AP:
More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton’s help with a visa problem and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm’s corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa.
The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors.
The AP’s findings represent the first systematic effort to calculate the scope of the intersecting interests of Clinton foundation donors and people who met personally with Clinton or spoke to her by phone about their needs.
The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP’s calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.
Last week, the Clinton Foundation moved to head off ethics concerns about future donations by announcing changes planned if Clinton is elected.
On Monday, Bill Clinton said in a statement that if his wife were to win, he would step down from the foundation’s board and stop all fundraising for it. The foundation would also accept donations only from U.S. citizens and what it described as independent philanthropies, while no longer taking gifts from foreign groups, U.S. companies or corporate charities. Clinton said the foundation would no longer hold annual meetings of its international aid program, the Clinton Global Initiative, and it would spin off its foreign-based programs to other charities.
It’s just a coincidence that his looks exactly like what it is.
It looks like what you want to see. Many Clinton Foundation donors are are people representing foreign interests who would be expected to have business with the State Department.
Do you find donations to an A-rated non-profit charitable foundation that promotes worthwhile foreign development projects somehow more distasteful than campaign contributions from corporate lobbyists that buys influence with virtually every elected member of Congress? If so, perhaps you could explain why.
The Clinton’s tax returns are all available for public examination years into the past. The Clinton Foundation’s annual statements are also available for public examination. Where are your “blue collar billionaire’s” tax returns? Any concerns about his son’s past statement that Russian money has been heavily invested in Trump enterprises?
It’s important to keep up the Clinton attacks so that Trump supporters don’t have time to consider any obvious questions about him. The guy should be wearing a hat with a question mark on it. As strategists on the right have publicly observed, the moment the election is about Donald Trump instead of Hillary Clinton, Trump is done.
@Greg:
Yes…the Clinton tax filings…which we recall included deductions that the Clintons claimed for their used underwear that they donated to charity back during the dark days of Slick Willie’s despicable administration.
Going back to Dingy Harry Reid’s deceitful tax return mudslinging against Romney, eh Greg?
What is it? $263 million that the Clinton’s money-laundered through the Clinton Foundation, most of which came as poorly concealed bribes while Hillary so ineptly occupied the position of SecState?
Well…her job performance was inept insofar as actual US national interests were concerned, but clearly functioned exceptionally well at engorging the Clintons’ personal financial holdings, as well as their despicably dishonorable crony hangers-on.
Bullshit. You don’t get an “A” charitable foundation rating from a money laundering operation. The Clintons have heavily donated to the foundation themselves. They’re not recipients of any comparable amount of money from the foundation.
My contempt for the right’s propaganda outlets grows daily. They’ve got no respect for the truth at all at this point. No more than the lying weasel they’ve designated as their point man. Trump will say anything he thinks will advance his position. The man is a disgrace to the political process—which is saying a lot. He’s reset the standard so low that the GOP may never regain its credibility.
@Greg:
You are such a dishonest leftist propagandist, Greg. Even the Atlantic has published that 84/85 out of 154 contributors to the Clinton Foundation gave money while they had issues being considered by the US government while Hillary was SecState.
And exactly WHO gave the corrupt Clinton Foundation an A rating? There are all kinds of reports out about the criminally pathetic percentage of donations to the Clinton Foundation targetted for Haitian relief that didn’t go to actual Haitian relief. Just because a fox that is “guarding” the henhouse is emphatic in claiming that no foxes have taken hens out of the henhouse doesn’t make him a reliable source.
Pardon me for laughing at the ridiculous claims that Trump is in bed with the Russians when the Clinton crony Podesta made $35 million of a deal with the Russians.
The Clintons, along with the entire leftist cabal, are a criminal, anti-American organization.
Trump is so far off the mark that a couple of respected publications that have never before taken a political position have come out against him:
‘Scientific American’, ‘WIRED’ Break Precedent To Come Out Against Trump
The only question at this point is whether or not there are now enough clueless people in the country to elect this lunatic. The thing about clueless people is that—like Trump himself—they most often don’t recognize their own cluelessness.
@Greg: Greg, this is not about Trump. This is about H Clinton lying and even violating the agreement she had with your King, Obama. She lied again. The emails show she provided favors for donors. You need to find another hero. Try Putin, he doesn’t lie as much!
