maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:24 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 380 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 38  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Clinton Transparency
PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 11:10 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 30397
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
I am spinning this off the Benghazi thread.

That thread should be more focused on the events at the embassy and any subsequent investigations into what happened.

I believe that with the Clintonemail,com thing, and also the Clinton Foundation, a separate thread is warranted.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/ ... FQ20150319

Quote:
Exclusive: Despite Hillary Clinton promise, charity did not disclose donors

BY JONATHAN ALLEN
NEW YORK Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:15pm EDT

(Reuters) - In 2008, Hillary Clinton promised Barack Obama, the president-elect, there would be no mystery about who was giving money to her family's globe-circling charities. She made a pledge to publish all the donors on an annual basis to ease concerns that as secretary of state she could be vulnerable to accusations of foreign influence.

At the outset, the Clinton Foundation did indeed publish what they said was a complete list of the names of more than 200,000 donors and has continued to update it. But in a breach of the pledge, the charity's flagship health program, which spends more than all of the other foundation initiatives put together, stopped making the annual disclosure in 2010, Reuters has found.

In response to questions from Reuters, officials at the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) and the foundation confirmed no complete list of donors to the Clintons' charities has been published since 2010. CHAI was spun off as a separate legal entity that year, but the officials acknowledged it still remains subject to the same disclosure agreement as the foundation.

The finding could renew scrutiny of Clinton's promises of transparency as she prepares to launch her widely expected bid for the White House in the coming weeks. Political opponents and transparency groups have criticized her in recent weeks for her decision first to use a private email address while she was secretary of state and then to delete thousands of emails she labeled private.

CHAI, which is best known for helping to reduce the cost of drugs for people with HIV in the developing world, published a partial donor list for the first time only this year.

CHAI should have published the names during 2010-2013, when Clinton was in office, CHAI spokeswoman Maura Daley acknowledged this week. "Not doing so was an oversight which we made up for this year," she told Reuters in an email when asked why it had not published any donor lists until a few weeks ago.

A spokesman for Hillary Clinton declined to comment. Former President Bill Clinton, who also signed on to the agreement with the Obama administration, was traveling and could not be reached for comment, his spokesman said.

STATE DEPARTMENT REVIEW

The Reuters inquiries also raised questions about a second assurance Hillary Clinton made to the Obama administration: that the State Department would be able to review any new or increased contributions to CHAI by foreign governments while she served as the nation's top diplomat. The Clintons said the pledge was intended to defuse accusations that foreign governments might use such donations to earn favors.

By the time Clinton left office in February 2013, the charity had received millions of dollars (Graphic: reut.rs/1Lvua8z) in new or increased payments from at least seven foreign governments. Five of the governments came on board during her tenure as secretary of state while two doubled or tripled their support in that time, according to data provided by CHAI spokeswoman Daley.

The State Department said it was unable to cite any instances of its officials reviewing or approving new money from any foreign governments. Daley confirmed that none of the seven government donations had been submitted to the State Department for review.

One instance was an admitted oversight, Daley said: CHAI should have told the State Department before accepting donations totaling $340,000 from Switzerland's Agency for Development and Cooperation in 2011 and 2012. However, it did not believe U.S. authorities needed to review the other six governments, including Britain and Australia, she said, citing various reasons.

Hillary Clinton told the Senate during her confirmation hearing in January, 2009, that the disclosures she and her husband agreed to were "very unprecedented."

At that time, she did not dispute the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's concerns that utter transparency was necessary to protect the integrity of the United States' diplomacy and foreign policy.

BRITAIN, AUSTRALIA BOOSTED DONATIONS Since it was published in 2008, the foundation's online donor list has been updated annually, naming everyone from individuals giving a few dollars to governments awarding eight-figure grants, the foundation said. It has been pored over by interest groups, the Clintons' political opponents, and the media.

The foundation list has not included those who donated just to CHAI since the initiative was spun off in 2010, foundation spokesman Craig Minassian said. Minassian said the foundation believed CHAI continued to be bound by the agreement with the Obama administration.

He did not elaborate on why CHAI did not honor it and referred inquiries to Daley.

In the donor list that CHAI published this year, for the first time since its spin-off from the Clinton Foundation, not all donors were identified. Many were grouped together as "Individual Donations", which cumulatively came to less than $1 million. Those donations were small and so "did not warrant posting," said Daley.

In 2008, the Clintons agreed that existing government contributors that wanted to "materially increase" their commitments during Hillary Clinton's tenure would be reviewed by State. Australia almost doubled its support between 2009-2012, to $12.2 million, while the United Kingdom nearly tripled its support, to $11.2 million.

