General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBernie Sanders Calls Clinton Foundation Money A "Very Serious Problem".
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-bernie-sanders-calls-hillary-clinton-foundation-money/story?id=30687863Bravo Bernie for standing up for political integrity.
boston bean
(36,223 posts)while i am dubious on the claim by ring wingers of clintons using hillary as secretary of state to get country's to donate to foundation there are serious concerns further reports are rasing.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)this, which is very disconcerting and makes me wonder if Senator Sanders is even aware how much he's helping the Republican Party.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)And I meant it in that exact order. I have no doubt that Sanders knows very, very well what he is doing, and he's genuinely in this thing to win.
Helping the Republican party by voicing highly legitimate concerns about the flow of money to a past President's direct personal coffers and charitable foundations, whose wife is now running for the office of the Presidency and getting a lot of campaign money from some of the same people who provided that money? The loony book doesn't matter - some of this is just everyday business for her campaign, and the campaigns of may other major politicians.
If that's helping the Republican party, then I guess we can't speak about the corrupting influence of big money in politics anymore. Which means that there's no point supporting one party vs. another, since none of it will matter if big money is able to legally bribe our elected officials.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)get out of the way of the Coronation.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)http://www.theonion.com/articles/hillary-clinton-to-nation-do-not-fuck-this-up-for,38416/
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Other Democratic candidates and keep it about my positive message, I wouldn't be so shocked by this. He can't say one thing and turn around and do another in my opinion.
karynnj
(59,506 posts)speak of anything that is a possible negative of an opponent.
It was not JUST the RW who have had questions about the Clinton Foundation's management of money. Note that EVEN BEFORE SHE BECAME SoS there was an issue that there could be conflicts of interest.
In reality, the Obama/Clinton agreement could have protected not just the Obama administration but Clinton. It was in her interest to not just keep everything kosher, but to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest.
At this point, there are questions -- and it is important to resolve them NOW -- before the primaries. If there is nothing there, there is nothing there and she will not have to deal with this in the general election. As this COULD be an election issue, not raising it now would be stupid and not in our interest.
emulatorloo
(44,192 posts)Headline is somewhat misleading.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I hope he's not going to pull a Nader.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Bush and Clinton. That is no where near saying Obama is no different than bush or than Obama is as bad as bush. Thanks for the link show the poster was blatantly misquoting, as I figured.
cali
(114,904 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)And his criticisms are precisely on point. Isn't it remarkably weird that the terms of this proposed agreement are secret to the general public, unless you happen to be a major executive in potentially affected industries? And that Congress is being asked to guarantee that there will be no public debate before a vote on it?
The exceptionally undemocratic nature of this thing is very disturbing. If it can't stand up to public scrutiny, and extraordinary measures are being taken to prevent it, then Sanders' criticism may be not only extremely important, but also, possibly, mandated by his responsibilities as a United States senator. Glad someone in that body takes his/her oath of office seriously enough to do that.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)You intentionally misinterpret the context of Bernie Sanders quote to compare the Senator to Ralph Nader. And the PUMAing Senator Sanders begins to the pearl of ever seeing a Hillary Clinton Presidency ever. Keep this line of attack up as it will ensure a Republican is in the White House on January 1, 2017.....
The Most Ineffective Strategy To Elect Hillary.....Attack Bernie Sanders and his Supporters
pangaia
(24,324 posts)"Obama was as bad as Bush."
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)thesquanderer
(11,995 posts)He's not Nader, because he's running against HRC in the primary, not in the general election. There's no way he's going to help elect a republican. Or at this point, even help another democrat beat Hillary.
But of course he's going to take issue with HRC's campaign. If he had no concerns about HRC, he would be endorsing her rather than running against her.
Though really he wasn't even specifically going after HRC here. He was making a bigger point in answer to a question.
So do I have concerns about the Clinton Foundation and that money? I do, he added. But I am concerned about Sheldon Adelson and his billions. Im concerned about the Koch Brothers and their billions. We're looking at a system where our democracy is being owned by a handful of billionaires.
donnasgirl
(656 posts)He is talking about the Trans Pacific Partnership which Bernie is absolutely correct on.
donnasgirl
(656 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)He did nothing of the sort.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)sendero
(28,552 posts)... if a wingnut says "water is wet" then we have to disagree.
Take a basic logic class.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)That the author admits contains no actual facts.
