What do you know about the Clinton Foundation?
No, I mean really. Think about it for a moment. What do you know about the Clinton Foundation?
And what is your attitude about the Clinton Foundation?
I ask, because of a short Email I received from Bloomberg Politics. Here are some excerpts:
With 76 days until election day, Hillary Clinton’s not-so-great week of e-mail-cum-Clinton Foundation woes marches on.
“E-mail – cum- Clinton Foundation woes”? What exactly are the “woes” for a foundation that gives to charity?
Donald Trump’s campaign is now going on offense after a new report found that more than half of the people outside the government who met with the former Secretary of State during her tenure gave money to the Foundation.
Let’s parse that sentence: We’re not talking about everyone Clinton has met.
We’re not even talking about everyone she met while she was Secretary of State.
And we’re not even talking about everyone she met while Secretary of State, who were not government employees.
We only are talking about half of non-government people who met her during the 4-year period, 2009-2013 — a relatively small number.
And what exactly is the complaint about those people? That they gave Mrs. Clinton money? No, that might be illegal, depending on circumstance.
That they gave Mrs. Clinton campaign contributions? No, would be perfectly legal in most cases.
The complaint seems to be, so far as I can tell, that these people gave to a charity started by Bill Clinton — not to Bill, not to Hillary, but to a charity.
While this type of access-granting is not necessarily illegal or out of the norm in political circles (and while the Clinton campaign is saying the report is based on flawed data), the story adds another pang to the doubts already plaguing the Clinton campaign.
No, it’s not at all illegal, and yes, it is the norm. And, if it’s not illegal, or even out of the norm, why does giving money to a charity that does not benefit the Clintons, add a “pang to doubts” plaguing the Clinton campaign?
Because Donald Trump said so.
Remind me: Isn’t Trump the guy who lied that President Obama is not a citizen? Isn’t Donald Trump the guy who is waiting to be civilly and criminally prosecuted for the Trump University scam that lined his pockets at the expense of innocent students.
And isn’t there a bit of irony to Trump’s criticism of a charitable foundation? (Trump promised millions to charity. We found less than $10,000 over 7 years.
Will Clinton’s lead in the polls and Trump’s disastrous August overshadow her transparency issues?
Or is it time for her to change her approach—and also maybe just shut the Foundation down?
Now that would be the real disgrace: Shut down a charity in an effort to get elected. This is what Bloomberg suggests? Yikes!
The claim (unproven, but so what?) is that Clinton gave introductions in return for contributions to the Foundation. She denies it.
But let’s say, worst-case, the accusations are true. Would the conversations have gone something like this:
“If you give a million dollars to my charitable foundation, I’ll arrange for you to meet Senator Jones.”
“O.K., Mrs. Clinton, I’ll give a million dollars to the Foundation.”
Is that pretty much what the worst-case scenario sounds like?
Maybe I’m naive. I don’t understand why it’s perfectly O.K. for people to give millions of dollars to Pacs and to candidates election committees, but not O.K. to give to a candidate’s charity — money that does not go to the candidate herself.
Does anyone out there really believe rich donors like Mr. Bloomberg, give out campaign contributions, while expecting nothing in return, not even an introduction or a lunch meeting?
I have a long-time friend, who donated a lot of money to Obama’s campaign. My friend had dinner with Obama. Ooooh . . . Is this a scandal?
And we’re not even talking about campaign contributions. We’re talking about charity.
If someone came to me and said, “I’ll give a million dollars for cancer research, if you get me a meeting with Vice President Biden”, I’d do my darndest to make it happen.
And if I succeeded, I’d feel I’d done a good thing for the world.
But, Bloomberg wants Clinton to shut down a charity, a charity that is doing good for the world, just so she can get elected. I guess that is what passes for morality, today.
And Donald Trump, who lies about his meager charitable giving, criticizes the Clinton Foundation, and the media buy into the nonsense.
The world has turned upside down.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich afford better health care than the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012
Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be an good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.
The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.
19 thoughts on “How did the Clinton Foundation get to be a stigma?”
Perhaps to help you understand Trump a little more, assuming you have any doubts you might wish explained, George Lakoff parses what he says in this article and the one before it he recommends reading first;
Re charity, you left out what the purpose of this “charity” is, and who stands to benefit most. I think you might find the mud is there. Recall the saying that Democrats go into politics to get rich, Republicans are already rich so they go in for influence.
