Dem will get elected in order to further destroy our Free Republic after Obama is done with his travesties!

        One cannot reason with such brainwashed Haters of America — one exposes them for what they are: Shills that are just as evil as the Creatures they defend.

  11. At this tempo — of about one a month — how many more scandals will Hillary have in the year to follow since she announced her ill-conceived run for US President?

    I’ll bet there will be finally enough, so at least one of the many she perpetrated, puts her behind bars — where she should have been placed a long time ago!

    • Excerpts from your so-called “new book” was the basis for this entire page–posted April 23. Do you ever bother to read what Nate gives us to start the discussion??

      The same author has been working on a similar book about JEB for several months.

      • “so-called book”…???

        Finally coming out of the closet as the Obama-lover and Clinton-worshiper that all here figured you out to be..?!

        What a pathetic little liberal twerp you are…Goethe Bore.

        • Why so unendingly hostile? He was saying you’re behind with the news. This book was last week and this entire story was written about it.

  12. Peter Schweizer is a conservative Consultant. His organization is the Government Accountability Institute which receives funding from the Koch Brothers. At thepolitical strategy summit (Koch brothers) last summer, Schweizer spoke urging donors to relentlessly pursue the left and rallying them toward a big fundraising pitch. The Kochs have disclosed that they plan to raise nearly $900 million for 2016 to totally take
    back congress and to defeat Hillary Clinton.

    Peter Schweizer interviewed NOT one of the people he wrote about. The quotes he uses in the book were
    not said to him and he offers not one creditable source for his interpretation of them.

Comments are closed.