Start A Petition

Conflicts? Deficits? Why Reporters Ignore The Real Story Of The Clinton Foundation

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: Clinton Foundation, propaganda, media, ethics, dishonesty, politics, republicans, elections, news )

- 1739 days ago -
The mere prospect of Hillary Rodham Clinton running for president again is evidently provoking outrage among old adversaries - from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News to Maureen Dowd - whose appetite for bogus "Clinton scandals" will never be sated.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Yvonne White (229)
Monday August 19, 2013, 3:19 pm
Calling any of the muck-rakers "reporters" is a euphemism..;) "...facts scarcely concern Dowd, whose habitual tic is to exaggerate any canard against the Clintons. Inspired by the Times probe, her latest column spilled forth one bizarre assertion after another. “If Americans are worried about money in politics, there is no larger concern than the Clintons,” she wrote, as if entirely ignorant of the Koch brothers, the Karl Rove dark-money machine, and Sheldon Adelson’s outpourings of casino cash. Band’s firm is “an egregious nest of conflicts,” she exclaimed excitedly, without naming any actual conflict. “We are supposed to believe that every dollar given to a Clinton is a dollar that improves the world,” she sneered.
Perhaps not every dollar: Some of the money earned by the Clintons has paid their personal expenses, some has paid off millions of dollars in old legal debts incurred during those earlier fake scandals, and some has gone toward political campaigns, including Hillary’s presidential race. But if Dowd and her Times colleagues were honestly interested in what the Clinton Foundation does with its funds, including the millions raised annually by President Clinton himself, all they would have to do is get off their asses and go look at its projects, which can be found all over the world. (Disclosure: This topic interests me so much that I recently visited Clinton Foundation projects in Africa with the former president and his daughter Chelsea.)
That they never bother to do so, because reporting those stories would ruin their preferred narrative, tells but everything we need to know – not about the Clintons, of course, but about themselves."

Sheila D (194)
Monday August 19, 2013, 4:46 pm
Noted with thanks...and disgust at this so-called news.

Joanne Dixon (38)
Monday August 19, 2013, 5:17 pm
Maureen Dowd used to be able to write some fairly decent things. Of course that was many, many years ago, before Clinton. What does she think the Clintons ever did to her? Or what has she been smoking or drinking? (KoolAid leaps to mind but that doesn't seem to be it.)

Jason S (50)
Monday August 19, 2013, 7:17 pm
Good posting, thanks

Robert O (12)
Tuesday August 20, 2013, 12:19 am
It's only news to the right wingers that are revolted by the mere thought of progress, equality and democracy.

Glenn Byrnes (196)
Tuesday August 20, 2013, 12:25 am

Jonathan Harper (0)
Tuesday August 20, 2013, 4:22 am

Robert B (60)
Tuesday August 20, 2013, 8:10 am
If you can't report actual facts that can be backed up, don't bother reporting. .

Lona G (80)
Tuesday August 20, 2013, 9:09 am
Just wait until Hillary actually runs for president, then they're really going to dig up and dish out the old dirt. Because rehash is all they can do, there's nothing nothing left to uncover. Talking about premature...

Twyla Sparks (208)
Tuesday August 20, 2013, 12:16 pm

Jason R (67)
Tuesday August 20, 2013, 12:46 pm
Clinton keeps 85%, Just like all other foundation owners. I don't like any one that owns a foundation.

Roger G (154)
Tuesday August 20, 2013, 1:36 pm
noted, thanks

Diane O (194)
Tuesday August 20, 2013, 3:15 pm
Do your research. The Clintons are certified liars. Have you forgotten that Slick Willy lied under oath and was impeached? I wouldn't call that a "bogus" Clinton scandal. That was right out there and real. The Clintons mantra is "deny deny deny."

Hillary will be taken down at the knees because of her lies. Expect it. She deserves it. Even Obama threw her under the bus in 2008. Have you forgotten that, too?

Carrie B (306)
Tuesday August 20, 2013, 3:18 pm
Yes Diane, we are all still waiting for your Obama election predictions to come true. Yawn.

Diane O (194)
Tuesday August 20, 2013, 3:43 pm
Know this and it is a fact. Obama did NOT win by a landslide. He was re-elected and the liberals have to live with that bad move but we know in a few years the Obama's will move out of our White House. That will be a great day for America IMO. We have been without leadership in our country since 2008.

Try to stay awake. It will improve your ability to recognize truth from fiction.

