"Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons"

[Cheese Sandwich]

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. The Wall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.
...

If you’re Bill Clinton and your wife has recently intervened, in her capacity as a cabinet secretary, to help a giant corporation avert a significant threat to its bottom-line, the very least you could do, if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety, is to avoid negotiating seven-figure paydays with that same corporation. This is particularly jaw-dropping because ultra-wealthy Bill Clinton has virtually unlimited opportunities to give lucrative speeches to any number of audiences not directly implicated by decisions that his wife made as secretary of state.

But maximizing the Clinton family’s wealth and power requires him to speak before the very wealthiest paymasters. And that’s exactly what the ex-president has done.

As McClatchy noted last month in a more broadly focused article that also mentions UBS, “Ten of the world’s biggest financial institutions––including UBS, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs––have hired Bill Clinton numerous times since 2004 to speak for fees totaling more than $6.4 million. Hillary Clinton also has accepted speaking fees from at least one bank. And along with an 11th bank, the French giant BNP Paribas, the financial goliaths also donated as much as $24.9 million to the Clinton Foundation––the family’s global charity set up to tackle causes from the AIDS epidemic in Africa to climate change.”

One needn’t believe that there’s ever been any quid pro quo to see that this matters.
...

more:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

[TwilightGardener]

1. Get out! A whiff of impropriety from the Clintons? NEVER!

[artislife]

9. They love to skate right on the edge.

[Sunlei]

25. To skate on the edge would be to have duel citizenship, Swiss as Mrs. Bachmann the IRS lawyer

considered or Dubai as dark emperor Dick Cheney enjoys.

[Scuba]

41. Didn't she promise there'd never be a hint of conflict-of-interest if names SOS?

[TwilightGardener]

44. The phrase "conflict of interest" doesn't apply here--that implies an ethical dilemma.

For the Clintons it seems their interests all lined up perfectly and worked well together, LOL.

[Cheese Sandwich]

58. I see what you did there.

Yes it does kind of seem that way. For it to be a conflict of interest first we have to see what they seem to be interested in.

[JaneyVee]

2. Now we're demonizing philanthropy?

Good luck with that, guys.

[Cheese Sandwich]

3. Depositing money in Bill Clinton's personal checking account is philanthropy?

Sounds legit

[Ed Suspicious]

5. Perfectly.

[artislife]

10. Heh! nt

[pa28]

54. The Chappaqua trust for the dead broke.

Won't you help them.

[beam me up scottie]

4. LMAO!

Helping out a "giant corporation" which led to huge speaking fees = philanthropy



Oh my god that is hillarious, did you read that before you posted it?

[Beaverhausen]

6. Wouldn't it be nice if some posters went after the GOP...

...with the same energy the go after Hillary with?

What is this site called again?

[artislife]

13. Democratic underground

Which I first thought meant they were the progressives, not the status quo section of the party.

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. Have you read the purpose of the site?

[Cheese Sandwich]

49. I skimmed it

[Juicy_Bellows]

18. I thought that too. Underground.

Something about that word screams not mainstream/ uncommon. I know this place has been around for a long time and apparently it was more like that in the beginning. Since I've joined I've seen what I would consider folks that fit the Underground moniker and others that might as well roll over and play dead. Progress seems to be a silly wish of spoiled children and leftover hippies to some posters here.

Cheers!

[nxylas]

20. Many people here are deeply uncomfortable with the "Underground" part of the name

And just about tolerate the "Democratic" part.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. It was underground in response to Republican and Conservative rule....

not as a place to bash Democrats online. If that is the sport you like....there are plenty of places online that are more tolerant of it....

[840high]

12. What a sense of humor you have.

[AtomicKitten]

7. Conflict of interest is how she rolls.

Breaking: Clintons Got Millions from Swiss Bank Sec Clinton Shielded From IRS

<<snip>>

Here's the long and short of it. Shortly after she became Secretary of State, Clinton went to Switzerland at the request of her Swiss counterpart. The IRS had sued UBS demanding the identities of some 50,000 account holders. A few months later, Secretary Clinton announced a deal whereby UBS provided information on only 4450 accounts. It was a bit odd that the Secretary of State (any secretary of state) would have been involved in this kind of matter at all.

