SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
By all accounts, it was the most popular gala the Lady Taverners had ever held. Over 1,000 people packed the Park Lane Hilton in London on Oct. 30, 2009, with the crowd overflowing into the hallways, to listen to President Bill Clinton speak on the power of giving.
While Clinton’s speech helped raise a substantial sum for the prominent cricket charity, his staggering $290,000 speaking fee was not covered by the group, according to organizers. The fee also was not covered by “World Management Limited,” the marketing company Hillary Clinton listed as the payment source in her federal financial filings.
It was bankrolled by a wealthy British businessman named Robert Whitton—a name you won’t find included in the Clintons’ public disclosure forms.
A review by the Washington Free Beacon found that Hillary Clinton often listed small foreign speaking firms as the sources of her husband’s lecture payments in her Senate and State Department disclosures, even though the actual paychecks came from undisclosed third parties.
In certain cases, these funders had interests that intersected with the U.S. State Department. Whitton, a real estate mogul, had business pending before UNESCO, an international agency that received a quarter of its funding from the State Department.
Source: The Washington Free Beacon
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Gravis on Friday July 22 2016, @06:11AM
seriously, it's bad enough that this is from six years ago but what the fuck does this even mean? did he break a law? this grasping at straws it just boring. i mean, at least accuse someone of something! (ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @06:18AM
I say! I love a good mystery! Hehehehhehehehehehhehehehehehhehehehehehehehhehhehehehhhehhhhhehehhheheh3hehehheheh
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @06:21AM
So you know who future favors are going to.
Duh.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by n1 on Friday July 22 2016, @08:26AM
well to use precedent.... nothing illegal happened because the Clintons didn't intentionally misrepresent the source of their income, it was just more convenient to put down the source of the funds from someone other than which they came. they didn't intend to mislead, they being reckless and naive because they're not sophisticated enough to understand the perceived conflict of interests and lack of transparency resulting from PEPs getting speaking fees from other PEPs and then not declaring them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @08:55AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @09:20AM
by the way, why is the title claiming that there is a mystery? the summary outlines very clear facts, nothing mysterious about the sources.
or is it that the motivations of the sources are mysterious?
(Score: 5, Informative) by art guerrilla on Friday July 22 2016, @10:37AM
well, *I* think it is mysterious...
when i see ABC Org invited cliton (or whoever) to give a speech to them (really ? WHAT are they going to 'learn' ? i got close to a Very Important Person ? *snort*), and it says they were paid as much as Joe Sixpack will earn in 10-20 years, I ASSUMED it was ABC Org who ponied up for that... why wouldn't i ? ? ?
NOW, it -quelle surprise!- turns out it is merely a convenient and semi-hidden means of bribers to bribe bribees...
i *guess* it is all 'legal' (who the fuck knows anymore), but that begs the question of whether it is 'moral'...
(i know, morality is like the constitution, a quaint concept that holds back our psychopathic superiors...)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @04:07PM
WHAT are they going to 'learn' ?
He's a motivational speaker who helps them realize their inner "Clinton" so they can receive $$$ for speeches and "favors of a very personal nature" from young interns.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by moondrake on Friday July 22 2016, @01:30PM
I would mod you down but I do not really understand what brings you to this post and why people support it.
We are talking about a presidential candidate that is apparently lying in her financial filings. Now why would it not be worthwhile to point out that this person might not be the most honest candidate? I know the US has this moronic tradition of voting for the lesser of two evils, but why would sensible people not at least be honest and admit both candidates are bad. Even if you must insist on voting for them. Is that not just deluding yourself?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @04:11PM
We are talking about a presidential candidate that is apparently lying in her financial filings.
They are talking about a former President who happens to be the husband of a presidential candidate. All former Presidents have the opportunity to line their pockets by making speeches. Here's a link [latimes.com] from a quick search. Though millions can be had I doubt being President is worth the future earning potential (especially these days).
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 22 2016, @02:05PM
That's the problem. Clinton is not competent to lead a Cub Scout or Brownie Scout troop, but few people give a fuck. They want to make her the president because she has (or once had) a uterus.
No one gives a fuck, and no fucks were given. Go back to sleep now, sorry to have bothered you.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by opinionated_science on Friday July 22 2016, @04:03PM
it might well be illegal - but the powerful know they can kick the ball into the long grass....
and remember, once Billary is in the whitehouse, they havoc they can wreak on enemies is quite significant...
Just remember the media has been primed to support whoever supports them....