“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 Democrats — not 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 ] [...] 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.