This is all a bit odd and another instance of a Clinton helping out a giant financial institution. But what is really troubling is what came after. Because it seems that after this intervention, UBS became rather magnanimous toward the Clintons. How so?

1) UBS contributions to the Clinton foundation jumped from 60K prior to 2008 to 600K by 2014. That's a 1000% increase.

2) UBS partnered with the Clinton Foundation to lend $32 million to inner-city entrepreneur programs.

3) Bill Clinton was invited to have some Q & A sessions with UBS big wigs. He was paid $1.5 MILLION for these appearances. It made UBS the single biggest source of corporate speech income since he left office.

<<snip>>

link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/31/1407615/-Breaking-Clintons-Got-Millions-from-Swiss-Bank-Sec-Clinton-Shielded-From-IRS

[Cheese Sandwich]

15. Thanks for this break down

This helps summarize it

[still_one]

28. Except DailyKOS, and this thread fails to point out that their is no evidence

At the end of the piece in the WSJ the following was noted in the article:

"There is no evidence of any link between Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the case and the bank’s donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, or its hiring of Mr. Clinton."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubs-deal-shows-clintons-complicated-ties-1438223492

Here are some other thoughts for perspective:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1163686

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1163698

[Cheese Sandwich]

31. "One needn’t believe that there’s ever been any quid pro quo to see that this matters."

Also this isn't just about "donations" to the "charity foundation".

It's also about the payments for speaking fees of like over a million dollars or something.

[AlbertCat]

46. It does seem a little pearl clutchy

I mean, paying Bill Clinton for speaking is not a crime.... or even unusual.

But why is Clinton helping a Swiss bank in the 1st place?

Still.... I wouldn't make a big deal out of it. Only worth a mention. It's sorta business as usual in the world of US politics these days.



Which is why I like Bernie better.

[udbcrzy2]

55. “It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,”

Does anyone know about the Sunlight Foundation? I really don't, but this doesn't seem to help either.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group where progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout was once an organizing director./

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

[malokvale77]

8. Seems about right.

That's how the Clinton's roll.

They are worried about their grandchild's future ya know.

[snot]

11. I wish it weren't true.

[VanillaRhapsody]

17. Dont worry then...

[Cheese Sandwich]

59. No sense pretending this stuff didn't happen...

[VanillaRhapsody]

61. Nonsense believing it did actually.

[Cheese Sandwich]

19. So do I

It would be nice to have something to vote for that didn't seem so tied in and corrupt

[still_one]

29. Since you didn't note there is no evidence in the OP, I am not sure what that means

This was posted in another thread earlier which made the same allegation

At the end of the piece in the WSJ the following was documented:

"There is no evidence of any link between Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the case and the bank’s donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, or its hiring of Mr. Clinton."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubs-deal-shows-clintons-complicated-ties-1438223492

Here are some other thoughts for perspective:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1163686

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1163698

[Cheese Sandwich]

30. No evidence of what? Government official protected bank. Then bank paid spouse millions.

No evidence of what?

It's just describing what happened.

If you choose to believe they paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million dollars because he is the world's greatest motivational speaker, that's your choice.

[still_one]

32. It isn't me, it is in the original WSJ article which stated no evidence of any link between Mrs.

Clinton's involvement in the case and the bank's donations to the Clinton foundation or hiring of Mr. Clinton.

That you left out that particular part I find very illuminating

[Cheese Sandwich]

33. What's your explanation for why UBS paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million speaking fees?

Worlds greatest speaker?

Or seeking influence?

Or what?

[still_one]

34. If I report a story taken from the original source, I put in the disclaimers also from the source

also.

