(04-08-2019 01:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 10:19 AM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 01:51 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-07-2019 10:09 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]George, are you referring to the Clinton Foundation being placed into a blind trust while she was SOS or to their personal assets? The Clintons had a blind trust while Bill was President, I believe.
If you were referring to her time as SOS, certainly a charitable foundation is different than directly increasing one's personal wealth while in office.
Not with respect to currying favor. In fact, as was mentioned (and as you conveniently ignored), the Clinton Foundation stands out in that its very REASON FOR BEING was to serve as a vessel for currying favor. That's a categorically worse conflict-of-interest than owning a few hotels, in cities crowded with hotels.
I'm still wanting to know when Hillary Clinton absolutely refused to put assets in a blind trust. I believe you that it happened. I just want to know the specifics... I'm assuming it was the Clinton Foundation during the time that she was SOS that is at issue?
Also... how was the Clinton Foundation's very REASON FOR BEING a vessel for currying favor? Was this stated in its charter? Is this materially different from other rich politician's charitable foundations?
Quote:Compared to the decades of sleaze that the Clintons inflicted on the body politic, while their supporters and apologists cheered them on, Trump's hotel ownership is nothing.
And if with all that sleaze, you still voted for Hillary, then your carping today is worth nothing.
I am no fan of the Clintons. I did vote for Hillary over Trump. If you want to measure your vote on amount of sleaze when it comes to the Clinton Foundation versus the Trump Foundation then I don't think it's a contest.
To be fair, Trump only used his foundation to pay paintings of himself.
Will I get yelled at again if I say that shows signs of narcissism?
"only"? have you evidence that this was the "only" use?
IMO, just having a foundation shows signs of narcissism. maybe it is less when it does not carry one's name.
(04-08-2019 01:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]93, my opinion is that Foundation was set up to be a smokescreen for influence peddling. Certainly not all the donations were to curry favor, and lots of good uses for most of the money were found. But a smart politician does not funnel those sorts of donations through personal accounts. They go to trusts and campaign funds, they go to relatives and staffers, the money winds a meandering trail(talk about money laundering!!!), and one reason is so they can release a personal return that looks and smells clean. Good politicians do this well, and the Clintons are smart people who learned from their early mistakes. None of their returns will show money coming directly from XYZ.
I have no idea how money got from Donors to the Clinton pockets, but I believe lots of it did.
I think the most damning evidence is how donations dried up when she no longer had any influence to sell. There was no change in the good programs sponsored by them, but all of a sudden (11-8-2016) people stopped sending money.
If the argument is that Trump must be bad because the Clintons were good, I fail to see it.
OO, I don't disagree with much that you say here. The evidence that you state regarding the donations after she wasn't SOS is damning.
I think the Foundation pre-dated her time as SOS quite a bit. That's why I was questioning how it was plainly obvious that it was originally set up as a conduit for shady donations.
(04-08-2019 12:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 12:32 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 12:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]George... you had been on a roll in that you had gone a couple posts without calling somebody dumb.
To be clear, I don't generally call people dumb. I have called you ignorant a couple of times because you've said things that are ignorant. Stop saying things that are dumb, and you will not be called dumb (at least not by me).
Got it. Appreciate the advice. Were you going to answer my question?
To be honest, I was giving you a fair chance to see if you would actually take the advice to heart. It's clear that you haven't, and likely that you never intended to. It would not be the first insincere statement you've made here.
(04-08-2019 01:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 01:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]93, my opinion is that Foundation was set up to be a smokescreen for influence peddling. Certainly not all the donations were to curry favor, and lots of good uses for most of the money were found. But a smart politician does not funnel those sorts of donations through personal accounts. They go to trusts and campaign funds, they go to relatives and staffers, the money winds a meandering trail(talk about money laundering!!!), and one reason is so they can release a personal return that looks and smells clean. Good politicians do this well, and the Clintons are smart people who learned from their early mistakes. None of their returns will show money coming directly from XYZ.
I have no idea how money got from Donors to the Clinton pockets, but I believe lots of it did.
I think the most damning evidence is how donations dried up when she no longer had any influence to sell. There was no change in the good programs sponsored by them, but all of a sudden (11-8-2016) people stopped sending money.
If the argument is that Trump must be bad because the Clintons were good, I fail to see it.
OO, I don't disagree with much that you say here. The evidence that you state regarding the donations after she wasn't SOS is damning.
I think the Foundation pre-dated her time as SOS quite a bit. That's why I was questioning how it was plainly obvious that it was originally set up as a conduit for shady donations.
The Clinton name had plenty of influence, with or without Hillary as SOS. "You give $X to the Foundation, and I'll put in a good word for you," would have a lot of appeal many places.
As for how the cash got from the Foundation to the Clintons, there would be lots of ways. When you have a big bunch of money to give away, all sorts of deals can be cooked up. I seem to recall that Chelsea was employed by the Foundation at an exorbitant salary for a while. That would be one way. For another, it would have been very easy to set up arrangements where funds from the agency were sent to a particular charitable endeavor, and Bill or Hillary got a big honorarium to speak at an event held by that organization. We give you $500,000, you pay us $200,000 to speak, you're still $300,000 to the good, as a quick example. It's not hard to think of others.
(04-08-2019 01:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 12:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 12:32 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 12:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]George... you had been on a roll in that you had gone a couple posts without calling somebody dumb.
To be clear, I don't generally call people dumb. I have called you ignorant a couple of times because you've said things that are ignorant. Stop saying things that are dumb, and you will not be called dumb (at least not by me).
Got it. Appreciate the advice. Were you going to answer my question?
To be honest, I was giving you a fair chance to see if you would actually take the advice to heart. It's clear that you haven't, and likely that you never intended to. It would not be the first insincere statement you've made here.
OK... I'm not sure what you want me to say here. I sort of deflected your comments towards me because I don't choose to engage in that sort of thing on internet discussion boards.
I'm going to assume that you are not going to answer my question. I was honestly trying to figure out when Hillary refused to place assets in a blind trust. It would have not surprised me if that was the case however I had not heard about it.
(04-08-2019 01:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 01:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 12:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 12:32 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 12:17 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]George... you had been on a roll in that you had gone a couple posts without calling somebody dumb.
To be clear, I don't generally call people dumb. I have called you ignorant a couple of times because you've said things that are ignorant. Stop saying things that are dumb, and you will not be called dumb (at least not by me).
Got it. Appreciate the advice. Were you going to answer my question?
To be honest, I was giving you a fair chance to see if you would actually take the advice to heart. It's clear that you haven't, and likely that you never intended to. It would not be the first insincere statement you've made here.
OK... I'm not sure what you want me to say here. I sort of deflected your comments towards me because I don't choose to engage in that sort of thing on internet discussion boards.
I'm going to assume that you are not going to answer my question. I was honestly trying to figure out when Hillary refused to place assets in a blind trust. It would have not surprised me if that was the case however I had not heard about it.
As I said, I'm giving you a chance to take the advice you said you appreciated. If so, we can converse again -- perhaps at the Laureates Dinner. :)
The other point can wait, since you don't seem to be disputing it.
(04-08-2019 01:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 01:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]93, my opinion is that Foundation was set up to be a smokescreen for influence peddling. Certainly not all the donations were to curry favor, and lots of good uses for most of the money were found. But a smart politician does not funnel those sorts of donations through personal accounts. They go to trusts and campaign funds, they go to relatives and staffers, the money winds a meandering trail(talk about money laundering!!!), and one reason is so they can release a personal return that looks and smells clean. Good politicians do this well, and the Clintons are smart people who learned from their early mistakes. None of their returns will show money coming directly from XYZ.
I have no idea how money got from Donors to the Clinton pockets, but I believe lots of it did.
I think the most damning evidence is how donations dried up when she no longer had any influence to sell. There was no change in the good programs sponsored by them, but all of a sudden (11-8-2016) people stopped sending money.
If the argument is that Trump must be bad because the Clintons were good, I fail to see it.
OO, I don't disagree with much that you say here. The evidence that you state regarding the donations after she wasn't SOS is damning.
I think the Foundation pre-dated her time as SOS quite a bit. That's why I was questioning how it was plainly obvious that it was originally set up as a conduit for shady donations.
I believe they also closed a significant portion of the foundation around the time she ran for office (which was already a plan of theirs, regardless of her run).
(04-08-2019 02:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 01:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 01:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 12:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 12:32 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]To be clear, I don't generally call people dumb. I have called you ignorant a couple of times because you've said things that are ignorant. Stop saying things that are dumb, and you will not be called dumb (at least not by me).
Got it. Appreciate the advice. Were you going to answer my question?
To be honest, I was giving you a fair chance to see if you would actually take the advice to heart. It's clear that you haven't, and likely that you never intended to. It would not be the first insincere statement you've made here.
