2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHere comes another investigation of Clinton Foundation: FTC
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lawmaker-demands-ftc-probe-into-clintons-sham-charity/article/2586473A House Republican lawmaker is planning to ask the Federal Trade Commission to take a cue from law enforcement by looking into the Clinton Foundation's nonprofit status, and is calling the foundation a "sham charity."
The letter, which is being circulated by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn. and which was obtained by the Washington Examiner, asks the FTC to investigate the charitable status of the group, due mainly to the criminal probe announced by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in January. That agency is seeking to determine whether public corruption laws were violated when Hillary Clinton worked for the foundation at the same time she served as secretary of state.
"The FTC has a history of investigating 'sham' charities for false and deceptive statements and should initiate a review of the Foundation," Blackburn wrote.
The conservative firebrand added that the group already has a tumultuous with both the FTC and the Better Business Bureau. The latter said in 2013 that the Clinton Foundation failed to meet its "transparency and accountability requirements," while the FTC had the group on a "watch list" until December of last year. The FTC has also declared itself unable to rate the foundation because of what it calls an "atypical business model."
Additionally, Blackburn noted, the foundation has also had a problem with reporting its finances. The organization failed to report millions of dollars it received in grants from foreign governments when Clinton served as secretary of state. CEO Maura Pally said the grants were "mistakenly combined with other donations," while former President Bill Clinton called it "just an accident." "These are troubling developments. They call into question the legitimacy of the Foundation's work as it operates under a cloak of philanthropy," Blackburn said. "The existence of a federal criminal probe should alarm the Commission, which initiates civil actions requiring a lower standard of proof."
"These allegations may stifle the ability of other organizations associated with current or former public officials to advance charitable causes by undermining public confidence in such institutions," the congresswoman concluded. "Consistent with the FTC's mission and precedent, we request that you review the above allegations to determine if the Foundation is a 'sham' charity."
NanceGreggs
(27,818 posts)Bernie's losing.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,818 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)While facing at least 4 additional ones.
NanceGreggs
(27,818 posts)... Bernie's losing.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)if I thought Hill were losing.
And I just can't imagine doing it. It would feel kind of crass and deliberately cruel to me, and I wouldn't like myself for doing it.
So, since the primaries are still on, if things change to the point that Hill is behind Bernie, I won't be rubbing your nose in it.
NanceGreggs
(27,818 posts)Pointing out that every time it becomes more apparent that Bernie is losing, the anti-HRC rhetoric gets posted - often regardless of source?
pointing out an article that addresses many important issues with the Clinton foundation anti-hillary. Many people have been claiming the foundation and HRC is basically a money laundering scheme. The IBT have many articles on the issue and they don't get their facts from the republicans but from investigative journalism.
HRC sycophants only response for the past 20 yrs is if you point out Clinton wrong doings you are a right wing fanatic that hates Hillary. When the truth is the Clinton's have been corrupt for a very long time ever since they were renting out the Lincoln bedroom as if it were a Roadway Inn. I say Roadway inn because the Clinton's are from Ark and I imagine that is the best hotel available in Ark.
Thank you. (However, there's no need to put down Ark. We have some great DUers from Ark.)
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)(1) getting more delegates in recent elections
(2) surpassing Hillary in latest national polls, up from his original 4% when he started. . . sure looks like an UN-losing direction to me. Whereas Hillary has been steadily going down.
(3) for MONTHS now he has beaten EVERY GOP candidate (you know, the one's we'll actually face in the GE). Hillary does not beat them, and the few she is starting to beat are my much LOWER margins than Bernie.
Hey, if that's what losing looks like to you. I'll take it any time over the "Clinton Titanic" slowly sinking beneath all the weight . . . buy bye. Oops!
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Do you want people like this in the WH? "It was just an accident" Really? It's not that Bernie is losing, it's Hillary's record. Don't we all get to see that? Aren't you glad we still have Bernie to fall back on? If Hillary beats this, then no big deal. But if for some reason it goes the other way, I would think you would be glad Bernie is still in. It's not his or our fault over what happens to the Clinton's, it's their own fault.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)lying criminal, their usual response was, "you lost, get over it". Another way the hillarians are like the bushies
Dealing with them is just like dealing with those things. It is horrible that they call themselves Democrats.
And the part is, they seem to have no awareness of it. No self-awareness. No shame.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Is it not time to call to account literally and figuratively this organization and its questionable "Pay to Play" history.
