"Bill Clinton used tax dollars to subsidize foundation, private email support"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by thermodynamic, Sep 1, 2016.

  1. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #1
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...foundation-private-email-support-teneo-227613

    Article has more.
     
  2. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #2
  3. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #3
    Oh look. Another thread about nothing.
     
  4. zin Suspended

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #4
    The Clintons are disgusting human beings. This is clearly not what the law was to be used for. The Clinton Foundation might as well be an agency of the U.S. Government at this rate.
     
  5. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    Because most of them are political fishing exercises by the Republican Party.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 1, 2016 ---
    What's your view on saint Donald not paying his suppliers (which is explicitly illegal)
     
  6. zin Suspended

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #6
    He claims to not pay or deduct from the contracted value when the work is shoddy. If he hasn't paid and loses in court then I'll be happy to say that he behaved like a slime bag and should have paid. That being said, and for some perspective, for those cases of contract disputes, 206 in total, he lost only 3% as a defendant. The issue is not as prevalent as some on here claim.
     
  7. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #7
    He ran a family carpentry business out of business by stiffing them on their last payment of ~$80,000 dollars. Do you really think these small companies have the funds to even go to court? Come on.
     
  8. zin Suspended

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #8
    If they had a case then attorneys would have lined up to take it on. Based on the data for the lawsuits that were filed and their outcomes, I'd have to conclude that most cases have little to no standing.
     
  9. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    So Saint Donald drives small businesses out of business is fine, but Evil Clinton taking advantage of a federal government rule is totally unacceptable.
     
  10. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #10
  11. zin Suspended

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #11
    Driving them out of business? The data quite clearly shows that most of those claims either had zero standing or they outright lost.
     
  12. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    Seems astonishingly unlikely...

    Donald is notorious for stiffing suppliers. But I guess he has better lawyers.
     
  13. zin Suspended

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #13
    Of course they are going to say that. There are two sides to a story. When you're only listening to the plaintiffs, you're going to side with the plaintiffs.
     
  14. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #14
    Geeze, the US court system favoring billion dollar corporations over individuals who can't afford a team of high priced lawyers. What a surprise.
    Many cases were settled. How many does it take for you to notice a trend?

    It's no secret that the courts since the 80's side mainly with business, regardless of the facts of the case.
     
  15. zin Suspended

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #15
    Lawyers don't decide cases, courts do. How is it "astonishingly unlikely" that courts overwhelmingly dismissed cases or ruled in his favour? That is precisely what the data show.
     
  16. MacAndMic macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    #16
    Have a link to this? Being in the construction industry myself, I've witnessed and experienced many reasons a contractor holds money. Many are usually due to non-completion, failure to follow up on warranty, not understanding retainage, etc. and I would like to read about it.
     
  17. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    Oh please.

    When you're a small business with a contract with a big multinational you have to hope you are paid and have very little recourse.

    Fortunately in my case unlike Trump the businesses I've dealt with have the integrity to pay (albeit late).
    --- Post Merged, Sep 1, 2016 ---
    I think it's pretty unlikely that businesses would complain again and again about such large sums if it was justified. Nor would a business be bankrupted by it. Making good wouldn't do that.
     
  18. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #18
    http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/...ker-We-went-broke-after-Trump-stiffed-us.html

    These cabinets were approved by the site manager:

    "
    During the Atlantic City casino boom in the 1980s, Philadelphia cabinet-builder Edward Friel Jr. landed a $400,000 contract to build the bases for slot machines, registration desks, bars and other cabinets at Harrah's at Trump Plaza.

    The family cabinetry business, founded in the 1940s by Edward’s father, finished its work in 1984 and submitted its final bill to the general contractor for the Trump Organization, the resort’s builder.

    Edward’s son, Paul, who was the firm’s accountant, still remembers the amount of that bill more than 30 years later: $83,600. The reason: the money never came. “That began the demise of the Edward J. Friel Company… which has been around since my grandfather,” he said.

    ....

    Friel told the newspaper that he was one of a number of contractors called down to the casino in 1984 to meet with Trump and his brother, Robert:

    In the meeting, Donald Trump told his father that the company’s work was inferior, Friel said, even though the general contractor on the casino had approved it. The bottom line, Trump told Edward Friel, was the company wouldn't get the final payment. Then, Friel said Trump added something that struck the family as bizarre. Trump told his dad that he could work on other Trump projects in the future.

    “Wait a minute,” Paul Friel said, recalling his family's reaction to his dad’s account of the meeting. “Why would the Trump family want a company who they say their work is inferior to work for them in the future?”


    So they won't pay for "shoddy work", but invite them to work on other projects.
     
  19. zin Suspended

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #19
    You have no evidence. You just don't like what the data show. There are many instances where ordinary citizens win cases against large corporations. It isn't rare. Just recently, a U.S. citizen successfully sued NVIDIA in a class-action lawsuit for fraud.
     
  20. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #20
    No, that is pretty much exactly what the Former Presidents Act is all about.



    When a President leaves office, he (or she) will find themselves in a unique situation, especially if - as was the case with Bill Clinton - he leaves office many years prior to what we would normally consider "retirement" age.

    What is the former President to do? He cannot join a powerful law firm, or serve on the board of directors of a Wall Street bank. Not that those are in any way "dishonorable" professions. But by doing so he would inevitably raise questions about his decisions while he had been in office, and was this well-paying job a "pay off" for services rendered. And a former President would place a tremendous burden in terms of security and publicity for that organization. A former President cannot, in all practical matters, get a "regular job."

    Former Presidents are obliged to perform many public services long after their terms end. A President is expected to make his papers and records available for scholarly and historical research. Former Presidents are called upon to make extraordinary diplomatic missions. To speak at the funerals of Supreme Court Justices and historical Congressional figures.

    Former Presidents receive, as a matter of course, a tremendous volume of telephone calls, letters, and e-mails. And somebody has to go through them. To answer them appropriately, and in a manner that does not bring discredit on the United States. Someone has to answer the telephone at the former President's office; to greet visitors. Someone has to advise the President on which functions to attend; and which to politely decline.

    The Former Presidents' Act provides funds to allow the former Chief Executive to maintain an office in keeping with the standard of the Office.
     
  21. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #21
    Think about that carefully. Citing a class action lawsuit is entirely different from one company going up against a giant corporation.

    If you haven't been paying attention to the states, business almost always wins in the courts, or if they are likely to lose they settle with an NDA attached.
     
  22. zin Suspended

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #22
    That's all fine and well but the article clearly states that the money is not being used exclusively to support Clinton's mail or speaking engagements in his capacity as former president. It is being used to subsidise a foundation and its employees. At the same time, Clinton is earning hundreds of millions of dollars from 20 minute/$650,000 speeches and whilst said foundation generates hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues.

    The Act was to "maintain the dignity of the Office of the President". I'm not saying it is illegal, I'm saying that it is slimey. I don't see the relationship between 'maintaining the dignity' of Clinton and subsidising the operations of a charity whilst you're raking in millions from big banks.
     
  23. ibookg409 Suspended

    ibookg409

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Location:
    Portsmouth, NH
    #23
    I don't agree. Especially the email and foundation scandal.
     
  24. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    That's two investigations. What about the others?
     
  25. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #25
    Wow, there's some seriously hack writing in that piece. So many "tells" of the bias against Clinton, starting with using the slush-fund-sounding word "Treasury cash" (used repeatedly through the piece) when referring to Former Presidents Act funding Clinton received. This piece of hackery stood out:

    After leaving the White Housedead broke”, in the words of Hillary Clinton, they quickly raked in tens of millions of dollars from book deals, speaking fees and consulting gigs. At the same time, Bill Clinton was relying on his connections to some of the world’s deepest-pocketed donors, corporations and governments to seed a global philanthropy operation that overlapped with his consulting work and speaking fees and his wife’s work as Secretary of State — and served as a jumping off point for her presidential campaign.​

    Setting aside using the semi-pejorative, less than neutral "raked," you have to admire the hackishness of blending "after leaving the White House" (January 2001) to being "at the same time" as "his wife's work as Secretary of State" (January 2009).

    Also this:

    The analysis also found that Clintons’ representatives, between 2001, when the Clintons left the White House, and the end of this year, had requested allocations under the Act totaling $16 million. That’s more than any of the other living former presidents — Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush — requested during that span.​

    Well, gee, never mind that W wasn't even an eligible former president for half that period. Or that Carter was 76 years old and HW Bush was 72 in 2001, while Bill Clinton was a still vital 54 years old. Or even that $16 million over 15 years for a New York City based ex-president isn't an outlandish sum. Let's just write it with no context so it'll look bad.

    Vogel is a total hack.
     

Share This Page