Why Hillary won't release Tax Forms: Bill Clinton profits from company tied to felon, China

[Bread and Circus]

originally linked from Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/politics/

which leads to:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080307/NATION/15653289/1001

The spring before his wife began her White House campaign, former President Bill Clinton earned $700,000 for his foundation by selling stock that he had been given from an Internet search company that was co-founded by a convicted felon and backed by the Chinese government, public records show.

Mr. Clinton had gotten the nonpublicly traded stock from Accoona Corp. back in 2004 as a gift for giving a speech at a company event. He landed the windfall by selling the 200,000 shares to an undisclosed buyer in May 2006, commanding $3.50 a share at a time when the company was reporting millions of dollars of losses, according to interviews.

A spokesman for the William J. Clinton Foundation declined to identify the buyer who was willing to pay so much for a struggling company's stock, saying only that the transaction was handled by a securities broker. It occurred seven months before Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her bid to run for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

....

The lack of disclosure about the buyer and the general activities of former presidents' foundations troubles some ethics experts.

....

Not all political leaders have been as enthusiastic about Accoona as Mr. Clinton. One prominent member of the British Parliament raised concerns about the company's close ties to the Chinese government after it introduced a European search engine.

Derek Wyatt, who chaired a House of Commons committee on Internet-related issues, reportedly called on advertisers at the time to "shun" the company.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Wyatt told The Times that he was concerned that the company was too close to China, which has been criticized by human rights groups for restricting Web sites critical of the Chinese government.

"You can't have a search engine and restrict the search," Mr. Wyatt said

__________________________________________________________________________________________

The Clintons have made 10's of millions of dollars in he last 6 years "making speeches" for the benefit of a lot of foreign, corrupt entities. There's something fundamentally wrong with this and it's unfortunate the voters can't get to the bottom of it because Hillary and Bill want to hide it all in secrecy.

It is a total and utter farce their tax returns up through 2006 have not been made available.

Follow the money.

I am sure it's worse than any of us even know.

[Trajan]

1. I swear ....

I haven't seen so many 'democrats' carrying Right Wing water since ..... yesterday ...

This is pitiful ....

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. since.....Obama couldn't cross the threshold...

Pitiful indeed.

[hueyshort]

36. I don't see the Catholic Church giving back loot

that gangsters drop into the collection plate.
That doesn't mean the Cathloc Church is going to start
telling their congregations that the 10 Commandments
are all wrong.

[Colobo]

8. It was sad to see Hillary endorsing McCain. Indeed, carrying right wing water.

[niceypoo]

31. Typical straw man Obamite 'issue'

Take everything out of context, freak out over it.

[KittyWampus]

35. wtf is the matter with you? "Right Wing" water? Are you that blind? The RECENT filthy money

that the Clintons have raised is "right wing' water?

[kikiek]

2. Yes it is worse than any of us know. You're quoting Washington Times.

[Hawkeye-X]

3. Here's a better link than WT..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4952091

Great analysis from Dems Will Win!

[kikiek]

10. And it means nothing. Once again slinging shit hoping something sticks. It doesn't it only makes

your hands stink.

[Hawkeye-X]

13. Sorry, but Hillary has over 17 unvetted problems

and scandals just waiting to happen.. Several were leaked already.

[TwilightGardener]

16. Right--and the fact that Obama hasn't really touched them, nor the media--YET--

doesn't mean the GOP isn't going to revel in them like pigs in shit.

[kikiek]

19. Oh come on. This is right wing crap and Obama's supporters are more than happy to spread it.

[sandnsea]

28. 17?

Wow. I didn't realize there were that many. I'd have thought about ten. Who are your 17?

[Bread and Circus]

15. Exactly, There's many stories about different dealings. This is huge but the Clinton's

have largely been given a pass on it.

In the GE this will fuck the Dem Party, the Repubs won't let go of it.