CHAI did not report these increases to the State Department because the new money was for "expansions of existing programs," Daley said.





Continued below due to length

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton Transparency
PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 11:11 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 30397
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
Quote:

Daley also provided a number of explanations for why other governments that appeared on a donor list provided to Reuters did not need to be reviewed by the State Department. Swaziland and Papua New Guinea, which gave small grants for AIDS programs, were not submitted for review because the money they gave originated from other sources, including existing donor Australia and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, she said.

In the case of Sweden, its International Development Cooperation Agency has given CHAI $7.2 million since 2012 to train health workers in Zambia, but nothing in at least the previous three years. This did not need State review because Sweden had given to the foundation prior to 2009, Daley said.

Rwanda, which CHAI listed as a donor, gave the charity $200,000 in 2012. CHAI considered this a fee for medical work it did in the country, not a grant or donation, and so did not tell the State Department about it, Daley said.

Money from all of these governments amounted to about 1 percent of CHAI's total budget, she said.

The White House declined to answer questions about whether the Obama administration was aware of CHAI not disclosing its donors or submitting new donations from foreign governments. White House spokeswoman Jennifer Friedman noted, however, that the agreement the Clintons entered into "went above and beyond standard ethics requirements."

(Editing by Ross Colvin)


Quote:
White House spokeswoman Jennifer Friedman noted, however, that the agreement the Clintons entered into "went above and beyond standard ethics requirements."


Yes, the agreement may have "went above and beyond standard ethics requirements", but did they comply with the agreement or not?
That is the question!

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton Transparency
PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 11:36 pm 
Offline
Oppressive Tyrant and Enemy of Truth
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:06 pm
Posts: 15472
Location: under the porch
Reputation points: 15843
if any hostile government wanted U.S. state secrets, Hillary sold them.

_________________
First, we must kill moose and squirrel


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton Transparency
PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:40 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11484
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 15095
Hopefully, her campaign aspirations are dead in the water with this stuff.

Only downside is: is it better to elect the devil you know, or the devil you do not yet know.

They are devils. Hillary may be one of the worst, but what, in reality, are our other options?

It is a sad time in American history when that is what we face each Federal election cycle.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton Transparency
PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2015 10:36 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 30397
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
Anthropoid wrote:
Hopefully, her campaign aspirations are dead in the water with this stuff.

Only downside is: is it better to elect the devil you know, or the devil you do not yet know.

They are devils. Hillary may be one of the worst, but what, in reality, are our other options?

It is a sad time in American history when that is what we face each Federal election cycle.



I saw headline that HRC was not only outpolling any Democrat opponents but also all the GOP opponent to as well (only read the headline and not the underlying article itself).

I think many Dems at this point are uneasy about HRC but because she has few to no other opponents with credibility and name recognition, they realize that they may be stuck with her.

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton Transparency
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 9:31 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 30397
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/us/po ... .html?_r=0

Quote:
No Copies of Clinton Emails on Server, Lawyer Says

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDTMARCH 27, 2015

WASHINGTON — An examination of the server that housed the personal email account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used exclusively when she was secretary of state showed that there are no copies of any emails she sent during her time in office, her lawyer told a congressional committee on Friday.

After her representatives determined which emails were government-related and which were private, a setting on the account was changed to retain only emails sent in the previous 60 days, her lawyer, David Kendall, said. He said the setting was altered after she gave the records to the government.

“Thus, there are no hdr22@clintonemail.com emails from Secretary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state on the server for any review, even if such review were appropriate or legally authorized,” Mr. Kendall said in a letter to the House select committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya.

The committee subpoenaed the server this month, asking Mrs. Clinton to hand it over to a third party so it could determine which emails were personal and which were government records.

At a news conference this month, Mrs. Clinton appeared to provide two answers about whether she still had copies of her emails. First, she said that she “chose not to keep” her private personal emails after her lawyers had examined the account and determined on their own which ones were personal and which were State Department records. But later, she said that the server, which contained personal communication by her and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, “will remain private.” The server was kept at their home in Chappaqua, N.Y., which is protected around the clock by the Secret Service.

Mrs. Clinton’s disclosure on Friday only heightened suspicions by the committee’s chairman, Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, about how she handled her emails, and it is likely to lead to more tension between her and the committee.

Mr. Gowdy said in a written statement that it appeared that Mrs. Clinton deleted the emails after Oct. 28, when the State Department first asked her to turn over emails that were government records.

“Not only was the secretary the sole arbiter of what was a public record, she also summarily decided to delete all emails from her server, ensuring no one could check behind her analysis in the public interest,” Mr. Gowdy said.

Mrs. Clinton’s “unprecedented email arrangement with herself and her decision nearly two years after she left office to permanently delete all emails” had deprived Americans of a full record of her time in office, he added.

Mr. Gowdy said that Mrs. Clinton would have to answer questions from Congress about her decision, but he did not say whether that would be at a hearing or a private interview.

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton said in a statement, “She’s ready and willing to come and appear herself for a hearing open to the American public.”

The spokesman, Nick Merrill, added that Mrs. Clinton’s representatives “have been in touch with the committee and the State Department to make clear that she would like her emails made public as soon as possible.”

The ranking Democrat on the committee, Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, defended Mrs. Clinton’s disclosure.

“This confirms what we all knew — that Secretary Clinton already produced her official records to the State Department, that she did not keep her personal emails, and that the select committee has already obtained her emails relating to the attacks in Benghazi,” Mr. Cummings said.

In the letter, Mr. Kendall offered a defense for the process Mrs. Clinton had used to differentiate between personal messages and government records. He said that those procedures were consistent with guidelines from the National Archives and the State Department, which say that an individual can make the decision about what should be preserved as a federal record.

So, Mr. Kendall contended, the process Mrs. Clinton used was “not an ‘arrangement’ that is ‘unprecedented’ or ‘unique,’ but instead the normal procedure carried out by tens of thousands of agency officials and employees in the ordinary course.”

Mrs. Clinton’s review of her emails, however, did not occur when she was secretary of state or shortly after she left office. Last October, nearly two years after she left office, the State Department sent her a letter requesting all government records, like emails, she may have possessed.

In response, she provided the State Department in December with about 30,000 printed emails that she said were government records. She has said that an additional 30,000 emails were personal.

It appears that Mrs. Clinton still has copies of the emails she deemed public records. Attached to Mr. Kendall’s letter was one sent to him by the State Department this week. A letter from the under secretary of state for management, Patrick F. Kennedy, said that the department understood that she wanted to keep copies of those documents. Mr. Kennedy said that the agency had consulted with the National Archives, and that allowing her “access to the documents is in the public interest as it will promote informed discussion” as she responds to congressional and other inquiries.

Mrs. Clinton cannot make the emails public without the State Department’s approval. Mr. Kennedy said that if the State Department determined that any of the documents were classified, “additional steps will be required to safeguard and protect the information.” Mrs. Clinton has said she had no classified information in her emails.



Image

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton Transparency
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:39 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 30397
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
Attachment:
hillary-nyp-deleter.jpg
hillary-nyp-deleter.jpg [ 34.56 KiB | Viewed 14089 times ]

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton Transparency
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:51 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 27019
Reputation points: 20000
chijohnaok wrote:
Attachment:
hillary-nyp-deleter.jpg



:lol: :lol:

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton Transparency
PostPosted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:32 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 30397
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
http://nypost.com/2015/03/31/liar-liar- ... s-on-fire/

Quote:
Hillary can’t help herself: She’s addicted to deception

By Michael GoodwinMarch 31, 2015 | 9:51pm

She can’t help herself. Hillary Clinton is addicted to deception.

The news that she used an iPad as well as BlackBerry demolishes her already-ridiculous claim that she set up a private e-mail server so she would only need to carry one gadget as secretary of state. At a March 10 press conference, Clinton put it this way: “I thought using one device would be simpler, and, obviously, it hasn’t worked out that way. Looking back, it would have been probably . . . smarter to have used two devices.”

Those comments, her first public ones on the scandal, are now revealed as a lie. What a way to start a presidential campaign!

Oh, wait — it’s the Clinton way. Always was, always will be.

Now what? Does she expect us to assume she’ll tell the truth from this moment? Maybe she should wink twice with her right eye and raise her left hand to signal when a lie is coming.

Not that we needed any reminding, but the Clinton way is indistinguishable from plain dishonesty. That’s how it was when she and Bubba were in the White House for eight years. And it’s how it was when she lost the Democratic race in 2008 and opted for the State job in President Obama’s Cabinet.

Six years later, she’s back in the political ring again, yet nothing’s changed. She still won’t tell the truth.

From dodging sniper fire to being dead broke, she says what’s most convenient for her in the moment, and lets her flunkies clean up the mess later.

Her word is not her bond. In contrast to the dictum of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, she believes she’s entitled to her own facts as well as her own opinion.

The revelation by the AP that she used at least two electronic devices, neither of them connected to a government ­e-mail account, means she will have to come up a with a new reason why she was entitled to do e-mails her way.

Whatever she comes up with, it won’t wash. It’s obvious that her aim was to avoid having Congress and the White House know what she didn’t want them to know.