Bernie is stupid to go there, IMHO.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)While acting as Secretary of State
the Clinton Foundation accepted
money from forein govts.
and misreported the type of "donation"
<snip>
The errors, which have not been previously reported, appear on the form 990s that all non-profit organizations must file annually with the Internal Revenue Service to maintain their tax-exempt status. A charity must show copies of the forms to anyone who wants to see them to understand how the charity raises and spends money.
For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years.
That IS NOT right-wing talking points
NOR is it a smear. It's called ACCOUNTABILITY.
Notice the years in question
are during her tenure as Secretary of State.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/23/us-usa-election-clinton-taxes-exclusive-idUSKBN0NE0CA20150423
It's inconceivable how
a multi-billion dollar institution
could make such blatant missteps?
Despite signing an ETHICS AGREEMENT
the Clinton Foundation flouted it's responsibility.
<snip>
The statement was prompted by a Washington Post story that reported "the Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of state," including the Algerian government donations that violated the agreement.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/politics/clinton-foundation-donation-algeria-haiti/
Once again, Hillary has brought
this "scandal" upon herself.
The appearance of impropriety
is not manufactured, its plain as day.
Dismissing this as right-wing hackery
is ignoring the real problem.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)You get lots of love from Fox "news"
Your video is irrelevant to the tax filings issue.
The commingling of donations and government grants
by the Clinton Foundation is the issue.
The video also avoids the issue of Hillary's
"ethics agreement" with the Obama administration.
Why is it that every Clinton "scandal"
is a self-inflicted and reeks of ethical lapses?
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)He's not "join{ing} with the Right Wingnuts" - I don't see any of them expressing concern about big $ in politics or eschewing Koch money.
Money in politics *is* a problem.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)hi mylye
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)But practically speaking he dove straight for the bottom.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, said he is concerned by the millions of dollars flowing into the Clinton Foundation at a time when he thinks money plays too strong a role in politics.
It tells me what is a very serious problem, Sanders said in an interview with ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl. It's not just about Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton. It is about a political system today that is dominated by big money. It's about the Koch brothers being prepared to spend $900 million dollars in the coming election.
So do I have concerns about the Clinton Foundation and that money? I do, he added. But I am concerned about Sheldon Adelson and his billions. Im concerned about the Koch Brothers and their billions. We're looking at a system where our democracy is being owned by a handful of billionaires.
I am by no means an HRC supporter, but your OP title is very misleading. Bernie is concerned about all the big money.
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)At both Clintons money and Kochs, big banks etc.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)For some a charitable foundation is worse than two fascist assholes. go figure
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)and you know it. Defend the candidate you support, but do so honestly.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)smokey nj
(43,853 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Orsino
(37,428 posts)I'd go so far as to agree with Sen. Sanders on the word "concern," but the idiot headline is really overstating the problem of the Foundation and missing Sanders' larger point.
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)what exactly is the difference? Is HRC immune to corruption? Of course not - nobody is. If you generally like one politician, and that politician is awash in large corporate donations, but you don't like some other party spending large amounts of money on politics, what can you do about it unless you challenge the entire process?
Sanders has been speaking out on these subjects for years. How can he communicate effectively about these issues as a candidate for the Presidency if he somehow avoids speaking about the most well-funded political candidate for the Presidency in the history of the United States?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Seriously?
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)in the world who need to be right more than they feel a need to learn...
The bottom line is this - you can't have big money involved with candidates and political causes you like without big money involved with candidates and political causes you despise.
Also, people who authorize expenditures of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign expenditures on behalf of their corporations aren't doing it because they're good citizens. They damn well expect returns on their investments, both in terms of limiting which perspectives make it into public discourse (if you aren't in the big money club, the corporate media will keep you out, or distort what you say), and once the candidate gets into office. Who heads up regulatory agencies these days? People who really work for the corporations in the industries that the agencies are supposed to regulate. And the ones who donated plenty get the best shot at getting their people in.
In that sense, political candidates who take in millions of dollars in campaign financing from large banks and oil and gas companies are probably worse, in general, than the Kochs, who make no secret of their intentions.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)I am no supporter of HRC. But if there are problems with her foundation money, let those problems emerge on their own, or through investigation.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Now, its let's have a investigation on Hillary's $$$ after Bernie rightly pointed out all the big $$$ running America's election system into the ground (and let's not go there -- if one does not think Bill will or have found a way to "backdoor" some of the Clinton's Foundation money for Hillary 2016 Campaign -- California's Drought is fully completed and water is running in droves in the State) and of course the Hillarynies have a "Problem" with that.
Similar to the same issue the Koch's and All who Love Big $$ ruining our so-called Democracy have to overturning Citizen's United.
By the way, what is Hillary's position on overturning Citizen's United? Here's is Bernie's:
In the United States of America, billionaires should not be able to buy elections, declared Sanders, to thunderous applause.
If we do not get our act together, we are moving towards an oligarchic society, he continued, arguing that, We have got to fight to defend American democracy.
Like some of the Republicans who will be in New Hampshire this weekend, Sanders has talked about running for president. And his visit to the first-primary state has stirred speculation about a possible bid.
The independent senator says he is months away from any kind of decision. What hes doing now is inviting progressives to join in a conversation about how to take on the money power. Its a conversation hell carry forward May 9 and May 10 in Northampton, Massachusetts, with a series of events, including an appearance with the activist group Progressive Democrats of America.
What Sanders has already made his decision about the absolute absurdity of the High Courts approach to cases like Citizens United and McCutcheon.
What world are the five conservative Supreme Court justices living in? Sanders said after the McCutcheon ruling.To equate the ability of billionaires to buy elections with freedom of speech is totally absurd. The Supreme Court is paving the way toward an oligarchic form of society in which a handful of billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson will control our political process.
Sanders has also decided that a constitutional amendment is needed to push back against Supreme Court decisions that threaten to make the dollar more consequential than the vote in American elections."
http://www.thenation.com/blog/179306/bernie-sanders-versus-rand-paul-ted-cruz-mike-huckabee-and-citizens-united
That's pretty clear for Bernie. And for Hillary (Crickets).....
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)I think her positions on this are weak and impractical, but they are certainly there.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)smokey nj
(43,853 posts)answer to a question that was asked. He Gave his answer and then addressed the larger point. That's Bernie's rhetorical style - he repeats the question, answers it and then moves on to the point he wants to make.
BeyondGeography
(39,384 posts)And Bernie was wrong to lump Bill Clinton's Foundation money (which admittedly comes with strings attached like all money but does not interfere with the electoral process) with the blatant election-buying efforts of Koch and Adelson. He gave them an opening and they took it.
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,384 posts)All he had to do was add a qualifier and distinguish the two clearly and there goes the headline. It's what polished candidates do in their sleep. Hopefully, he learns, or cares to learn.
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)read for comprehension
BeyondGeography
(39,384 posts)RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)"It is about a political system today that is dominated by big money."
It is. Is anyone honestly going to deny that is problematic?
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Support Citizen's United ruining our so-called Democracy, those who LOVE Big Money deciding our elections and others who want to claim those like Bernie that point out the damn obvious are "Ralph Nader" in order to deflect attention AND "protect" their Candidate of choice with siding on the lines of "Big Money".
Wonder who would do that? Ummm....
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)As usual. The system is rotten
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Something we can all count on from Bernie.
So do I have concerns about the Clinton Foundation and that money? I do, he added. But I am concerned about Sheldon Adelson and his billions. Im concerned about the Koch Brothers and their billions. We're looking at a system where our democracy is being owned by a handful of billionaires. ...
Thanks for posting mylye2222!
polichick
(37,152 posts)especially when it's inconvenient!
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Its inconvenient but the spotlight needs to be shone on it in order to change it.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)He knows the real problem is Citizen United unlimited campaign donations, and not donations to a charity.
First he says Obama is as bad as Bush, now this? Sad. And very disappointing.
cali
(114,904 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)He is following in the footsteps of George W. Bush; hes following in the footsteps of Bill Clinton, of Bush I, of Ronald Reagan." '
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-obama-sounds-like-bush-and-clinton-117717922196.html
Sanders today: " It's not just about Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton. It is about a political system today that is dominated by big money. It's about the Koch brothers being prepared to spend $900 million dollars in the coming election....'"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-bernie-sanders-calls-hillary-clinton-foundation-money/story?id=30687863
Clean and honorable this campaign is not.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Bernie! And yet, here is an entire thread full of comments calling him a RWer and Republican enabler.
I won't bother to link all of these slams on Bernie, since you can simply read this thread. And you can quit passive aggressively typing 'link?' at me, when it's obvious that you now KNOW it's going on, despite your prior pretenses.
(ETA and half of the bashes are from you, to boot.)
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)As Bernie Supporters can read, and likewise understand that Hillarynites will engage in a PUMA 2016 Revisited Strategy to ensure their "Big Money" Candidate of choice "wins" at all costs --- even if it comes to the point of trying (and failing) to tear down Progressive Stallworth - Bernie Sanders.
The end result of this strategy will be a Republican in the White House on January 1, 2017.
The Most Ineffective Strategy To Elect Hillary.....Attack Bernie Sanders and his Supporters
He has every right considering Senator Sanders has stood with the Middle and Lower Classes in regards to sound economic policy nearly every time.
Many Progressives admire Bernie who does not take corporate, lobbyist or Wall Street "Quid Per Quo" money to turn around and support a job killing trade policy called the TPP.
Senator Sanders Caucasus with Democrats, however, is not afraid or timid to call out Democrats when their potential votes, policy or politico speak are with the 10% instead of 90% of folks who are not ultra-rich, have tax havens off-shore or who owe a "political favor" to those making big dollars (by cheating the rest of us) on Wall Street.
Yet, SOME not all but SOME Hillary Clinton supporters -- feel threaten by Senator Sanders running for President. So much so, they are calling him Ralph Nader or worse a spoiler candidate.
And others are going as far to nearly label Progressives of both Democratic and Independent Left Lending ties -- Junior Teabaggers for supporting a Senator Sanders Presidential Candidacy.
Here are the raw facts: Keep this Modus Operandi up -- i.e. Attacking Bernie Sanders as Ralph Nader II -- and watch your candidate of choice LOSE come the first Tuesday in November of 2016.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)hypocrisy of the poster there. Yesterday she was insisting that the 'tearing down of candidates' onsite only went in one direction, that Hillary was being torn down by Bernie fans, but that nobody who wants Hillary was tearing down Bernie, and asking for 'links' to any proof that any Hillary person was going negative on Bernie, and that all of the Hillary people would happily vote for Bernie if he wins the primary. Whiplash forward one day, and she's among a crowd of folks tearing down Bernie. Who could have ever imagined?
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Who knows if the Hillarynites would vote for Bernie if he was to win the Democratic Nomination for President? Only they would know.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That's for sure. He's starting to sound s lot like Nader. He's not going to win, so I don't see the utility in him helping elect a republican by focusing his attacks on Democrats.
But I don't think voicing disappoint with him is much of a bash. It's not like I'm claiming he is a commie scum bag like you folks call Hillary a corrupt oligarch and all sorts of other derogatory names. That's what I mean by bashing.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Big money in politics *is* a problem.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)... And he knows that. He knows Citizens United is the real issues and it's disappointing to see him distract from that with a speculative cheap shot at a charity.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That has nothing to do with the CU problem, nor is Clinton Foundation money part of any campaign contribution issue. Strawman on his part, with no other purpose but the confuse the issue.
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Maggie either clearly fails to want or have the will to do a minutes worth of research on Bernie Sanders option (which is the right one by the way) of Big Money, why Americans so-called Election System based on Big Money, along with why overturning Citizens United must be a TOP ONE Priority plus why Bernie Strongly Supports it.
So either Maggie, like the Koch's Brothers -- love Citizen's United -- or Maggie is lamely trying to change the nature of Bernie's words to prop up the Big Money Candidate -- Hillary Clinton. You decide?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I hate the post count battles, quality over quantity.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)And Bernie is calling out Big Money is Politics.
Meanwhile for doing so, the Hillarynites are trying to compare him to Ralph Nader.
Also, take a peek, I READ more than post -- however on this issue, choosing to strongly defend Bernie's call to Overturn or draft a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United in ALWAYS the right position to take anytime, anyday, anywhere in any format.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Let's see if we can find it....
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-constitutional-amendment
Umm....what other way exist to deal with the Citizens United decision Hill's except Overturning it by a Constitutional Amendment or this Supreme Court nullifying their own decision --- which is highly unlikely.
Now let's look at Bernie's statement on Citizen's United:
If we do not get our act together, we are moving towards an oligarchic society, he continued, arguing that, We have got to fight to defend American democracy.
What world are the five conservative Supreme Court justices living in? Sanders said after the McCutcheon ruling.To equate the ability of billionaires to buy elections with freedom of speech is totally absurd. The Supreme Court is paving the way toward an oligarchic form of society in which a handful of billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson will control our political process.
Sanders has also decided that a constitutional amendment is needed to push back against Supreme Court decisions that threaten to make the dollar more consequential than the vote in American elections."
http://www.thenation.com/blog/179306/bernie-sanders-versus-rand-paul-ted-cruz-mike-huckabee-and-citizens-united
Ummm....that's a MUCH STRONGER statement and to the point of the issue. Democracy or Oligarchy. Big Money Buys Elections or The People decides Elections. And Hillary as pledged to raise upwards of $2.3 Billion dollars for her quest to win the White House. Where is money like that coming from? Let's just say the obvious and a majority of that cash will NOT come from "small money donors".
With that, my point is made and Thank God Bernie Sanders is running for President. We need Truth Tellers instead of those with legs stretched on both sides of the Citizens United Fence in this race.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Thanks for making that clear.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Not a charity.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Try again. Been here since 2001. Get over it.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)I bet Bernie has lots of money too. Where'd it come from?
What I think is important is that a person, running for president or not, has receipts, bank statements, all sorts of records, meticulously kept, for 7 years at least, to explain where every dollar has come from, whether in his name or his families'.
Does he have lost papers showing up on tables where no one knows where they came from, and he doesn't lose or destroy papers or electronic correspondence, and nothing is left to doubt. And anyone who questions his bookkeeping or lack of it is not called a "hater" by others whose prime concern Is not bookkeeping, a skill taught in high school or community college.
I am worried about Bernie's bookkeeping. What can we ask him to find out if he's conscientious enough and above reproach to be our President? Somebody should look into this right away.
Response to mylye2222 (Original post)
Kelvin Mace This message was self-deleted by its author.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)No surprises there. Sleazy money is only sleazy when it's buying politicians we don't like, apparently.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Some Democrats like the Citizens United "Big Money Buys Whatever We Want" in Elections games just as much as.....maybe the Koch Brothers.
The truth hurts, but the truth is what is it.
Thank God for Bernie is running for President and his willingness to point out this truth!!
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,071 posts)even if it means making shit up.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)On behalf of the Clinton Foundation and Bernie is the one "Making S**T Up"? Really?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/04/27/amending-clinton-foundation-taxes-like-cleaning-monica-lewinskys-dress-cant-change-the-past/
And onto Maura's Statement.....
So yes, we made mistakes....."
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/blog/2015/04/26/commitment-honesty-transparency-and-accountability?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000618
See this is where Maura's Spin and an Tax Accountant worth his or her salt fall on two separate parts of the road (and it's not like Bill did not have the cash to hire a top of the line Tax Accountant). How exactly does one mix Government Grants with other Revenue received for a non-profit entity again?
Things that make you ummm....
Evergreen Emerald
(13,071 posts)by lumping the Clinton's charity organization in with Koch and the others who are attempting to buy elections, he is being dishonest and ugly.
The article you site is suggesting that Clinton committed illegal acts. It is a rightwing lie, that Bernie is apparently prepared to embrace if it means winning some points.
Bernie cannot win the primary and he cannot win the election. The least he could do is be honest while playing out his fantasy.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Bernie cannot win the primary and he cannot win the election. The least he could do is be honest while playing out his fantasy.
Really? Also, let's just break this down a bit....
So you are stating a Non-Profit Charity cannot run afoul with the law for filing incorrect tax returns. Correct?
Let's test that theory, okay:
Thats called playing with fire, Marcus Owens, a former chief of the IRSs nonprofits division, said about groups that neglect to report political expenses."
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/02/27/14295/nonprofits-failure-report-political-activity-irs-raises-questions
The guilty plea was announced by U.S. Attorney Ronald C. Machen, Jr.; James W. McJunkin, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI Washington Field Office; and Eric Hylton, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the Washington Field Office of the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI).
Doleman, of Washington, D.C., pled guilty in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to a criminal information. The tax charge carries a maximum penalty of three years in prison, as well as a possible fine and an order to make restitution. No sentencing date was set. Under federal sentencing guidelines, the parties have agreed that the applicable range would be a maximum of six months of incarceration and a fine of up to $5,000. As part of the plea agreement, Doleman agreed to cooperate in any criminal investigation or prosecution.
According to a statement of offense signed by Doleman as well as the government, Doleman was the president of Youth Technology Institute (Youth Tech), one of the non-profits used by Thomas in a scheme in which he used more than $350,000 in taxpayers money for his own personal benefit. Among other things, she and Youth Tech helped channel more than $100,000 in taxpayers money to Thomas and a political organization to pay for an inaugural ball."
http://www.fbi.gov/washingtondc/press-releases/2012/head-of-non-profit-youth-organization-pleads-guilty-to-filing-a-false-tax-return
The indictment alleges that Wisneski, as an officer and high-paid employee of the Fiesta Bowl, solicited campaign contributions from Fiesta Bowl employees for federal, state, and local candidates for elective office, and arranged to reimburse the employees for their contributions with Fiesta Bowl money.