[kikiek]

21. Not nearly as much as Obama has. There is plenty there that will come up on him. They're salivating.

[Hawkeye-X]

22. Like what, exactly?

I'm waiting to hear.. and don't give me Rezko - do me a favor - if you even mention that name, google 'Individual H'.

Hawkeye-X

[kikiek]

24. Why not? You think there has been enough revealed to exonerate him? Not even started.

There will be others too. He isn't Mr Clean like his surrogates want people to believe. There are many stories about him if you want to look around. Not everyone is so enamored with him.

[kikiek]

20. Here's a good one on Obama. Holding Barack Obama Accountable

http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=582145
After calls to Obama's campaign office yielded no satisfactory answers, we published an article in the June 5, 2003 issue of Black Commentator effectively calling Barack Obama out. We drew attention to the disappearance of any indication that U.S. Senate candidate Obama opposed the Iraq war at all from his web site and public statements. We noted with consternation that the Democratic Leadership Council, the right wing Trojan Horse inside the Democratic party, had apparently vetted and approved Obama, naming him as one of its "100 to Watch" that season. This is what real journalists are supposed to do --- fact check candidates, investigate the facts, tell the truth to audiences and hold the little clay feet of politicians and corporations to the fire.

Facing the possible erosion of his base among progressive Democrats in Illinois, Obama contacted us. We printed his response in Black Commentator's June 19 issue and queried the candidate on three "bright line" issues that clearly distinguish between corporate-funded DLC Democrats and authentic progressives. We concluded the dialog by printing Obama's response on June 26, 2003. For the convenience of our readers in 2007, all three of these articles can be found here.

[TwilightGardener]

5. But...they've been vetted, right? Nothing for the GOP to find? BTW, I wonder

if there's some insider trading shenanigans going on, considering that he sold for a big profit while the company was tanking?

[AtomicKitten]

6. K&R

[NYCGirl]

7. Please, no right wing sources. Here's a better one:

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/bill_clinton_has_cashed_in_on.html

[Bread and Circus]

11. I got this link from Huffpo in the first place. It's just the tip of the iceberg.

[AtomicKitten]

14. *

That's a lovely Dream Ticket you have there.

:loveya:

[TwilightGardener]

17. LOL! Love that ticket!

[kikiek]

26. And just what is the big deal?

[Melinda]

9. HRC on transparency:

But we must always be vigilant against letting our desire to keep information confidential to be used as a pretext for classifying information that is more about political embarrassment than national security.

Let me be absolutely clear. This is not a propensity that is confined to one party or another. It is a propensity of power that must be guarded against. Because when that happens, we move away from the bedrock principle of informed consent that should govern all state actions in a democracy.

Harkening back once again to our founders who I think were not only extraordinary statesmen but brilliant psychologists, they understood profoundly the dangers and temptations of power. The balance of power that they enshrined in our constitution and in our system of government was a check on all of our human natures.

Hillary Diane Clinton, October 29, 2003

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b11179.html

:eyes:

[sandnsea]

12. Because the media is biased against Hillary

and has just been beating the hell out of Chatwal, Gupta, Giustra, Burkle, and now here's another one.

Vetted my ass.

:grr:

[johnnydrama]

23. vetted

my take is she has been mostly vetted up until 2000, but not vetted one iota since.

[The_Casual_Observer]

18. Watch out what you wish for.

[0007]

25. bttft and recommend!

[kikiek]

27. Where does it say that they Clinton's have made 10's of millions of dollars in the

last 6 years making speeches for corrupt entities? Crap is just made up and no one cares if it is true or not. That is disgusting. He has a very successful chartable foundation. And if you read the article there isn't anything suspicious. Just more slanderous talk.