[Cheese Sandwich]

35. Disclaimer: "One needn’t believe that there’s ever been any quid pro quo to see that this matters."

[kenn3d]

14. Morning Joe discussion on this

I posted this link in another thread about Hardball which expanded to cover MSNBC generally. But it is more specifically on-topic to this OP:

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/wsj-explores-clintons-ties-to-mega-bank-495099971631

[One of the 99]

45. Morning Joke?

You've got to be kidding.

[SoapBox]

21. They're skeezy.

I won't vote for her under any circumstances.

[murielm99]

22. Then you don't belong on this website.

Hillary will be the nominee. If you don't vote for the Democratic nominee, then you have no business here.

The name of the website has been pointed out several times in this thread.

[roguevalley]

24. wow. Crystal ball? I think they said that in 2008 too. so Hillary sycophancy is the price of admissi

Here. I didn't know that

[Sunlei]

26. In your opinion if Mrs. Clinton is 'skeezy' who is out there in the running to vote for?

IMO, you set your bar to low.

[ericson00]

23. here's what I think

[still_one]

27. There is no evidence. This was posted in another thread earlier which made the same allegation

At the end of the piece in the WSJ the following was documented:

"There is no evidence of any link between Mrs. Clinton’s involvement in the case and the bank’s donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, or its hiring of Mr. Clinton."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ubs-deal-shows-clintons-complicated-ties-1438223492

Here are some other thoughts for perspective:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1163686

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1163698



I wonder how long it will be before DU start posting excerpts from Peter Schweizer's book as fact?

[Cheese Sandwich]

36. Just looks bad. Tone deaf. "Bad optics". It has the appearance of impropriety, at the least.

Looks like a clear case of corporate cronyism.

In this case UBS is the corporation and the Clintons are the cronies.

A crony would be like the spouse of a government official who takes money from corporations and the official just happens to help them out.

But there's no evidence that UBS paid Bill $1.5 million because they want influence in government, or because Hillary stepped in to protect them from a major problem when they were shielding tax cheats from the IRS .

Maybe they paid him $1.5 million because he's just a nice guy that talks good.

This article isn't making any "allegations". It's just telling us these facts about what happened. There is no email or anything that says the money is specifically payment for helping them with the IRS. You are right there is no specific evidence like that.

[still_one]

37. Appreciate that you responded to each one of my responses. This last one makes the most sense in my

view

[Juicy_Bellows]

38. I don't mean to piggyback but it just looks bad.

It's not her only issue that just looks off but a good evening to you. Cheers!

[Cheese Sandwich]

39. Thank you

for raising your important points and concerns. What you're saying is right too.

[stonecutter357]

40. .

[FlatBaroque]

42. Finger wags are extra.

3 lip bites are included in the base price.

[Cheese Sandwich]

48. This is only with the deluxe package

[Babel_17]

43. Some people live in a world of "happy accidents"

Some people live in a world of "happy accidents", while 99% of us don't. When you live in a world of happy accidents you start to take them granted after a while.

[Cheese Sandwich]

50. I work in the government and people keep on handing me millions of dollars for no reason

[Autumn]

47. One hand washes the other.

Of course there's no evidence. It's all a mere coincidence. But you know what? It doe look bad and that happens all too often with Hillary and Bill. Do I believe it was a bribe? No I do not but it gives the right what they want should by some chance she win the White House. You think Whitewater was investigated? You ain't seen nothing.

The pukes got a lot more to distract from now.

[zappaman]

52. Well you certainly seem concerned.

I'm concerned about your concern.

[Cheese Sandwich]

53. Thank you!

Your concern is duly noted!

[pa28]

56. Expect eight years of scandal and rationalizing if Clinton wins.

Doesn't matter if you receive your payment up front or on the back end. It's still influence peddling.

[Cheese Sandwich]

57. Let's try to not to go down that road.

[TransitJohn]

60. I don't even know why this is news

This is how American politics works. The bribery is very above board. President Carter has said he wouldn't monitor an election here because they're too corrupt. We can't very well impugn Hillary's character for engaging in politics when she's a politician. I'm for Bernie, if that makes a difference in interpreting my comments.