Politicos spar over ethics surrounding Clinton Foundation
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Republicans and Democrats sparred Sunday over whether Hillary Clinton crossed ethical lines during her tenure as secretary of state by talking with people outside the government who had contributed to her family’s philanthropy foundation.
WASHINGTON >> Republicans and Democrats sparred Sunday over whether Hillary Clinton crossed ethical lines during her tenure as secretary of state by talking with people outside the government who had contributed to her family’s philanthropy foundation.
Donna Brazile, the interim head of the Democratic National Committee, said it’s not unusual for supporters and activists to seek out private meetings and that there’s no evidence Clinton did any favors on behalf of foundation donors.
“When Republicans meet with their donors, with their supporters, they call it a meeting,” she told CBS’ “Face the Nation.” ”When Democrats do that, they call it a conflict. It’s not pay-to-play, unless somebody actually gave someone 50 cents to say, ‘I need a meeting.’”
GOP vice presidential nominee Mike Pence countered that because foreign donors can’t contribute to a presidential campaign, it’s possible they were seeking political leverage within the U.S. government by donating to the Clinton Foundation. He reiterated calls by Donald Trump’s campaign for the federal government to appoint a special prosecutor to examine possible corruption.
“This (foundation) becomes a conduit for people to gain access, and gaining access is a favor,” Pence told CNN’s “State of the Union.”
The State Department has released all Clinton’s calendars and about half her detailed daily schedules as secretary of state, after The Associated Press sued for access in federal court.
Based on the records released so far, the AP found that more than half the people outside the government who met or spoke by telephone with Clinton during her tenure as a Cabinet secretary had given money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. The AP’s analysis focused on people with private interests and excluded her meetings or calls with U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives.
The government said Friday it probably won’t release the remainder of the detailed schedules until Dec. 30, weeks after the national election.
Clinton has said the AP’s analysis was flawed because it did not account fully for all meetings and phone calls during her entire term as secretary. She also said the analysis should have included meetings with federal employees and foreign diplomats. The AP said it focused on her meetings with outsiders because those were more discretionary, as Clinton would normally meet with federal officials and foreign officials as part of her job.
Her campaign also objected to an AP tweet that stated “more than half those who met Clinton as Cabinet secretary gave money to Clinton Foundation” and linked to the analysis. The tweet didn’t note what was in the story: that the records only covered part of her tenure and excluded meetings or calls with federal employees or foreign government representatives.
AP Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll told CNN’s “Reliable Sources” on Sunday that the tweet was “sloppy” and “could have used some more precision.” But she said the story linked to the tweet was “completely rock solid.”
“I think the issue about conflict with interest is not whether there’s an actual quid pro quo, it’s the proximity,” she said. “It’s the impression that people have of maybe they got the meeting because they donated, maybe they didn’t.”
She added: “All of us can’t be held responsible for the way that everybody thinks about and responds to and talks about the coverage. Our responsibility is just to give them fair and balanced, rock-solid reporting and let them agree with it, disagree with it, talk about it, think what they might about it.”
Clinton said Friday she would take “additional steps” to ensure there wasn’t a conflict of interest with the foundation if she is elected president. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had already said the foundation would no longer accept foreign or corporate donations and that he would no longer raise money for the organization if she became president. The Clintons’ daughter, Chelsea, would remain on the foundation’s board.
28 responses to “Politicos spar over ethics surrounding Clinton Foundation”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
If the Clintons weren’t doing anything wrong, why would they change now?
Agree! Any semblance of, cloud the issue whether favors were done or otherwise! Better no meetings if donations were made??
Oh, yeah. Must dispense with any semblance of impropriety—–now that the piggy bank is full to overflowing.
One has to give credit to the new AP for trying to win back its old chops through aggressively giving journalism a bump instead of just parroting the brull sheet churned out by the spin meisters. Finally.
Of course, they (AP) tweeted and printed complete fabrications, for which they have been roundly criticized by other media, even those media that have been traditionally hostile to HRC, like the NY Times.
Also overlooked consistently is what the foundation does. The organization, founded as a way for the Clintons to tap their vast network for charitable works, has tackled some of the steepest challenges in the developing world, including rebuilding Haiti and fighting AIDS in Africa.
It’s not like the Clinton’s were soliciting funds to support death squads in Guatemala, which is the type of solicitations we’ve seen by administrations prior to and after Clinton was president.
Every single “charitable” work by this corrupt quid pro quo foundation has been found to be fraudulent. Case in point…. they took in hundreds of millions of dollars for a hospital in Haiti that went to the, that was never built.
The Clinton Foundation is the largest charity fraud in history.
Are you serious? SIXTY PERCENT of donation made to theClintpn Founbation is for salaries, travel and conferences. They are crooks.
Even Juan Williams got on her case!!! Hope he has eyes in back of his head if you know what I mean!
“Whether she crossed ethical lines”? Duuuhhh,Are you kidding me?
Can I get a “Hell Yeah” she crossed ethical lines! “If it quacks like a duck…OH never mind,you get the idea.
Oh ? this one is my favorite:
The Clinton Foundation would not take donations “IF” she became President.
“IF” Really? “IF”. And only “IF” she becomes president? So What? “IF” Not? Is it business as usual? HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Billy Bob and CBS must think we are fools!
The dynamic duo were the “Pay to Play” kingpins even in the White House renting the Lincoln Bedroom….and still collecting? You better get your heads examined if you still think these two are not …..Crooks. Lock-um up Danno!
“Hell Yeah” she crossed ethical lines!
“H3ll Yeah!”
echo……
Foreign governments and leaders giving her foundation large sums of money and she doesn’t see it as a conflict?It’s bad enough when rich Americans buy off our politicians, now the foreigners are doing it too? That alone should dis-qualify her for the position.
She’s lucky Trump is her opponent, had the Repubs put up a decent candidate, she would be at great risk of losing.
If the Clinton’s can get wealthy foreigners to contribute to worthwhile causes, good for them. They know a lot of people with the means to make a positive difference. It’s only a problem if it was done through the state department, and although people asked, there’s no evidence that any meetings were set up through the state department for the foundation while HRC was the secretary of state.
None so blind as those who will not see— or smell.
Ethics? They have no ethics!
WAT DAT? end quote hiLIARy “Short Circuit” Clinton
If you give me money, I’ll talk to you, too.
I am just wondering where the foundation money goes besides a huge salary for their daughter and lavage trips for them?
some for Bubba’s allowance? Some for their h_tmen?
In 2013, 10% of foundation donations was for charitable grants. NINETY PERCENT (90%) was spent on salaries and other “overhead” expenses.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/
No wonder the “politicos” are sparing… no one wants to cross the Clintons… they end up dead. LOL.
There do seem to be a lot of people dirt napping who were once in the Clinton orbit. I’m sure it’s just coincidental. Advice to anyone considering crossing the Clintons: Get your affairs in order so your loved ones are taken care of.
Of a Presidential Nominee – when in doubt leave her out!
You try do dat to hiLIARy & see what you get…er ah… watch your bact…you might not see it coming!
Spacifically what was the dollar amount of the sPacific donation,who da guy and what the favor? Hard facts and not innuendos of word sparring and twitters and servers “caspers”. Name um! The amounts! And da law broken. Otherwise st F d.
Clinton said “It’s not pay-to-play, unless somebody actually gave someone 50 cents to say, ‘I need a meeting.” That’s NOT pay-to-play. Pay-to-Play is when you give a government official something of value in exchange for them doing something or refraining from doing something. No wonder Clinton has trouble with the concept.
Crooked Hilliary’s father would be ashamed of her.