More than Half? Really?
Gee, who would do a thing like that?
Chris Christie’s Mansion Fund Collected Millions From Political Favor Seekers
...
Brenner of the Drumthwacket Foundation told HuffPost that the first family “wanted to leave this historic mansion in far better condition than they found it and to expand its use by the public as well as for educational purposes.”
A review of IRS records and Drumthwacket donor lists, however, suggest that prospective donors saw the mansion as something more than just an altruistic investment. Contributions to Drumthwacket often coincided with the donors’ attempts to win tax breaks, political appointments or other support from Christie and his appointees. In many cases, the donors, like the Strangfelds, got what they wanted.
New Jersey real estate developer Kurt Conti first appeared on the Drumthwacket donor rolls in February 2011 with a gift at the $50,000 level (Drumthwacket lists donors under broad categories based on how much they gave). Overnight, Conti was among the top donors to the foundation.
At the time, his construction company was bidding on two state contracts worth a combined $211 million. Conti won them both, the first on May 24, 2011, for 43 million, and the second less than two weeks later, for $68 million. But Conti’s generosity was short-lived. In 2012, he did not donate at all to Drumthwacket.
...
Bayer Pharmaceuticals, which has New Jersey offices, also made a major gift to Drumthwacket at a politically opportune time, according to foundation records. Bayer donated to Drumthwacket at the $15,000 level in 2011, the same year it secured a package of tax breaks from the state Economic Development Authority worth more than $36 million. Bayer did not repeat its donation in 2012.
...
Even Donald Trump jumped on the Drumthwacket bandwagon. In 2011, the New York-based real estate mogul needed Christie’s blessing to obtain permits to build a personal cemetery on the fairway at the Trump National Golf Club in New Jersey. The plan wasn’t popular with locals, but Trump teed up his proposal with a $5,000 donation to Drumthwacket. As the permit process continued, Trump grew more generous, giving $10,000 in 2012 and another $10,000 in 2013. In September 2013, his cemetery permit was approved.
...
I don't understand why this is a problem? Was the Clinton Foundation $ used in any way inappropriately? You have friends in high places, you get them to donate to your charity. Seems logical to me.
You are aware of the absolutely extraordinary things that the foundation has done, aren't you? You know how many AIDS victims' lives were saved in Africa as a DIRECT result of the work President Clinton did, right?
Fortunately, the Republican Party stands at the ready to stomp out the notion that big money can get you increased access to government officials, or possibly even favorable treatment.
I think many Democrats ache at the Clintons' unceasing need to push the envelope in ways that might technically be legal but are politically self-destructive. Knowing that situations like this will be heavily scrutinized, they continue to blur lines. Certainly, their charity has done lots of good work, but even if you know that a quid pro quo won't occur, sometimes turning down the check is a good idea if you think an improper motive exists on the other side.
However, in last 48 hours, Trump has been nailed for using campaign funds to buy $55,000 worth of copies of his own book at Barnes & Noble (didn't even get a discount from his publisher) and jacking up the Trump Tower rent by 500 percent once his donors started footing the bill. Millions of campaign dollars have gone into his pocket, and he won't reveal his financial information or use the money to buy campaign ads.
While Hillary Clinton's ethical lapses negatively affect her campaign, you can argue that Trump's ethical lapses are the reason for his campaign.
conandrob240 said:
I don't understand why this is a problem? Was the Clinton Foundation $ used in any way inappropriately? You have friends in high places, you get them to donate to your charity. Seems logical to me.
You are aware of the absolutely extraordinary things that the foundation has done, aren't you? You know how many AIDS victims' lives were saved in Africa as a DIRECT result of the work President Clinton did, right?
Like I said, there will be apologists for HRC's unethical behavior as Secretary of State.
She basically sold access to herself and to the largesse of the United States in return for donations and that is not a problem because they were 'friends in high places' and she didn't spend the money on herself. Wow. Moral compasses spinning out of control.
And the mis-directions, like bringing up Christie, Trump and Republicans in general are just as predictable. Nobody is saying what they have done is right... and it's really not pertinent to the issue at hand, which the highly unethical, and potentially illegal, behavior of our likely next president.
your interpretation is she did something unethical. There is no evidence of any wrongdoing in the Clinton foundation. Hooray to her for tapping friends to change the world. To me, the 50% figure is a great testament that she is well-liked and has the guts to fight for the betterment of the world. All while doing her day job.
Your defense of her is so comically inadequate that it need not even be criticized. It does just fine by itself.
ice said:Like I said, there will be apologists for HRC's unethical behavior as Secretary of State.
She basically sold access to herself and to the largesse of the United States in return for donations and that is not a problem because they were 'friends in high places' and she didn't spend the money on herself. Wow. Moral compasses spinning out of control.
And the mis-directions, like bringing up Christie, Trump and Republicans in general are just as predictable. Nobody is saying what they have done is right... and it's really not pertinent to the issue at hand, which is HRC's highly unethical, and potentially illegal, behavior.