Are you saying that the purpose of the Clinton Foundation is to enrich the Clintons? How does that work?
You imply it’s not possible? You hear often how charities are used as personal enrichment devices. Scandals are a dime a dozen.
Some unnamed charities are “used as personal enrichment devices.”
Therefore, the Clintons use their charity as a personal enrichment device.
Makes perfect sense to me.
You are welcome to that “got”. It does indeed make perfect sense to consider the possibility. And, it’s your defensive diversion instead of considering the point that George Lakoff was making?
Perhaps you might consider this latest opinion piece, fresh in today;
The conversation has turned from ignorant to downright stupid. Yes, anything is possible. ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.
But by saying something is possible, does not mean it exists or even is likely to exist.
“It’s possible” is a cop-out for those who have no facts, but love to live on Trumpian innuendo.
Then you reference a rabid, anti-Clinton web-site, whose only comment about the subject — the Clinton Foundation — was this: ” . . . the $1,600 million in their foundation, much of which came from abroad in exchange for political favors . . . ”
Yes, they have a big charitable foundation. So, what is the point? A big charitable foundation is bad?
Trump gives virtually nothing to charity. This is good??
And yes, some of the donors received introductions to politicians. So what? What the heck is your point?
Where does any of that indicate that the purpose of the Clinton Foundation is to “benefit” the Clintons, as you claim?
Facts, please, and no more “It’s possible.”
If providing introductions, or even favors, to political contributors is illegal, the entire Congress would be in jail. And these weren’t even political contributions. THEY WERE CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS.
Get the difference?
I have a dear friend who gave lots of money to the Obama campaign, and was rewarded with a dinner with Obama. Ooooohh, how awful!
If you want to vote for a lying, boasting, hate-mongering, fear-mongering inexperienced bigot, who has cheated thousands of poor people out of the money due them, and put the dollars in his own pocket, go ahead.
Trump rents his own house and airplane to his campaign, pocketing lots and lots of campaign dollars, and that doesn’t bother you. He even buys his own books with campaign money. Yikes!
Show me the facts that the Clintons benefitted from their foundation, or move on to another subject.
First, let me state: I’m sure the charity can be reorganized into a hands-off trust so as not to shut down. Moving on.
Rodger, you conflate elected politician and appointed civil servant.
The former gets a pass because the Supreme Court says corporations are people and can give boat loads of Free $peech to elect candidates for public office. However, we all know this is legal bribery with its corrupting influence. Who are we kidding? It really disgraces our electoral process, but that’s the system we got.
The Secretary of State, on the other hand, as all appointed civil servants, must be beyond reproach. Even if innocent, there must be no appearance of impropriety to maintain confidence in the person and the office.
In most cases, you take the employee’s explanation, even as with Clinton, it includes another murky controversy (email server). In her case, there were just too many ways to have done it (both) right from the very beginning: an unnecessary circumstance of her own making.
Its problematic because this is this is not the first time questionable campaign fund raising practices have been associated with the Clintons. Younger readers might be interested when President Bill Clinton raised contributions by inviting donors to sleep overnight in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House.
Additionally, we come full circle with this eyebrow raising article from the Center for Public Integrity, the 2014 winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting.
Buying of the President 2016
Clinton White House sleepover guests still writing checks
Friends who slept in Lincoln Bedroom shift donations from Bill to Hillary
Appearances are everything, and I don’t mean in a fashion sense.
It’s as if the Clintons wear signs on their backs that read, “Please don’t kick me!” After they get justifiably kicked in the ass, they now say, “but the sign says don’t kick me.”
The Clintons just can’t help themselves despite all evidence they should know better, as a past President and First Lady, lawyers both. You know you’re going to run for President in the future, why do you put yourself in these positions (email server controversy, too). Dumbasses.
Is it any wonder in a recent poll that only 11% of registered voters consider Hillary Clinton honest and trustworthy?
How can a national leader be effective and evoke confidence when the majority of registered voters do not believe she is honest and trustworthy, shares your values, and cares about people like you?
Yeah, Trump is far, far worse. The real problem with the upcoming election is that Clinton is going to win.
Silly me. I thought this discussion was about the Clinton Foundation — the subject of the post — with which I see nothing wrong.
The fact that it now has morphed into a general indictment of Hillary’s honesty indicates that no one else can find anything wrong with the Foundation, either.
Otherwise, the conversation wouldn’t have digressed.
And you (and Trumpites) conflate giving to a politician (or civil servant) with giving to a charity.
Do you see the differences among these three sentences?
1. Give to me and I’ll do you a favor.
2. Make a political contribution to me and I’ll do you a favor.
3. Make a charitable donation and I’ll do you a favor.
The Trumpites love to claim that giving to Clinton’s CHARITY, and receiving a favor, somehow is illegal, unethical, and equal to Trumps screwing of Trump University students and the workers who were screwed when Trump went bankrupt.
And then you conflate Email servers with charities (“If she did something wrong with Email servers, then clearly she did something wrong with her Foundation”) I find that logic as suspect suspect as the other reader’s “anything is possible” logic.
Personally, I find nothing wrong with putting the arm on someone to give to a charity.
But, if you can point out some anti-American action that resulted from a supposed “favors-for-charity” act, I’d love to hear about it.
The fact that some people gave to Clinton’s charity and also received some sort of favor, says nothing. They could have given without any expectations at all.
I give to charity and have no expectations, but if someone said, “Give to charity and you can dine with Obama” I’d do it and not think any less of the person who made the offer.
And as for the uber naive, “even if innocent, there must be no appearance of impropriety — appearance in whose eyes? All politicians? Republicans? Hannity? Trump? Do you know any human being (other than your mother) who meets that standard?
Trump wants to be President. Any appearancy of impropriety in his history? Think real hard, now.
IMHO, until someone comes up with evidence of illegality, it’s just a bunch of Trumpist, birther-style innuendo, worthy of the National Enquirer, but not of any serious discussion.
Do you know any human being (other than your mother) who meets that standard? ~ RMM
As a matter of fact, I do.
Furthermore, I know where I draw my line, Rodger. Where do you draw yours?
You have written about Antonin Scalia, deceased Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Although not the first or only time, as recently as February 2016 you disparage Scalia’s character for his behavior, with strongly voiced, opinionated conclusions.
When did Justice Scalia visit your house?
Moreover, I responded to that particular post.
Taking into consideration what you write above: IMHO, until someone comes up with evidence of illegality, it’s just a bunch of Trumpist, birther-style innuendo, worthy of the National Enquirer, but not of any serious discussion. Should you, I or both of us revisit your Scalia post?
Yes, nothing but the facts, Rodger.
Thank you for making my point, Vincent.
“Justice” Scalia made a habit of personally receiving things of value (unless you don’t consider those all-expense-paid vacations to be things of value) from people who benefitted from his decisions.
By contrast, Mrs. Clinton received nothing of value.
That is the exact point I was making. Having someone contribute to a charity, is not receiving things of value.
Now, if you show me that she received a bribe or other things of value in exchange for certain political concessions (aka “bribes”), we can talk about that.
But the subject was the Clinton Foundation, and I fail to see how a contibution to the Clinton Foundation charity benefits her personally.
Frankly, I admire any efforts to elicit charitable contributions. Sounds to me like good work on behalf of the needy.
It is the smoke we are talking about, Rodger. Surely you are not so naive to think these bozos can’t hide their tracks well enough a lot of the time, and with connections good enough to get out of jail when they slip up? My comments are not aimed specifically at Hillary. but Trump is OBVIOUSLY a fraudulent operator. Hillary is equally a fraud, but is OBVIOUSLY trying to hide her sins.
We don’t rely on smoke for her here to be found out. The fact there is nothing illegal in having a foundation, for example, doesn’t cover her in saintliness.
Our civilization is in terminal decline, ever since the moon shot days of its peak about 1970. It is ordained, as growth in a finite world must end. We can’t make a date, but the Titanic ship of our civilization has struck the iceberg and now we arrange the deck chairs to cover our fears.
Perhaps we should vote for Hillary! Her warmonger stance will close civilization down faster than with Trump at the helm. This is good news for the planet. The longer we live the less the planet can bear with us. Like locusts we will make sure on our way out there will be NOTHING NOT STRIPPED BARE.
No, we are not talking about smoke. We are talking about the Clinton Foundation.
I still have not heard a single fact to indicate that this charitable foundation benefits the Clintons and is anything but a true charitable organization.
All I see is a bunch of, “Blah, blah, blah; Hillary is bad; Hillary is awful; the end of the world is coming, and therefore the Foundation is a scandal.
If you have no facts, at least be honest enough to admit it.
Continuation of Response # 4 above:
Actually, no Rodger, I didn’t make your point, you’re making mine.
The link I provided in my response referencing your original post “When did Justice Scalia visit your house?” disappeared. Odd?
Why not let your readers decide by obtaining all the facts? Here it is, again.
No, my point is Justice Scalia didn’t break any laws. Now, you want to substitute breaking the law with receiving something of value. Nice try. Maybe we can agree that your Scalia post was – what’s the right word – innuendo. (But that’s alright; this is a blog – not the New York Times.)
Only, both Bill and Hillary do receive something of value: every time someone mentions, “The Clinton Foundation.” Their name CLINTON is in the title. It’s called branding and name recognition. Didn’t you make a living doing that sort of thing? I’m surprised Donald Trump hasn’t had TRUMP tattooed on his forehead, but he sure has it on everything else. He knows how valuable his name is, and it wouldn’t surprise me that the dollar value of his brand name makes up a good percentage of his exaggerated $10 billion net worth.
Ask any politician running for office the value of name recognition.
I applaud the good work of the Clinton Foundation, and I never wrote, Hillary, Bill, or the Foundation violated any ethical or legal standard. Please stop suggesting that I did.
Vincent, you’re right. 100% right.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, but you are absolutely, definitely, completely right.
It’s what you wanted, isn’t it?
Feel better now?
@Rodger, in light of all that you have written on this blog, which is dedicated to talking about the rich bribing politicians to further the gap… yadda ..yadda…yadda…how in the world can you, with a straight face defend the Clinton’s or how they use their charity??
And now Vincent shows us a specific post where you called out Justice Scalia for doing far less than the Clinton’s have done and yet you are still trying trying to defend them!!
With all dues respect are you really that naive, Lazy, stupid or just a hypocrite?? I really like to know??
Ok, I understand you do not like trump and no one has a problem with that but to defend Clinton who stands for all that your suppose to be against…I would really like to know how you can defend them and how you can do so by continuing to stay the stupid things and by pretending to be dumb over how their corruption works…for example..when you say…
“Are you saying that the purpose of the Clinton Foundation is to enrich the Clintons? How does that work?”
“I thought this discussion was about the Clinton Foundation — the subject of the post — with which I see nothing wrong.”
“By contrast, Mrs. Clinton received nothing of value.”
And then when you get really stuck trying to defend them you switch too…
“IMHO, until someone comes up with evidence of illegality, it’s just a bunch of Trumpist, birther-style innuendo, worthy of the National Enquirer, but not of any serious discussion.”
Personally I think you are a hypocrite, who is loosing all credibility!!
I was going to take the time to walk through for you their foundation, the debate on if it is still a charity or not, how it operates, how the Clinton’s benefit from it and the payoffs while also including links but it is probably not worth my time…..so I will just put out some links…if you finally get it good but please don’t come back with anything lame like you have done above!!
Anyway I mentioned that you are lazy because this is all stuff you could look up in just a few minutes..
so again have to wonder how you can seriously defend the Clinton’s??
These links mostly deal with their corruption and links to the foundation there is a lot more that show a lack of judgment on Hillary’s part especially in foreign policy of course she is probably bought off in those areas too so it may actually not be a lack of judgement..which include voting for Iraq war, pushing for overthrowing gaddafi in libya which set the stage for Isis and her push for intervention in Syria and the Ukraine!!….
In any case read these ..think about it and check in with your conscious, that is if you actually learn anything!!
Money went from powerful people to the Clinton Foundation, a charity that does good works. Is this a bad thing?
I know your time is valuable, but perhaps in a couple short paragraphs, you can explain how money going to the Clinton Foundation benefits Hillary Clinton.
One reader said it gave her “brand recognition,” which would be hilarious if it were not so sad.
What is your answer?