Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
53 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: The only thing the Clintons offer is influence peddling rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]

Madison
Wisconsin
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
You insisted that the Clinton's didn't personally profit from all the donations to the Clinton Foundation.

You were wrong.

An aide says he once arranged for $50 million in payments for Bill Clinton
Quote:

A close aide to Bill Clinton said he arranged for $50 million in payments for the former president, part of a complicated mingling of lucrative business deals and charity work of the Clinton Foundation mapped out in a memo released by WikiLeaks on Wednesday.

The report was written by Doug Band, who has transitioned from his job as a Clinton aide to a partner in Teneo Consulting, a firm whose client roster now includes some of the biggest companies in the world. Along the way, Band wrote, he also pushed his clients and contacts to donate millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, and to help win business deals for Bill Clinton.

. . .

“Rightly or wrongly,” Band said, because other fundraisers couldn’t deliver, he and Kelly pushed their clients to donate to the foundation; he also lined up speaking and consulting deals for Bill Clinton. In some cases, it worked the other way, with Teneo winning consulting contracts from foundation donors.

One example, he said, was Laureate International University, the for-profit international school that donated more than $1.4 million to the Clinton Foundation and was paying Bill Clinton $3.5 million a year to serve as “honorary chancellor.”

The company paid Clinton more than $17 million before the relationship ended last year, as Hillary Clinton was launching her presidential bid.

Band said handling the Laureate relationship was “very time-consuming,” not to mention all the other tasks he handled for Bill Clinton.


Clinton Foundation’s Fundraisers Pressed Donors to Steer Business to Former President

Quote:
Two chief fundraisers for the Clinton Foundation pressed corporate donors to steer business opportunities to former President Bill Clinton as well, according to a hacked memo published Wednesday by WikiLeaks.

The November 2011 memo from Douglas Band, at the time a top aide to Mr. Clinton, outlines extensive fundraising efforts that Mr. Band and a partner deployed on behalf of the Clinton Foundation and how that work sometimes translated into large speaking fees and other paid work for Mr. Clinton.

The memo, part of a cache of emails stolen from Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, resurfaces an issue that she has had a hard time shaking: questions over the relationship between the Clintons’ charity work and their personal business.

Mr. Band and an associate introduced top corporate executives to the former president, on the golf course and elsewhere, and then asked them to contribute money to the Clinton Foundation or attend the Clinton Global Initiative, an annual foundation event.


Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income

Quote:
When top Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band wrote the memo, he was a central player at the Clinton Foundation and president of his own corporate consulting firm. Over the course of 13 pages, he made a case that his multiple roles had served the interests of the Clinton family and its charity.

In doing so, Band also detailed a circle of enrichment in which he raised money for the Clinton Foundation from top-tier corporations such as Dow Chemical and Coca-Cola that were clients of his firm, Teneo, while pressing many of those same donors to provide personal income to the former president.



It's important to note that these people weren't just being asked to donate to CGI, but to give Bill Clinton, personally, a multi-million dollar income. For doing nothing. Except being Bill Clinton.

Which is nice work if you can get it.

That's your co-mingling of "charity," political influence, and personally raking in the cash. The Clintons run a giant money machine.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/247465/

Quote:
The Clintons don’t produce any desirable consumer products, or perform any traditionally useful services like accounting or dry cleaning. They have built no factories, dug no mines, nor worked any farms. They hold no patents and have developed no real estate. They are not medical doctors of rare skill. They haven’t starred in any hit movies or sung any popular songs. They have (allegedly) written and sold some books, but not the kind of bestsellers that get turned into TV shows and make real money.

And yet they have grown rich “beyond the dreams of avarice” since Bill left office nearly 16 years ago, and even richer since Hillary entered international politics just eight years ago.

How?

By peddling influence — an activity which generates great wealth only in a corrupt and overly bureaucratic society.


When you occupied Wall Street, were you serious about it? Because if today you're enthusiastically supporting Hillary, you deserve nothing but scorn and perhaps public flogging.





Gotta love the desperation and flop sweat on your pasty skin.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
darthhugo wrote:


Gotta love the desperation and flop sweat on your pasty skin.