And this is something new under the sun? The point of irritation with HRC haters seems to be that she is a successful politician in a world where many high-profile politicians sort of fizzle after a few years. The pathetic thing about HRC haters is that they have steadfastly refused to offer a palatable alternative. Now, in case anybody is unclear about this, Trump is not a palatable alternative.
and your criticism is completely without any merit or supporting facts. If the Clinton Foundation is investigated and misappropriation of $ found, then you'd have a case. Otherwise, let's enjoy the fact that 100s of 1000s of dying people's lives were saved, in large part, because Hillary and her husband are exceptionally good politicians.
No apologies here.
The (mis)use of charities by politicians as a means of influence peddling is widespread.
Does it make me budge one inch in the direction of Dr. Trump? No. Had the GOP put up a competent, decent, clean candidate, I would be weighing my vote very seriously.
All is the same. I can sleep at night with HC as prez. Not so with the orange psycho.
Hillary Clinton uses her power and status and position much of the time to help other people. Trump uses his for his own personal gain only.
The Clinton's are ethically challenged. No matter the intent of the donations, controlling this organization at the same time as being deep inside the government can be construed as a conflict of interest. Even if the Clinton's are 100% squeeky clean and have taken all of the donations and not taken a penny to enrich themselves or their friends the visual is off.
What they should do is remove themselves entirely from the foundation until they are done serving in any government capacity.
That said im voting for Hillary Clinton.
ice said:
Your defense of her is so comically inadequate that it need not even be criticized. It does just fine by itself.
Your initial post is missing some information which would help people to decide if the "defense of her is so comically inadequate". Who were these people? When did they meet or speak with her, and for how long? Was there a topic of discussion (perhaps involving their own philanthropic efforts)?
Were these long-time friends/acquaintances, who also donated to the Foundation? Do these people give to a lot of charities, or did they have a prior interest in the activities the Clinton Foundation funded? The nameless numbers don't really provide much information on which to draw a conclusion.
Sorry if the above strikes you as "comical".
if they do that, yes, it erases potential for conflict of interest but it also erases their fundraising power and the ability to literally save lives & change the world. I am in for possible conflict of interest if the trade off is saving lives. I can live with that balance.
conandrob240 said:
and your criticism is completely without any merit or supporting facts. If the Clinton Foundation is investigated and misappropriation of $ found, then you'd have a case. Otherwise, let's enjoy the fact that 100s of 1000s of dying people's lives were saved, in large part, because Hillary and her husband are exceptionally good politicians.
Ah, yes, that misdirection again, and again so predictable. Does the Associated Press , or anyone, claim that the money was misused once inside the Foundation? No.
But raising money in an unethical or illegal fashion, pay to play I believe it's called, is the core issue here.
Are you simply saying that the ends justify the means?
What if the money was raised via other unethical/illegal means by persons you do not support politically? Would the ends still justify the means?
hoops said:
The Clinton's are ethically challenged. No matter the intent of the donations, controlling this organization at the same time as being deep inside the government can be construed as a conflict of interest. Even if the Clinton's are 100% squeeky clean and have taken all of the donations and not taken a penny to enrich themselves or their friends the visual is off.
What they should do is remove themselves entirely from the foundation until they are done serving in any government capacity.
That said im voting for Hillary Clinton.
OMG, a reasonable response... thank you hoops
This pay for access should be illegal but it isn't and is of long standing. The Clinton's have so far not been shown to indicate a quid pro quo, so they skate.
It is, as has been pointed out, her tendency to 'blur the edges' that has helped earn her the reputation of being untrustworthy and her blatant lies that earned her the reputation of being a liar.
Fortunately for her, her opponent has even worse ratings.
ice said:
But raising money in an unethical or illegal fashion, pay to play I believe it's called, is the core issue here.
Are you simply saying that the ends justify the means?
What if the money was raised via other unethical/illegal means by persons you do not support politically? Would the ends still justify the means?
It's nice to see that we are perpetually shocked—shocked—to find that gambling is going on in here!
nohero said:
ice said:
Your defense of her is so comically inadequate that it need not even be criticized. It does just fine by itself.
Your initial post is missing some information which would help people to decide if the "defense of her is so comically inadequate". Who were these people? When did they meet or speak with her, and for how long? Was there a topic of discussion (perhaps involving their own philanthropic efforts)?
Were these long-time friends/acquaintances, who also donated to the Foundation? Do these people give to a lot of charities, or did they have a prior interest in the activities the Clinton Foundation funded? The nameless numbers don't really provide much information on which to draw a conclusion.
Sorry if the above strikes you as "comical".
Yeah, I'm sure it's all fine, which is why HRC and her Dem friends stonewalled for 3 years on providing the data.
ice said:
nohero said:
ice said:
Your defense of her is so comically inadequate that it need not even be criticized. It does just fine by itself.
Your initial post is missing some information which would help people to decide if the "defense of her is so comically inadequate". Who were these people? When did they meet or speak with her, and for how long? Was there a topic of discussion (perhaps involving their own philanthropic efforts)?
Were these long-time friends/acquaintances, who also donated to the Foundation? Do these people give to a lot of charities, or did they have a prior interest in the activities the Clinton Foundation funded? The nameless numbers don't really provide much information on which to draw a conclusion.
