HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Here comes another invest...

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:54 AM

Here comes another investigation of Clinton Foundation: FTC

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lawmaker-demands-ftc-probe-into-clintons-sham-charity/article/2586473


A 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."

112 replies, 6777 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 112 replies Author Time Post
Reply Here comes another investigation of Clinton Foundation: FTC (Original post)
grasswire Mar 2016 OP
NanceGreggs Mar 2016 #1
grasswire Mar 2016 #2
NanceGreggs Mar 2016 #3
NWCorona Mar 2016 #5
NanceGreggs Mar 2016 #6
grasswire Mar 2016 #10
senz Mar 2016 #18
NanceGreggs Mar 2016 #19
jpb33 Mar 2016 #25
senz Mar 2016 #69
pdsimdars Mar 2016 #51
Politicalboi Mar 2016 #109
Doctor_J Mar 2016 #39
senz Mar 2016 #67
CorporatistNation Mar 2016 #111
FourScore Mar 2016 #81
DanTex Mar 2016 #28
grasswire Mar 2016 #42
DanTex Mar 2016 #43
grasswire Mar 2016 #50
DanTex Mar 2016 #52
grasswire Mar 2016 #55
DanTex Mar 2016 #60
grasswire Mar 2016 #63
DanTex Mar 2016 #64
senz Mar 2016 #71
DanTex Mar 2016 #73
senz Mar 2016 #87
grasswire Mar 2016 #54
DanTex Mar 2016 #56
bobthedrummer Mar 2016 #99
ViseGrip Mar 2016 #59
DanTex Mar 2016 #62
NWCorona Mar 2016 #106
asuhornets Mar 2016 #104
NWCorona Mar 2016 #105
tex-wyo-dem Mar 2016 #14
NanceGreggs Mar 2016 #17
tex-wyo-dem Mar 2016 #20
NanceGreggs Mar 2016 #21
TheFarS1de Mar 2016 #24
pdsimdars Mar 2016 #57
840high Mar 2016 #23
scscholar Mar 2016 #65
Armstead Mar 2016 #31
pdsimdars Mar 2016 #53
BreakfastClub Mar 2016 #4
grasswire Mar 2016 #7
Zira Mar 2016 #95
zigby Mar 2016 #8
grasswire Mar 2016 #11
zigby Mar 2016 #12
grasswire Mar 2016 #13
MattP Mar 2016 #9
Blus4u Mar 2016 #103
senz Mar 2016 #15
FlatBaroque Mar 2016 #29
senz Mar 2016 #44
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #16
pat_k Mar 2016 #22
2banon Mar 2016 #72
pat_k Mar 2016 #110
2banon Mar 2016 #112
artyteacher Mar 2016 #101
BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #30
grasswire Mar 2016 #45
BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #48
72DejaVu Mar 2016 #26
DanTex Mar 2016 #27
LineReply .
stonecutter357 Mar 2016 #32
BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #33
BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #34
Uncle Joe Mar 2016 #35
BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #38
senz Mar 2016 #49
BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #61
senz Mar 2016 #82
KoKo Mar 2016 #75
BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #84
seabeyond Mar 2016 #36
hrmjustin Mar 2016 #37
senz Mar 2016 #46
hrmjustin Mar 2016 #78
grasswire Mar 2016 #47
hrmjustin Mar 2016 #77
grasswire Mar 2016 #88
Tarc Mar 2016 #40
JoePhilly Mar 2016 #41
artyteacher Mar 2016 #58
basselope Mar 2016 #66
MisterP Mar 2016 #83
AzDar Mar 2016 #68
farleftlib Mar 2016 #86
grasswire Mar 2016 #90
yourpaljoey Mar 2016 #70
FlatBaroque Mar 2016 #74
grasswire Mar 2016 #93
Punkingal Mar 2016 #76
BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #85
grasswire Mar 2016 #89
BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #96
grasswire Mar 2016 #98
Punkingal Mar 2016 #107
grasswire Mar 2016 #91
Punkingal Mar 2016 #108
revbones Mar 2016 #79
polichick Mar 2016 #80
Justice Mar 2016 #92
Zira Mar 2016 #94
EndElectoral Mar 2016 #97
NWCorona Mar 2016 #100
frylock Mar 2016 #102

Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:00 AM

1. Yeah, we know.

Bernie's losing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:03 AM

2. thanks for the kick. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:05 AM

3. You're more than welcome. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:09 AM

5. I'd rather lose with dignity than being investigated by the FBI

While facing at least 4 additional ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:10 AM

6. Like I said ...

... Bernie's losing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:12 AM

10. and another kick from you! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:31 AM

18. I keep trying to imagine saying that to a Hill fan

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:42 AM

19. What is crass and deliberately cruel?

Pointing out that every time it becomes more apparent that Bernie is losing, the anti-HRC rhetoric gets posted - often regardless of source?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #19)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 04:50 AM

25. How is

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpb33 (Reply #25)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:17 PM

69. Truth.

 

Thank you. (However, there's no need to put down Ark. We have some great DUers from Ark.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #19)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:02 PM

51. Losing . . . as in

 

(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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #19)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:40 PM

109. If this is true, you should be concerned

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 08:44 AM

39. Yeah, like the Bush supporters in 2000. When it was pointed out that Mr Bush is a mean, stupid

 

lying criminal, their usual response was, "you lost, get over it". Another way the hillarians are like the bushies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #39)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:15 PM

67. Exactly.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #67)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 08:35 PM

111. $Three Mill Annual Compensation For Chelsea For What?