Well, at least YOU KNOW you are a troll.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
When you occupied Wall Street, were you serious about it? Because if today you're enthusiastically supporting Hillary, you deserve nothing but scorn and perhaps public flogging.


I have a few acquaintances who are both Occupy and Clinton supporters. It is indeed a bit ridiculous.

I'm interested in hearing more about the veracity of these claims -- $50M isn't that hard to trace.

(Mandatory Clinton conspiracy joke: Don't trace electronic transfers, just look for bodies.)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The relationship between money and former presidents is unseemly as hell, I agree with that. Remember Reagan going to Japan in 1989 (a few months after leaving office) and taking $2 million in speaking fees ($3.9m in current) from a major Japanese communication group (which also lavished private airplanes, hotels, etc on Ronnie and Nancy, all paid for)? At a time the US was engaged in major trade conflicts with Japan?

That's just one example. For more, here's an interesting article from US News & World Report from 2015: http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/06/19/fo...

GW Bush has given at least 200 paid speeches since leaving office in 2009. His fee is a minimum of $100,000, so from speeches alone we're up to $20 million. Oh, and did I mention that the George W. Bush Presidential library includes among its donations $10-25 million from Saudi Arabia? (Actually, without looking I bet the Saudis have given money to ALL of the Presidential libraries since Nixon.)

None of this is to excuse Bill Clinton. It's NOT a good look in ANY ex-president.

I do note that the articles you have are now about Bill Clinton cashing in and no mention of "pay for play" with the Clinton Foundation and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Anyway, all of the former presidents in the modern era (post-Nixon; partial exception of Jimmy Carter) have done pretty well financially. Not even counting the nice perks they get from the taxpayer.

What do you do about this?

I don't know. You can't very well ban former presidents from writing books and making speeches. If the board of some company offered me $17 million to be on their corporate board (a practice that extends well beyond ex-presidents; Condi Rice is a corporate board powerhouse and has an ExxonMobil oil tanker named for her), yeah I'd take it.

I really don't know what to do about it.

So instead of just pointing at Bill Clinton as being uniquely bad, if you have meaningful suggestions about how to limit post-presidential private sector earnings, I'm all for it.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wifwendell wrote:
The relationship between money and former presidents is unseemly as hell, I agree with that. Remember Reagan going to Japan in 1989 (a few months after leaving office) and taking $2 million in speaking fees ($3.9m in current) from a major Japanese communication group (which also lavished private airplanes, hotels, etc on Ronnie and Nancy, all paid for)? At a time the US was engaged in major trade conflicts with Japan?

That's just one example. For more, here's an interesting article from US News & World Report from 2015: http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/06/19/fo...

GW Bush has given at least 200 paid speeches since leaving office in 2009. His fee is a minimum of $100,000, so from speeches alone we're up to $20 million. Oh, and did I mention that the George W. Bush Presidential library includes among its donations $10-25 million from Saudi Arabia? (Actually, without looking I bet the Saudis have given money to ALL of the Presidential libraries since Nixon.)

None of this is to excuse Bill Clinton. It's NOT a good look in ANY ex-president.

I do note that the articles you have are now about Bill Clinton cashing in and no mention of "pay for play" with the Clinton Foundation and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Anyway, all of the former presidents in the modern era (post-Nixon; partial exception of Jimmy Carter) have done pretty well financially. Not even counting the nice perks they get from the taxpayer.

What do you do about this?

I don't know. You can't very well ban former presidents from writing books and making speeches. If the board of some company offered me $17 million to be on their corporate board (a practice that extends well beyond ex-presidents; Condi Rice is a corporate board powerhouse and has an ExxonMobil oil tanker named for her), yeah I'd take it.

I really don't know what to do about it.

So instead of just pointing at Bill Clinton as being uniquely bad, if you have meaningful suggestions about how to limit post-presidential private sector earnings, I'm all for it.


Trump's ethics plan would ban Reagan from lobbying on the behalf of Japan, but not from taking their money.

