Bill Clinton, Inc

[UglyCasanova]

Everyone seems to be running with this story this morning which is based off of a 13 page attachment to one of the WikiLeaks emails from Doug Band.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f84bba-9b92-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/u...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

http://time.com/4546768/bill-clinton-inc-memo-reveals-tangled-business-charitable-ties/

The memo, made public Wednesday by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, lays out the aggressive strategy behind lining up the consulting contracts and paid speaking engagements for Bill Clinton that added tens of millions of dollars to the family’s fortune, including during the years that Hillary Clinton led the State Department. It describes how Band helped run what he called “Bill Clinton Inc.,” obtaining “in-kind services for the President and his family — for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like.”

 

[Jhhnn]

From the NYT link-

The emails, which came from the account of John D. Podesta, who had a leadership role at the foundation and is now Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, have not contained evidence to support Republican contentions that Mrs. Clinton performed any favors for foundation donors.

Dust devils are not tornadoes except for the purposes of Repub propaganda.

 

[sandorski]

One day all these "scandals" are going to make for one excellent and thorough Biography. Maybe even one that contrasts the acumen of the Clintons v Trump.

 

[theeedude]

I guess you can vote for Putin's preferred candidate if this is important to you.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I guess you can vote for Putin's preferred candidate if this is important to you.

Do you not consider it important?

 

[Jaskalas]

One issue people take with it, is the foundation was used to personally enrich the Clintons by 10s of millions. Although siphoning off the cash is probably standard for any large vehicle of money. One wonders if it is legal for a "charity" to do that?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Do you not consider it important?

Why would anyone consider it important who is capable of rational thought? There is, again, no actual evidence of any wrong doing. It's more smoke with no fire.

 

[fskimospy]

Everyone seems to be running with this story this morning which is based off of a 13 page attachment to one of the WikiLeaks emails from Doug Band.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f84bba-9b92-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/27/u...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

http://time.com/4546768/bill-clinton-inc-memo-reveals-tangled-business-charitable-ties/

I'm genuinely confused, what's the problem here?

Bill Clinton made money while running the Clinton Foundation, no shit.

 

[feralkid]

Do you not consider it important?

To vote for Putin's "useful idiot"?

No, I don't think he does.

 

[thraashman]

One issue people take with it, is the foundation was used to personally enrich the Clintons by 10s of millions. Although siphoning off the cash is probably standard for any large vehicle of money. One wonders if it is legal for a "charity" to do that?

Except that there's no proof of that. It's one of the highest rated charities on the planet and none of the Clintons draw a salary as board members.

 

[theeedude]

Do you not consider it important?

I don't. Another tempest in the teapot.
But an adversary of the US leaking stolen American emails to help his preferred candidate is very important. Tells you pretty much all you need to know.

 

[Jhhnn]

One issue people take with it, is the foundation was used to personally enrich the Clintons by 10s of millions. Although siphoning off the cash is probably standard for any large vehicle of money. One wonders if it is legal for a "charity" to do that?

You know that's not true. I mean, really. There's no evidence to support that at all. You know it or should know it by now.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

One issue people take with it, is the foundation was used to personally enrich the Clintons by 10s of millions. Although siphoning off the cash is probably standard for any large vehicle of money. One wonders if it is legal for a "charity" to do that?

That has nothing to do with this. Doug Brand did work for the foundation and he also represented Bill Clinton in his personal endeavors and speaking engagements. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There is nothing that indicates that any money at all came out of the foundation to him personally.

 

[theeedude]

Seriously people need to learn how to read. Just read the whole Putin leak. It's the Clintons (Chelsea) telling the foundation fundraiser to stop raising money by promising access, and that dude lashing out.

 

[Jhhnn]

Seriously people need to learn how to read. Just read the whole Putin leak. It's the Clintons (Chelsea) telling the foundation fundraiser to stop raising money by promising access, and that dude lashing out.

You mean "Don't make promises you can't keep"?

They wouldn't make it as Repubs, obviously.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I gotta say I love these threads trying to link things that have no connection at all to show wrongdoing and yet Trump himself has used donated funds repeatedly for himself. Buying portraits of himself. Using donated funds to pay personal fines. Not a peep from the right on that though.

 

[hal2kilo]

I'm genuinely confused, what's the problem here?

Bill Clinton made money while running the Clinton Foundation, no shit.

So yea, he made big bucks making speeches, sometimes along side people like, say President Bush. Oh the scandal and horror! Meanwhile another poor contractor gets stiffed on a Trump project.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Why would anyone consider it important who is capable of rational thought? There is, again, no actual evidence of any wrong doing. It's more smoke with no fire.

Its usually the smoke that kills you

 

[Starbuck1975]

I gotta say I love these threads trying to link things that have no connection at all to show wrongdoing and yet Trump himself has used donated funds repeatedly for himself. Buying portraits of himself. Using donated funds to pay personal fines. Not a peep from the right on that though.

Well some of us have been peeping about Trump but then we get accused of concern trolling because, shock, disgust of Trump does not automatically translate into adoration for the Clintons.

 

[OrByte]

Gotta say the more I read from the wiki leaks the more I am confident the Clinton's will run this country just fine.

They have built such a conglomerate of corporate/private/government entities willing to work together and tackle the worlds biggest problems.

Just look at all the good works that the Clinton Foundation has accomplished! Why wouldn't we want to promote that for our country?

 

[pauldun170]

So in review
Ex president sets up foundation to help address global issues.
People invite a former US president to come speak since Presidents usually have "interesting things to say"
Since travelling from place to place to talk for a couple of hours cost money, ex president charges a fee. Since ex president is popular and there are a lot for people asking him to speak.
People involved with foundation ask for donations because "addressing global stuff costs money sometimes"
People donate to the foundation for "reasons"

Complaint #1 is that ex President charges money to speak and due to demand and logistics involved, ex President is able to charge a decent chunk of change.

Complaint #2 is that some people donate to the foundation hoping that those donations leads to closer relationship with that president and access to the ex President's rolodex.

Complaint #3 that an ex President receives gifts from people who invited him to come over and hangout.

Complaint #4 is that people who work for organizations send emails back and forth as part of an "email conversation about stuff"

Complaint #5 is that retired people have income streams or something.

Complaint #6 is That retired people who are asked to travel around the world to speak and\or provide advice charge money for their time and effort while acting on behalf for charitable organizations that requires donations to operate. AKA Pay old person to come speak on stuff and then have old person ask the people that show up to give more money to an organization that helps people. Some of those people who show up do it for personal reasons that have nothing to do with helping people.

Complaint #7 - Bill Clinton is still popular and Reagan is dead therefore Republicans lack a living figurehead. That and "Reagan" isn't trending with Millennials due to Tootie rule.Was it around during the 'Facts of Life' era, "Living Single" era "Housewives of Atlanta" era.

Complaint #8 something something something Bill and Bengahzi both start with B and when you put 2 B's together it equals BB and BB's hurt so impeach Hillary because emails bengahzi crooked thing and stuff.

 

[flexy]

Didn't we already establish LONG,LONG ago that both candidates have "enriched themselves", in multiple ways?
This is really very old and boring news.

Candidate A enriching him/herself is not better or worse than Candidate B doing the same thing.

These entire smear campaigns we see the last weeks/months are just hypocrisy, one scumbag pointing fingers at the other, for things where they know EXACTLY that they do them themselves.

If this is "all of a sudden" so important...then why the fuck did the American people not nominate Sanders when they could. They had the option but didn't. They chose Trump and Hillary.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So in review
Ex president sets up foundation to help address global issues.
People invite a former US president to come speak since Presidents usually have "interesting things to say"
Since travelling from place to place to talk for a couple of hours cost money, ex president charges a fee. Since ex president is popular and there are a lot for people asking him to speak.
People involved with foundation ask for donations because "addressing global stuff costs money sometimes"
People donate to the foundation for "reasons"

Complaint #1 is that ex President charges money to speak and due to demand and logistics involved, ex President is able to charge a decent chunk of change.

Complaint #2 is that some people donate to the foundation hoping that those donations leads to closer relationship with that president and access to the ex President's rolodex.

Complaint #3 that an ex President receives gifts from people who invited him to come over and hangout.

Complaint #4 is that people who work for organizations send emails back and forth as part of an "email conversation about stuff"

Complaint #5 is that retired people have income streams or something.

Complaint #6 is That retired people who are asked to travel around the world to speak and\or provide advice charge money for their time and effort while acting on behalf for charitable organizations that requires donations to operate. AKA Pay old person to come speak on stuff and then have old person ask the people that show up to give more money to an organization that helps people. Some of those people who show up do it for personal reasons that have nothing to do with helping people.

Complaint #7 - Bill Clinton is still popular and Reagan is dead therefore Republicans lack a living figurehead. That and "Reagan" isn't trending with Millennials due to Tootie rule.Was it around during the 'Facts of Life' era, "Living Single" era "Housewives of Atlanta" era.

Complaint #8 something something something Bill and Bengahzi both start with B and when you put 2 B's together it equals BB and BB's hurt so impeach Hillary because emails bengahzi crooked thing and stuff.

Jimmy Carter I find to be a more inspirational model for post presidential advocacy and engagement

 

[brycejones]

One issue people take with it, is the foundation was used to personally enrich the Clintons by 10s of millions. Although siphoning off the cash is probably standard for any large vehicle of money. One wonders if it is legal for a "charity" to do that?

Except that there's no proof of that. It's one of the highest rated charities on the planet and none of the Clintons draw a salary as board members.

I would be interested in seeing Jaskalas' proof for his claims.

 

[pauldun170]

Some stuff to read while you hit the bathroom
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/11/price-political-speakers
http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/h...-does-the-clinton-foundation-actually-do.html
http://www.nonprofitmarketingguide....n-a-tale-of-two-audiences-an-npcomm-showdown/
https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Opinion-How-to-Understand-the/230745