Jump to content

State: No evidence of conflict in Clinton Foundation gifts


webfact

Recommended Posts

State: No evidence of conflict in Clinton Foundation gifts
By MATTHEW LEE and LISA LERER

WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department said Monday it has no evidence that any actions taken by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton when she was secretary of state were influenced by donations to the Clinton Foundation or former President Bill Clinton's speaking fees.

Spokesman Jeff Rathke said the department received requests to review potential conflicts primarily for proposed speech hosts or consulting deals for Bill Clinton and found no conflicts.

Rathke said, however, that the department welcomes new commitments from the Clinton Foundation to disclose its donors and to support additional efforts that ensure all of those donations are public.

The State Department's comment comes as Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign grapples with criticism that foreign entities traded donations to the family charity for favors at the State Department. Hundreds of paid speeches given by Bill Clinton, which can command as much as $500,000 or more per appearance, have also come under attack from Republican opponents.

Speaking during a nine-day tour of Clinton Foundation projects in Africa with his daughter, Chelsea, Clinton defended his foundation, saying there's nothing "sinister" about getting wealthy people to help poor people in developing countries and that the organization had never done anything "knowingly inappropriate."

"There's been a very deliberate attempt to take the foundation down," Clinton said. "And there's almost no new fact that's known now that wasn't known when she ran for president the first time."

Bill Clinton said 90 percent of donors give $100 or less. But over half of the donors giving $5 million or more are foreign, including foreign governments. Under pressure, the foundation recently announced it will only take money from six Western countries.

"It's an acknowledgment that we're going to come as close as we can during her presidential campaign to following the rules we followed when she became secretary of state," he said.

He added: "I don't think that I did anything that was against the interest of the United States."

Bill Clinton has largely stayed on the sidelines during the early weeks of his wife's presidential bid, opting to focus on his foundation work instead of visiting early primary states with his wife. His decision to re-enter the political fray, with an appearance on NBC's "Today" show, reflects concerns that the intense scrutiny — and Republican attacks — on the family charity are having a negative impact on Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations. An Associated Press-GfK poll released last week found that more than six in 10 independents agreed that "honest" was not the best word to describe the second-time presidential candidate.

"Bill Clinton is saying what Hillary Clinton has said on many occasions: just trust us, just trust us. And unfortunately trust is earned through transparency, and I think they have not been particularly transparent on a whole host of things," said Republican Carly Fiorina, a former technology CEO who announced her presidential candidacy on Monday.

The Republican organization America Rising released a web video that uses footage of Clinton's confirmation hearings for secretary of state to raise questions about her integrity. The video uses 2009 footage of Clinton saying "there is not an inherent conflict of interest in any of my husband's work at all," juxtaposed with a list of foreign countries that have donated to the foundation.

aplogo.jpg
-- (c) Associated Press 2015-05-05

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what the tax codes description of a charity is , they should be taxed at the business rate i dont believe a word these people say .America has become a third world country in a democracy everyone is equal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, only 6% of Clinton Foundation donations actually find their way to those in need, while Bill Clinton made between $250k - $500k for speaking engagements while Hillary was Sec of State... Nothing like a little influence peddling to build the family fortune... No, not a smidgen of corruption here... Move along...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all foundations are set up the same way. Many foundations sponsor events and advocacy work on behalf of groups. Many do not give direct assistance to individuals.

Some foundations, for example, fund research. It might not help anyone for many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all foundations are set up the same way. Many foundations sponsor events and advocacy work on behalf of groups. Many do not give direct assistance to individuals.

Some foundations, for example, fund research. It might not help anyone for many years.

It's not as if there is any evidence of collusion or influence peddling in the Clinton Foundation... None at all...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is about no evidence of conflict in the clinton foundation. Quite a few agencies were involved in the approval of the Uranium deal. Not a whole lot to do with Clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah. The liberal AP says that the liberal, Democrat State Department headed by Obama and which Hillary used to run "has no evidence."

That's a far cry from saying there is none. The State Department also doesn't have her emails which she securely destroyed and they aren't going to get this email shredder to talk, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Spokesman Jeff Rathke said the department received requests to review potential conflicts primarily for proposed speech hosts or consulting deals for Bill Clinton and found no conflicts."

Rathke did not say that the State Department had actually done any reviews for potential conflicts, only that they had "received requests" for them. Even if they had actually done reviews, they don't have a list of all the donors so they are obviously flawed.

A detailed list of fund distributions to recipients from the Clinton Crime Family Fund would probably be equally incriminating, but that's not going to happen either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...