It's really not a bad set of ideas, in spite of the source.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Terwox wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
When you occupied Wall Street, were you serious about it? Because if today you're enthusiastically supporting Hillary, you deserve nothing but scorn and perhaps public flogging.


I have a few acquaintances who are both Occupy and Clinton supporters. It is indeed a bit ridiculous.

I'm interested in hearing more about the veracity of these claims -- $50M isn't that hard to trace.

(Mandatory Clinton conspiracy joke: Don't trace electronic transfers, just look for bodies.)


That's because Drew either misunderstands the LA Times article or is misrepresenting what it actually says.

It DOES NOT say that the Clinton Foundation passed money directly to Bill Clinton.

What is DOES say is that donors to the foundation ALSO entered into arrangements to pay Bill Clinton as part of lucrative business deals including speaking gigs.

Consequently, if you look for the $50,000,000, it's likely to show up in the Clinton tax returns from the various providers as earned income.

The writer of the article is free to suggest that Bill Clinton didn't earn his income. Because, of course, people who are paid to speak (including ex presidents, ex-judges, ex-generals, celebrities, tell all tabloid superstars, ex-athletes, and so on) clearly shouldn't be paid "just for talking" in the free capitalist society we are all so opposed to.

The real problem expressed in the article is that the intermediary for the foundation was also acting on behalf of Clintons personal interests. This meant his activities as a foundation consultant were combined and HIS income from the foundation was, in fact, also being paid in part for his private activities. Those details may be worthy of pursuing but, you'd need detailed information about his billings to the foundation and an accounting of his time in connection with those billings and that info was not apparently available in the "wikileaks" dump nor discussed in the LA Times article.

So, as usual, people are drawing large conclusions from incomplete facts.
8 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
NPR article about this just went up:

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/27/499601267/bill-clinton-inc-wik...

I love how quick Trump is to call this corruption. Direct hypocrisy. What the Clintons did probably wasn't illegal, but it certainly has the appearance of impropriety at the very least.

Edit: If it isn't illegal, note that I'd prefer it was.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg Michealson
United States
Maple Grove
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Terwox wrote:
NPR article about this just went up.


Snopes now quickly writing pieces about how NPR has just become a right-wing news outlet.


Do you hate Snopes because they keep debunking right-wing dream propaganda?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
That's because Drew either misunderstands the LA Times article or is misrepresenting what it actually says.


What a dick move here. You misread Drew's OP and then blame Drew for misrepresenting things? Come on.


How do you figure BJ? This is Drews quoted statement at the top of the OP:

Drew1365 wrote:
You insisted that the Clinton's didn't personally profit from all the donations to the Clinton Foundation.

You were wrong.


The quoted LA Times article does not support that statement. It does not say that Bill Clinton received personal profit from the donations to the foundation. Why would Drew say otherwise? A) He misread it, B) He is misrepresenting it.

If you disagree, show me where in the article it says donations went to the foundation and then into Clintons pocket.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Terwox wrote:
NPR article about this just went up.


Snopes now quickly writing pieces about how NPR has just become a right-wing news outlet.


Snopes would write that, but the author of the NPR story just jumped off a bridge so they have to be respectful.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rulesjd wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
That's because Drew either misunderstands the LA Times article or is misrepresenting what it actually says.


What a dick move here. You misread Drew's OP and then blame Drew for misrepresenting things? Come on.


How do you figure BJ? This is Drews quoted statement at the top of the OP:

Drew1365 wrote:
You insisted that the Clinton's didn't personally profit from all the donations to the Clinton Foundation.

You were wrong.


The quoted LA Times article does not support that statement. It does not say that Bill Clinton received personal profit from the donations to the foundation. Why would Drew say otherwise? A) He misread it, B) He is misrepresenting it.

If you disagree, show me where in the article it says donations went to the foundation and then into Clintons pocket.


I think implying there was a transfer of funds arranged with charitable donations and later speaking fees is a worthy of attention.

