Contributors

Friday, May 29, 2015

Zombie Scandals

With Hillary Clinton now firmly in the running for president in 2016, it's inevitable that all the old ghosts of the 1990s are going to come out of the woodwork looking to reclaim their 15. Like Bill Maher's Zombie Lies, these Zombie Scandals will never die...especially when you consider that conservatives love TMZ as much as they love Fox News.

Joe Conason has a great piece up over at Politico about this and I urge all of you to read it. His prediction is the same as mine.

I feel confident predicting that Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), the committee chair, will find nothing to substantiate the fantasies marketed by his staff to the Times, which set the stage for Blumenthal’s subpoena and deposition in a political show trial that will unfold sometime in the coming weeks. Sid passed along information that he thought might be useful to his friend, the secretary of state—someone he has known for nearly 30 years and with whom he worked closely in the Clinton administration.

Yep.



17 comments:

Cornbread said...

I think the Clinton foundation money stories stink to high heaven, all these people who have pending business with the state department giving money to that organization which contributed a very small percentage of their donations to actual charity. Sounds like everything that people hate abount DC.

Mark Ward said...

Where is the smoking gun, though, with these accusations?

Cornbread said...

Maybe on a deleted email server?

The U.S. Attorney in either D.C. or New York (where the Clinton Foundation is located) would need to initiate an investigation. But I won’t hold my breath that one will be appointed.

The pass through rate in 2013 for that charity was 6.4%. It's a giant slush fund for them.

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

oojc said...

The operative word here being "maybe." I don't see any evidence of wrongdoing, just innuendo and cynicism. As the article notes, this is just another fake Clinton scandal.

Mark Ward said...

What does any of this have to do with her policies? Like catnip, conservatives can't seem to lay off the personal attacks. Hell, they can't make a fucking point unless someone is attacked personally. Are they that insecure about their policies?

Cornbread said...

Why are you asking me questions? Doesn't that go against your comment rules?

Does the politico link in the post talk about her policies? No it doesn't, not one bit.

What do her policies have to do with whether or not she broke the law?

Foreign governments as well as businesses with pending business before the state dept donating hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars to a personal charity run by the head of the state dept that only donated 6.4% of its money to charity. Then these same folks end up benefitting from favorable state dept policies. A subject like that is now a "personal attack"? That's defining down the definition of Personal Attack.

Many many people know this stinks, democrats know it stinks too. I sense frustration......lots of it

Mark Ward said...

Here are the comment rules.

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2015/02/comments-will-now-be-moderated.html

As you can see, asking questions are just fine, although I wasn't necessarily asking you a question. I was asking it generally of any reader and it's a legitimate one. The key to remember when commenting is this:

Personal remarks about posters or other commenters that take the form of insults, childish baiting, answering questions with questions or arguments about arguments will not be allowed.

You can certainly make a personal remark about someone. Nikto has about me many times. They just can't take this form.

I disagree that there is frustration regarding Hillary Clinton. She is still polling just about the same as she was before this latest round of fake scandals and is still ahead of all the other nominations, hence the digging for something...anything...that can bring her down. They did the same thing with Barack Obama and it didn't work because the voting public took offense at the personal scrutiny. Imagine what will happen with the women of this country if this continues.

Let's take a look at the nature of this donation scandal thing. First, we have a charity that is doing good things in the world...very good things. It's not like the money is going to something greasy and political even though it kinda sounds that way, right? That's the spin, of course, and I'm wondering where the 6.4 number comes from. Second, which countries were benefiting and how? Saudi Arabia is one of our allies so I'm wondering if we would have done those things anyway. Aren't Algeria, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar our allies as well? Aren't we trying to continue our influence in the region given our rivals there as well as ISIS?

So, I guess I don't see how it stinks. I'm sure most conservatives think it stinks but that's because they're faced with getting their ass kicked (again) in a presidential election and the only way they know to respond is the personal scrutiny. If it wasn't this or the email kerfuffle, it would be something else. I'm sure they will come up with more things between now and next November.

Personally, I hope they do because it's another day lost to actually debating the issues and how best to solve them. Clearly, they have nothing new in terms of their solutions to problems otherwise we would have heard about them. Ironically, the only one really offering solutions is Rand Paul and his poll numbers are in the shitter. Kinda says where the GOP is really at...

Cornbread said...

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

"The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid. The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends."

"far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission."

Then they had to refile their taxes because they found a few million dollars in foreign donations laying around.

Every time people want to hear politicians talk about Solving Problems, buried in there is an incorrect assumption that government solves problems. If passing laws and spending money equated to problems being solved, problems should be extinct by now.

Mark Ward said...

Are there any other sources besides the NY Post that corroborate these figures? What does the Clinton Foundation disclose?

The federal government solves problems every day. I guess I don't understand why this is a problem.

oojc said...

The Post article is filled with errors. Their intake of funds in 2013 was over $350 million.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf

JL said...

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/29/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-says-clinton-foundation-spends-just-/

Mark Ward said...

Yeah, the Post article doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I'm waiting for more sources to confirm the validity of these assertions. You don't really need a Politifact piece to see how off the Post is...

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

The same workers and professionals that are providing...direct aid to people. The Post article also mentions the atypical business model employed by the CF meaning that it keeps everything in house in terms of facilitating aid. So, the Post and Rush are largely being dishonest.

JL said...

I don't know. I thought the Politifact piece was very enlightening.

Cornbread said...

If anyone wants another source for my numbers I referenced in the NY Post article, just look in oojc’s link...look at the top of page 9 of their 2013 tax return, column A...what is the total revenue for 2013? $148,889,439.00. After you find that, then add up lines 1 and 3 on page 10 of the 2013 tax return for the foundation, both starting with “grants or other assistance”. What do they add up to? $8,865,052.00. Notice it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. They spent more on conferences and meetings than they did on direct aid in 2013.

Oojc, the assets listed on a balance sheet are not the same thing as “intake of funds” for the year. The Foundation does not “intake” $110k of property value each year. Look at the income tax return, page 1 under Revenue, more specifically Contributions and Grants.

I'm sure some folks are aided directly by the foundation, a whole ton more money is spent on the administrative costs of the foundation itself, my proof of that is right there in their 2013 tax return. As the charity watchdog said "far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission".

Mark Ward said...

a whole ton more money is spent on the administrative costs of the foundation itself, my proof of that is right there in their 2013 tax return.

Those administrative costs are high because they include the salaries of people who are providing direct aid around the world. The CF keeps people in house unlike other charities who use vendors.

Cornbread said...

Are there any other sources that corroborate that claim? Politifacts Lie of the Year in 2013 (If you like your plan, you can keep your plan) was rated as true by them a couple years before it became the lie of the year.

So their structure is unlike nearly every other charity out there and it not able to be accurately rated. To most people, that's a bug. To the CF and their apologists, it's a feature!

Considering there's been no investigation, it's pretty unlikely any smoking gun could've come out without a whistleblower on the inside coming clean. "You ain't got nothing on me, coppers!" isn't the most serious of defenses.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/05/04/clinton-foundation-election-2016-foreign-donors-editorials-debates/26892705/

Mark Ward said...

Are there any other sources that corroborate that claim?

Yes, the New York Post article you linked above. I noted it in a previous comment. Here it is again...

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

In the final analysis, I think all of this light on the Clinton Foundation is a good thing. If one takes the time to read through what they've done and how they do it, more Americans do see all the good they do in the world. The personal attacks and the childish taunting, based purely on emotions, could backfire on conservatives as people see the details.

Regarding the 2013 lie of the year, that's a judgement call by their editorial staff. Regardless, I accept their true rating and freely admit the president made a mistake in saying that. So what? He's made other mistakes as well. The notion that he is wrong about one thing somehow translating into being wrong about everything is illogical. The only reason why conservatives like to point out stuff like this is (once again) childish taunting.

Republicans simply can't admit that Barack Obama has been a successful president. Still stinging from the massive errors made by George W Bush, they are very quick to redirect away from their own mistakes.

I say, own them, reflect and change. Party of personal responsibility, no?