Sorry if the above strikes you as "comical".
Yeah, I'm sure it's all fine, which is why HRC and her Dem friends stonewalled for 3 years on providing the data.
No, all politicians stonewall all of the time. And they do this because not a single soul asking for the information wishes them well.
tjohn said:
ice said:
But raising money in an unethical or illegal fashion, pay to play I believe it's called, is the core issue here.
Are you simply saying that the ends justify the means?
What if the money was raised via other unethical/illegal means by persons you do not support politically? Would the ends still justify the means?
It's nice to see that we are perpetually shocked—shocked—to find that gambling is going on in here!
The real problem is that nobody is shocked, especially when it comes to the Clintons.
ice said:
conandrob240 said:
and your criticism is completely without any merit or supporting facts. If the Clinton Foundation is investigated and misappropriation of $ found, then you'd have a case. Otherwise, let's enjoy the fact that 100s of 1000s of dying people's lives were saved, in large part, because Hillary and her husband are exceptionally good politicians.
Ah, yes, that misdirection again, and again so predictable. Does the Associate Press , or anyone, claim that the money was misused once inside the Foundation? No.
But raising money in an unethical or illegal fashion, pay to play I believe it's called, is the core issue here.
Are you simply saying that the ends justify the means?
What if the money was raised via other unethical/illegal means by persons you do not support politically? Would the ends still justify the means?
If someone donates a large sum of money to a politician, don't they have a better chance of getting a meeting with that politician than Joe Constituent? Should that be criminalized? If so, how do you enforce it?
Here, the money doesn't even go to Hillary, but a charity that she is associated with. Why is this more egregious than situations where the money directly benefits the government official?
nothing illegal was done. It is your perception not fact as you are trying to make it seem. Unethical? Maybe. I am okay with the trade off based on what was accomplished with the money. Other scenarios, I'd evaluate on a case-by-case basis.
No it's not. If the funds were raised and then misappropriated to her campaign vs. the charitable endeavors, then this would be something to worry about. But that never happened.
ice said:
tjohn said:
ice said:
But raising money in an unethical or illegal fashion, pay to play I believe it's called, is the core issue here.
Are you simply saying that the ends justify the means?
What if the money was raised via other unethical/illegal means by persons you do not support politically? Would the ends still justify the means?
It's nice to see that we are perpetually shocked—shocked—to find that gambling is going on in here!
The real problem is that nobody is shocked, especially when it comes to the Clintons.
The real problem is that that the state of politics in the U.S. is not great. The solution is to have a set of viable candidates from which to choose. Wishing that politicians are anything but a bunch of slippery, sausage-making eels is unrealistic. The way you keep a bunch of crooks honest is to set another bunch of crooks upon them.
In the case of HRC, I look at the general drift of her domestic policies over the years and see some consitency. Her foreign policy is a bit of worry, but I suspect she has learned a lesson or two.
conandrob240 said:
if they do that (remove themselves from foundation business until end of public service) it also erases their fundraising power
Wow. So you are agreeing that if the persons soliciting donations to the Foundation do not currently possess political influence, then they won't be able to raise funds for all the great causes?
If I can't talk to the President / Secretary of State, then I won't donate?
So this is pure, naked pay to play at the highest levels of our government?
ice said:
conandrob240 said:
if they do that (remove themselves from foundation business until end of public service) it also erases their fundraising power
Wow. So you are admitting that if the persons soliciting donations to the Foundation do not currently possess political influence, then they won't be able to raise funds for all the great causes?
If I can't talk to the President / Secretary of State, then I won't donate?
So this is purely pay to play?
The problem is that the Republicans are not providing a palatable alternative. If they had found a way to nominate Paul Ryan, HRC would be in trouble.
The problem is that the Republicans are not providing a palatable alternative. If they had found a way to nominate Paul Ryan, HRC would be in trouble.
That of course is A problem. HRC would be in trouble if almost any other credible Republican were nominated. I would vote for almost anyone but Trump, Cruz or Christie, but sadly not an option.
But one should not exonerate HRC's many serious misdeeds simply because the Republicans nominated an evil clown.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
Multi Family Garage Sale Sale Date: Apr 20, 2024
More info
Free Items
Advertisement
I'm sure HRC will continue to find a number of apologists on this board who will repeat the nonsense that the Clinton Foundation has not been used for political purposes, or that its charitable endeavors make the ethical/legal issues unimportant, but holy cow....
HRC seems determined to give Trump a run for his money on who is more ethically challenged....
From 'Best of the Web' Aug 24th 2016:
This Tuesday report from the Associated Press does not come as a surprise but should be shocking:
More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money—either personally or through companies or groups—to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with [Mrs.] Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as 56 million. At least 40 donated more than 100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
Why are we learning about this now, 3½ years after Mrs. Clinton left the State Department, 16 months after she officially became a candidate for president, and just 11 weeks before the election? Don’t blame the AP, which has been stonewalled by John Kerry’s State Department: “The AP sought [Mrs.] Clinton’s calendar and schedules three years ago, but delays led the AP to sue the State Department last year in federal court for those materials and other records.”