Sanders hits Clinton Foundation over foreign donations
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by tammywammy (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: The Hill
Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders criticized the Clinton Foundation for accepting donations from foreign governments in an interview aired Sunday, calling it a conflict of interest.
[br]
Do I have a problem when a sitting secretary of State and a foundation run by her husband collects many, many dollars from foreign governments governments which are dictatorships?
"Yeah, I do have a problem with that. Yeah, I do," Sanders said on CNN's "State of the Union."
When host Jake Tapper asked if he thought it was a conflict of interest, Sanders said, "I do."
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282261-sanders-clinton-foundation-engaged-in-conflicts-of
msongs
(67,394 posts)laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Thanks for being so concerned..about what's pooper
Skittles
(153,142 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)Let them think this makes a 'difference.'
TeamPooka
(24,218 posts)There's a big difference in going along with a war when presented with false evidence and being the one who doctored up the evidence in the first place like Bush/Cheney.
merrily
(45,251 posts)That was no coincidence. No Democratic I know IRL believed Bush. If she did, then we have even bigger problems if she becomes President.
Either she wasn't duped by Bush or she was. Either way...
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Vanishing...where Hillary says they're destroying the Constitution
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Not to mention his Pope vaca on his campaign expense acct.
Bern ought to be sweeping his own front steps.
Crap is piling up!
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)How much attention are you paying to government reports?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Follow the FEC Rules.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Wait for it...
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)displacedtexan
(15,696 posts)The news this week came from a Wall Street Journal article reporting that once Hillary Clinton left her job as secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation lifted its ban on donations from foreign governments. The ban was reportedly first put in place at the request of the Obama administration, which wanted to alleviate any possible conflicts of interest with its new secretary of state. When Clinton became a private citizen again in 2013, the foundation once again accepted money from foreign governments.
"A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation said the charity has a need to raise money for its many projects," the Journal reported.
The Journal article stressed that some ethics experts thought it was bad form for the foundation to accept foreign donations because Hillary Clinton is expected to run for president. The following day, Republican partisans piled on, insisting Hillary herself had accepted "truckloads of cash from other countries." (She had not; the foundation had.) The Beltway press largely echoed the Republican spin and lampooned the foundation's move.
Did the original Journal article raise an interesting question? It did. If and when Hillary formally announces her candidacy, will the foundation have to revisit its position on accepting foreign government donations? It likely will. But the only way the story really worked as advertised this week was to casually conflate the Clinton Foundation, a remarkably successful global charity organization, with Hillary's looming campaign coffers, and to suggest everyone who's giving to the foundation is really giving to her presidential campaign.
In order to make that allegation stick, Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post simply suggested there's no difference between a global charity and "a PAC or campaign entity." (That kind of changes everything.)
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/02/20/the-clinton-foundation-is-a-global-charity-why/202587
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)That youll never admit..even if she pleads guilty
creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)And Bernie should know better. Maybe he does and he just said it anyway.
thereismore
(13,326 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)There is no denying that. It's a fact.
What is going on in her mind, that is, whether there is a conflict of interest in her mind, we cannot know.
The deal breaker is that she has the appearance of a conflict of interest. That's what disqualifies her for the presidency.
Darb
(2,807 posts)just a bernies desperate opinion?
Gawd that is weak reasoning. Her family's charity is a reason to disqualify her. Gumbyish.
hedda_foil
(16,371 posts)Yeah, we were all naively delighted when the leopard seemed to change his spots because he'd been "blinded by the right." Not so much anymore, when it has become transparently obvious that he changed jerseys but never changed his game.
Viewing the statement above in the light of day, the piece you quoted is totally uninformative. The WP never implied what.Rubin is quoted as saying. The actual implication is that the foundation a mechanism for funneling cash to the Clintons for favors granted or expected. That's in addition to funneling foreign funds into her super PACs, like those owned and operated by the very same Brocadile. That, of course, is just fine under Citizens United.
Darb
(2,807 posts)the bernies found so much common ground with them. Too bad.
creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)from dictatorships while Hillary was SOS, with the exception of Algeria, if that's a dictatorship. The foundation said that donation was accepted by mistake. Bernie should check his facts before he makes such a wild accusation. That is, if Bernie cares about facts.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Foundation monies...then stopped it..while she did the acts..then she returned and collects (after they get what they paid for)
Senator Stevens went to jail..for a used chair
creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)Here is what Bernie said:
"Do I have a problem when a SITTING secretary of State and a foundation run by her husband collects many, many dollars from foreign governments governments which are dictatorships?
"Yeah, I do have a problem with that."
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Public confession the Foundation took monies in violation
And you cant have Capone make Nitti into a charity..then hop sctoch around that the dollars mean nothing
Like the Clintons raked in $100 million for being nice.
She saw what Bush n Cheney did with Haliburton and Bush family ties to Bin Ladens..and got filthy rich.
How about the Clinton profit university. While she was Sec of State?
Give U.S. a friggin break
creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)Why all the change of subject?
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)In and of itself...it is enough to convict
You cant do all this hoop jumping through...to hide your emails from public scrutiny...and then say, when your caught... It's just an oops.
It all makes the point.
Even Hillary...herself...said Bush n Cheney were assualting the Constitution..by doing so
Did the laws change?
creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)I checked it and found they did take money from a few dictatorships. Sorry.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 6, 2016, 02:38 AM - Edit history (1)
Simply cannit have our elected officials finding circumvent ways to make $100 million from their public service.
Bernie...correvtly asserts...it's a confluct of interest
She is either for U.S. or herself...and its clear to see
Like US Attorney Chris Christie giving his former boss...USAG John Ashcroft and President Corporate Fraud Task Force US Attorney Debra Yang a $50 million dollar NO BID Deferred Prosecution Agreement
Call it defer, circumvent, or foundations charitable
We used to call it something else when public servants take millions of dollars in...while making devisions in office
merrily
(45,251 posts)credulity become too strained?
IIRC, the 2008 Clinton campaign said accepting money from the Chinese was a mistake, too. And Hillary misspoke about being shot at. And Bill perjured himself because he was mistaken.
If they caught their mistakes before being caught in the act, I'd feel much better about believing they're mistakes.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)And another OOPs
But worry not...she's with you...I mean with her...I mean they're with here...the foreign $100 million
I mean. OOOOOPs
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)Keep Those $27 a rollin in !
WhiteTara
(29,699 posts)to run for office. That is a BIG no no.
mwooldri
(10,302 posts)Foreign nationals who are legal permanent residents are permitted by law to donate to US political campaigns in the same way and limits US citizens can. The one thing they can't do is vote.
WhiteTara
(29,699 posts)Pauldg47
(640 posts)..mega bucks from corporations and governments. Bernie didn't know because they were charge card donations from poor nationals wanting to help him. There is no way to find out who they are.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Why should Americans foot the bill of Elections
When foreigners and Citizens United are willing to foot : he bill..for them
Gotta luv those benevolents
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)You speak for so many of us!
Darb
(2,807 posts)and in this case, the Teabaggers too. What a coincidink.
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)Who are you again?
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)GO BERNIE
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)Pauldg47
(640 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)You bernies will fall for anything, obviously.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)from their own tax filings ...
Darb
(2,807 posts)pretty pictures do not tell the story. Please, try to come to grips with the fact that people can give money to any charity they want to, mmmmkay? Now try to to come to grips with the fact that people can believe anything that they want, mmmmmkay?
Now, if you can prove that none of these countries ever, and I mean ever, got weapons deals with the US prior to their giving to the Clinton charity, then maybe we can talk. Otherwise, you are pissing up a rope.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Where judges and prosecutors can go to Aruba and Monte Carlo and introduce the charity to other judges and prosecutors world wide
Its all okay
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)I cannot conceive of a way she can or will outrun her perfidy.
RandySF
(58,728 posts)The Sanders campaign has issued refunds to 278 donors whose US citizenship was not able to be confirmed after they donated to the campaign.
According to Sanders campaigns FEC filing, The Committee did not receive confirmation of citizenship or residence status and therefore issued refunds earlier this month to the following donors. These refunds will be reflected in the Committee?s forthcoming 2016 May Monthly FEC Report (04/01/2016 ? 04/30/2016).
The good news is that the fact that the potentially illegal donations were caught means that the system worked. Potentially illegal foreign donations were not accepted by the Sanders campaign. The bad news is that the system could be better, and there is still potential for a candidate to accept illegal foreign donations.
Bernie Sanders has proven the conventional wisdom wrong by showing that a candidate doesnt need super PACs and dark money to run a competitive presidential campaign. The problem is that even a campaign with good intentions can still see potentially illegal donations slip through the cracks. The Sanders campaign caught 278 questionable donations out of the millions that they receive each month, but how many did they not catch?
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/18/bernie-sanders-campaign-issues-refunds-hundreds-donors-citizens.html
DemMomma4Sanders
(274 posts)Bernie Sanders wins the popular vote by a landslide if he is awarded the same amount of independent votes in states where independants are undemocratically blocked from voting. Bernie Sanders not only wins, if all primaries are open as they should be, but by an overwhelming majority.
Hillary didn't win more votes at all.....Party rules, undemocratic primary rules, have handed her the election over the more popular....and trustworthy candidate(every poll shows people trust Bernie more than hillary).
Either way....you post a story about Sanders returning Money in accordance to the law.
When does Hillary return Saudi donations she accepted in return for weapons contracts that will most likely end up seeing Saudi female activists killed and gassed???
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)The general election will be a whole different story.
DemMomma4Sanders
(274 posts)The Youth vote, driving the disruption for both parties, may very well go Trump.
Most people around my area are leaning towards Trump because of his military talk.....Theyre sick of Neocons and they see Hillary as a NeoCon.
Nationally, I think The DNC's embrace of closd primaries is going to hand Trump the presidency.
Next Election cycle, and succeedding ones are going to see the power of the two parties dwindle as a New party focused on getting seniors to retire early, lowering social security taxes and cutting benefits for seniors with bloated pensions, Cutting the military, raising wages is going to emerge, This is what is now the Youth vote.
How many elections cycles chaos to continue will be dependent on how much control the establishment is willing to ceede to actual voters.
But if things remain the same, too long........Trump is going to look like the pope compared to some of the candidates we will see rise in the future.
Direct democracy is the only thing that We deserve, and its the only thing that can restart the dead economy dragging economy.
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)Im seeing too much goings on...proof of anarchy
As the order of the days
Gamecock Lefty
(700 posts)Losing is not one of your more attractive qualities, Senator.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)get the attention off his illegal foreign donations.
Zambero
(8,964 posts)Doctors Without Borders? Int'l Red Cross?
Bernie, please let's have your tax returns so we can be assured that you have not contributed to any charities accepting foreign contributions.
Has your campaign accepted foreign donations? Canadian citizen Neil Young is an ardent supporter. One wonders.....
Arizona Roadrunner
(168 posts)This is how the Clinton's define "the public interest". And Democrats wonder why so many people may not vote at all in the Presidential election. Frankly, there may be a chance that the Libertarian party may get more votes than the Republicans and the Democrats which throws the contest into the House of Representatives since no one will have more than 270 votes in the Electoral College. And some people wonder why Sanders shouldn't keep running.
http://nypost.com/2016/05/22/how-corporate-america-bought-hillary-clinton-for-21m/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)You can't tell the truth about Hillary...here...at DU
The nerve of some peoples
Arizona Roadrunner
(168 posts)This is how the Clinton's define "the public interest". And Democrats wonder why so many people may not vote at all in the Presidential election. Frankly, there may be a chance that the Libertarian party may get more votes than the Republicans and the Democrats which throws the contest into the House of Representatives since no one will have more than 270 votes in the Electoral College. And some people wonder why Sanders shouldn't keep running.
http://nypost.com/2016/05/22/how-corporate-america-bought-hillary-clinton-for-21m/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/
laserhaas
(7,805 posts)But her followers don't care
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)They reinforce the same narrative, and it's not good.
beastie boy
(9,293 posts)...Oh wait, he didn't do that, did he?
Clean up your own house first, Bernie!
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/3/14/bernie-sanders-potentially-illegal-campaign-contributions
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)You can repost in General Discussion: Primaries