NYT 5/23: Possible Conflict At Heart of Clinton Foundation

[grasswire]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/us/politics/election-clinton-foundation.html?_r=1

The Clintons have been targeted by accusations of wrongdoing from Whitewater to Benghazi. There also are self-inflicted wounds: President Bill Clinton’s dalliance with Monica Lewinsky and Hillary Clinton’s use of private email servers while secretary of state.

They may be on the verge of creating another one: The Clinton Foundation, which has done a number of good works over the past 15 years, would appear to present an inherent conflict of interest should Mrs. Clinton become president, and possibly does even now with her as a candidate.

Mrs. Clinton has suggested that if she is elected, the foundation — which collects contributions from wealthy interests, including foreign governments — would continue basically as is. “The work that it’s done has been extraordinary,” she said in March when asked whether there would be any ethical concerns about continuing the foundation. “The answer is transparency.”

Ethics experts reject that answer. They say there wouldn’t be any way to avoid the appearance of conflicts if she wins the presidency.

[JDPriestly]

1. This is a much bigger problem than Hillary supporters realize.

While the Foundation is doing some wonderful work, I am sure, the conflict of interest or actually the appearance of a conflict of interest could result in an impeachment trial somewhere down the line.

How are the work and the policy of the Foundation and the work and the policy of the United States should Hillary become president to be defined and differentiated?

If the leader of a foreign country or a wealthy person gives money to the Foundation while asking for support, favors or even help from the US, is a positive response from the Foundation to be understood as a political or personal endorsement of the president of the US?

This problem existed already when Hillary was Secretary of State?

Where is the line drawn between the work of the Foundation and the policy of the US?

Does this mean that the Clintons make their own personal foreign policy that is distinct in large or small ways from the foreign policy of the US? What if Congress rejects the policy implemented by the Foundation?

May seem too abstract to many, may be too subtle for most, but this is a very real problem.

And I am only mentioning the tip of the iceberg.

Will international criminals attempt to gain favor with the Clintons by giving large gifts to the Foundation? Has that already happened?

The potential and most likely existing conflicts of interest are a big problem.

On edit, I should add that most Americans of good will will understand the difference between the Foundation and the policy of our government. But internationally that will not be clear. That will not be clear to people who do not see things as we do. And that will cause serious problems at some point. You either are a political leader of all Americans or you have a foundation that carries out its own policies. It's going to be very confusing to people in countries involved with the Foundation, especially in countries in which certain individuals donate to the Foundation.

Eventually that will seep into the considerations in our own country.

[grasswire]

2. only 10 percent of Foundation revenue goes to aid.

The rest is a slush fund. Money laundering.

She essentially did carry out a rogue foreign policy out of sight of Obama, using an advisor banned by Obama, and keeping all her communications secret from Obama.

This rogue activity has likely made her blackmailable already.

[OKNancy]

5. Repeating right-wing smears. Your statement is not true

Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.
We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.
We can’t vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses listed in the report, but it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a misunderstanding of how public charities work.

From factcheck.org

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

[dchill]

8. "We can’t vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses ...'

That's a fact check? Hardly.

[Tavarious Jackson]

3. The Clinton's have been more transparent than any candidate.

Where are Bernie's tax returns?

[merrily]

7. Transparent. What a laugh. Stonewalls subpoenas, FOIA requests, Congress, has a private server,

has it wiped, is not providing speech transcipts.

Tax returns aren't the be all and end all. Most secretive candidate in my lifetime.

[uponit7771]

4. She take favors from the NRA then give gun corps immunity? No?! Then who cares? tia

[reddread]

6. Yemeni children, women and men

not you.

[Wilms]

9. ^

[amborin]

10. It was massive conflict while she was SoS!!!!!!!!