@Greg: Only 10% of Clinton Foundation funds go to charities. The rest goes in the ATM for Clinton and their cronies.
I’m sure there is no reason to think what the Clinton’s have been doing is exactly what it looks like they’ve been doing… or the evidence indicates they’ve been doing. They’ve been so on the up and up their entire public careers that all suspicions are unfounded.
@Bill, #7:
That would be another lie, wouldn’t it? It has been demonstrated to be a totally false statement, but the right keeps repeating it.
Charity Watch has calculated that around 88 percent of every dollar contributed is spent on the charitable programs it supports, with only 12 percent going toward overhead. Included in overhead costs are the $2 of every $100 spent to elicit contributions, and all other operating costs.
The Clinton Foundation actually spends a higher percentage of contributions on the charitable programs it supports than Goodwill Industries, which comes in at 86 percent.
This particular lie probably originated with Carly Fiorina, who claimed the Clinton Foundation spent only 6 percent of revenues on charity. When called on it, the Carly for America PAC trotted out the Clinton Foundation’s latest IRS Form 990—all Clinton tax returns and Clinton Foundation reports actually being available for public inspection—and cited the Fountation’s charitable grants disbursements of only $9 million for the year. What they neglected to mention was that the Clinton Foundation runs most of it’s charitably programs directly, rather than handing off the money to 3rd parties in the form of grants. They’re not a piggy bank that simply collects money and then writes out checks.
@Greg: No, once again, not a lie. And Carly didn’t invent it, either. Charity Navigator.org has them on their watch list, GiveWell, another charity rating organization, cannot evaluate them because the Foundation won’t cooperate and the Better Business Bureau says they don’t even meet the standards as a charity.
The result of so many looking into the Foundation’s finances has prompted them to have to amend their tax returns to claim previously in reported millions in revenues (aka “bribes”).
@Bill, #9:
That’s not what Charity Navigator.org actually says about the Clinton Foundation. This is what their page actually says:
The statement about the Better Business Bureau assessment is also misleading to the point of being deceptive. All the BBB actually says is that the Clinton Foundation doesn’t currently meet 3 of their 20 criteria for ideal governance structuring and effectiveness measurements. That’s not an indication of any improprieties. There are no such indications.
People should stop relying on what secondary sources are claiming somebody says or somebody means and go directly to the primary sources themselves. Secondary sources very often have ulterior motives for distorting the truth. With regard to the Clinton Foundation, the right-wing echo chamber has a full-on negative disinformation campaign in progress. They can hardly open their mouths without lying and they feel no shame about it whatsoever. Lying has become the norm. It’s the only possible way a gas bag like Donald Trump can be promoted.
No, Greg.
What it is is a deliberate attempt to avoid being rated by the BBB.
The fact is, there is NOTHING illegal about taking $0.85 of every dollar donated and keeping it for yourself via ”travel expenses, rooms, foods, entertainment and so on.”
The fact that Bill Hillary and Chelsea do this is perfectly legal.
It would just be plain stupid to give to them IF what you wanted to accomplish was helping, say, the earthquake victims in Haiti, or, say, AIDS-infected people in Africa.
Find a charity that gives better than 90 cents on the dollar to the needy.
Stay away from the ones that give out only 15 cents on the dollar.
They do not do that, however. The Clinton’s own personal donations to the Foundation vastly exceed anything they might personally receive from it, such as travel expenses. They personally contributed over a million to the Foundation last year—around one-tenth of their income.
Hardly any of the Clinton Foundation’s detractors make mention of what the the organization does—which would be the programs where 88 percent of the donated funds go. Half of the talking heads yapping about it on television deliberately mischaracterize it as some sort of money laundering scheme. The organization is actually operating many charitable social projects, both overseas and in the United States.
Clinton Foundation: No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
@Greg: They do not do that, however. The Clinton’s own personal donations to the Foundation vastly exceed anything they might personally receive from it, such as travel expenses. They personally contributed over a million to the Foundation last year—around one-tenth of their income.
Tax evasion? Huh. I’ve generally heard giving one-tenth of your income to charity referred to as tithing.
Hillary Clinton has been a church-going Methodist since childhood. Methodists are very big on social justice and helping the poor. They actually believe in this stuff.
The increasing scope, frequency, and harshness of the character attacks on Hillary Clinton are certainly noteworthy. Her enemies are giving it all they’ve got. For those with Christian backgrounds, I think the Ninth Commandment (or the Eighth, if you’re Catholic or Lutheran) might be something for them to think about—assuming, of course, that they actually believe in this stuff.
@Greg: Actually, Greg, it isn’t ”giving one-tenth of your income to charity,” that is ”tithing.”
It is giving one-tenth of your income to THE CHURCH that is tithing.”
Jesus was pretty clear about giving to charity outside of the church: he said do not let your right hand know what your left hand is doing.
Translated into today’s vernacular that means you don’t keep any account of charitable giving at all.
And, yes, it is ON TOP of tithing to a church, if your church requires tithing.
I think whether to church or charity depends on the interpretation of the church a person belong to. A tithe refers to a tenth part.
@Greg: What church pays you for traveling and expenses out of your tithe? Lets you decide where that money is spent?
oh the church of Hillary Rotton Clinton, ask Bill where all the money donated to Haiti was spent.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2016/07/20/how_the_clinton_foundation_got_rich_off_poor_haitians_387335
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/claim-clintons-got-rich-poor-haitians-following-earthquake-tragedy
She is a real piece of work her and her pseudo hubby.
Trump pays IRS a penalty for his foundation violating rules with gift to aid Florida attorney general
So, an illegal $25,000 donation was made by Trump’s charitable foundation to a political campaign group connected to Florida’s Attorney General Pam Bondi, while that Attorney General was deciding whether or not to pursue a fraud case against Trump University. And she then decided not to.
It kind of makes one wonder what else might be revealed if Trump’s tax returns could be examined as have those of Bill and Hillary Clinton, doesn’t it?
Or maybe not, since nobody supporting Trump seems to give a doodly damn what he might have been up to. Because, you know, Clinton.
Clinton emails wiped clean after NYT story
Gowdy: FBI barely probed Clinton about intent on emails
Hillary Clinton told the FBI she didn’t think drone strike plans were classified
Clinton told FBI she relied on others’ judgment on classified material
Clinton email investigation: FBI notes reveal laptop and thumb drive are missing
FBI: Hillary Clinton Lost Cell Phones with Classified Emails
FBI Summary: Hillary Said She ‘Could Not Recall’ ‘Did Not Recall,’ ‘Did Not Remember,’ ‘Had No Recollection’ 41 Times
Clinton told FBI she was ‘not concerned’ about sending classified emails
FBI: Hillary Clinton Could Not Remember Briefings Due to Concussion
FBI found extensive evidence Hillary emails violated federal records laws
FBI: Clinton withheld 17,500 emails
Hillary Signed She Received Briefing on Classified Info, But Told FBI She Hadn’t See the two conflicting documents.
Newly Released FBI Interview Notes Shows Hillary Didn’t Know ‘C’ Meant Classified
(Labor Day Document Dump)…FBI releases Clinton investigation documents
The “Oh Shit” Moment: Hillary Wiped Her Server With BleachBit Despite Subpoena
@Greg: #19 like that kind of greasing isn’t normal only 25 K for a favor, I guess the price is millions once the donor needs something from the Secretary of State.
She has made history! she is the only senior that actually GOT millions from answering a call from a prince in Dubai.
@July 4th American: In their defense, NOBODY wants to probe Hillary.
Trump’s charitable foundation is caught by the IRS making an ILLEGAL $25,000 contribution to a PAC supporting the reelection of the state Attorney General who was deciding whether to bring charges against Trump University for running a bait-and-switch scam—a presentation of funds commonly known as a bribe—and the only response from the right is Clinton Clinton Clinton?
The contribution was actually solicited by the Attorney General in question.
The only thing more obvious than the impropriety of the timely “contribution” to the Attorney General is the rip-off that was Trump “University” itself. For their $35,000 Elite Plan “tuition,” suckers got some online material to look at, a handful of lectures by instructors Trump had no part in selecting, plus a special 3-day seminar attended by a stand-up, photographic cut-out of Donald Trump, which they could be photographed with at the end.
If you have any questions regarding the nature of the Trump University operation, you should read the 2012 sworn testimony of Ronald Schnackenberg, a former Trump University sales manager. It was only recently made available for public inspection—after Trump had locked down the republican nomination.
Trump calls Hillary a crook. After decades of investigations, she’s never been found guilty of a damn thing. Want to see her tax returns, or documentation pertaining to the Clinton Foundation? They’re all a matter of public record. All of Donald Trump’s records, however, are state secrets. Nothing to see there.
You’ll believe the worst about Clinton, based on nothing more than a repeated rumor, and totally ignore any evidence to the contrary. For example: Did Hillary Clinton order her emails erased last March, after a New York Times story broke and their preservation was ordered?
No, she did not. That was done without her knowledge, by an employee who suddenly realized he had failed to eliminate personal correspondence on a continuing basis after a its intended 6-month retention period. He took it upon himself to play catch-up, creating the appearance that Clinton was attempting to avoid submitting material. You’ll never take that in, however, any more than you’ll take in information suggesting there’s anything amiss with Trump.
@Greg:
The issue is, why would this bother you if NOTHING Hillary has done (which is verified, while your allegations are not) is so easily excused, ignored or denied?
What bothers me is that half of America seems eager to turn an egotistical billionaire snake oil salesman, whose primary talent is audience manipulation, into the single most powerful individual on the planet.
I think they’ve totally lost touch with reality.
@Bill:
It is quite unlikely Bill ever probed Hillary. Chelsea is Web Hubbell’s daughter.
@Greg: Obama is a con artist that, assisted by a compliant liberal media, was transformed into what was supposed to pass for a legitimate leader. What a dismal failure THAT turned out to be.
Trump has actual, real, legitimate leadership capabilities, something both Obama and Hillary are sadly lacking. To Democrats, propaganda, slogans and demonization is far more important that ability.
If that state of affairs never end bothered you, why does Trump’s celebrity?
What would those capabilities be, other than his ability to manipulate an audience by pretending to share their concerns, opinions, and emotions, and by telling them whatever they want to hear?
@Greg:
Gee, the very same can be said of the democrat nominee,
BTW, Greg, if that is your name;
Can you name one significant accomplishment of the democrat nominee?
Hillary Clinton Couldn’t Define For FBI What Should Be Classified, Thought Future Drone Strike Not Classified
Any idiot off the street would understand that that was classified. But she, a former First Lady, member of the Senate and Secretary of State didn’t understand that?
Via Washington Examiner:
Hillary Clinton suggested to FBI investigators in a July interview that she had little understanding of classified information when she served as secretary of state.
Clinton told FBI agents she could not remember ever receiving any training for how to preserve federal records or treat classified material.
“Clinton could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined,” the FBI wrote in its notes.
“Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system,” the FBI wrote.
What’s more, Clinton said an email that was central to the investigation, one that involved conversations about a planned drone strike in Pakistan, didn’t raise any red flags when she transmitted the highly classified information over her unsecured server.
“Clinton stated deliberation over a future drone strike did not give her cause for concern regarding classification,” the notes said.
@Greg: One cannot run a business empire as Trump has without the ability to choose capable people, make tough decisions about personnel, make effective risk management decisions and be a LEADER.
Simply blaming people for the failures of your own policies is not leadership.
Obama has NEVER shown a shed of leadership. Obama has shown he doesn’t care enough about abiding by rules, regulations or laws to hold his people accountable. Hillary has clearly demonstrated how she will act in her own interests and try to cover it up. It is inconceivable that anyone would even try to defend their failure.
@July 4th American, #29:
It is my name. I feel no need to use a Trump hat-full of bogus nicknames such as “July 4th American.”
Let’s see… Children’s health care; 9/11 first-responders health care; the international promotion of women’s rights; expanded health care and family leave benefits for military families; a negotiated a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, which I suppose saved many lives on both sides. Some people would consider even a hiatus in that ongoing lunacy noteworthy.
@Bill, #30:
Trump can’t be trusted because he doesn’t conduct business in an honest, honorable fashion. Just ask the owners of small businesses he’s short-changed and screwed over after they’ve honored their end of a deal. Ask the people who were conned out of $35,000 for a Trump University course.
@Greg:
Typically outrageous leftist projection.