She could have put two accounts, one personal, one private, on one device connected to a government server. She didn’t because she wanted to keep everything secret from everybody — and she’s still doing it.

Equally preposterous is her insistence that she could make her own rules, while also claiming she followed the letter and spirit of government rules. She did it her way because she thought the rules, like the truth, are flexible and that if she got caught, she’d get away with it.

Well, she’s been caught, and now the question is whether she gets away with it. That’s the challenge before the White House and Congress.

So far, the Obamas are straddling the fence. They’ve carefully avoided giving full approval to what she did, with State Department aides saying they didn’t know she was using a private server until after she left office.

The department had requested all official ­e-mails be preserved, but accepted her claim that she deleted 30,000 personal ones before turning over printed versions of about 30,000 others. She and her lawyer say everybody will have to take her word for what was in those that were deleted.

She also says the server “will remain private” and the lawyer says that all the ­e-mails were permanently deleted and that the server is now “clean.”

That puts the final burden on the Republican Congress, and Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, is meeting it head on. After Clinton rebuffed his request to give the server to an independent examiner, Gowdy on Tuesday offered her a private interview, presumably under oath, as well as a later, public one.

In a sly reference to Watergate, he said in a letter to Clinton’s lawyer that his panel wants to know “what the Secretary did, when she did it and why she did it.”

Clinton will say no as long as she can get away with it. But if the media stays on the story and public pressure forces her to agree to swear to tell the truth, we may finally get somewhere.
Of course, that assumes she’s even capable of telling the truth.


_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Clinton Transparency
PostPosted: Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:46 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 30397
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/us/po ... s-ago.html

Quote:
Hillary Clinton Was Asked About Email 2 Years Ago

By MICHAEL S. SCHMIDTAPRIL 14, 2015

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton was directly asked by congressional investigators in a December 2012 letter whether she had used a private email account while serving as secretary of state, according to letters obtained by The New York Times.

But Mrs. Clinton did not reply to the letter. And when the State Department answered in March 2013, nearly two months after she left office, it ignored the question and provided no response.


The query was posed to Mrs. Clinton in a Dec. 13, 2012, letter from Representative Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Mr. Issa was leading an investigation into how the Obama administration handled its officials’ use of personal email.

“Have you or any senior agency official ever used a personal email account to conduct official business?” Mr. Issa wrote to Mrs. Clinton. “If so, please identify the account used.”

Mr. Issa also asked Mrs. Clinton, “Does the agency require employees to certify on a periodic basis or at the end of their employment with the agency they have turned over any communications involving official business that they have sent or received using nonofficial accounts?”

Mr. Issa’s letter also sought written documentation of the department’s policies for the use of personal email for government business. Mrs. Clinton left the State Department on Feb. 1, 2013, seven weeks after the letter was sent to her.


When Mr. Issa received a response from the State Department on March 27, all he got was a description of the department’s email policies. According to the letter, any employee using a personal account “should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.”

Mrs. Clinton acknowledged last month that she had exclusively used a personal email account, which was housed on a server that had been specially set up for her, when she was secretary of state. She said that she used the private account for convenience purposes because she did not want to carry more than one electronic device. By using the private account, many of her emails were shielded from inquiries by Congress, the news media and government watchdogs.

The revelation has set off the first major test of her early presidential campaign, as she seeks to assure the public and the news media that she was not seeking to hide her correspondence.

A congressional official provided The Times with a copy of Mr. Issa’s letter and the response from the State Department on the condition of anonymity because the official did not want to jeopardize his access to such information.

A spokesman for the State Department declined on Tuesday to answer questions about why it had not addressed Mr. Issa’s question about whether Mrs. Clinton or senior officials used personal email accounts.

“The department responds to thousands of congressional inquiries and requests for information each year,” said the spokesman, Alec Gerlach. “In its March 2013 letter, the department responded to the House Oversight Committee’s inquiry into the department’s ‘policies and practices regarding the use of personal email and other forms of electronic communications’ with a letter that described those policies in detail.”

An aide to Mrs. Clinton said in a statement Tuesday that “her usage was widely known to the over 100 department and U.S. government colleagues she emailed, as her address was visible on every email she sent.”

Mr. Issa had sent letters to the State Department and other executive agencies after it was discovered that some administration and Environment Protection Agency officials had used private accounts to conduct government business.

In the State Department’s letter back to Mr. Issa, Thomas B. Gibbons, the acting assistant secretary for legislative affairs, described the department’s records management policies and guidelines.

He said “employees may use personal email on personal time for matters not directly related to official business, and any employee using personal email ‘should make it clear that his or her personal email is not being used for official business.’ ”

The State Department offered training on its record management programs to its employees, he said.


_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 380 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 38  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: abradley and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group