Diane O (194)
Tuesday August 20, 2013, 3:47 pm
The United States of America is nowhere near electing a woman to the highest office in our country. It will be a "gift" to the republican party when she runs. Hillary has a superiority complex and believes the American people are stupid. They remember Whitewater and her involvement that was "washed" for all intents and purposes. We all know her dear friend, close friend, Vince Foster, committed suicide because he knew too much but in doing this research we learn from different sources what a complete bitc* Hillary is to her staff. She is an out of control, frustrated woman who has absolutely no business being POTUS...and let us not forget that she brings as the "first husband" a lying impeached president who never saw a young skirt he wouldn't chase. The facts. Always know your facts.

Laura H (964)
Tuesday August 20, 2013, 3:51 pm
The Koch brothers paid 'whatever' is on over time...

Diane O (194)
Tuesday August 20, 2013, 3:53 pm
It appears the liberals are very forgiving of their liberal centers of influence. They will support the infidelity, the incompetence, the socialist agenda of every liberal but when it comes to the republicans they will attack with full force for the same behavior. This is politics in America. The two party system.

Hillary will have a very hard time with Benghazi. After all, SHE was the Secretary of State when innocent Americans were murdered. She did not respond well to put it mildly. So, do you REALLY think the American people are going to give her, a woman, a pass for ignoring their requests for more security????

Think about it. The republicans are going to nail Hillary and demand an investigation because someone needs to take responsibility in the State Department. That would be Hillary.

Hillary will never be able to represent our country globally. First of all, she has an impeached president trailing her and upstaging her wherever she goes. Not good credentials IMO.

Diane O (194)
Tuesday August 20, 2013, 3:54 pm
Laura, what about George Soros?

Carrie B (306)
Tuesday August 20, 2013, 3:55 pm
President Obama was reelected Tuesday night in large part because of strong support from women and minorities. The lesson of his victory for both parties, but particularly Republicans, may be this: The primacy of white male voters has passed. In the modern era, it takes a diverse coalition to win the White House

Look at the basic breakdown of Mr. Obama’s victory, according to exit polls (which may yet be revised). He won 93 percent of African-Americans, 71 percent of Hispanics, and 73 percent of Asians. He took 55 percent of the overall female vote, down only one percentage point from his comparable 2008 showing.

Mitt Romney, meanwhile, won about 59 percent of the white vote. That’s the best a GOP nominee has done among whites since 1988, and not too long ago such a performance might have guaranteed a winning margin of 270 electoral votes. After all, whites still make up 72 percent of US voters.

RECOMMENDED: Know your US presidents? See if D.C. Decoder can stump you

But that percentage has inexorably grown smaller election by election. In 2008 whites were 74 percent of the electorate. Given Obama’s popularity among minorities, Mr. Romney would have needed the support of even more whites to win – and Obama did well (or well enough) among white women, particularly single and young white women.

Romney won white men by 25 points. It wasn’t enough.

As to other lessons from the preliminary exit poll data, it’s clear that Hispanics are quickly becoming a political force that national politicians must acknowledge. They increased their share of the electorate by about three percentage points; at that pace, they’ll tie or pass African-Americans as the largest minority voting bloc in 2016.

The Hispanic vote helped produce the dead heat in Florida, for instance. That’s a state Romney needed to win to have plausible paths to 270 electoral votes, and he could reasonably have expected to do well among the state’s conservative Cuban-heritage population. But Obama performed three percentage points better among Florida’s Hispanics than he did in 2008, winning 60 percent of their votes. If he emerges as the winner there, that will be a big reason.

Winning the independent vote also no longer appears to be as important as it once seemed. Romney led Obama among self-described independents, 50 percent to 45 percent. That’s a turnaround from four years ago, when Obama won them, 52 percent to 44 percent.

But independents, like whites, were a slightly smaller share of the electorate in 2012. And a declaration of independence is not necessarily indicative of a voter’s ideology. Obama won self-declared moderates, 56 percent to 41 percent. Obama also took 86 percent of the liberal vote, while Romney won 82 percent of conservatives.

Does that mean 14 percent of voters who think they’re leftish voted for Romney, and 18 percent who believe they’re to the right side of the spectrum voted for Obama? It does, according to exit polls. Sometimes it’s the little numbers that are the most surprising. [Editor's note: The percentage of voters who think they're "leftish" was incorrectly stated in the original.]

Regardless of any statistics, Obama won and is our president. Get used to it!


Laura H (964)
Tuesday August 20, 2013, 4:05 pm
MMMMmmmm... I NEVER named a name!!!!


Jason R (67)
Thursday August 22, 2013, 10:19 am
We have been without leadership in our country since 2008.

Name ONE republican leader and on WHAT. lol

Opposition is NOT a plan.

Jason R (67)
Thursday August 22, 2013, 10:23 am
"The Clintons are certified liars."

Bill is. How is Hillary? I would think you would take a stand for women.

Do you remember what that $72,000,000 investigation was about? Ending up doing nothing but wasting time? Do you know Bill is a dino?

I want Bernie Sanders to run.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.