Reimbursement for federal campaign contributions is prohibited under the Federal Election Campaign Act, and it also causes the political campaigns to file false information with the Federal Election Commission as to the identity of the true donor. The federal campaigns identified in the indictment have cooperated in the investigation, and no evidence suggests that the campaigns knew that the Fiesta Bowl reimbursed its employees.
The indictment also alleges that Wisneski filed false tax returns on behalf of the Fiesta Bowl when she denied in the tax returns that the Fiesta Bowl had any lobbying expenses or political expenditures. Wisneski will be summonsed to appear for her arraignment on Nov. 30, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. The overall investigation continues, and the Fiesta Bowl organization continues to cooperate with the investigation."
http://www.fbi.gov/phoenix/press-releases/2011/former-fiesta-bowl-chief-operating-officer-indicted-for-filing-false-non-profit-tax-returns-making-campaign-contributions-in-the-names-of-others
Now of course, no one is accusing Hillary, Bill and the Clinton Foundation of the exact same engagements of Wisneski and Doleman, however -- to say that a Non-Profit cannot try and shield "donations" to use for other purposes besides the Good of the Mission -- is a bit disingenuous -- at best.
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)jalan48
(13,894 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)that.
still_one
(92,433 posts)about big money in all of politics. He sure wasn't just singling the Clintons, and he didn't even imply there was wrong doing, just upset about the big money in campaigns
Of course the media will go out of their way to distort his message and just imply it is an attack against Clinton
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)attack on Hillary will be portrayed that way. He has to guard against being used that way.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)emulatorloo
(44,192 posts)It sounds as if reporter brought up Clinton Foundation. Bernie uses that to pivot and talk about the serious problem of big money/massive cash in campaign. He specifically sites Koch Bros and Adelson
still_one
(92,433 posts)emulatorloo
(44,192 posts)still_one
(92,433 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)Without dealing with the issues of Bernie's Context discussion which is Big Money Destroying our political system in America.
So with such, let's see what Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic Candidate for President, came OUT THE DOOR WITH this morning on his Facebook page after officially announcing his intent to be the Next President of the United States!!
Senator Sanders FB Page: https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/photos/a.91485152907.84764.9124187907/10153260404302908/?type=1&theater
It's going to be a LONG election season for the Hillarynites , however, for Bernie Supporters --- he's just getting started. Go Bernie GO!!!
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)Are totaly condemnable when it comes from RW, but gets pardonned when a Dem dies the same! Hillary supporters. Deal with reality. She has acted poorly re the donations while at State and broke the agreement she' s done with President Obama, KNOWING it would br an issue as soon as she ran. But she is so certain of her unvurenability ( huge network around her, name recognition, popularity) she decided to act this way anyway.
AND this is a blessing Bernie adresses it. For this been rrsolved before primary vote.
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)allegations alone. Don't get pulled into the muck of caused by a headline that deliberately warped the point. The MSM loves mudslinging and they will do whatever they can to get it going. We can't stop them from doing it, but we can refuse to participate. Seriously, let's be better than that
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)And this is more than allegation since LEFTY columnists are poikting it. It is a POLITICAL question. Everyone knows Hillary's taste for secrecy is a problem. .
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)This is your first primary season on DU, it can get ugly - very ugly. Pace yourself and pick your battles carefully. Some hills just aren't worth dying for.
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)It is LEGITIMATE questionning and debate regarding Money in Politics. Bernie wants to clarify it....can you imagine the damage for Hillary and any other Dems if that issue is not resolved?
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)I'm talking about not letting Bernie's message get lost in noise. ABC news deliberately manipulated what Bernie said to get the finger pointing started. It's clear from the article that issues regarding the Clinton Foundation weren't his biggest cause for concern - why are you trying to make it so.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,123 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Rather than tear down our likely nominee? Interesting that he does this right out of the gate as a Dem.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)If Bernie decides to go negative like this, he loses.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Response to mylye2222 (Original post)
PowerToThePeople This message was self-deleted by its author.
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)the primaries, and Hillary is the candidate, he will be fully on board with her.
This is nothing new, campaigns are tough
Bernie is gonna be tough
pansypoo53219
(21,004 posts)tear down THE ENEMY!