Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCandidate Clinton and the Foundation
Candidate Clinton and the Foundation
By THE EDITORIAL BOARDAPRIL 23, 2015
...
The increasing scrutiny of the foundation has raised several points that need to be addressed by Mrs. Clinton and the former president. These relate most importantly to the flow of multimillions in donations from foreigners and others to the foundation, how Mrs. Clinton dealt with potential conflicts as secretary of state and how she intends to guard against such conflicts should she win the White House.
The only plausible answer is full and complete disclosure of all sources of money going to the foundation. And the foundation needs to reinstate the ban on donations from foreign governments for the rest of her campaign the same prohibition that was in place when she was in the Obama administration.
The messiness of her connection with the foundation has been shown in a report by The Times on a complex business deal involving Canadian mining entrepreneurs who made donations to the foundation and were at the time selling their uranium company to the Russian state-owned nuclear energy company. That deal, which included uranium mining stakes in the United States, required approval by the federal government, including the State Department.
The donations, which included $2.35 million from a principal in the deal, were not publicly disclosed by the foundation, even though Mrs. Clinton had signed an agreement with the Obama administration requiring the foundation to disclose all donors as a condition of her becoming secretary of state. This failure is an inexcusable violation of her pledge. The donations were discovered through Canadian tax records by Times reporters. Media scrutiny is continuing, with Reuters reporting that the foundation is refiling some returns found to be erroneous.
...
These half steps show that candidate Clinton is aware of the complications she and Bill Clinton have created for themselves. She needs to do a lot more, because this problem is not going away.
By THE EDITORIAL BOARDAPRIL 23, 2015
...
The increasing scrutiny of the foundation has raised several points that need to be addressed by Mrs. Clinton and the former president. These relate most importantly to the flow of multimillions in donations from foreigners and others to the foundation, how Mrs. Clinton dealt with potential conflicts as secretary of state and how she intends to guard against such conflicts should she win the White House.
The only plausible answer is full and complete disclosure of all sources of money going to the foundation. And the foundation needs to reinstate the ban on donations from foreign governments for the rest of her campaign the same prohibition that was in place when she was in the Obama administration.
The messiness of her connection with the foundation has been shown in a report by The Times on a complex business deal involving Canadian mining entrepreneurs who made donations to the foundation and were at the time selling their uranium company to the Russian state-owned nuclear energy company. That deal, which included uranium mining stakes in the United States, required approval by the federal government, including the State Department.
The donations, which included $2.35 million from a principal in the deal, were not publicly disclosed by the foundation, even though Mrs. Clinton had signed an agreement with the Obama administration requiring the foundation to disclose all donors as a condition of her becoming secretary of state. This failure is an inexcusable violation of her pledge. The donations were discovered through Canadian tax records by Times reporters. Media scrutiny is continuing, with Reuters reporting that the foundation is refiling some returns found to be erroneous.
...
These half steps show that candidate Clinton is aware of the complications she and Bill Clinton have created for themselves. She needs to do a lot more, because this problem is not going away.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/opinion/candidate-clinton-and-the-foundation.html?_r=0
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
14 replies, 795 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (1)
ReplyReply to this post
14 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Candidate Clinton and the Foundation (Original Post)
DesMoinesDem
Apr 2015
OP
If you even question Hillary you are carrying water to Cruz and Gowdy!!! LOL.
DesMoinesDem
Apr 2015
#13
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)1. The New York Slime being led by right-wing books and sources...
There is no liberal media...just coporate and alternative...this selazy rag ahs never truly apologized for Judith MIller...and on a lesser scale, it's hits piece on Dick Blumentahl.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)6. The only media I trust is the theobamadiary.com and politicususa.com!
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)2. Take a right wing hit job and post it on DU
Way to go
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)3. Two words:
Judith Miller
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)4. posted earlier and already we find out the NYTimes screwed up again
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)5. Oh look, it's this thread again...
Sid
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)7. DU Rec for pissing off the right people...nt
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)8. You're rec'ing your own thread?...
How tacky.
Sid
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)10. No, I didn't actually rec it. I just wanted to quote you. DU rec...
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)11. Well, you're not pissing off Cruz or Gowdy supporters.
Just the opposite. You're carrying their water for them. Great job on knowing who to piss off and who to make happy. Nice slip there.
DesMoinesDem
(1,569 posts)13. If you even question Hillary you are carrying water to Cruz and Gowdy!!! LOL.
Responses like that just confirm I've pissed off the right people.
Tommy2Tone
(1,307 posts)9. This post could have been written by Fox News
All that was left out was her being disqualified from being the POTUS.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)12. Unrec!
cigsandcoffee
(2,300 posts)14. I don't see anything unfair about that editorial.
Mrs. Clinton should be very transparent about this money. I would certainly expect any Republican to have their feet held to the fire on it, and will not become a hypocrite by expecting a Democrat to get a pass.