Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumColin Powell’s foundation and Hillary Clinton’s are treated very differently by the media
So what about the charity? Well, Powells wife, Alma Powell, took it over. And it kept raking in donations from corporate America. Ken Lay, the chair of Enron, was a big donor. He also backed a literacy-related charity that was founded by the then-presidents mother. The US Department of State, at the time Powell was secretary, went to bat for Enron in a dispute the company was having with the Indian government.
Did Lay or any other Enron official attempt to use their connections with Alma Powell (or Barbara Bush, for that matter) to help secure access to State Department personnel in order to voice these concerns? Did any other donors to Americas Promise? I have no idea, because to the best of my knowledge nobody in the media ever launched an extensive investigation into these matters. Thats the value of the presumption of innocence, something Hillary Clinton has never been able to enjoy during her time in the national spotlight."
.......................................................................
AT&T is one of the very biggest donors to Americas Promise, and for much of the Bush administration, Colin and Almas son Michael was chair of the Federal Communications Commission, which, among other things, regulates AT&T. I never saw anyone write a story investigating whether AT&Ts donations improperly influenced Powells pro-telecom regulatory stances. But its genuinely unimaginable that if Powell had chosen not to help AT&T with regulatory matters the press would have blasted him as a hypocrite. That would have been ridiculous.
But once you know that a putative charity is really just a nexus of corruption, then even the failure to be swayed by contributions becomes a news story. And of course once your decision-making is put under that kind of scrutiny, your impulse is to shut down and try to keep information close to your chest. But when you know that a person is corrupt, her lack of transparency is further evidence of corruption. And any minor information that does slip out is defined as news, even if the information does not actually contain evidence of anything all that interesting.
Did Lay or any other Enron official attempt to use their connections with Alma Powell (or Barbara Bush, for that matter) to help secure access to State Department personnel in order to voice these concerns? Did any other donors to Americas Promise? I have no idea, because to the best of my knowledge nobody in the media ever launched an extensive investigation into these matters. Thats the value of the presumption of innocence, something Hillary Clinton has never been able to enjoy during her time in the national spotlight."
.......................................................................
AT&T is one of the very biggest donors to Americas Promise, and for much of the Bush administration, Colin and Almas son Michael was chair of the Federal Communications Commission, which, among other things, regulates AT&T. I never saw anyone write a story investigating whether AT&Ts donations improperly influenced Powells pro-telecom regulatory stances. But its genuinely unimaginable that if Powell had chosen not to help AT&T with regulatory matters the press would have blasted him as a hypocrite. That would have been ridiculous.
But once you know that a putative charity is really just a nexus of corruption, then even the failure to be swayed by contributions becomes a news story. And of course once your decision-making is put under that kind of scrutiny, your impulse is to shut down and try to keep information close to your chest. But when you know that a person is corrupt, her lack of transparency is further evidence of corruption. And any minor information that does slip out is defined as news, even if the information does not actually contain evidence of anything all that interesting.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/8/30/12690444/alma-powell-clinton-foundation
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 959 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (13)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Colin Powell’s foundation and Hillary Clinton’s are treated very differently by the media (Original Post)
ehrnst
Aug 2016
OP
MattP
(3,304 posts)1. Michael Powell was a horrible FCC commisioner
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)2. And THIS
]But once you know that a putative charity is really just a nexus of corruption, then even the failure to be swayed by contributions becomes a news story. And of course once your decision-making is put under that kind of scrutiny, your impulse is to shut down and try to keep information close to your chest. But when you know that a person is corrupt, her lack of transparency is further evidence of corruption. And any minor information that does slip out is defined as news, even if the information does not actually contain evidence of anything all that interesting.
Hillary has been treated as "presumed guilty" since 1992. Wouldn't that make anyone keep to themselves, knowing that anything and everything they say will be "proof" that they are guilty/hippocritical/lying.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)3. So is the Donald J. Trump Foundation, which donated $100,000 to the Citizens United Foundation
in 2014, one year before Trump began his campaign -- running against the Citizens United decision and against super pacs, and promising to fund his campaign on his own dime.