[Bread and Circus]

29. there's a lot to be found if you look...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4628684
For Clinton, New Wealth In Speeches
Fees in 6 Years Total Nearly $40 Million

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Former president Bill Clinton, who came to the White House with modest means and left deeply in debt, has collected nearly $40 million in speaking fees over the past six years, according to interviews and financial disclosure statements filed by his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Last year, one of his most lucrative since he left the presidency, Clinton earned $9 million to $10 million on the lecture circuit. He averaged almost a speech a day -- 352 for the year -- but only about 20 percent were for personal income. The others were given for no fee or for donations to the William J. Clinton Foundation, the nonprofit group he founded to pursue causes such as the fight against AIDS.

His paid speeches included $150,000 appearances before landlord groups, biotechnology firms and food distributors, as well as speeches in England, Ireland, New Zealand and Australia that together netted him more than $1.6 million. On one particularly good day in Canada, Clinton made $475,000 for two speeches, more than double his annual salary as president.

"I never had a nickel to my name until I got out of the White House, and now I'm a millionaire, the most favored person for the Washington Republicans," Clinton told a friendly audience in Kentucky last fall. "I get a tax cut every year, no matter what our needs are."

Indeed, the Clintons -- who left the White House with an estimated $12 million in legal debts rung up during the Whitewater, campaign fundraising and Monica S. Lewinsky investigations -- are worth an estimated $10 million to $50 million, according to Hillary Clinton's most recent disclosure form. That is attributable primarily to the speaking fees and to the seven-figure book deals that both Clintons signed shortly after leaving the White House.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/bill_clinton_has_cashed_in_on.html

Bill Clinton has cashed in on appearances
Bill Clinton offered this earnest wish to backers of Accoona, a new search engine, when he spoke at its debut reception three years ago: "I hope you all make lots of money."

Sadly, for Accoona, the former president's wish has so far gone unfulfilled.

Accoona, which turns out to have an unusual set of investors, has yet to turn a profit.

But Clinton has. He parlayed stock options in the company into a $700,000 payday for his charitable foundation. That's $700,000 more than another celebrity engaged by Accoona has realized for his options.

Here's the story of what happened:

By Andrew Zajac

In December 2004, former President Bill Clinton made a much-publicized appearance at a launch party in New York for Accoona, a new Internet search engine billing itself as a rival to Google.

Clinton's presence at the gathering at Tavern on the Green in Central Park was a coup for the unheralded, privately held Accoona, which paid for the former president's appearance by issuing options for 200,000 shares of stock to Clinton's charity, the William J. Clinton Foundation. In 2006, the Clinton Foundation sold the shares for $700,000.

Accoona's main partner is China Daily Information Co., a subsidiary of Chinese government-run China Daily, the country's largest English-language newspaper, which has put the Accoona search engine on the front page of the Web version of its paper.

Accoona's prospectus acknowledged that the company is subject to censorship by the Chinese government and that the "Ministry of Public Security has the authority to order any local Internet service provider to block any Internet Web site at its sole discretion. ... Furthermore, we are required to report any suspicious content to relevant governmental authorities."

Clinton aide Yarrow said the former president has defended dissenters using the Internet in China.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/14/bill.clinton.speeches/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton traveled the globe in 2005 giving speeches that earned him $7.5 million, according to financial disclosure documents his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, is required to file annually.

The Senate released financial disclosure statements Wednesday.

Clinton's speaking fees mark an almost nine-fold increase from the $875,000 he earned in 2004, when he spent much of the year writing and promoting his memoirs and later recuperating for several months from heart bypass surgery.

He earned $9.5 million in speaking fees in 2002.

There's a whole lot more out there...

[kikiek]

32. Big deal! He a is going out and earning a living like presidents before him. Quite a victory

since the right wing tried to destroy them. He continues to do work against HIV and poverty, fights for equal opportunies for all in education, etc. And you have no problem taking the right wing approach and joining them. And Obama supports this? Says a lot about him and his supporters. This is what won't be forgotten. Like them or not Bill Clinton's foundation is an example for us all.