Is it not time to call to account literally and figuratively this organization and its questionable "Pay to Play" history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #18)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:49 PM

81. That's exactly my sentiment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 07:12 AM

28. You think praising Marsha Blackburn's witch hunt is dignity?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #28)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 12:54 PM

42. who is praising it?

Reporting it is not praising it. Get a grip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #42)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 12:56 PM

43. You. And the right-wing media article you posted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #43)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:01 PM

50. what are you afraid of?

Seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #50)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:04 PM

52. Huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #52)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:06 PM

55. you seem to really fear learning about the Clintons. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #55)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:07 PM

60. Oh, I see. LOL. No, I'm not worried. I don't get my news from right-wing media.

Then again, I'm not a right-winger...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #60)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:08 PM

63. head in sand. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #63)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:09 PM

64. Winning the primary. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #64)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:19 PM

71. Irrelevant to the question at hand.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #71)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:22 PM

73. Sure it is: all the right-wing Hillary bashing hasn't accomplished its goal. And your ad hominem

attacks against me won't help your candidate either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #73)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:03 PM

87. This is something I've been thinking about.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #43)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:05 PM

54. If Bernie were being targeted by RW, I would be reading every RW...

....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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #54)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:06 PM

56. You certainly do spend a lot of time reading and posting right-wing media, I agree with you there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #56)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:43 PM

99. You sound like some kind of self-appointed book burner imho-or book banning commissar/apparatchik DT

 

or am I wrong I your humble opinion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #43)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:07 PM

59. You or your candidate will not survive a general election reviewing these comments.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ViseGrip (Reply #59)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:08 PM

62. Well, you didn't think she'd win the nomination either, so your predictions don't mean much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #28)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 04:40 PM

106. When you are ready to have a reasonable discussion

Let me know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 04:21 PM

104. Bernie had to

return donations because of his campaign finances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to asuhornets (Reply #104)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 04:31 PM

105. And Obama made Hillary return money she got from another unsavory country.

Bernie's much cleaner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:25 AM

14. Nothing to do with Bernie...just shows the face of things to come if...

Hill becomes the nominee.

scandal after scandal after scandal after scandal after....

Enjoy. Better get used to being on the defensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Reply #14)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:28 AM

17. These types of posts ...

... invariably surface (or resurface, as the case usually is) every time it sinks in a little further that Bernie is losing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:49 AM

20. Again, has nothing to do with Bernie...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Reply #20)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:53 AM

21. Bernie is losing.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:57 AM

24. It does'nt have to work right now.

But if it works during the GE then hello Trump .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:06 PM

57. You keep saying the same thing and so do I

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Reply #20)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:20 AM

23. .+1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Reply #20)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:12 PM

65. Nothing to do with him, but it's probably the death throes

 

of the Bush Crime Family. They're trying to take everyone else down with them. Down with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 07:55 AM

31. Bullshit...Posts critical of the Clintons have been aroubd as long as DU has

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NanceGreggs (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:05 PM

53. Oh . . . but he is actually RISING . . and Hillary is sinking. . do you know the difference?

 

You don't seem to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:06 AM

4. You do know this is phony right wing bullshit, right? Just making sure. Washington Examiner! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BreakfastClub (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:10 AM

7. thanks for the kick! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BreakfastClub (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:27 PM

95. No this is not RW bs

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:12 AM

8. This was alerted on.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zigby (Reply #8)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:15 AM

11. thanks for the news, Zigby.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:17 AM

12. Yep that's why I voted to leave it.

I don't care for the source but it reported things that actually, like, happened and stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zigby (Reply #12)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:19 AM

13. :-)

and welcome to DU. Sincerely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:12 AM

9. Do you know the NFL is a non profit organization

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MattP (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:56 PM

103. Yeah and that's a scam too. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:25 AM

15. The Clinton Foundation has long had "unrated" status w/ Charity Navigator.

 

Why isn't this organization rated?

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 isn’t 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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #15)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 07:24 AM

29. I will tell you my guess as to exactly why they are not rated by this organization

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Reply #29)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 12:56 PM

44. The delicacy with which they phrase it suggests exactly that, FB.

 

Oh I hope we will not have these people in the WH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:25 AM

16. Blackburn is a partisan hack who is fishing and wasting taxpayer dollars on this.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:19 AM

22. Yep. Another Repub witch hunt. Total BS. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pat_k (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:22 PM

72. I agree that's it's a witch hunt, cuz if it were Repuke they wouldn't be chasing it.

 

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?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2banon (Reply #72)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 08:26 PM

110. Why? Beltway group think.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pat_k (Reply #110)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 10:07 PM

112. Agree 10,000% Your thesis is spot on!

 

Preaching to the choir, but I'm with ya all the way..

and yes, at the end of the day:

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.















Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pat_k (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:48 PM

101. yep... and the clintons always survive them.

And eventually use the bs against the Cons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 07:47 AM

30. I completely disagree

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #30)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 12:57 PM

45. you forgot the part about Saudis getting arms after making donations. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #45)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:01 PM

48. I didn't forget it

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:46 AM

26. Marsha Blackburn?

Strenge bedfellows, indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 07:10 AM

27. LOL. Remember when Hillary bashers here at least tried to pretend not to be GOP cheerleaders?

Marsha Blackburn? Washington Examiner? Has it really come to this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 07:59 AM

32. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 07:59 AM

33. Here's the first story that came up on a search I just did

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 Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest.
At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s 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 Clinton’s 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 Clinton’s 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. Bush’s 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.>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #33)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 08:06 AM

34. And about that $900,000 contribution from Boeing to the Clinton Foundation

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/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #34)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 08:08 AM

35. Thanks for the additions, BernieforPres2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #33)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 08:17 AM

38. More on Hillary and Boeing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-hillary-clinton-and-boeing-a-beneficial-relationship/2014/04/13/21fe84ec-bc09-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html

<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 World’s 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 world’s major corporations and a potential future president. Clinton functioned as a powerful ally for Boeing’s business interests at home and abroad, while Boeing has invested resources in causes beneficial to Clinton’s 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 company’s 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #38)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:01 PM

49. Thank you, BernieforPres2016.

 

We need to know about her. The more the better, the sooner the better.

It is our right as citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #49)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:07 PM

61. You're welcome. For some reason, the Washington Post thought this was a significant story in 2014

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #61)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:00 PM

82. Bezos, like all oligarchs, fears Bernie's growing popularity.

 

I'm still not convinced that Trump isn't in cahoots with his old friend Hillary. We'll see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #33)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:27 PM

75. This is Conflict of Interest, Pay to Play collusion...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #75)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:24 PM

84. Absolutely, this shouldn't even be a gray area

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 08:10 AM

36. And another rw republican attack of Clinton.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 08:14 AM

37. Do you enjoy reading right wing material?

 

I ask because you seem to post a lot of it here to attack Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #37)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 12:59 PM

46. We enjoy knowing more about a secretive person who wants to be president.

 

It has something to do with democracy.

You should want to know, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #46)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:35 PM

78. If you say so.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #37)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:00 PM

47. better to know what's coming from them than to have your head...

...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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #47)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:34 PM

77. I don't like to read right wing garbage. It rots your brains.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #77)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:07 PM

88. not if you are confident in your own knowledge..

...and have a B.S. filter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 08:55 AM

40. "A House Republican lawmaker..."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 08:59 AM

41. Indictment fairy to the rescue!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:07 PM

58. more gop bs. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:14 PM

66. And people wonder why Hillary can't win in November.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to basselope (Reply #66)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:07 PM

83. presumably the plan's to do everything she can, then Sanders is 2 delegates

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"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:16 PM

68. ...

 

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...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AzDar (Reply #68)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:34 PM

86. ^THIS^

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farleftlib (Reply #86)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:14 PM

90. timing. timing

The FTC had the foundation on a watch list until December 2015. At whose instruction was the foundation taken OFF the watch list???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:18 PM

70. The Clinton Foundation scandal will crush her

As it should

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yourpaljoey (Reply #70)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:27 PM

74. It should lead to an indictment and a thorough investigation

conducted by a special prosecutor. This level of corruption is simply too much even for this day and age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Reply #74)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:20 PM

93. check your PM nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:30 PM

76. Marsha Blackburn is a complete idiot.

I just wouldn't have faith in anything she does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #76)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 02:29 PM

85. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile

The fact that Blackburn is a partisan hack doesn't mean the Clinton Foundation should not be thoroughly investigated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #85)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:11 PM

89. yes, we can walk and chew gum, too

Only those who are most afraid there truly is some corruption there want to stop any inquiry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #89)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:29 PM

96. The facts that aren't in dispute tell me there was corruption and blatant conflicts of interest

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #96)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:41 PM

98. we have to parse every word of the Clintons

"show me a vote that I changed" is pure weasel talk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #85)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:33 PM

107. I know...I have no problem with an investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Punkingal (Reply #76)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:15 PM

91. all she is doing is asking the FTC to look into the matter..

.....and the foundation WAS ON THE WATCH LIST of the FTC just a few months ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #91)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 05:34 PM

108. Didn't know that about the watch list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:37 PM

79. People shouldn't worry

 

Peter Daou at Blue Nation Review will have a fresh propaganda article ready to combat this ugly truth soon!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 01:43 PM

80. The business model never made sense to me so this will be interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:16 PM

92. Misleading headline. Right wing Blackburn asking FTC to investigate, not an investigation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:21 PM

94. After it started a private equity firm in South America, I have to agree. Please investigate.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:37 PM

97. I can't beleive that HRC could fail "transparency and accountability requirements" of FTC and BBB

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:47 PM

100. When the agency you used to run subpoenas your foundation

You have have some serious issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Original post)

Thu Mar 24, 2016, 03:49 PM

102. Delicious

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread