US Secretary of State nominee balks on revealing donors

World news discussion forum
Post Reply
User avatar
WBU ALUM
udonmap.com
Posts: 3240
Joined: July 29, 2008, 11:40 pm
Location: When I'm logged in, UdonMap

US Secretary of State nominee balks on revealing donors

Post by WBU ALUM » January 14, 2009, 7:19 am

Clinton urged to reveal more on husband's donors
By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer
January 13, 2009

WASHINGTON – Hillary Rodham Clinton, President-elect Barack Obama's choice for secretary of state, rejected calls Tuesday for more details about donors to her husband's foundation, saying she has revealed enough to avoid even the hint of conflicts. An Associated Press review found that Clinton stepped in at least a half-dozen times on issues involving businesses and others who later gave to the charity.

Clinton said as secretary of state she will not be influenced by her husband's contributors, which include foreign governments.

"It will not be in the atmosphere," Clinton said.

Richard Lugar of Indiana was among GOP senators on the Foreign Relations Committee pressing for full transparency about contributors to the William J. Clinton Foundation and one of its main projects, the Clinton Global Initiative.

Under an agreement with Obama, Bill Clinton recently released the names of donors to his foundation, a nonprofit that has raised at least $492 million — including millions from Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments — to fund his library in Arkansas and charitable efforts worldwide on such issues as AIDS, poverty and climate change. He pledged to release similar information annually. The donor list doesn't provide exact amounts, background on donors such as their employers, or the dates of donations.

Lugar, the committee's top Republican, urged Hillary Clinton to immediately disclose donations of $50,000 or more; alert ethics officials when any gift of that size is pledged or given by a foreign entity, whether an overseas government, individual or business; and reveal the year a donation was made and the amount, or at least the range, of a donor's giving in that year.

Hillary Clinton noted that under the agreement, foreign government pledges will be submitted to the State Department for review. She said it was unprecedented for a former president to agree to the disclosure her husband has, and that she was confident the current arrangement would avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest.

"I don't know who will be giving money," Hillary Clinton said. "When the disclosure occurs, obviously it will be after the fact, so it would be hard to make an argument that it influenced anybody because we didn't know about it."

The AP reported Tuesday that Hillary Clinton intervened at least six times in government issues directly affecting companies and others that later contributed to her husband's foundation. The AP obtained three pieces of the correspondence under the Freedom of Information Act.

The letters and donations involve pharmaceutical companies and telecommunications and energy interests; all said their donations to the Clinton foundation had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton's previous work on their issues.

"Throughout her tenure, Senator Clinton has proven that she acts solely based on what she believes is best for the state and people she represents, without consideration to any other factor," spokesman Philippe Reines said.

Hillary Clinton wrote to the Federal Communications Commission in February 2004 expressing concern that changes to competitive local exchange carrier access rates could hurt carriers such as New York-based PAETEC Communications. PAETEC's chief executive is Arunas Chesonis, whose family and charity later contributed to the Clinton foundation.

Sarah Wood, executive director of the Chesonis Family Foundation, was invited by a part of the Clinton Foundation — the Clinton Global Initiative — to join the initiative after it was established in 2005, Wood said Monday. The Chesonis family personally paid $15,000 for Wood's membership in CGI in September 2007, and when membership fees rose to $20,000 in 2008, the Chesonis foundation paid them in March, Wood said.

The Chesonis Family Foundation made a $10 million pledge in May to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for solar energy research, meeting Wood's commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative to act on a project, Wood said.

Wood said the Chesonis foundation was unaware of the senator's letter to the FCC on the PAETEC issue and didn't have any contact with her office.

PAETEC spokesman Christopher Muller said PAETEC had no involvement in the Chesonis donations. PAETEC asked Clinton to intervene with the FCC, he said.

"PAETEC has petitioned numerous elected officials in the markets which we serve in an effort to retain the spirit of the Telecom Act of 1996," Muller said. The issue is still pending at the FCC, and PAETEC remains involved, he said.
I'm wondering why the reluctance to be completely transparent. After all, we're talking about people donating to a presidential library and a global fund raising effort. What should be so secretive about that?
She said it was unprecedented for a former president to agree to the disclosure her husband has, and that she was confident the current arrangement would avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest.
Yes, it is unprecedented, Mrs. Clinton, but no other president's wife has sought to be the most powerful diplomat in the world. The US Secretary of State's financial dealings including immediate family should be completely transparent.

I hope no cabinet official in any administration is allowed to hide this kind of information.



User avatar
aznyron
udonmap.com
Posts: 4997
Joined: November 4, 2006, 8:38 pm
Location: Udon Thani
Contact:

Re: US Secretary of State nominee balks on revealing donors

Post by aznyron » January 14, 2009, 9:54 am

I agree it should be reported but i am curious WBU about you would it be such a concern if it was a Republican Administration and the Democrats asking for it since your a loyal Independent who vote Republican :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: which I find quite funny

User avatar
WBU ALUM
udonmap.com
Posts: 3240
Joined: July 29, 2008, 11:40 pm
Location: When I'm logged in, UdonMap

Re: US Secretary of State nominee balks on revealing donors

Post by WBU ALUM » January 14, 2009, 9:56 am

aznyron wrote:I agree it should be reported but i am curious WBU about you would it be such a concern if it was a Republican Administration and the Democrats asking for it since your a loyal Independent who vote Republican :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: which I find quite funny
Undoubtedly, you missed this last sentence of my post: I hope no cabinet official in any administration is allowed to hide this kind of information.

cookie
udonmap.com
Posts: 2235
Joined: September 29, 2006, 8:52 pm

Re: US Secretary of State nominee balks on revealing donors

Post by cookie » January 14, 2009, 1:22 pm

WBU ALUM wrote:
aznyron wrote:I agree it should be reported but i am curious WBU about you would it be such a concern if it was a Republican Administration and the Democrats asking for it since your a loyal Independent who vote Republican :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: which I find quite funny
Undoubtedly, you missed this last sentence of my post: I hope no cabinet official in any administration is allowed to hide this kind of information.
Just wondering: Does this concern include a sitting US President that is receiving donations for his library in Texas????

Because all the Bush Library Donors are kept Secret,
and he is receiving donations RIGHT NOW while he is a sitting President...
donations his father received:the Sultanate of Oman, an individual of Morocco, the Emir of Qatar, the Bandar bin Sultan family, the state of Kuwait, and a sheik from the United Arab Emirates (Dubai Port flashback!) .
No problems with that???

"freedom Institute" will be the name of the Bush library.
estimated cost price: first 500 million $ now 300 million$

So where is the $300 million going to come from?

Bush fundraisers hope to raise half their goal -- $150 million -- in "megadonations" of $10 million to $20 million from "wealthy heiresses, Arab nations, and captains of industry."

But people just don't give money -- especially not "megadonations" -- for no reason. Megadonors always expect something in return

the names of donors to his library don't have to be made public.

And just to proof that politicians are all the same:

Don't forget, Marc Rich's ex-wife Denise had donated $450,000 to President Clinton's presidential library fund in the two years prior to Clinton's last-day-in-office pardon of the billionaire fugitive.


So whatever happened to the concept of government transparency?

Why didn't people ask these kind of questions in the past????
Did they all of a sudden see the light?? :roll:
I just can't stop wondering why all of a sudden there is this cry for Government transparency, and we didn't hear one word in the past eight years about government transparency.... #-o #-o #-o :-"

Just for fun: Here an article from an other media.

Hillary was brilliant!!!!!!
President Obama is a SMART man who chose a SMART woman!!!!
Impressive!!!!! or just intelligence and competence!!!!! something we missed in the past eight years ;) ;)


Clinton's Exhaustive Prep Work For State Hearing Pays Off


January 13, 2009 07:45 PM


At the opening of Sen. Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearings for the post of Secretary of State on Tuesday, the ranking Republican on theSenate Foreign Relations Committee offered a bit of perfunctory praise for the former first lady.

"President-elect Obama has boldly chosen the epitome of a big leaguer," said Sen. Richard Lugar, who spoke of Clinton's confirmation as a certainty. "Her qualifications for the post are remarkable... Her time in the Senate has given her a deep understanding of how United States foreign policy can be enriched... She is fully prepared to engage the world on a myriad of issues that urgently require attention."

The sentiments may have been customary Senate pleasantries. But Clinton, over the course of several hours, proved the Indiana Republican correct. Her confirmation hearing was a tour de force, one that demonstrated not just her breadth of understanding of the policy issues, but the meticulous preparation that she has brought to most every political task in her career -- and, likely soon, Foggy Bottom.

Pressed by her soon-to-be-former Senate colleagues, Clinton fielded questions on topics ranging from the impact of the Law of the Sea treaty on Alaska, to Russia's purchase of a Serbian gas utility, to the piracy crisis off the coasts of Somalia.

"I've never seen anybody know so much about so much," Chris Matthews, a sometimes-critical voice on the Clintons, would gush on Hardball later that day.

If Clinton's performance was, as Matthews claimed, virtuoso, it was owed to hard, behind-the-scenes preparation. According to a source close to the Obama transition, in the process of preparing for the hearing, the former first lady met or at least spoke to every member of the Foreign Relations committee. The in-person meetings were, at times, lengthy with some lasting up to an hour. She "devoured" briefing books prepared by officials at the Department of State -- an undertaking that not only prepped her for grilling but brought her up to speed on the gamut of issues she will face at Foggy Bottom.

Clinton and her staff held several mock hearings, often lasting several hours each. Wendy Sherman, who heads up the Obama transition team's State Department Agency Review Team, played a leading role in prep work. Jim Steinbeg and Jack Lew, Clinton's choices for her deputies at State, also participated, in addition to Andrew Shapiro, a Clinton Senate staffer, and Jake Sullivan, a senior policy staffer on her campaign.

The long hours, aides say, helped her get a better sense both of the major and obscure obstacles that lay ahead. It also educated her on the pet projects and concerns some member bring to their committee assignments. During one particular sequence, Clinton was pressed by six different Senators on six unique and occasionally provincial topics.

Bob Corker (R-TN) asked her about management structure of the State Department. Russ Feingold (D-WI) solicited her position on how to resolve the crisis in Darfur. Dick Lugar then asked about his most passionate topic, nuclear arms control, after which Barbara Boxer (D-CA) discussed the plight of women in third world countries, particularly Afghanistan. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) followed suit with a plea for a more "vigorous" approach to Latin America, before discussing the reported imprisonment of a Florida contractor by the Iranian government. Finally, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) asked about America's "role as an Arctic nation."

Would the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty be a priority, she wanted to know?

"Yes, it will be, and it will be because it is long overdue," replied Clinton.

"Well," said Murkowksi, "I'm -- I'm very pleased, very encouraged to hear that and truly look forward to the opportunity to be working with you to advance these issues."

The back-and-forth underscored not just the depth of Clinton's understanding of the issues but the senatorial demeanor she could bring to the new post. Not everything, of course, went entirely smoothly. Clinton demurred from taking direct positions on diplomatic negotiations with Iran and Syria when pressed by committee chairman, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). And she did not relent to releasing more information on the donors to her husband's initiatives -- a chief complaint from her, primarily, GOP detractors. Both Clinton and her husband have agreed to disclose large swaths of previously private information. But her refusal to immediately make public any donations of $50,000 or more from any source drew particular scorn from Republicans on the committee.

In the end, however, it was hard for members of the other political party to suppress the positive impression Clinton had left.

"Congratulations, Senator Clinton," concluded John Barrasso (R-WY). "I always found you to be very prepared, very thorough, very thoughtful. And I'm sure you're going bring all of those same things to the State Department."

User avatar
aznyron
udonmap.com
Posts: 4997
Joined: November 4, 2006, 8:38 pm
Location: Udon Thani
Contact:

Re: US Secretary of State nominee balks on revealing donors

Post by aznyron » January 14, 2009, 5:37 pm

cookie good post keep them coming there is a double standard in Wash/DC if your a R. you can get away with any thing as long as the R. party is in charge and if you don't believe it just look at Bush/Cheyney
being inter-vied about 9/11 it was not a Q/A under oath it was a insult on the Victims & there families

User avatar
WBU ALUM
udonmap.com
Posts: 3240
Joined: July 29, 2008, 11:40 pm
Location: When I'm logged in, UdonMap

Re: US Secretary of State nominee balks on revealing donors

Post by WBU ALUM » January 14, 2009, 8:37 pm

aznyron wrote:cookie good post keep them coming there is a double standard in Wash/DC if your a R. you can get away with any thing as long as the R. party is in charge and if you don't believe it just look at Bush/Cheyney
being inter-vied about 9/11 it was not a Q/A under oath it was a insult on the Victims & there families
Aside from your 9-11 Conspiracy, what laws have been broken by the current administration, and what transparency would you like to have, Ron?

User avatar
aznyron
udonmap.com
Posts: 4997
Joined: November 4, 2006, 8:38 pm
Location: Udon Thani
Contact:

Re: US Secretary of State nominee balks on revealing donors

Post by aznyron » January 15, 2009, 9:23 am

WBU that exactly what I am talking about the 9 11 conspiracy I did not mention any thing else in my post
some how you don't get it since when is it OK for a President allowed to give important testimony
which over 3000 + lives was lost and two country were invaded over this and NOT GO UNDER OATH
when he is questioned and also have his VICE PRESIDENT hold his hand instead of you challenging me
I think you better go back & read the report your self and just maybe look at some of the conspiracy theories or do you still want to keep your head in the sand and only look at what the DEMOCRATS DO WRONG

User avatar
WBU ALUM
udonmap.com
Posts: 3240
Joined: July 29, 2008, 11:40 pm
Location: When I'm logged in, UdonMap

Re: US Secretary of State nominee balks on revealing donors

Post by WBU ALUM » January 15, 2009, 10:41 am

aznyron wrote:WBU that exactly what I am talking about the 9 11 conspiracy I did not mention any thing else in my post
some how you don't get it since when is it OK for a President allowed to give important testimony
which over 3000 + lives was lost and two country were invaded over this and NOT GO UNDER OATH
when he is questioned and also have his VICE PRESIDENT hold his hand instead of you challenging me
I think you better go back & read the report your self and just maybe look at some of the conspiracy theories or do you still want to keep your head in the sand and only look at what the DEMOCRATS DO WRONG
I can't debate something that I believe didn't happen, and you can't provide any evidence that your conspiracy did happen.

No president can act without checks and balances from the other two branches of government. If it was necessary to be under oath, the Supreme Court, through Congress, could have pressed the issue. As I've always said, if laws were violated, put up the evidence and convict. So far, nothing.

The news article that was posted to start this thread, addressed an appointee to a cabinet position whose immediate family has extensive financial dealings with foreign countries. It had nothing to do with 9-11, and I voiced my bi-partisan concern regarding transparency.

I was under the impression that you had some factual information regarding criminal or unethical activity, and I apologize for getting the wrong impression. I don't plan to address anymore discussions on your 9-11 conspiracy.

TJ
udonmap.com
Posts: 1255
Joined: September 9, 2005, 9:16 am
Location: Udon Thani and USA

Re: US Secretary of State nominee balks on revealing donors

Post by TJ » January 15, 2009, 11:41 am

Let's look at just this one Clinton priority to get a gut feeling of the extent to which this ultra-progressive, Obama administration will be a disaster for the American people and the little people of this world.
cookie wrote: Would the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty be a priority...?

"Yes, it will be, and it will be because it is long overdue," replied Clinton.
As Ron Paul has explained, "Back in the 1970s the United Nations launched its plan for a global program of taxation without representation, called the “New International Economic Order.” The goal of this new economic order was not so new at all, however. It sought the involuntary transfer of wealth and technology from the developed world to the third world under the direction of the United Nations. A cornerstone of this dangerous attempt to loot the prosperous nations was the “Law of the Sea Treaty” (LOST).

Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, an “International Seabed Authority” would control the minerals and other resources of the oceans’ seabed. After taking its own cut, this UN body would transfer whatever is left to select third-world governments and non-governmental organizations.

The Law of the Sea Treaty also would give the UN power to tax American citizens and businesses, which has been a long-time dream of the anti-sovereignty globalists. LOST also would establish an international court system to enforce its provisions and rulings. Imagine not being able to do business internationally without the approval of the United Nations!

It all sounds like something out of a science-fiction novel, but it is real."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul170.html

If approved the LOST treaty become US law to be obeyed to the same extent as every other law that has been passed by the U.S. Congress. You can expect the UN bureaucrats to become another US regulatory body.

cookie
udonmap.com
Posts: 2235
Joined: September 29, 2006, 8:52 pm

Re: US Secretary of State nominee balks on revealing donors

Post by cookie » January 15, 2009, 5:20 pm

WBU ALUM wrote: No president can act without checks and balances from the other two branches of government. If it was necessary to be under oath, the Supreme Court, through Congress, could have pressed the issue. As I've always said, if laws were violated, put up the evidence and convict. So far, nothing.

Ron,

I hope that you don't fall for this insane logic.

The same kind of logic has been used before by Cheney and other right wing NUTS...

Cheney also suggested that a president's actions are legal if those actions didn't result in his impeachment.


If I murder someone tonight, am I innocent if they don't convict me???? ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

Oh yeah, sure, murder isn't illegal if you're not caught. :-k :-k :-k

ANY CRIME IS LEGAL!! If you are not caught and prosecuted.



By this logic Obama could legally have both Cheney and G.W. Bush picked up in the middle of the night, rendered to a Third World country for interrogation and imprisoned for an indeterminate period of time...I mean, as long as nobody impeaches him, right? :D :D :D :D :D Perhaps some ideas for Obama.... :D :D :D


one thing is right: it shows the failure of Congress and the checks and balances... :cry: :cry: :cry:

User avatar
jackspratt
udonmap.com
Posts: 17144
Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm

Re: US Secretary of State nominee balks on revealing donors

Post by jackspratt » January 15, 2009, 6:00 pm

TJ wrote:Let's look at just this one Clinton priority to get a gut feeling of the extent to which this ultra-progressive, Obama administration will be a disaster for the American people and the little people of this world.
cookie wrote: Would the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty be a priority...?

"Yes, it will be, and it will be because it is long overdue," replied Clinton.
As Ron Paul has explained, "Back in the 1970s the United Nations launched its plan for a global program of taxation without representation, called the “New International Economic Order.” The goal of this new economic order was not so new at all, however. It sought the involuntary transfer of wealth and technology from the developed world to the third world under the direction of the United Nations. A cornerstone of this dangerous attempt to loot the prosperous nations was the “Law of the Sea Treaty” (LOST).

Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, an “International Seabed Authority” would control the minerals and other resources of the oceans’ seabed. After taking its own cut, this UN body would transfer whatever is left to select third-world governments and non-governmental organizations.

The Law of the Sea Treaty also would give the UN power to tax American citizens and businesses, which has been a long-time dream of the anti-sovereignty globalists. LOST also would establish an international court system to enforce its provisions and rulings. Imagine not being able to do business internationally without the approval of the United Nations!

It all sounds like something out of a science-fiction novel, but it is real."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul170.html

If approved the LOST treaty become US law to be obeyed to the same extent as every other law that has been passed by the U.S. Congress. You can expect the UN bureaucrats to become another US regulatory body.
Was it just an oversight that you failed to mention that Bush, a majority of the Senate, and the Pentagon (hardly ultra-progressives), support ratification?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... of_the_Sea

I can also imagine that the "little people of the world" would raise a collective chuckle at being mentioned in the same sentence as the American people.

User avatar
WBU ALUM
udonmap.com
Posts: 3240
Joined: July 29, 2008, 11:40 pm
Location: When I'm logged in, UdonMap

Re: US Secretary of State nominee balks on revealing donors

Post by WBU ALUM » January 28, 2009, 10:02 am


User avatar
aznyron
udonmap.com
Posts: 4997
Joined: November 4, 2006, 8:38 pm
Location: Udon Thani
Contact:

Re: US Secretary of State nominee balks on revealing donors

Post by aznyron » January 28, 2009, 10:18 am

WBU ALUM wrote:Many donors revealed.

Bill Clinton made millions from foreign sources
and GWB made billions on oil & defense while he was a SITTING President much worse violation but like every thing the bushes do it will be swept under the rug

User avatar
jackspratt
udonmap.com
Posts: 17144
Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm

Re: US Secretary of State nominee balks on revealing donors

Post by jackspratt » January 28, 2009, 1:09 pm

WBU ALUM wrote:Many donors revealed.

Bill Clinton made millions from foreign sources
No doubt you support Mr Clinton's efforts as shining examples of capitalism at work (I do).

Using his knowledge and contacts as a former president to extract whatever the market will bear - a classic example of supply and demand. =D> =D> =D>

cookie
udonmap.com
Posts: 2235
Joined: September 29, 2006, 8:52 pm

Re: US Secretary of State nominee balks on revealing donors

Post by cookie » January 28, 2009, 1:20 pm

jackspratt wrote:
WBU ALUM wrote:Many donors revealed.

Bill Clinton made millions from foreign sources
No doubt you support Mr Clinton's efforts as shining examples of capitalism at work (I do).

Using his knowledge and contacts as a former president to extract whatever the market will bear - a classic example of supply and demand. =D> =D> =D>
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :-" :-" :-" :-"

User avatar
WBU ALUM
udonmap.com
Posts: 3240
Joined: July 29, 2008, 11:40 pm
Location: When I'm logged in, UdonMap

Re: US Secretary of State nominee balks on revealing donors

Post by WBU ALUM » January 28, 2009, 4:35 pm

jackspratt wrote:
WBU ALUM wrote:Many donors revealed.

Bill Clinton made millions from foreign sources
No doubt you support Mr Clinton's efforts as shining examples of capitalism at work (I do).

Using his knowledge and contacts as a former president to extract whatever the market will bear - a classic example of supply and demand.
Yes, I do. He has every right to make as much money as he can. =D>

However, this article was posted in a thread regarding his wife's nomination and subsequent appointment to be Secretary of State. There could be a conflict of interest in her dealings with the same foreign countries from which her husband receives very healthy sums of money.

User avatar
jackspratt
udonmap.com
Posts: 17144
Joined: July 2, 2006, 5:29 pm

Re: US Secretary of State nominee balks on revealing donors

Post by jackspratt » January 28, 2009, 4:57 pm

I agree WBU - there could be a conflict. But as I have stated earlier, I am happy to wait and see ie innocent until shown to be guilty.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

Post Reply

Return to “World News”