It's a simplification to say the Clinton foundation simply wrote him a check. (The Clinton foundation only writes checks to Chelsea directly, but that's a low shot -- she's on the board and it's within legal and ethical bounds, in my opinion.) But that abstraction doesn't mean the basic point is necessarily incorrect, in my opinion.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Terwox wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
That's because Drew either misunderstands the LA Times article or is misrepresenting what it actually says.


What a dick move here. You misread Drew's OP and then blame Drew for misrepresenting things? Come on.


How do you figure BJ? This is Drews quoted statement at the top of the OP:

Drew1365 wrote:
You insisted that the Clinton's didn't personally profit from all the donations to the Clinton Foundation.

You were wrong.


The quoted LA Times article does not support that statement. It does not say that Bill Clinton received personal profit from the donations to the foundation. Why would Drew say otherwise? A) He misread it, B) He is misrepresenting it.

If you disagree, show me where in the article it says donations went to the foundation and then into Clintons pocket.


I think implying there was a transfer of funds arranged with charitable donations and later speaking fees is a worthy of attention.

It's a simplification to say the Clinton foundation simply wrote him a check. (The Clinton foundation only writes checks to Chelsea directly, but that's a low shot -- she's on the board and it's within legal and ethical bounds, in my opinion.) But that abstraction doesn't mean the basic point is necessarily incorrect, in my opinion.


The Times article is written in a rather shoddy way in my opinion. It certainly allows the readers to make such inferences but fails to detail any actual facts that would justify such an inference. The facts actually articulated say that the $50,000,000 in question came from outside business deals and not from the foundation itself. When Drew claims Clinton benefited from "donations" the only permissible conclusion is that actual donated funds migrated from the foundation to Clintons pocket. If donors ALSO paid speaking fees to Clinton they are not, by definition, donations.

There is a big difference between what "looks bad" and what is actually illegal. Trump has used his donated campaign funds to pay very high rental fees for use of his own rental properties for campaign purposes. Not illegal but some folks view this as unsavory. Clinton receiving speaking fees from the same people that donate to the foundation may also seem unsavory but, not be in any way illegal.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wifwendell wrote:
The relationship between money and former presidents is unseemly as hell, I agree with that. Remember Reagan going to Japan in 1989 (a few months after leaving office) and taking $2 million in speaking fees ($3.9m in current) from a major Japanese communication group (which also lavished private airplanes, hotels, etc on Ronnie and Nancy, all paid for)? At a time the US was engaged in major trade conflicts with Japan?

That's just one example. For more, here's an interesting article from US News & World Report from 2015: http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/06/19/fo...

GW Bush has given at least 200 paid speeches since leaving office in 2009. His fee is a minimum of $100,000, so from speeches alone we're up to $20 million. Oh, and did I mention that the George W. Bush Presidential library includes among its donations $10-25 million from Saudi Arabia? (Actually, without looking I bet the Saudis have given money to ALL of the Presidential libraries since Nixon.)

None of this is to excuse Bill Clinton. It's NOT a good look in ANY ex-president.

I do note that the articles you have are now about Bill Clinton cashing in and no mention of "pay for play" with the Clinton Foundation and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Anyway, all of the former presidents in the modern era (post-Nixon; partial exception of Jimmy Carter) have done pretty well financially. Not even counting the nice perks they get from the taxpayer.

What do you do about this?

I don't know. You can't very well ban former presidents from writing books and making speeches. If the board of some company offered me $17 million to be on their corporate board (a practice that extends well beyond ex-presidents; Condi Rice is a corporate board powerhouse and has an ExxonMobil oil tanker named for her), yeah I'd take it.

I really don't know what to do about it.

So instead of just pointing at Bill Clinton as being uniquely bad, if you have meaningful suggestions about how to limit post-presidential private sector earnings, I'm all for it.


I say let the President, once he is OUT OF OFFICE, earn as much money as he possibly can giving speeches and acting as adviser to any organization or company willing to pay them to do such a thing - even if it is "millions of dollars". Their vast experiences can provide more insight into many things more than some schlub pouring beer at a bar. Good for them!

However, one should probably avoid doing those types of money-raising efforts when THEY or THEIR SPOUSE is currently holding the #4 spot in the LINE OF SUCCESSION to become the next President (or is campaigning for such a position).

All this Clinton shit happened when Hillary was the SoS, and when Hillary is campaigning to become the next President, and it sticks of "pay now, play later" shenanigans that (probably) no other President has ever engaged in similar to the lengths at which Bill and Hillary have done.

THAT'S why they get accused of influence peddling!
4 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rulesjd wrote:
There is a big difference between what "looks bad" and what is actually illegal. Trump has used his donated campaign funds to pay very high rental fees for use of his own rental properties for campaign purposes. Not illegal but some folks view this as unsavory. Clinton receiving speaking fees from the same people that donate to the foundation may also seem unsavory but, not be in any way illegal.


I agree with all this.

Again, I think Trump calling this out as corruption is rather rich in light of the fact that his foundation is being investigated as actually breaking the law.

The Clintons simply being more careful about their corruption isn't tremendously endearing, though!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Kearns
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
flag msg tools
Silence is golden.
badge
Your sea is so great and my boat is so small.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How would things look different if Trump wins?

I mean his kids are going to run his company that is based primarily (exclusively?) on his name. How is he going to make decisions as President that aren't going to appear as a conflict of financial interest? Just by becoming President his stock will go up and then he will be in position to directly benefit his company (or at least he will be continually accused of doing so much like you are doing to Hillary now)

I can understand being upset about this issue and I can understand that it a problem, but I don't see how Hillary is the greater problem of the two candidates here.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dkearns wrote:
I can understand being upset about this issue and I can understand that it a problem, but I don't see how Hillary is the greater problem of the two candidates here.


I'm not sure that that's really the point -- the current media narrative is ye ole "vast right-wing conspiracy" to damage the Clinton foundation.

But the truth is probably somewhere between the "sainthood" and "Killary" versions of Hillary that are displayed in such a nakedly partisan fashion.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
All the little chicks with crimson lips, go...
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chrisnd wrote:


I say let the President, once he is OUT OF OFFICE, earn as much money as he possibly can giving speeches and acting as adviser to any organization or company willing to pay them to do such a thing - even if it is "millions of dollars". Their vast experiences can provide more insight into many things more than some schlub pouring beer at a bar. Good for them!

However, one should probably avoid doing those types of money-raising efforts when THEY or THEIR SPOUSE is currently holding the #4 spot in the LINE OF SUCCESSION to become the next President (or is campaigning for such a position).

All this Clinton shit happened when Hillary was the SoS, and when Hillary is campaigning to become the next President, and it sticks of "pay now, play later" shenanigans that (probably) no other President has ever engaged in similar to the lengths at which Bill and Hillary have done.

THAT'S why they get accused of influence peddling!


You have some valid points. Do they apply to George W. Bush and Jeb Bush, too?

(My biggest gripe with Hillary Clinton as a candidate has been the dynasty bit, which I really don't like. Same with Bush, Kennedys, Tafts, etc etc etc)
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Alleman
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
You insisted that the Clinton's didn't personally profit from all the donations to the Clinton Foundation.

You were wrong.


Who's you?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Terwox wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
There is a big difference between what "looks bad" and what is actually illegal. Trump has used his donated campaign funds to pay very high rental fees for use of his own rental properties for campaign purposes. Not illegal but some folks view this as unsavory. Clinton receiving speaking fees from the same people that donate to the foundation may also seem unsavory but, not be in any way illegal.


I agree with all this.

Again, I think Trump calling this out as corruption is rather rich in light of the fact that his foundation is being investigated as actually breaking the law.

The Clintons simply being more careful about their corruption isn't tremendously endearing, though!


Which, generally speaking, why Hillary Clinton struggles with her own negative polling data. There is definitely a problem for Clinton expressed as a lack of voter enthusiasm. It's easy to chalk up her victory over Sanders as some kind of campaign/party manipulation. I think the simpler answer is that Bernie Sanders and his populist message simply didn't resonate as strongly among democrats and that the Clintons had a more established rapport with women and minority voters. Regardless of how she won the primary, winning the general isn't easy with the negative perceptions and any candidate besides Trump would likely have posed a more difficult problem.

bjlillo wrote:
Rulesjd wrote:
The Times article is written in a rather shoddy way in my opinion. It certainly allows the readers to make such inferences but fails to detail any actual facts that would justify such an inference. The facts actually articulated say that the $50,000,000 in question came from outside business deals and not from the foundation itself. When Drew claims Clinton benefited from "donations" the only permissible conclusion is that actual donated funds migrated from the foundation to Clintons pocket. If donors ALSO paid speaking fees to Clinton they are not, by definition, donations.

There is a big difference between what "looks bad" and what is actually illegal. Trump has used his donated campaign funds to pay very high rental fees for use of his own rental properties for campaign purposes. Not illegal but some folks view this as unsavory. Clinton receiving speaking fees from the same people that donate to the foundation may also seem unsavory but, not be in any way illegal.


Band was employed by the Clinton Foundation as their Chief Fundraiser and used this position to push companies to give Bill Clinton money directly.


Sure, and that poses at least an image problem. I'm no expert on charitable foundations and people wearing dual hats as consultants. Is it in any way illegal for the representative of a charitable foundation to try and convince donors to also employ someone who established said foundation?

As with so many things Clinton, there is often the "appearance" of something inappropriate or something we dislike. That's why she was never my first choice. However, it is entirely conclusory to offer this as "proof" that donations to the foundation directly profited Bill Clinton.

By now you've seen some of the coverage of misuse of funds by the Trump foundation. The purchase of a portrait. The payment of a fine. These things were actually technical violations of the rules for administering charitable funds. However, I don't really view this as a nefarious scheme but, rather sloppy administration by people who might well view Trumps Foundation and Trumps businesses as somehow inextricably linked in the Trump brand. He claims those funds were paid back and I have no reason to disbelieve him at this stage not do I truly think he had personal beforehand knowledge. Nevertheless, such things "look bad".

In both cases, we are distracted from the broader policy issues which are so much more important.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Donald
United States
New Alexandria
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Let's kick this down the road further.

Say we got actual evidence of "the pay", where does "the play" come in? How do Money managers UBS and Barclays, mining giant BHP, and the for-profit educational company Laureate International Universities benefit from having influence Hillary while she was Secretary of State?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wifwendell wrote:
chrisnd wrote:


I say let the President, once he is OUT OF OFFICE, earn as much money as he possibly can giving speeches and acting as adviser to any organization or company willing to pay them to do such a thing - even if it is "millions of dollars". Their vast experiences can provide more insight into many things more than some schlub pouring beer at a bar. Good for them!

However, one should probably avoid doing those types of money-raising efforts when THEY or THEIR SPOUSE is currently holding the #4 spot in the LINE OF SUCCESSION to become the next President (or is campaigning for such a position).

All this Clinton shit happened when Hillary was the SoS, and when Hillary is campaigning to become the next President, and it sticks of "pay now, play later" shenanigans that (probably) no other President has ever engaged in similar to the lengths at which Bill and Hillary have done.

THAT'S why they get accused of influence peddling!


You have some valid points. Do they apply to George W. Bush and Jeb Bush, too?

(My biggest gripe with Hillary Clinton as a candidate has been the dynasty bit, which I really don't like. Same with Bush, Kennedys, Tafts, etc etc etc)


F*&k yeah, they apply to W! Why wouldn't those same standards apply? I am not some Republican hack that thinks it's okay for Bush to do it, but then rail the Clintons for doing it! On the contrary, NEITHER of them should be doing it, regardless of party affiliation!

Regardless, was Bush doing those $100,000 gigs while President? Was Laura Bush pushing for donations to the Bush Family Foundation from wealthy people while W. was in office? Did Jenna Bush have some sweet gig doing nothing for $1,000,000 at Goldman Sachs? I don't think I ever heard of such pandering when he was in office - you can bet your bottom dollar that if such things were happening, at least more than one person here in these RSP dungeons would have been having brain-exploding aneurysms about it on an hourly basis!