How can you write such a comment without any recognition of the definitional corruption of Hillary and her Clinton Foundation, and Hillary’s absolutely illegal, unsecured bathroom server?
Your post is the most blatantly dishonest, morally bankrupt example of hypocrisy of your extreme leftist ravings. And considering your track record, that says much regarding the nonexistent measure of your credibility.
@Greg: But you trust Obama, who screwed over GM bond holders to support his union benefactors, screwed over the investors in green industries in favor of his donor buddies and Hillary, who has screwed over the entire nation to get rich off of Clinton Foundation donations?
Trump conducts business in a hard-nosed manner. Obama and Hillary are corrupt and violate the public trust.
@Pete, #34:
Maybe you should consider actually addressing the points I raised. The relevant issue is the character, honesty, and integrity of Donald Trump, as they are revealed by his disreputable business practices and personal conduct. I myself am irrelevant to that examination.
@Greg:
Maybe Greg should address the points he raised. The relevant issue is the character, honesty, and integrity ofthe Democrat nominee as they are revealed by her disreputable actions as first lady, senator and secretary of state.
And, she is the most unhealthy candidate in modern times to run for potus
Clinton is dishonest? She clearly states her positions on important issues, and with a very few exceptions has clearly stated and held to them for years.
Donald Trump? You don’t even know what his core values are. Do you trust his words on that, or his past behaviors? He changes his positions at the drop of a hat, sometimes from one venue to the next or between morning and evening of the same day. For example, he flip-flops on mass deportation any time the issue comes up. Today he’s a hardliner again—but check back tomorrow. Tomorrow he may be sounding like he’s hinting at amnesty again. It all depends on who he’s talking to and which way the wind is blowing.
@Greg:
If you had any actual points, rather than the hypocritical ravings against the perception of Trump as dishonest – laughably (willfully) ignorant of Clinton’s monumentally greater dishonesty – combined with hysterically weaksauce claims of Hillary’s pathetic coattail-riding on other SJW politicians’ accomplishments, I’d have something needing refutation.
The only thing Hillary has accomplished is sucking up an estimated $236 million in bribes laundered through the Clinton Foundation while establishing a mafia-like operation in the DNC that has allowed her to get away with her crimes without being indicted. The extreme left goes along with a wink-and-nod mentality, because Clinton pushes the nation towards their desired totalitarian goals.
As I have stated numerous times, Trump is not who I supported in the primary season. But with such a loathesome, criminally decetful, and hypocritically greedy harridan as the other choice, Trump shines by comparison.
@Greg:
Either Clinton is dishonest, or she doesn’t have the mental capacity to work at the DMV, much less be president.
“I can’t recall” appears to be Clinton’s default answer to questions. As in her current claim she didn’t recall receiving training on the ha dling of classified documents (despite her signature on the form indicating she HAD received said training.) So she is either lying or is a forgetful septaugenarian not fit to hold office.
She seems to be smart enough to have survived everything the GOP has thrown at her. Maybe they’re not as smart as they like to think they are. If they were all that smart, they wouldn’t have been so easily out-maneuvered by a reality television host.
But back to my point about flip-flops—or having no clear positions whatsoever, if you prefer that interpretation:
Trump refuses to rule out legal status for undocumented immigrants
It’s an interesting strategy. He suggests all possibilities. All people have to do is ignore the contradictions, and choose to believe whatever combination of positions they like the best.
Her honesty when it came to the Benghazi parents is astonishing. Even diane reynolds knew the truth. Were it not for double standards, democrats would have no standards…..
Hillary Clinton Announces The Clinton Foundation Corruption Will Continue If She’s Elected
@Greg: She clearly states them… then she clearly changes them. Then she clearly lies about them. Then she clearly changes back. Then she clearly says she can’t remember.
If the media treated Hillary like they do Trump (or like they did when they had already chosen Obama… remember, she was a lying racist then), she would be behind bars right now. As it is, she is only in a terrified panic because Trump is beating her.
And her frail health is being exposed as well. Allergies my ass.
Morning Joe todays comedy show…OMG Clinton spending millions on ads and the CNN poll shows him ahead!!
Nothing to say about Trump selling out on yet another “firm” position, I guess…
The man is a scam artist. How do you not see the obvious?