• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NY Times : Clinton Foundation Rife with Cronyism

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
by Wynton Hall
14 Aug 2013


On Wednesday, the New York Times ran a blistering investigative report revealing the Clinton Foundation as a nonprofit rife with crony capitalist conflicts of interest and multi-million dollar deficits despite raking in at least $492 million from 1997 to 2007.

In 2007 and 2008, the Clinton Foundation, which is soon to be renamed the “Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation,” ran a $40 million deficit. Last year, it ran a deficit of over $8 million despite the Foundation and two subsidiaries generating $214 million in revenues.

Hillary Clinton plans to relocate her offices to the Foundation’s Manhattan headquarters in the weeks to come. Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Clinton planned to use the Foundation as a “launching pad into 2016,” a reference to her potential presidential run.

The nexus between Clinton Foundation donors, foreign governments, and corporate interests has long been a concern to government watchdog groups. As of 2008, the Clinton Foundation raised at least $46 million from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman, and other foreign governments—the very governments Secretary of State Hillary Clinton eventually negotiated with. Wealthy foreign investors, like Saudi businessman Nasser Al-Rashid and Indian politician Amar Singh gave at least $1 million each.

Previous news accounts have chronicled how Clinton Foundation donors have profited. In 2004, New York developer Robert Congel donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Shortly thereafter, Sen. Hillary Clinton reportedly helped the developer bag millions in federal assistance for his mall project. Congel and Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson denied any crony pay-to-play connection.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
NY Times: Clinton Foundation Rife with Cronyism
 

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well that's it, there's her qualifications for the presidency.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
...and now you know why I post negative comments on "non-profits" since most of them are just a venue for getting rich by the owners.

Believe me, this is not unique. There are a few established charities like Salvation Army that seem to be 100% legit but most of the 501c3 and similar are nothing but a way to make money. Its pathetic really and I feel sorry for the fools who donate to these scams.
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,320
Reaction score
14,511
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
by Wynton Hall
14 Aug 2013


On Wednesday, the New York Times ran a blistering investigative report revealing the Clinton Foundation as a nonprofit rife with crony capitalist conflicts of interest and multi-million dollar deficits despite raking in at least $492 million from 1997 to 2007.

In 2007 and 2008, the Clinton Foundation, which is soon to be renamed the “Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation,” ran a $40 million deficit. Last year, it ran a deficit of over $8 million despite the Foundation and two subsidiaries generating $214 million in revenues.

Hillary Clinton plans to relocate her offices to the Foundation’s Manhattan headquarters in the weeks to come. Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Clinton planned to use the Foundation as a “launching pad into 2016,” a reference to her potential presidential run.

The nexus between Clinton Foundation donors, foreign governments, and corporate interests has long been a concern to government watchdog groups. As of 2008, the Clinton Foundation raised at least $46 million from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman, and other foreign governments—the very governments Secretary of State Hillary Clinton eventually negotiated with. Wealthy foreign investors, like Saudi businessman Nasser Al-Rashid and Indian politician Amar Singh gave at least $1 million each.

Previous news accounts have chronicled how Clinton Foundation donors have profited. In 2004, New York developer Robert Congel donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Shortly thereafter, Sen. Hillary Clinton reportedly helped the developer bag millions in federal assistance for his mall project. Congel and Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson denied any crony pay-to-play connection.
[Excerpt]

Read more:
NY Times: Clinton Foundation Rife with Cronyism
Put on your nose plugs, the OP is another brietbart article. Wehrwolfen used to claim he only posted credible sources. Not anymooooore. Here's the real NYT article and it makes no mention of the bolded part in the OP. Nary a peep or should I say poop?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/u...ances-and-ambitions.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp


PS: you forgot to post your own opinion, wehrwolfen. :naughty
 
Last edited:

Montecresto

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2013
Messages
24,561
Reaction score
5,507
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The New York Times ran the blistering article. Hardly a conservative publication.
 

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Put on your nose plugs, the OP is another brietbart article. Wehrwolfen used to claim he only posted credible sources. Not anymooooore. Here's the real NYT article and it makes no mention of the bolded part in the OP. Nary a peep or should I say poop?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/u...ances-and-ambitions.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp


PS: you forgot to post your own opinion, wehrwolfen. :naughty
Had I entered my remarks you would have chided me in any case.
Yes, the Clinton organization is suspect and their excuses not consistent with the scads of funds injected into the Clinton Foundation. It appears that the "Clinton Foundation" appears to be a cash cow exclusively and explicitly for the Clintons and their cronies. BTW none of the information in Breitbart OP-Ed was false. I thought it was good reporting.
""Yet the foundation’s expansion it has also been accompanied by financial problems. In 2007 and 2008, the foundation also found itself competing against Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign for donors amid a recession. Millions of dollars in contributions intended to seed an endowment were diverted to other programs, creating tension between Mr. Magaziner and Mr. Band. The foundation piled up a $40 million deficit during those two years, according to tax returns. Last year, it ran more than $8 million in the red."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/u...nces-and-ambitions.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp&
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,320
Reaction score
14,511
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Had I entered my remarks you would have chided me in any case.
Yes, the Clinton organization is suspect and their excuses not consistent with the scads of funds injected into the Clinton Foundation. It appears that the "Clinton Foundation" appears to be a cash cow exclusively and explicitly for the Clintons and their cronies. BTW none of the information in Breitbart OP-Ed was false. I thought it was good reporting.
""Yet the foundation’s expansion it has also been accompanied by financial problems. In 2007 and 2008, the foundation also found itself competing against Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign for donors amid a recession. Millions of dollars in contributions intended to seed an endowment were diverted to other programs, creating tension between Mr. Magaziner and Mr. Band. The foundation piled up a $40 million deficit during those two years, according to tax returns. Last year, it ran more than $8 million in the red."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/u...nces-and-ambitions.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp&
The NYT article reminds me of the movie, Resevoir Dogs: Mr. Blonde, Mr. Blue, Mr. White, Mr. Orange, Mr. Brown, Mr. Pink....Mr. Magaziner, Mr. Band....

Anyway, Mr. Magaziner helped organize the Clinton Foundation. Mr. Band didn't think Mr. Magaziner was doing a very good job and wanted him fired. So Mr. Band took over the foundation. When Chelesa Clinton joined the board of directors in 2011, she didn't think Mr. Band was doing a very good job either and wanted him fired. So he was replaced by Mr. Braverman, a collegue that Ms. Clinton worked with with on Wall Street and Ms. Clinton moved up to vice chairwoman position. Unlike Mr. Magaziner, Mr. Band and her mother and father, Mr. Braverman and Chelsea Clinton actually have business experience and hope to turn the foundation around.

Bill Clinton, who excels at fund raising used the foundation for whatever philanthropic interest caught his fancy such as fighting obesity, climate change, HIV in Africa, saving elephants, sustainable farming, etc, etc. But now that Chelsea Clinton is in charge she hopes to focus the foundation toward economically empowering women and combating infant mortality. Chelsea Clinton has a vested interest in making the foundation succeed because it will be her family's legacy. Only time will tell.
 

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The NYT article reminds me of the movie, Resevoir Dogs: Mr. Blonde, Mr. Blue, Mr. White, Mr. Orange, Mr. Brown, Mr. Pink....Mr. Magaziner, Mr. Band....

Anyway, Mr. Magaziner helped organize the Clinton Foundation. Mr. Band didn't think Mr. Magaziner was doing a very good job and wanted him fired. So Mr. Band took over the foundation. When Chelesa Clinton joined the board of directors in 2011, she didn't think Mr. Band was doing a very good job either and wanted him fired. So he was replaced by Mr. Braverman, a collegue that Ms. Clinton worked with with on Wall Street and Ms. Clinton moved up to vice chairwoman position. Unlike Mr. Magaziner, Mr. Band and her mother and father, Mr. Braverman and Chelsea Clinton actually have business experience and hope to turn the foundation around.

Bill Clinton, who excels at fund raising used the foundation for whatever philanthropic interest caught his fancy such as fighting obesity, climate change, HIV in Africa, saving elephants, sustainable farming, etc, etc. But now that Chelsea Clinton is in charge she hopes to focus the foundation toward economically empowering women and combating infant mortality. Chelsea Clinton has a vested interest in making the foundation succeed because it will be her family's legacy. Only time will tell.
One has to question whether funds from the Clinton Foundation were illegally transferred to fill the Hillary campaign offers?
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
74,000
Reaction score
31,158
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Clinton Foundation was just a way for Bill to maintain a stable of filly's while Hillary was out of the country.
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,320
Reaction score
14,511
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
One has to question whether funds from the Clinton Foundation were illegally transferred to fill the Hillary campaign offers?
I don't know. The Clintons were also raising funds for her campaign so whose to say which pot the money went into to. But judging from the size the foundation ballooned into and all the many different philanthropic projects, it is reasonable to assume it got too big too fast and just went into debt all by itself.
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,320
Reaction score
14,511
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The Clinton Foundation was just a way for Bill to maintain a stable of filly's while Hillary was out of the country.
You just can't seem to get your mind out of Bill Clinton's pants, can you?
 

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't know. The Clintons were also raising funds for her campaign so whose to say which pot the money went into to. But judging from the size the foundation ballooned into and all the many different philanthropic projects, it is reasonable to assume it got too big too fast and just went into debt all by itself.
According to F.E.C. regulations what you claim is illegal. Whatever happened to the $40 million not accounted for.
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,320
Reaction score
14,511
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
According to F.E.C. regulations what you claim is illegal. Whatever happened to the $40 million not accounted for.
It's your claim, so why don't you tell me?
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
74,000
Reaction score
31,158
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You just can't seem to get your mind out of Bill Clinton's pants, can you?
You cant seem to get a joke. Maybe its less to do with whats in Clintons pants and more to do with whats up your own ass? I dunno...maybe?

I have a hard time taking the Clinton Foundation 'scandal' or any of the 'charitable' organizations seriously after working with some of the 'non profits'. Thats why I made the joking comment. Because it just doesnt matter.
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
39,320
Reaction score
14,511
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You cant seem to get a joke. Maybe its less to do with whats in Clintons pants and more to do with whats up your own ass? I dunno...maybe?
Or maybe your jokes are stale and you're about as funny as diarrea.

I have a hard time taking the Clinton Foundation 'scandal' or any of the 'charitable' organizations seriously after working with some of the 'non profits'. Thats why I made the joking comment. Because it just doesnt matter.
Thats why we have entitlement programs...so people don't have to rely on the kindness of strangers.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
74,000
Reaction score
31,158
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Or maybe your jokes are stale and you're about as funny as diarrea.

Thats why we have entitlement programs...so people don't have to rely on the kindness of strangers.
That must be it...
 
Top Bottom