FourScore
(9,704 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Reporting it is not praising it. Get a grip.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Seriously.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Then again, I'm not a right-winger...
grasswire
(50,130 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)The "win/lose" mentality is is a schoolyard mentality for little boys. Grown men (and women) don't act that way. The good news is: It is never too late to grow up.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)attacks against me won't help your candidate either.
senz
(11,945 posts)I like men, always have, but am now coming to terns with how important it is to give them good role models and life paths to get them through the rough and reckless years of adolescence and young manhood.
The hyper-competitive win/lose, dominator attitude keeps boys and men from achieving their full potential.
I think this is something very important that our society needs to deal with.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)....piece I could find, to know what was going on, what they said about him, what the evidence might or might not be, who the attackers were, every detail.
Oh. But he's not.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)or am I wrong I your humble opinion?
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Let me know.
asuhornets
(2,405 posts)return donations because of his campaign finances.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Bernie's much cleaner.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Hill becomes the nominee.
scandal after scandal after scandal after scandal after....
Enjoy. Better get used to being on the defensive.
NanceGreggs
(27,818 posts)... invariably surface (or resurface, as the case usually is) every time it sinks in a little further that Bernie is losing.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)just reality of what Ms Clinton will be faced with from this point forward, because, well, she's got a very spotted background, should we say...and she's got a lot of political enemies ready to exploit whenever the chance arrives.
NanceGreggs
(27,818 posts)Some of his supporters cling to the hope that a major HRC scandal will turn the tide.
Therefore, they post anti-HRC bullshit in furtherance of that hope.
So far - NOT working.
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)But if it works during the GE then hello Trump .
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)You keep saying Bernie is sinking, but apparently haven't been keeping up . . . . the latest polls put him AHEAD of Hillary.
The tide has already turned. . . better get off the beach or you'll get wet.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)of the Bush Crime Family. They're trying to take everyone else down with them. Down with them.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I am not thrilled woth the source of this particular thread because it is based on a GOP fishing expedition by Blackburn.
But your arrogent response -- rather than simply objecting and actually dealing with the substance -- is empty baiting that does no good either.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)You don't seem to.
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Zira
(1,054 posts)CommonDreams.org is a good liberal site and has respected bloggers. They have posted articles not favorable to the Clinton foundation.
Maybe you should google the Clinton foundation.
Common Dreams is as far from Republican as you can get.
zigby
(125 posts)How come I only get really boring ass alerts and nothing juicy?
On Wed Mar 23, 2016, 11:02 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Here comes another investigation of Clinton Foundation: FTC
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511565245
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
More right wing sources being used to attack Hillary. This is really getting old.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 23, 2016, 11:09 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Use your words, children. Waste of jury time.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's out there, so as long as we know it's right wing tripe, leave it.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: The Washington Examiner. Just how desperate are you?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)I, for one, am not afraid to read things that scare others.
A fact is a fact. Rep. Blackburn wrote a letter asking FTC to investigate. Doesn't matter what the source of the report is.
zigby
(125 posts)I don't care for the source but it reported things that actually, like, happened and stuff.
and welcome to DU. Sincerely.
MattP
(3,304 posts)Blus4u
(608 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isnt rated?
It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)They probably came up with a negative rating, informed the Clinton Foundation, whereupon Clinton mafia goons threatened them into submission. ergo., we just won't rate them. That's how the Clinton mafia operates.
senz
(11,945 posts)Oh I hope we will not have these people in the WH.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'm no fan of the Clintons but this is bullshit. The FTC isn't going to investigate the foundation simply because the Republicans want to enlist them in the witch hunt.
pat_k
(9,313 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)in that sense. But I also agree that it's legitimate.
However you want to think of this item, as you say it's another on a very long list of attacks the repukes have thrown at her, are throwing at her, and oh guess what? WILL CONTINUE to throw at her, well into the general election campaign and follow her to the White House. Once she's there, it's gonna get soooo much worse. Unbelievably worse. Worse than the entire 8 years of the last Clinton administration.
But this is all of course, quite predictable, so no surprise there.
The long outstanding question still remains, WHY is the intent on her coronation still (after all of this and more) being relentlessly pursued, when there is a particularly outstanding alternative in play?
pat_k
(9,313 posts)Too many Dems believe Sanders' "socialist" ideas are toxic. Just as they have believed that any fight for the principles we really care about will bring the wrath of... well, somebody... down on them. There will be a "backlash." The Republican noise machine will kill us (not that they call it that). And on and on.
Such beliefs and rationalizations for not "rocking the boat" are never challenged inside the beltway (or by the people "out here" who have internalized the rationalizations). Classic group think. The beliefs of the insular group just keep drifting further and further away from reality as those inside the insular group reinforce the increasingly irrational beliefs.
Sanders campaign is challenging beltway/establishment group think. But it's a hard nut to crack. By its nature, group think is a powerful social force.
It's not hopeless. Redemption is always possible. Sanders' campaign is chipping away, and, win or lose, will generate positive ripple effects into the future. If someone so "radical" can't make it to the White House this time, he will have paved the way for another candidate advocating real change to make it in the future.
In the meantime, it's up to us to just keep chipping away at the rationalizations and memes. (e.g., Can't win so don't fight; there'll be backlash; or whatever the latest excuse for inaction might be.)
The only way they can truly "win" is if we bow out of the fight.
2banon
(7,321 posts)Preaching to the choir, but I'm with ya all the way..
and yes, at the end of the day:
The only way they can truly "win" is if we bow out of the fight.
artyteacher
(598 posts)And eventually use the bs against the Cons.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)I can't think of too many things more worthy of investigation than potential linkages between foreign entities making large contributions to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State. Everything with the Clintons isn't a "witch hunt" because a Republican initiates it.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)I think it is referenced in one of those articles I linked. With the Clintons, there is graft in so many directions you can't easily cover them all.
But thanks for mentioning it.
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)Strenge bedfellows, indeed.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Marsha Blackburn? Washington Examiner? Has it really come to this?
stonecutter357
(12,697 posts)BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Investigating this is not a "witch hunt". In my opinion, it is a scandal that Hillary Clinton was approved by Congress to become Secretary of State with all of the inherent conflicts of interest she and Bill had with foreign governments and entities, both personally and via the Clinton Foundation.
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
<Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States' oil-rich ally in the Middle East.
Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region's fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Departments documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.
But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clintons State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in Washington to announce the departments approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been a top priority for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.
These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.
The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clintons State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.
Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clintons term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bushs second term.>
<American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.
The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department.>
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)That couldn't possibly have anything to do with why Hillary is such a champion of the Export-Import Bank, for which Boeing customers account for 40% of total taxpayer subsidized loans, could it?
Boeing reported over $43 billion in profit over 12 years while not only not paying a penny in federal income tax, but collecting $1.6 billion from the U.S. government in income tax "refunds". Kicking a mere $900,000 of that to the Clinton Foundation to grease the skids for huge sales to the Saudis and others and to subsidized loans from the Export-Import Bank is a no brainer.
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-has-big-tax-refund-coming-from-uncle-sam-mdash-again/
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)<On a trip to Moscow early in her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton played the role of international saleswoman, pressing Russian government officials to sign a multibillion-dollar deal to buy dozens of aircraft from Boeing.
A month later, Clinton was in China, where she jubilantly announced that the aerospace giant would be writing a generous check to help resuscitate floundering U.S. efforts to host a pavilion at the upcoming Worlds Fair.
Boeing, she said, has just agreed to double its contribution to $2 million.
Clinton did not point out that, to secure the donation, the State Department had set aside ethics guidelines that first prohibited solicitations of Boeing and then later permitted only a $1 million gift from the company. Boeing had been included on a list of firms to be avoided because of its frequent reliance on the government for help negotiating overseas business and concern that a donation could be seen as an attempt to curry favor with U.S. officials.
The November 2009 episode was an indicator of a mutually beneficial relationship between one of the worlds major corporations and a potential future president. Clinton functioned as a powerful ally for Boeings business interests at home and abroad, while Boeing has invested resources in causes beneficial to Clintons public and political image.>
<In 2010, two months after Boeing won its $3.7 billion Russia deal, the company announced a $900,000 contribution to the William J. Clinton Foundation intended to rebuild schools in earthquake-ravaged Haiti. >
<The companys ties came into play again this month when its in-house lobbyist, former Bill Clinton aide Tim Keating, co-hosted a fundraiser for Ready for Hillary, the super PAC backing her potential presidential run.>
Former Bill Clinton aide, now in house Boeing lobbyist, Hillary negotiating arms sales to the Saudis on behalf of Boeing, Boeing making large contributions to the Clinton Foundation and hosting a fundraiser for a Hillary super PAC, Hillary championing the Export-Import Bank, i.e. The Bank of Boeing......what's the problem? Nothing to see here, move along.
senz
(11,945 posts)We need to know about her. The more the better, the sooner the better.