[creeksneakers2]

37. Clinton haters mastered the art of making the innocent look

sinister long ago. There never is a direct accusation that Bill did anything wrong. Just links of one event to another with innuendo that some unknown crime must have occurred.

It says Bill Clinton profited. He didn't get any profit. He gave all the stock to charity.

There is nothing to indicate the company did anything illegal. The founder has a criminal record but I don't see how that amounts to anything. The founder did his time and went straight.

The Chinese indirectly own a share of the company but they also directly own a big share of our national debt. Is it illegal to do business with Chinese people? Somebody better tell George Bush that. Somebody better lock up Walmart. The Washington Times is passing off racist innuendo.

There is no evidence at all that the Clintons did anything unethical to get the stock.

Only in the world of Clinton hatred can somebody donate $700,000 to charity and receive scandal coverage for it. Clinton ought to get a medal for giving his money away like that. Your post says Bill give 80% of his speeches for free or for charity. Just look at what a great guy he is.

[Bread and Circus]

39. $40,000,000 in 6 yrs. There's something wrong in that. It didn't come from

girl scout cookie sales and it's not going to charity.

Hide your head in the sand some more.

[creeksneakers2]

40. It came from speaking fees

Do you have any specific information that something else is true?

From the OP:

"Former president Bill Clinton, who came to the White House with modest means and left deeply in debt, has collected nearly $40 million in speaking fees over the past six years, according to interviews and financial disclosure statements filed by his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Last year, one of his most lucrative since he left the presidency, Clinton earned $9 million to $10 million on the lecture circuit. He averaged almost a speech a day -- 352 for the year -- but only about 20 percent were for personal income. The others were given for no fee or for donations to the William J. Clinton Foundation, the nonprofit group he founded to pursue causes such as the fight against AIDS.

[Bread and Circus]

41. If it's so innocent, why haven't they release 6 years of tax returns?

think.

[creeksneakers2]

42. I think they have produced old tax returns

I know they've submitted financial disclosure form. You are asking them to prove their innocence when you don't even have an accusation. Nothing will ever satisfy you. You and the rest of the Clinton haters deserve no tax returns at all. That's why they don't release them. You'll just twist whatever is there around and demand more information.

[kikiek]

43. Your hate is blinding you. Get over it.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

30. K&R. Has any prospective pResidential spouse b4 Bill headed a major foundation?

Such a foundation would make a perfect conduit for quid pro quos, like the one Bill Moyers found for Tom Delay behind the famous "red door" (see http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/print/capitolcrimes_transcript_print.html ).

At a minimum, shouldn't Bill Clinton be badgered to pledge to sever his ties temporarily from the Clinton Foundation for the duration of any HRC pResidency? If he can peddle influence for this much money with no ties to levers of power at the WH, how many BILLIONS could he rake in per year with active WH influence to sell?

[kikiek]

33. Yeah those programs that fight HIV and poverty should be stopped since it is the Clinton's work.

How idiotic. And to imply he is doing anything illegal just because Delay had a foundation says a lot about Obama surrogates. Just throw it out there. No evidence required. You really think Clinton isn't being watched like a hawk? The Obama surrogates have joined up with the freepers in trying to destroy him. Classy.

[creeksneakers2]

38. That makes no sense

Somebody either wants to do good in the world or they are out for self enrichment. Why would somebody take an action that is detrimental to mankind to raise money for the Red Cross or something? Why would somebody sell out to give the money to somebody else?

[kikiek]

44. No it doesn't. None of these people blowing smoke about the Clintons will ever

come anywhere close to doing the good that they have. The Clinton Foundation has been a saving grace to countless number of people who had no hope. Their critics sit at their computers and play games trying to ruin their reputation. And for what end? They hope the Foundation is closed. They are the real evil forces in this world. They don't care.

[mmonk]

34. It will all be out there soon.

Hopefully before our candidate is chosen, not after.

[candice]

45. Hey, Ken Starr...

...couldn't she just file separately?