There is an IMMENSE difference between FORMER presidents doing gigs for huge sums of money (or paltry sums of money) once they hit their status as FORMER - but it should be $0 WHILE holding office. If some organization out there is stupid enough to give President Obama a bunch of cash to make jokes and pretend he is smart, I say all the power to them. But not until after the afternoon of January 20, 2017! Oh, and he has to stop taking any money from anyone once he finds out that Hillary has nominated him for Scalia's seat on the bench, or he should otherwise be disqualified and "Borked" from that nomination.

Not sure about Jeb - he was only governor, not President, so I think his influence on an international level (and even a national level) was significantly different than the US Secretary of State. He should not (if he was) doing that stuff while governor if it was to have a "quid pro quo" type of relationship WHILE in office, but afterwards it's fine. The power to do something about it is significantly diminished when former office holders are no longer in power. Plus, speaking engagements and consulting are also quite different than lobbying, which should be a "no no" for quite a few years after leaving office because of its impact and influence on government behavior.

It's tough to determine where to draw the line, but it should be a "reasonable" period of time before the campaigning for President starts, and all throughout the campaign, and especially while holding office - all extra gigs and money and shit needs to stop when the person (or connected persons) are in positions of power within the government - ESPECIALLY the federal government.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Kearns
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
flag msg tools
Silence is golden.
badge
Your sea is so great and my boat is so small.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Terwox wrote:
dkearns wrote:
I can understand being upset about this issue and I can understand that it a problem, but I don't see how Hillary is the greater problem of the two candidates here.


I'm not sure that that's really the point -- the current media narrative is ye ole "vast right-wing conspiracy" to damage the Clinton foundation.

But the truth is probably somewhere between the "sainthood" and "Killary" versions of Hillary that are displayed in such a nakedly partisan fashion.


Oh, I totally agree. But with Hillary, influence peddling isn't the ONLY thing you get (as OP title suggests). Sure, you get influence peddling but you also get 30 years of experience AND the ability to actually run the country.

With Donald, you get influence peddling and... not evil?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
You insisted that the Clinton's didn't personally profit from all the donations to the Clinton Foundation.

You were wrong.



And to be fair they're very, very good at it.

Which makes it even more amusing that some of the RSP folks who claim to hate this activity plan to vote for her anyway.



Ferret
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Donald wrote:
Let's kick this down the road further.

Say we got actual evidence of "the pay", where does "the play" come in? How do Money managers UBS and Barclays, mining giant BHP, and the for-profit educational company Laureate International Universities benefit from having influence Hillary while she was Secretary of State?



By the use of executive powers.

I don't have time to look it up, but there are things that the President can do directly via fiat, especially if they want to "pay back" for a favor done previously.

I see the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS as a direct extension of such executive power.

I also see the handing out of pardons like candy on Halloween from the office of the President, especially during the lame duck period - such as Bill Clinton's pardoning of Marc Rich that smells worse than Darthugo's socks on "Spend Time All Alone with Yourself Day".

Those are just some examples (both "allegedly" and "factually") of "the play" that can result from "the pay".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
non sequitur
United States
Elk Point
South Dakota (SD)
flag msg tools
Mandelbrot/Simurgh hybrid etc etc
badge
I made both of these fractals, hurray!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chrisnd wrote:
Donald wrote:
Let's kick this down the road further.

Say we got actual evidence of "the pay", where does "the play" come in? How do Money managers UBS and Barclays, mining giant BHP, and the for-profit educational company Laureate International Universities benefit from having influence Hillary while she was Secretary of State?



By the use of executive powers.

I don't have time to look it up, but there are things that the President can do directly via fiat, especially if they want to "pay back" for a favor done previously.

I see the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS as a direct extension of such executive power.

I also see the handing out of pardons like candy on Halloween from the office of the President, especially during the lame duck period - such as Bill Clinton's pardoning of Marc Rich that smells worse than Darthugo's socks on "Spend Time All Alone with Yourself Day".

Those are just some examples (both "allegedly" and "factually") of "the play" that can result from "the pay".


This is America, buying your way out of justice is a time-honored tradition, and shouldn't the President play a role -- even an enthusiastic one?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.