It is our right as citizens.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:15 PM - Edit history (1)
but it's not an issue worthy of discussion in this campaign. Now they run 16 negative stories on Bernie in 16 hours.
Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post in August, 2013. My guess is that it took a year or so for him to close the transaction and get his new team in place.
Does anybody think Trump isn't going to kill Hillary with these kind of stories in a general election campaign? I find them with simple internet searches, one after another after another.
senz
(11,945 posts)I'm still not convinced that Trump isn't in cahoots with his old friend Hillary. We'll see.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Not a proper roll for a SOS (paid by taxpayers) to have their Spouse running the family's Global Foundation (later taken over by their Daughter)and profiting from making arms/trade deals with Foreign Countries who then donate to the Foundation and pay speaking fees to the Former President.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)It should get you perp walked out of your office in handcuffs on national television.
As Simon Johnson wrote in a 2009 article in The Atlantic called "The Quiet Coup" about the financial services industry, the revolving door and campaign money has created a system where it is hard to tell where government ends and private industry starts. The same goes for so many other industries, including the industrial-military complex.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I ask because you seem to post a lot of it here to attack Hillary.
senz
(11,945 posts)It has something to do with democracy.
You should want to know, too.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)...buried in the sand.
I read widely. I highly recommend it. Don't you?
Reading widely to learn as much as possible prevents tunnel vision and surprises.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)...and have a B.S. filter.
Tarc
(10,476 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)artyteacher
(598 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)The foundation is a real problem.
They have "legally" used it to shelter money for years, which will be an interesting subject that will get covered in the general election.
As you know when you "give" to charity it comes off your taxes. However, what MANY of the 1% do is create their own foundation, so they can give LARGE sums to "charity", but they own that charity. It's basically being given a tax break for putting money in the bank. They can, if they run into money trouble, draw a salary from the charity at any time and pay taxes on the money then (of course at a lower rate b/c they likely donated the money from a higher tax bracket than the salary would be at) OR the money could be used to curry favors.
Their finances have been a mess for years (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/us/politics/unease-at-clinton-foundation-over-finances-and-ambitions.html?_r=1) which is why they are not tracked by charity watch.
It isn't that this is indictable, but it makes Clinton unelectable.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)behind and the convention's "good golly gosh, she's been cheating so hard! we can't have a candidate under indictment running just to pardon herself! here, have a Biden sticker"
Marsha Blackburn is a fucking idiot...
However, THIS is SHOCKING:
The conservative firebrand added that the group already has a tumultuous with both the FTC and the Better Business Bureau. The latter said in 2013 that the Clinton Foundation failed to meet its "transparency and accountability requirements," while the FTC had the group on a "watch list" until December of last year. The FTC has also declared itself unable to rate the foundation because of what it calls an "atypical business model."
The FTC had The Clinton Foundation on a WATCH LIST until December 2015?
Jesus H Christ...
Is the FTC a Clinton-hating RW source? No. So there is some substance to the claim, no matter who the messenger is.
Thank you for taking the time to post that relevant section. Someone from the Ostrich Rapid-Response-Team will be along shortly to attempt to dismiss it tho.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)The FTC had the foundation on a watch list until December 2015. At whose instruction was the foundation taken OFF the watch list???
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)As it should
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)conducted by a special prosecutor. This level of corruption is simply too much even for this day and age.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Punkingal
(9,522 posts)I just wouldn't have faith in anything she does.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)The fact that Blackburn is a partisan hack doesn't mean the Clinton Foundation should not be thoroughly investigated.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Only those who are most afraid there truly is some corruption there want to stop any inquiry.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)Hillary's office as Secretary of State was obviously pay to play. My guess is that it would be harder to find deals Hillary was involved in where there weren't contributions made to her and/or Bill, her campaign, and/or the Clinton Foundation than to find ones where there were contributions. There are plenty of the latter as any basic internet search reveals.
Hillary's "show me a vote that I changed" nonsense is an effort to say that if you don't have her on tape or in written correspondence spelling out a quid pro quo in detail, then there is nothing to investigate.
To me, this is like the speech transcript issue. There is already plenty of evidence of influence peddling based on what has already been reported.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)"show me a vote that I changed" is pure weasel talk.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts).....and the foundation WAS ON THE WATCH LIST of the FTC just a few months ago.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)Peter Daou at Blue Nation Review will have a fresh propaganda article ready to combat this ugly truth soon!
polichick
(37,152 posts)Justice
(7,188 posts)Zira
(1,054 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)You have have some serious issues.