y Dan Cahalin:"Consider the report provided by James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus of the Wall Street Journal who reveal the donations received from six foreign governments by the Clinton Foundation. Grimaldi and Ballhaus write,
The Clinton Foundation has dropped its self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign governments and is winning contributions at an accelerating rate, raising ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up her expected bid for the presidency.
Recent donors include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline. . . .
United Arab Emirates, a first-time donor, gave between $1 million and $5 million in 2014, and the German government—which also hadn’t previously given— contributed between $100,000 and $250,000.
A previous donor, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation was created in 1999. Part of that came in 2014, although the database doesn’t specify how much.
The Australian government has given between $5 million and $10 million, at least part of which came in 2014. It also gave in 2013, when its donations fell in the same range.
Qatar’s government committee preparing for the 2022 soccer World Cup gave between $250,000 and $500,000 in 100 2014. Qatar’s government had previously donated between $1 million and $5 million.161
Oman, which had made a donation previously, gave an undisclosed amount in 2014. Over time, Oman has given the foundation between $1 million and $5 million. Prior to last year, its donations fell in the same range.
The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin expands on the report in her article entitled “Foreign Donations To Foundation Raise Major Ethical Questions For Hillary Clinton,” where she states
The foundation of course provides luxury travel for Hillary Clinton and her spouse, a high-visibility platform and access to mega-donors.162 She is beholden in a meaningful sense to its donors. No presidential candidate can justify a conflict of interest of this magnitude; it is not merely the appearance of conflict but actual conflict of interest.
If former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell (R) might go to jail for receiving lavish gifts for a donor for whom he made a few phone calls, what would be the remedy if, once in office, Hillary Clinton extended her office not only to make calls but also to approve policy and financial arrangements worth billions back to these countries? How will the American people ever be satisfied we are getting her undivided loyalty? No matter how much she protests, her judgment would be questioned as influenced by gratitude toward the foundation’s wealthy patrons. And, of course, a president cannot recuse himself or herself from dealings, so there is no practical way to avoid the conflict.
It is bad enough when Clinton takes gobs of money in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs oil and chemical companies, and other titans of industry — although that, too, raises the potential for conflicts of interest.163 But a foreign government should never have any claim on the loyalty of a U.S. president, which is why foreign donations directly to a campaign are illegal. We cannot give her a pass simply because her entity is a “foundation,” not a PAC or campaign entity.164
Yet the initial reports only told part of the story. These six countries were not the only national governments who donated money to the Clinton Foundation. Other donations came rolling in from China and donors who were also closely connected to Chinese intelligence."
The rest is here http://netteandme.blogspot.com/2016/07/part-3the-difference-it-makes36-reasons.html
The Clinton Foundation has dropped its self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign governments and is winning contributions at an accelerating rate, raising ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up her expected bid for the presidency.
Recent donors include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline. . . .
United Arab Emirates, a first-time donor, gave between $1 million and $5 million in 2014, and the German government—which also hadn’t previously given— contributed between $100,000 and $250,000.
A previous donor, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation was created in 1999. Part of that came in 2014, although the database doesn’t specify how much.
The Australian government has given between $5 million and $10 million, at least part of which came in 2014. It also gave in 2013, when its donations fell in the same range.
Qatar’s government committee preparing for the 2022 soccer World Cup gave between $250,000 and $500,000 in 100 2014. Qatar’s government had previously donated between $1 million and $5 million.161
Oman, which had made a donation previously, gave an undisclosed amount in 2014. Over time, Oman has given the foundation between $1 million and $5 million. Prior to last year, its donations fell in the same range.
The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin expands on the report in her article entitled “Foreign Donations To Foundation Raise Major Ethical Questions For Hillary Clinton,” where she states
The foundation of course provides luxury travel for Hillary Clinton and her spouse, a high-visibility platform and access to mega-donors.162 She is beholden in a meaningful sense to its donors. No presidential candidate can justify a conflict of interest of this magnitude; it is not merely the appearance of conflict but actual conflict of interest.
If former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell (R) might go to jail for receiving lavish gifts for a donor for whom he made a few phone calls, what would be the remedy if, once in office, Hillary Clinton extended her office not only to make calls but also to approve policy and financial arrangements worth billions back to these countries? How will the American people ever be satisfied we are getting her undivided loyalty? No matter how much she protests, her judgment would be questioned as influenced by gratitude toward the foundation’s wealthy patrons. And, of course, a president cannot recuse himself or herself from dealings, so there is no practical way to avoid the conflict.
It is bad enough when Clinton takes gobs of money in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs oil and chemical companies, and other titans of industry — although that, too, raises the potential for conflicts of interest.163 But a foreign government should never have any claim on the loyalty of a U.S. president, which is why foreign donations directly to a campaign are illegal. We cannot give her a pass simply because her entity is a “foundation,” not a PAC or campaign entity.164
Yet the initial reports only told part of the story. These six countries were not the only national governments who donated money to the Clinton Foundation. Other donations came rolling in from China and donors who were also closely connected to Chinese intelligence."
The rest is here http://netteandme.blogspot.com/2016/07/part-3the-difference-it-makes36-reasons.html
| | |
RSS Feed
