Scripps/ABC/LawNewz: Exclusive: Clinton charities ignore law requiring them to disclose millions

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Jess13, Sep 6, 2016.

  1. Jess13, Sep 6, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2016

    Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #1
    “Hillary isn’t corrupt! Okay fine, she’s uber-corrupt. But it is fine because she’s a woman with the correct ‘D’ beside her name! Over there! Look, Trump saying mean things!”


    Forget Trump’s Donations, Clinton Charities Have Flaunted State Disclosure Laws for Years!

    http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/for...ave-flaunted-state-disclosure-laws-for-years/

    Hillary Clinton has her own disclosure problems with a state attorney general’s office that dwarfs anything close to the $25,000 donation Donald Trump made in 2013 to a group affiliated with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. A three month long investigation by the Scripps News Washington Bureau published on Tuesday revealed Clinton family charities have ignored New York state law requirements to publicly disclose the identity of each foreign country and the amount it donates in filings available from 2010-2014. In one example, the report found the failure to properly disclose donations has led to a $225,000,000 discrepancy between what a Clinton charity told the IRS and what it filed with New York state regulators.

    All the while, the New York Attorney General’s Office has had the power to enforce the disclosure requirements but apparently has neglected to do so. It just so happens that during the relevant time period, that office has been occupied by Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat, Clinton donor and member of the Clinton campaign’s “leadership council” in the state.


    Exclusive: Clinton charities ignore law requiring them to disclose millions from foreign donors

    http://www.newsnet5.com/longform/ex...isclose-millions-from-foreign-donors?asdfhsgd

    New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has the power to force the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative to publicly disclose the names of foreign governments and the millions they donate each year to the charities but he’s not doing it, a Scripps News investigation has found.

    Schneiderman’s failure to require compliance with New York law and written instructions from his own office keeps the public in the dark about whether the foreign governments that gave money to the Clinton charities also had special access to Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state, experts in private foundation law say. New York state has long required more transparency from non-profits operating within its borders than many other regulators.

    A Scripps Washington Bureau review of tax returns and regulatory filings found that year after year the Clinton charities have ignored New York law and related instructions. However, the office of Attorney General Schneiderman, a Democrat whom Hillary Clinton named to her campaign's “leadership council” in New York, did not respond to Scripps’ questions about the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), which has never publicly disclosed in New York filings the identity of its foreign government contributors or the amounts they give each year. Scripps also discovered CHAI did not report hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign government donations to the state.

    However, Schneiderman’s office said it considers the Clinton Foundation, which is a separate charity, “in step” with state rules.

    “He’s not doing his job in that case,” said David Nelson, an attorney and former partner at the accounting firm of Ernst & Young who served on the regulations and legislation committee of the Council On Foundations, the philanthropy industry’s equivalent of the American Bar Association.

    It seems very appropriate now to post this piece, also published today.


    The Unrelenting Pundit-Led Effort to Delegitimize All Negative Reporting About Hillary Clinton

    https://theintercept.com/2016/09/06...all-negative-reporting-about-hillary-clinton/

    In his New York Times column yesterday, Paul Krugman did something that he made clear he regarded as quite brave: He defended the Democratic Party presidential nominee and likely next U.S. president from journalistic investigations. Complaining about media bias, Krugman claimed that journalists are driven by “the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.” While generously acknowledging that it was legitimate to take a look at the billions of dollars raised by the Clintons as Hillary pursued increasing levels of political power — vast sums often received from the very parties most vested in her decisions as a public official — it is now “very clear,” he proclaimed, that there was absolutely nothing improper about any of what she or her husband did.

    Krugman’s column, chiding the media for its unfairly negative coverage of his beloved candidate, was, predictably, a big hit among Democratsnot just because of their agreement with its content but because of what they regarded as the remarkable courage required to publicly defend someone as marginalized and besieged as the former first lady, two-term New York senator, secretary of state, and current establishment-backed multimillionaire presidential front-runner. Krugman — in a tweet proclamation that has now been re-tweeted more than 10,000 times — heralded himself this way: “I was reluctant to write today’s column because I knew journos would hate it. But it felt like a moral duty.”

    As my colleague Zaid Jilani remarked: “I can imagine Paul Krugman standing in front of the mirror saying, ‘This is *your Tahrir Square* big guy.’” Nate Silver, early yesterday morning, even suggested that Krugman’s Clinton-defending column was so edgy and threatening that the New York Times — which published the column — was effectively suppressing Krugman’s brave stanceby refusing to promote it on Twitter (the NYT tweeted Krugman’s column a few hours later, early in the afternoon). Thankfully, it appears that Krugman — at least thus far — has suffered no governmental recriminations or legal threats, nor any career penalties, for his intrepid, highly risky defense of Hillary Clinton. [Note: Haha :p]

    [...]

    But it would be journalistic malpractice of the highest order if the billions of dollars received by the Clintons — both personally and though their various entities — were not rigorously scrutinized and exposed in detail by reporters. That’s exactly what they ought to be doing. The fact that quid pro quos cannot be definitively proven does not remotely negate the urgency of this journalism. That’s because quid pro quos by their nature elude such proof (can anyone prove that Republicans steadfastly support Israel and low taxes because of the millions they get from Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers, or that the Florida attorney general decided not to prosecute Trump because his foundation and his daughter donated to her?). Beyond quid quo pros, the Clintons’ constant, pioneering merger of massive private wealth and political power and influence is itself highly problematic. Nobody forced them to take millions of dollars from the Saudis and Goldman Sachs tycoons and corporations with vested interests in the State Department; having chosen to do so with great personal benefit, they are now confronting the consequences in how the public views such behavior.
     
  2. vrDrew, Sep 6, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2016

    vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
  3. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    What's the issue here? That the Clinton foundation was mildly incompetent by failing to report to the state correctly?
     
  4. Jess13, Sep 6, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2016

    Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #4
    If you click any of those links—which I encourage you to do so, you’ll find that I have quoted only a fraction of each. Yes, I have tons to say. What I have posted above: a) isn’t violating the MacRumors’ rule; and b) isn’t violating copyright laws. Other than not minding your own business and whining, do you have anything to say? What do you think of Hillary and her crime family’s organization being $225,000,000+ off in reporting, illegally violating actual New York state law? Nothing, just whine more about copied articles?
     
  5. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #5
    C'mon man, give the guy some credit for the tireless bolding and underlining that go into his posts. He's enhancing the original by making it all shouty-faced.

    ...adding, to cut-and-paste from the original cut-and-paste, “I can imagine the OP standing in front of the mirror saying, ‘This is *your Tahrir Square* big guy’” before every click of Post Reply.
     
  6. Jess13, Sep 6, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2016

    Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #6
    $225,000,000+ “mildly incompetent”
    --- Post Merged, Sep 6, 2016 ---
    Yep, MacRumors would be better if it was plain text. Because enhancing and/or highlighting to draw attention to specific parts is “shouty-faced.” I also often highlight what I post, because I actually read what I post.
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    Why does not reporting to the state correctly matter?
     
  8. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #8
    If you had taken the ~15s to read the second paragraph above:


    Schneiderman’s failure to require compliance with New York law and written instructions from his own office keeps the public in the dark about whether the foreign governments that gave money to the Clinton charities also had special access to Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state, experts in private foundation law say. New York state has long required more transparency from non-profits operating within its borders than many other regulators.
     
  9. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #9
    But they've presumably reported correctly now and found nothing?
     
  10. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #10
    No. From the same article, paragraphs 6-7:


    In 2009, Secretary Clinton’s first year heading the State Department, the Clinton Foundation disclosed to New York only a lump sum of $122 millionin foreign government donations, listing the amount on a required form that directs all charities to “list each government contribution (grant) separately.” The foundation continued to provide the lump sum disclosures for foreign governments in every year that followed.

    Nelson said, “The Clinton Foundation cannot say they are in compliance with New York regulations.”


    If you read the piece, it is then expanded how the Clintons continue to violate NY state law.
     
  11. MarkusL macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2014
    #11
    At first I thought lawnewz.com were squares, but then I saw the z in their name and decided they are hip enough for me.
     
  12. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #12
    MarkusL: “Quick, how could I attempt to minimize this story? I know, I’ll attack the website name!”


    Dan Abrams launches LawNewz website

    http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/19/media/dan-abrams-lawnewz/

    The site, which debuted Tuesday, bills itself as the only destination on the web to offer real-time legal analysis on all the top stories.

    "This is a site a long time in the making," Abrams said in a video. "After all, my entire professional career has been focused on covering high-profile cases."


    Dan Abrams

    http://www.dan-abrams.com

    Dan is the founder of the Abrams Media Network, which includes Mediaite.com, TheMarySue.com, LawNewz.com, RunwayRiot.com & TheBraiser.com. He co-founded GossipCop.com & the NYC restaurant, White Street and created and sold Sportsgrid.com. He is also a best-selling author & the Chief Legal Affairs Anchor for ABC News. Previously, Dan served as the General Manager of MSNBC where he defined the network as “The Place for Politics”. During his tenure, the network saw its most significant ratings and profit gains to date. He also hosted “The Abrams Report”, a nightly legal affairs program, and the acclaimed “Verdict with Dan Abrams”. Additionally, and most recently, he was the co-anchor of “Nightline” on ABC News.

    http://lawnewz.com/dan-abrams/

    DanAbramsstandard1-240x300.jpg

    Dan Abrams began his career as a legal commentator for Court TV covering everything from OJ Simpson trial to the International War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague. Currently the Chief Legal Analyst for ABC News, Dan previously hosted numerous legal shows on MSNBC, was the long time Chief Legal Correspondent for NBC News and hosted Chasing Justice on Discovery ID. LawNewz.com will now bring to the web his vast experience covering the biggest legal and criminal cases in America.

    https://twitter.com/danabrams

    dan.png
     
  13. Limey77 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #13
    Where to begin? It's so difficult to explain these simple things to people who continually and willfully twist the truth to fit their petty warped ideals.

    Let's start off with the fact that this is an opinion piece, NOT a news story. Next, the author is not Dan Abrams but some two bit writer this latest company hired.

    Now we can move on to the fact that these requirements only relate to foreign governments not foreign nationals. Then there's the fact that all the numbers are "alleged".

    It's just yet another one of the OP's standard clickbait articles that he loves to post. Yes a couple of other wingnut sites have picked it up, but it's all from the same source.

    And if ALL that wasn't enough, it literally ends in the perfect nutjob phrase:

    "Now, you go read those regulations listed above again and tell me what needs to be clarified."

    Sane person translation: "So I've completely failed to provide any evidence to back my claims other than speculation - but you know I'm right and you agree, she's crooked - regardless of all the facts I had to mention that shows that this story is ********. But you'll believe it anyway!"
     
  14. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #14
    Right from the start you’re wrong. It’s an investigation by Scripps Washington Bureau, that reviewed tax returns and regulatory filings proving year-after-year fraud being committed by Team Crime Family Clinton.
     
  15. Limey77 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #15
    Except that the very first link is simply an opinion piece from the unknown lawnewz site.

    Having read the entire article and all its drivel there was no way I was going to grant the other links a click. I can only assume that they were even worse than your original "source".

    But I think we all now how little to expect of your posts by now.
     
  16. Jess13, Sep 7, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2016

    Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #16
    Virtually everything you said is completely—and easily verifiably—false. The only thing accurate: LawNewz piece was published as op-ed. But it is based on the Scripps investigation and the reporting in the linked to ABC piece. You don’t want op-ed format, then read the ABC story that op-ed is written from.
     
  17. Limey77 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    #17
    Perhaps you might explain??

    Is your first link not to lawnewz?
    Is that not an opinion piece?
    Is it by Dan Adrams?
    Does the piece not state that foreign GOVERNMENT donations need to be quarified?
    Where does it say foreign non-government donations need to be?

    And so on, and so on.
     
  18. Jess13, Sep 7, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2016

    Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #18
    The only thing accurate in what you said: LawNewz piece was published as op-ed. But it is based on the Scripps investigation and the reporting in the linked to ABC piece. You don’t want op-ed format, then read the ABC story that op-ed is written from. It wasn’t by Dan Adrams [sic], it wasn’t by Dan Abrams either.


    This story is the result of a three-month Scripps News investigation led by Mark Greenblatt, senior national investigative correspondent. Angela M. Hill, national investigative producer, contributed to the report, and Aaron Kessler, national computer-assisted reporting producer, and Maren Machles, national staff intern, produced the interactives. You can follow Greenblatt on Twitter at @greenblattmark.

    Twitter bio on journalism awards won

    Senior National Investigative Correspondent Scripps DC. Father. Homebrewer. Peabody, duPont, National Murrow, Livingston, IRE medal, National Emmy winner. FIJ board member

    Rm9nK0Hk.jpeg


    Clinton Charities Reportedly Skirted N.Y. Law on Disclosure

    https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Clinton-Charities-Reportedly/237707

    The Clinton Foundation and an affiliated charity failed to identify foreign donors in filings with New York state regulators throughout Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state, according to Scripps News.

    https://twitter.com/philanthropy

    p.png


     
  19. MarkusL macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2014
    #19
    Jess13: "Quick, how could I attempt to maximize this story? I know, I'll post a couple of giant walls of text, half of it in bold and underlined!"

    For what it's worth, lawnewz.com is a lazy domain name. It's the product of someone finding that lawnews.com is already registered, and not finding it worth the effort to come up with a real domain name. That someone was just barely ambitious enough to reject the "lawnews17.com" and "lawnews.biz" auto-suggestions from the registrar, and instead changed a letter all by himself. I don't know what this tells us about how lazy he is in his research for slapping together that text for the site. Maybe it says nothing, or something negative. But for sure it does not say anything positive.
     
  20. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #20

    Dumb.
     
  21. Snoopy4 macrumors 6502a

    Snoopy4

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    #21
    Everyday is Christmas morning with Clinton.
     

Share This Page