Now that Hillary is the presumptive nominee, it's time

Defending any clinton or any associate of the clintons
Been there done that and history shows i was a.fool to.do.so.as everything i defended against turned out to be true.
Im not wasting that time again they deserve no benefit of any doubt.

that is a dangerous and less than intelligent position. people like you, whatever their political persuasions, people who simply bestow complete unthinking support on a politician, are frightening. And it is impossible to hold a reasonable discussion with such people.

I see no reason why they should stop their charitable work.

they need that like a hole in the head.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/clintons-659698-foundation-clinton.html

No matter how much money Clinton asks to be donated to it, it is the CF Board that decides how to disburse it. And the 'only 15 percent' figure is disingenuous, to say the least.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina says that “so little” of the charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation “actually go to charitable works” — a figure CARLY for America later put at about 6 percent of its annual revenues — but Fiorina is simply wrong.
Fiorina and others are referring only to the amount donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work is performed in-house. One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity.
Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation — which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly.

So you and Crazy Frank and Carly Fiorina are all wrong. Because you don't care about anything but trashing a Democrat.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Did or did not Bill Clinton receive $500,000 from the foundation for a one-hour speech?

Is The Federalist's claim true or false that only 15 percent of the take was donated to pragmatic programs. $25 million went to fund travel and $110 million to salaries.

Is their claim that $290 million, 60 percent of all money raised, was classified as “other expenses" true or not?

Please include links to back up your claims. Your ad hominem attacks are lame.

You're right, I don't know the exact expenditures of the CF. Neither do I care. Is the $290m 'other expenses' part of their in-house charity work? I don't know. You didn't provide a link and apparently the Federalist didn't bother to investigate. Is $25m in travel expenses legitimate? I don't know. Neither do you nor, apparently, the Federalist. Is $110m in salaries justified? I don't know. Neither do you nor, apparently, the Federalist.

Anyone can throw large numbers into the open and point and say, with a tone of betrayal, "LOOK AT THAT! JUST LOOK AT IT!"

But without any accompanying explanation or even rudimentary analysis, it's meaningless.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

...is always suspect.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

You must be very proud.

The Clinton Foundation does a lot of good work, there's no dispute about that. But it could continue to do so without active engagement from Bill and Chelsea, although the latter concerns me less because as far as I know Chelsea won't be living in the White House or as actively engaged in her mother's administration.

Are you saying the Clintons should never communicate to the CF while she's in office?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

have any official position with the foundation. You realize, virtually every pundit is saying much the same thing, right?

how they would prevent the CF from potentially being a conflict of interest.

Given the international nature of the work, it might be hard to structure something that used Bill and Chelsea in a good way avoiding any conflicts. At minimum, they should be far from fund raising.

http://abc11.com/news/how-clinton-donor-got-on-sensitive-intelligence-board/1379818/

pay to play.. if more of this is found and uncovered it's bad leadership and it will be used to paint HRC into a corner

in the first place would also have been sound political advice.

It's almost like they think "this is legal, I'm not breaking any rules, so why shouldn't I do it?"

They should borrow a page from Obama and avoid any possible inference of impropriety.

but I've never understood why she's so secretive and stubborn about certain transparency issues? It turns out usually when things are revealed that she's actually quite ethical. It's just that the appearance of non-transparency gives fuel to right wing cretins.

transparency means fodder for rightwing fishing expeditions, so no matter where she draws the line, there will be accusations of a lack of transparency.

the speeches thing is a perfect example. why do we know about the speeches? because she provided full transparency as to her sources of income.

so her reward for revealing that she gave speeches for money--something she was not required to do--was to be accused of hiding something by not publishing the transcripts.

and then if she publishes transcripts, it would be "where's the video?" etc etc.

forget the transcripts of her speeches. That is not the problem. This story is.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624


Newly released State Department emails help reveal how a major Clinton Foundation donor was placed on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no obvious experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department’s professional staff.

The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later.

Copies of dozens of internal emails were provided to ABC News by the conservative political group Citizens United, which obtained them under the Freedom of Information Act after more the two years of litigation with the government.

A prolific fundraiser for Democratic candidates and contributor to the Clinton Foundation, who later traveled with Bill Clinton on a trip to Africa, Rajiv K. Fernando’s only known qualification for a seat on the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) was his technological know-how. The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues.

http://www.americansecurityproject.org/about/board-of-directors/raj-fernando/

appearances of conflicts of interest, coupled with the broad distrust of Hillary on matters of ethics, provide unnecessary fodder.

we've been really spoiled by Obama.

The Republican slander of Hillary Clinton these past decades has been vile and despicable. And you're absolutely right that she seemingly can't win no matter her actions.

But I also think that it's not a terrible idea to appoint others now, either.

If Clinton supporters don't see it, or don't admit it, then, WOW.

It's a conflict of interest.