Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income

+2
2seaoat
gatorfan
6 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

gatorfan



"When top Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band wrote the memo, he was a central player at the Clinton Foundation and president of his own corporate consulting firm. Over the course of 13 pages, he made a case that his multiple roles had served the interests of the Clinton family and its charity.

In doing so, Band also detailed a circle of enrichment in which he raised money for the Clinton Foundation from top-tier corporations such as Dow Chemical and Coca-Cola that were clients of his firm, Teneo, while pressing many of those same donors to provide personal income to the former president.

The system has drawn scrutiny from Republicans, who say it allowed corporations and other wealthy supporters to pay for entree to a popular former president and a onetime secretary of state who is now the Democratic presidential nominee.

Band wrote the memo in 2011 to foundation lawyers conducting a review of the organization amid a brewing feud with the Clintons’ daughter, Chelsea Clinton, who was taking a stronger role in leading the foundation and had expressed concerns about Teneo’s operations.

[Read the 2011 memo about Teneo and the Clinton Foundation]

The memo, made public Wednesday by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, lays out the aggressive strategy behind lining up the consulting contracts and paid speaking engagements for Bill Clinton that added tens of millions of dollars to the family’s fortune, including during the years that Hillary Clinton led the State Department. It describes how Band helped run what he called “Bill Clinton Inc.,” obtaining “in-kind services for the President and his family — for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like.”

Band and his Teneo co-founder, former Hillary Clinton fundraiser Declan Kelly, declined to comment. But Teneo issued a statement saying that “as the memo demonstrates, Teneo worked to encourage clients, where appropriate, to support the Clinton Foundation because of the good work that it does around the world. It also clearly shows that Teneo never received any financial benefit or benefit of any kind from doing so.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-bill-clinton-inc-hacked-memo-reveals-intersection-of-charity-and-personal-income/2016/10/26/3bf84bba-9b92-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_teneowiki815pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

2seaoat



Which came first......the chicken or the egg. Did Bill Clinton enhance donations to worthy charitable causes, or did charitable causes enhance Bill Clinton's speaking fees. You can argue both sides, but Presidents have been making huge speaking fees after their term for forty years. If Congress wants to limit the same for fear of some type of quid pro quo corruption, all they have to do is pass a law which limits the amount which can be given to ex office holders for a ten year period after leaving office.

In the absence of quid pro quo where the former President was going to "fix" something, then I would suggest folks read in its entirety the Citizens United case and the role of politics and free association being entirely LEGAL. There is NOTHING illegal or even remotely unethical about giving speeches for money by an ex president. There is NOTHING illegal or even remotely unethical about soliciting charitable contributions from large corporations, but Citizen United sets the standard and if anybody on this forum, or anybody anywhere has actual knowledge of a quid pro quo bribe, then President Clinton does not get the protection of Citizen United. It is a simple statutory exercise if folks are not playing witch hunt to propose a limit on speaking engagement compensation for ex politicians...........but until then the Supreme Court is very clear......Bill Clinton has every right to do exactly what he did.

Guest


Guest

Why isn't it greedy and unethical when bill and Hillary do it?

2seaoat



Why isn't it greedy and unethical when bill and Hillary do it?


It is greedy. I do not think anybody would argue with you on the issue of greed. However, unethical is simply not true as set forth by the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United. I find it amusing that progressives have screamed that this case must be overturned, where the Supreme Court clearly said that every American and Corporations have the right to free association and the transfer of money in that political association. It only needs to be regulated where there is quid pro quo. This means that Bill would have had to receive a speaking fee where it can be shown that he was able to get the government to do something for the donor. There is not anything unethical, or illegal. Of course Citizens United can be overturned, but really, absent actual fraud, you are not going to have congress passing restrictions on former presidents speaking fees.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/21/opinions/trump-clinton-foundation-differences-mayer/

Trump and Clinton foundations: YUGE difference between their mistakes

gatorfan



Floridatexan wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/21/opinions/trump-clinton-foundation-differences-mayer/

Trump and Clinton foundations: YUGE difference between their mistakes


LOL! I have to wonder what the author of this opinion piece would have to say if he had been able to read the released memo in question (which was released a month after your linked article.)

