To Avoid Conflicts, Clintons Liquidate Holdings

[swag]

Source: New York Times

By PATRICK HEALY

WASHINGTON, June 14 — Concerned that their personal finances might become a political liability once again, Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton in April sold the millions of dollars of stocks held by their blind trust after becoming aware that those investments included oil and pharmaceutical companies, military contractors and Wal-Mart, among others, their aides said Thursday.

The Clintons liquidated the trust — valued at $5 million to $25 million — and are leaving the proceeds for now in cash in an effort to eliminate any chance of ethical problems or political embarrassment from their holdings as Mrs. Clinton runs for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, their advisers said. By disposing of all their stocks, Mrs. Clinton was seeking to avoid potential conflicts of interest that might arise from legislation that she votes on in the Senate, as well as avoid holding financial stakes in companies and industries — like Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, the owner of Fox News — that could draw criticism from some Democratic voters.

Mrs. Clinton automatically became aware of her investments because of a government directive this spring that she, as a presidential candidate, had to dissolve her blind trust and disclose all of her assets to the public.

The decision by the Clintons to sell their stock carried a financial cost, according to their advisers and new personal financial documents made available Thursday. The couple will owe “substantial amounts” in capital gains taxes, an adviser said, and are giving up the potentially higher returns from stocks for the safety but generally lower returns of holding their money in various forms of savings accounts.



Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/us/politics/15clintons.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[RufusTFirefly]

1. Never mind! [self-delete]

[swag]

2. I do agree that it's funny that these Senatorial "blind trusts" seem to be

anything but blind.

But not quite like Bill Frist, not by a long shot.

[Kagemusha]

3. I used to call Frist's the 'seeing eye trust'.

Just for kicks.

[SharonAnn]

4. Because she's running for president, she had to identify her holdings to the "blind trust"

was no longer "blind" to her.

If she had remained Senator and not run for president, her trust would've remained "blind" to her and she wouldn't have known what was in it.

"Mrs. Clinton automatically became aware of her investments because of a government directive this spring that she, as a presidential candidate, had to dissolve her blind trust and disclose all of her assets to the public."

[swag]

5. Many thanks for the claro.

I guess I could always learn to read, huh?

[RufusTFirefly]

7. Me too

It was there in the article, staring me right there in the face. Thank you for the enlightenment.

Sorry for my cynicism. I'm deleting my earlier post, if possible.

[ElizabethDC]

6. Thanks for explaning that - financial stuff always confuses me! n/t

[blm]

19. But holders CAN direct those in charge of their 'blind trusts' to NOT INVEST in

those corporations who profit off of policies that go against their values.

IF they really held those values consistently.

[Bitwit1234]

8. Answer this someone if a "candidate" has to liquidate a blind trust

how come cheney, who is serving in office as the vice president can still hold his Halliburton stock and receive compensation for it....damn...

[RufusTFirefly]

9. Because he's Cheney, dammit!!!

Go fuck yourself, Leahy!

[SayWhatYo]

10. Not defending Cheney for anything, but I don't think this is the same thing...

I think the key word here is blind trust and dissolving that, not all assets. In other words, make them known... Of course I'm just going based on what I read here and from a couple quick searches, so I may be confused. :D

[northzax]

11. no rule says that they have to liquidate

only that they have to disclose what they own. since theoretically, at least, the Clintons were unaware of what was held in their blind trust and only found out when they had to disclose the contents, they are choosing to liquidate to avoid any conflict of interest. Cheney chose not to .

a blind trust only works if it really is blind, then you can make decisions that might hurt you financially, but you will never know it. once you know the contents, conflict of interest comes into play.

[DeepModem Mom]

12. I'll praise the Clintons for this. It's costing them money, but they're doing it. nt

[ElizabethDC]

13. I think they've learned that regardless of the financial cost, better safe than sorry. n/t

[MaryBear]

14. As our next President, she is placing her pocketbook and her values together.

Bravo!

mb

[WCGreen]

15. And it was a very advantageous time for the Clinton's to divest...

The stock market is running full speed ahead and since they have to pay substantial amounts in capital gains that means there are substantial gains in their capital accounts...

[Decruiter]

16. Wouldn't it have been better to have done that quite some time ago, Hill?

G'd it, just when I was starting to think I like you a little.

You only just figured this one out?

Whoops.

[Demeter]

17. They Would Do Better To Put It In Euros, Loonies and Yen

or even gold bullion

[lostnfound]

18. I've not been much of a fan of HRC for president but I do like this.

It's a smart move, and while it certainly doesn't preclude personal financial interests holding sway over policy decisions, it's a step in the right direction.
Good for them.