AP: Clinton acted on concerns of husband's donors

[mod mom]

AP: Clinton acted on concerns of husband's donors

By Sharon Theimer
Associated Press Writer / January 13, 2009

WASHINGTON—Secretary of State nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting companies and others that later contributed to her husband's foundation, an Associated Press review of her official correspondence found.

The overlap of names on former President Bill Clinton's foundation donor list and business interests whose issues she championed raise new questions about potential ethics conflicts between her official actions and her husband's fundraising. The AP obtained three of the senator's government letters under the Freedom of Information Act.

During Clinton's confirmation hearing Tuesday, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the Foreign Relations Committee's senior Republican, said the foundation's charitable efforts "should not be a barrier to Senator Clinton's service," but he acknowledged the potential that conflicts of interest might arise: "Work of the Clinton foundation is a unique complication that will have to be managed with great care and transparency."

Under an agreement with President-elect Barack Obama, Bill Clinton recently released the names of donors to his foundation, a nonprofit that has raised at least $492 million -- including millions from foreign governments -- to fund his library in Little Rock, Ark., and charitable efforts worldwide on such issues as AIDS, poverty and climate change.

-snip

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/01/13/ap_clinton_acted_on_concerns_of_husbands_donors/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+National+news

[Captain Hilts]

1. More shit from the AP. How about GWB and GHWB's donations? ho hum...nt

[mod mom]

5. So since W et al did it-it's ok? Didn't we vote for CHANGE not more of the same?

[Captain Hilts]

7. No, it's not. I'm trashing the AP.

Kind of like at the 'conservatives' who had no problem with deficits and spending, until Obama started talking about his programs.

[marshall]

62. They are on downhill slides

Senator Clinton is still very much in the game. She will have far more influence than either Bush in the next eight years.

[wyldwolf]

2. No one who matters is at all concerned, but thanks for yours

as lumberjack_jeff said in the last thread on this story:

The senator intervened to help those who asked for it.
- okay, I'm not outraged yet.
Those businesses later donated to the Clinton foundation.
- still not feeling the burn.

If I were impressed by my senator's help, I'd probably be tempted to look more favorably upon the causes she supports, when my tax-man said I needed to make some charitable donations.

Nice try, but there are others out there who are better equipped to impugn the motives of all things Bill.

[underpants]

3. Money has influence in DC?

Who knew? :shrug:

[Captain Hilts]

8. I'm shocked - SHOCKED!

[Radical Activist]

4. And the Clinton drama begins.

Let's hope this is the last of it.

[wyldwolf]

6. mod mom is working Google News and "Clinton" overtime today!

[mod mom]

9. Try reading TPM and TPM Muck-you might learn something.

I've never accessed Google News for your info, but nice try. I felt this post at TPM's "The Daily Muck" was the perfect example on how Clinton's quid pro quo was going to haunt the new administration.

Thanks for the kick! ;)

[wyldwolf]

10. I can read the same thing on the AP, obviously. LOL.

Kick? Sure. So more people can see your desperate attempt to smear Secretary of State Clinton.

[mod mom]

14. You wrongly suggested that I looked for material on Clinton. My point is I found

it on a usual haunt-TPM Muck, who btw had excellent coverage of Schlozman and Tanner.

BUT you are correct, I will continue to expose both Clintons (and others like them) for who they are-members of the quid pro quo Money Party. It's time to clean up the Democratic Party of corporate interest and make sure that they focus what is best for the people.

[wyldwolf]

16. sure, you just happened to run across two poutrage strories on someone you don't like today

[blm]

28. Cronyism in the article is real or invented? If real, every citizen should be outraged, just as we

should be outraged for the cronyism of the Bushes for decades.

More outrage from citizenry would curb the rampant cronyism of political figures.

[wyldwolf]

34. "outraged." "rampant cronyism."

The senator intervened to help those who asked for it. Those businesses later donated to the Clinton foundation.

NOT cronyism.

[mod mom]

36. Note the usuals who fail to debunk the content but attack the messenger are never

outraged at the corruption. They don't even bother with the facts posted in the articles. They attempt to discredit by repeating the mantra "hate".

[wyldwolf]

38. the content doesn't need to be debunked. But an explanation is needed as to why it's "bad."

[blm]

11. So, you believe correct stories of cronyism should be censored from DU when it involves Dems?

I believe in DEMOCRACY and open government that is accountable to the people and that Democratic Underground is a reflection of that commitment to accountability........do you?

[wyldwolf]

13. another misuse of the word "censorship." Always surprising... not.

[blm]

21. well, apparently YOU want to discourage open discussion of cronyism when its the Clintons involved.

Why else would you try to find fault with a poster who disapproves of cronyism, even when it's a so-called Dem?

[wyldwolf]

22. well, apparantly YOU can't handle someone disagreeing on the seriousness of the topic

Why else would you whine about censorship when I don't have the power on DU to censor anything? :shrug:

[mod mom]

23. Silly me, I thought DU was about change from the status quo of corruption.

Seems some prefer to be apologists to the bitter end. ;)

[wyldwolf]

27. yeah, silly you. DU is a political discussion forum that has no influence on much of anything

[mod mom]

30. Some of us are activists who also want to expose the corruption w/in the government.

I post information about corruption in order to bring attention and in hopes of change. You obviously accept the status quo, ignore the facts posted and prefer instead to attack the messenger.

[wyldwolf]

33. posting information on a message board is being an "activist." O...K...

[mod mom]

35. Working the Obama "Boiler room" on election day, hosting Voter Registration drives,

working 3-4 days/week on voter protection since early summer, helping w audits post election, manning the Obama Office during the primaries, working w others to keep the Obama office open after the primary, working 4 Obama rallies, closing my business and working on election investigation/integrity since 2004 is activism. Posting relevant information on corruption of elected officials is a hobby.

[wyldwolf]

37. ... then attacking him on a discussion forum anoymously. Yep, "activist."

[mod mom]

39. The OP is on corruption regarding Hillary Clinton. On dissent:

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it.

Edward R Murrow.

Nice try :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

41. as Obama's SoS, your attempt to undermine her is an attempt to undermine Obama

ha ha. "nice try."

[Forkboy]

50. Dah, Comrade.

[BeyondGeography]

12. Hill remains Bill's prisoner

She's out there taking the hits for him yet again. She'll march on, strong and diligent soldier that she is, and he'll fume in the background like a fucking baby.

[kiva]

15. Wow, two I hate Hillary posts this morning.

Keep looking, I'm sure someone posted about her kicking puppies so that Obama can't adopt them. She's SOS, get over it.

[wyldwolf]

17. no, two I hate SECRETARY OF STATE Hillary posts this morning.

It's the added words that drives the OP nuts.

[mod mom]

19. Read Michael Collins' "The Money Party". It's about practice not personality:

The Money Party - The Essence of our Political Troubles
October 1, 2007, 12:51PM

The Money Party

The Essence of our Political Troubles


Michael Collins
“Scoop” Independent News
Washington, D.C.

The Money Party is a small group of enterprises and individuals who have most of the money in this country. They use that money to make more money. Controlling who gets elected to public office is the key to more money for them and less for us. As 2008 approaches, The Money Party is working hard to maintain its perfect record.

It is not about Republicans versus Democrats. Right now, the Republicans do a better job taking money than the Democrats. But The Money Party is an equal opportunity employer. They have no permanent friends or enemies, just permanent interests. Democrats are as welcome as Republicans to this party. It’s all good when you’re on the take and the take is legal.

This is not a conspiracy theory. There are no secret societies or sinister operators. This party is up front and in your face. Just follow the money. One percent of Americans hold 33% of the nation’s wealth. The top 10% hold 72% of the total wealth. The bottom 40% of Americans control only 0.3% (three tenths of one percent). And that was before “pay day loans.”

The story is as old as civilization but the stakes have never been higher than they are right now.

-snip

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/michael_collins/2007/10/the-money-party-the-essence-of.php

[mod mom]

18. You don't have to look-just read the popular site TPM and it becomes apparent.

So facts about Hillary's actions on behalf of benefactors should not be exposed, but swept under the rug?

Sorry but I've been working for change against the Money Party and will continue to work at exposing it. Skip my posts if you don't like it, but I appreciate the kicks.

[Lucky 13]

31. I believe the OP was simply a post of an AP article... not a hate piece...

The poster provided no commentary or personal opinion, just posted an article from the AP. Considering the negative articles that get posted daily, hourly about our President-Elect, I wouldn't think posting a negative article about an appointee would be a big deal. Aren't we supposed to be keeping an eye on the news, whether it is positive for us or not?

:shrug:

[kiva]

52. One critical post this morning, possibly just reposting at random.

Two OPs in one morning, both slamming our SOS, not just a random coincidence. The other one is pure nonsense--unless you somehow think that Hillary has secretly won the presidency and is thus bound by her campaign promises--and this one is just a continuation of previous criticism. A handful of people here have chosen to continue the primary battles--some on both sides--and should be called on it when they do.

Edited to say: our SOS nominee.

[wyldwolf]

20. nah, I have more important things to do ...

When one wastes their energy on the unattainable, the attainable is never accomplished.

[ClarkUSA]

24. More evidence of Clintonian pay-to-play? Some things never change.

When you lay down with Big Dawg, you get up with fleas. :puke:

[Beacool]

29. Oh please,

More than one person would love to pick up fleas from the BigDawg.........

Need some Pepto for that bellyache?



:eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

40. You were outraged at Blago but are brushing off the Clintons' pay-to-play tag team efforts?

Your hypocrisy again knows no bounds. Again. :eyes:

[mod mom]

42. Note they haven't de-bunked any of the corruption but prefer to attack those who dare

to mention it.

[ClarkUSA]

44. That's their modus operandi, isn't it? They make up the Rovian wing of the Democratic party.

Thanks for the timely reminder and the OP that reminds us that the Clintons are as ethically-challenged as ever.

[Radical Activist]

56. I got tired of defending Clinton lies and scandals years ago.

It's amazing that some people have this much tolerance for it.

[ClarkUSA]

58. Me too, but some people are amoral hypocrites like the Clintons so it's all "politics" to them.

Birds of a feather and all that... thank Gawd Americans voted for CHANGE this time around.

[wyldwolf]

45. note you haven't explained why it's corrupt

[Beacool]

48. Blago? I don't recall being particularly outraged.

What's surprising about corruption in IL? Chicago is specially notorious for it, makes us in NJ look like innocent babes in the woods by comparison.

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

55. You went on about how IL is the most corrupt state in the U.S., Obama is from IL, etc.

The same ol' garbage.... y'know.

Pay-to-play corruption is wrong, whether it's Blago or the Clintons. The best thing out of all this is now the Clintons'
$$/favors tag team has been revealed and the right people will be keeping tabs. I like the idea of keeping them on a
short leash with Team O at the business end.

[AtomicKitten]

25. I think this potential conflict of interest is a valid concern. n/t

[Beacool]

26. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

If some dubious people and some not so good governments gave millions to the Clinton Foundation and AIDS Global Initiative, I have no problem with it. At least the money is going to a worthy cause. Any of you who keep trashing Bill ad nauseum checked to see what they have done with that money? There are thousands of people who would have died from various diseases (mainly AIDS) without their aid.

So, I don't give a rat's ass how Bill got the money. Mercenary? Maybe, but it ain't OZ out there in the real world.

:shrug:

[blm]

32. And how about the tens of millions from Dubai personally paid to Bill for his 'lobbying' skills.

just like Poppy Bush. Serving the needs of the Dubai and Saudi royals over the interest of the American people.

[Beacool]

54. Well, I doubt that this administration will do any different.

The Saudis are supposed to be our allies, so we'll probably continue to butt kiss them as usual.

;)

[blm]

63. Except Kerry's SFRC chair and will be able to influence Obama's view, and he's not a Saudi tool and

never has been.

[Forkboy]

51. It shows.

[Beacool]

53. Fork,

when is that dinosaur of yours going to run out of fire?

:eyes:

[Forkboy]

57. No time soon.

[Beacool]

59. Pity...................

:eyes:

:P

[Forkboy]

60. You love it.

[Beacool]

61. Ahhhhhhh (big sigh)............

I must be a masochist. You Hillary bashers keep my juices flowing.

;-)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

43. Interesting that the headline is false

AP: Clinton acted on concerns of husband's donors

Since they donated later, the headline should be: People whose concerns Clinton acted on later became husband's donors.

A small objection, but since the headline implies corruption exactitude is called for.

More to the point, donating to someone's charity is much less of a personal benefit than donating to someone's campaign, and almost 100% of parties politicians act to benefit become campaign donors.

In any system where money changes hands almost everyone is corrupt to some degree.

[wyldwolf]

46. that was pointed out in the last thread on this, and it's a major point

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

47. I think it's a small point because a quid pro quo could run in either direction

But still a point.

I think these objections are valid. They are, however, trivial compared to campaign financing.

People who get support from unions support union legislation. People who get support from Pharma support pharma legislation.

The system is corrupt to some degree. It is what it is.

[nodramamama]

49. AP's misleading headline

How do they know that Hillary knew that those benefitting from her legislation would later donate to the foundation?
This doesn't surprising from the MSM, who used to hint that the Clintons killed Vince Foster.