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

gatorfan wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/21/opinions/trump-clinton-foundation-differences-mayer/

Trump and Clinton foundations: YUGE difference between their mistakes


LOL! I have to wonder what the author of this opinion piece would have to say if he had been able to read the released memo in question (which was released a month after your linked article.)

LOL...where is it and how do you know it's legit?

Sal

Sal

This was all reported by the press in 2013, and the Republican controlled Judiciary Committee launched an investigation and found no impropriety.

This has more to do with the possible appearance of impropriety regarding the intersection between the foundation and Bill Clinton's personal finances, and there is nothing to remotely suggest a quid pro quo relationship with the Hillary Clinton State Department.

And, it would appear that it was Chelsea Clinton who didn't like the optics and worked to sever the relationship to the consternation of some foundation members.

Another resounding thud of a nothingburger from Wikileaks and the Rooskies.

Markle

Markle

Sal wrote:This was all reported by the press in 2013, and the Republican controlled Judiciary Committee launched an investigation and found no impropriety.

This has more to do with the possible appearance of impropriety regarding the intersection between the foundation and Bill Clinton's personal finances, and there is nothing to remotely suggest a quid pro quo relationship with the Hillary Clinton State Department.

And, it would appear that it was Chelsea Clinton who didn't like the optics and worked to sever the relationship to the consternation of some foundation members.

Another resounding thud of a nothingburger from Wikileaks and the Rooskies.

Sal

Sal

Markle wrote:
Sal wrote:This was all reported by the press in 2013, and the Republican controlled Judiciary Committee launched an investigation and found no impropriety.

This has more to do with the possible appearance of impropriety regarding the intersection between the foundation and Bill Clinton's personal finances, and there is nothing to remotely suggest a quid pro quo relationship with the Hillary Clinton State Department.

And, it would appear that it was Chelsea Clinton who didn't like the optics and worked to sever the relationship to the consternation of some foundation members.

Another resounding thud of a nothingburger from Wikileaks and the Rooskies.

Nothing to add?

I guess we're done here.

Markle

Markle

Sal wrote:This was all reported by the press in 2013, and the Republican controlled Judiciary Committee launched an investigation and found no impropriety.

This has more to do with the possible appearance of impropriety regarding the intersection between the foundation and Bill Clinton's personal finances, and there is nothing to remotely suggest a quid pro quo relationship with the Hillary Clinton State Department.

And, it would appear that it was Chelsea Clinton who didn't like the optics and worked to sever the relationship to the consternation of some foundation members.

Another resounding thud of a nothingburger from Wikileaks and the Rooskies.

PLEASE, step up and show us your reliable link and source from 2013 showing that all this had been exposed.

Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income 60c65ea7-8a29-4f9c-8d51-b86103002624_zpsuypwhxqc

Telstar

Telstar

Markle wrote:
Sal wrote:This was all reported by the press in 2013, and the Republican controlled Judiciary Committee launched an investigation and found no impropriety.

This has more to do with the possible appearance of impropriety regarding the intersection between the foundation and Bill Clinton's personal finances, and there is nothing to remotely suggest a quid pro quo relationship with the Hillary Clinton State Department.

And, it would appear that it was Chelsea Clinton who didn't like the optics and worked to sever the relationship to the consternation of some foundation members.

Another resounding thud of a nothingburger from Wikileaks and the Rooskies.

PLEASE, step up and show us your reliable link and source from 2013 showing that all this had been exposed.

Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income 60c65ea7-8a29-4f9c-8d51-b86103002624_zpsuypwhxqc




Sal

Sal

Markle wrote:

PLEASE, step up and show us your reliable link and source from 2013 showing that all this had been exposed.


https://newrepublic.com/article/114790/how-doug-band-drove-wedge-through-clinton-dynasty

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/us/politics/unease-at-clinton-foundation-over-finances-and-ambitions.html

Markle

Markle

Sal wrote:
Markle wrote:

PLEASE, step up and show us your reliable link and source from 2013 showing that all this had been exposed.


https://newrepublic.com/article/114790/how-doug-band-drove-wedge-through-clinton-dynasty

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/us/politics/unease-at-clinton-foundation-over-finances-and-ambitions.html

Simply read and comprehended the lead post to this thread along with the links provided in the article.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum