Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Friday July 22 2016, @05:33AM   Printer-friendly
from the wild-bill dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday July 22 2016, @04:19PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday July 22 2016, @04:19PM (#378604) Journal

    If he accepts them as a public official, yes.
     
    Bill Clinton was not a public official in Oct, 2009.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @06:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @06:02PM (#378687)

    If he accepts them as a public official, yes.

    Bill Clinton was not a public official in Oct, 2009.

    No, Bill Clinton was not a public official at that time...but his wife was! It may not be illegal according to the laws as they are currently written, but it sure as hell ought to be. If I could write the laws the way they ought to be written:

    -No person holding public office or their spouse may accept money from any foreign government, corporation or foreign national while in office.
    -No person holding public office or their spouse may accept money from any foreign government, corporation or foreign national until at least four years after they have left public office.
    -No person holding public office or their spouse may accept money from any foreign government, corporation or foreign national no sooner than four years before serving in public office.

    Furthermore, I would insist that all public office holders, and their spouses, place their financial assets in a blind trust while in office where it shall remain until at least four years after they have left public office. I think this would go a long way to drastically curbing foreign influence on our government. Of course, I have little confidence that my ideas would ever be accepted by the Washington crowd. I also have no doubt that they would come up with new and inventive ways to get around my ideas for reform, thus moving the goal posts further down the field. Cock suckers, the entire lot of them!

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday July 22 2016, @06:08PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday July 22 2016, @06:08PM (#378690) Journal

      So, you advocate making it illegal for the spouse of any politician to have a job. I'm sure you're going to get all sorts of great candidates for the local school board when it requires them to sacrifice 50% of their income if they win.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @08:05PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @08:05PM (#378753)

        Different AC. Just not a job at a corporation if I read correctly. Small family-owned businesses are America's bread and butter, so I'm sure that won't be a problem. :)

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @11:29PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @11:29PM (#378841)

        So, you advocate making it illegal for the spouse of any politician to have a job.

        To clarify, I'm suggesting that working for a foreign corporation should disqualify someone for public office for at least four years. Of course, the real tricky part about that is how to define a "foreign corporation". As an example, I don't think that locating the company headquarters overseas for tax purposes should qualify a company as being "foreign". But that's a whole 'nother discussion. I honestly thought, though, the part everyone would balk at would be anticipating four years in advance to cease business contact with any foreign government, corporation, or person. *Shrug* Some people trigger on different things, I guess.

        I'm sure you're going to get all sorts of great candidates for the local school board when it requires them to sacrifice 50% of their income if they win.

        I was talking about national public office. President. Vice President. Congress. Cabinet position. Those sorts of public office. Last I checked, the local school boards were not national office.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @02:57AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 23 2016, @02:57AM (#378891)
          i.e. Whatever the Clintons are doing, that should be illegal.