OK... I'm not sure what you want me to say here. I sort of deflected your comments towards me because I don't choose to engage in that sort of thing on internet discussion boards.
I'm going to assume that you are not going to answer my question. I was honestly trying to figure out when Hillary refused to place assets in a blind trust. It would have not surprised me if that was the case however I had not heard about it.
As I said, I'm giving you a chance to take the advice you said you appreciated. If so, we can converse again -- perhaps at the Laureates Dinner. :)
The other point can wait, since you don't seem to be disputing it.
No, please... address the point. I would like to know the answer. I'm neither agreeing or disputing it.
(04-08-2019 02:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 02:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 01:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 01:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 12:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]Got it. Appreciate the advice. Were you going to answer my question?
To be honest, I was giving you a fair chance to see if you would actually take the advice to heart. It's clear that you haven't, and likely that you never intended to. It would not be the first insincere statement you've made here.
OK... I'm not sure what you want me to say here. I sort of deflected your comments towards me because I don't choose to engage in that sort of thing on internet discussion boards.
I'm going to assume that you are not going to answer my question. I was honestly trying to figure out when Hillary refused to place assets in a blind trust. It would have not surprised me if that was the case however I had not heard about it.
As I said, I'm giving you a chance to take the advice you said you appreciated. If so, we can converse again -- perhaps at the Laureates Dinner. :)
The other point can wait, since you don't seem to be disputing it.
No, please... address the point. I would like to know the answer. I'm neither agreeing or disputing it.
As I said, I'm giving you a chance. Let's see how you do first.
(04-08-2019 02:09 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 02:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 02:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 01:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 01:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ]To be honest, I was giving you a fair chance to see if you would actually take the advice to heart. It's clear that you haven't, and likely that you never intended to. It would not be the first insincere statement you've made here.
OK... I'm not sure what you want me to say here. I sort of deflected your comments towards me because I don't choose to engage in that sort of thing on internet discussion boards.
I'm going to assume that you are not going to answer my question. I was honestly trying to figure out when Hillary refused to place assets in a blind trust. It would have not surprised me if that was the case however I had not heard about it.
As I said, I'm giving you a chance to take the advice you said you appreciated. If so, we can converse again -- perhaps at the Laureates Dinner. :)
The other point can wait, since you don't seem to be disputing it.
No, please... address the point. I would like to know the answer. I'm neither agreeing or disputing it.
As I said, I'm giving you a chance. Let's see how you do first.
You are giving me a chance for what, exactly?
I'm feeling less confident that you have a good explanation as to how Hillary Clinton fought against putting assets in a blind trust.
(04-08-2019 02:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 01:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 01:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]93, my opinion is that Foundation was set up to be a smokescreen for influence peddling. Certainly not all the donations were to curry favor, and lots of good uses for most of the money were found. But a smart politician does not funnel those sorts of donations through personal accounts. They go to trusts and campaign funds, they go to relatives and staffers, the money winds a meandering trail(talk about money laundering!!!), and one reason is so they can release a personal return that looks and smells clean. Good politicians do this well, and the Clintons are smart people who learned from their early mistakes. None of their returns will show money coming directly from XYZ.
I have no idea how money got from Donors to the Clinton pockets, but I believe lots of it did.
I think the most damning evidence is how donations dried up when she no longer had any influence to sell. There was no change in the good programs sponsored by them, but all of a sudden (11-8-2016) people stopped sending money.
If the argument is that Trump must be bad because the Clintons were good, I fail to see it.
OO, I don't disagree with much that you say here. The evidence that you state regarding the donations after she wasn't SOS is damning.
I think the Foundation pre-dated her time as SOS quite a bit. That's why I was questioning how it was plainly obvious that it was originally set up as a conduit for shady donations.
I believe they also closed a significant portion of the foundation around the time she ran for office (which was already a plan of theirs, regardless of her run).
The donation history tells a different story than that, iirc. Donations were at the 200 million dollar level in 2016, I believe. 27 million in 2017.
(04-08-2019 02:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 02:09 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 02:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 02:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 01:58 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]OK... I'm not sure what you want me to say here. I sort of deflected your comments towards me because I don't choose to engage in that sort of thing on internet discussion boards.
I'm going to assume that you are not going to answer my question. I was honestly trying to figure out when Hillary refused to place assets in a blind trust. It would have not surprised me if that was the case however I had not heard about it.
As I said, I'm giving you a chance to take the advice you said you appreciated. If so, we can converse again -- perhaps at the Laureates Dinner. :)
The other point can wait, since you don't seem to be disputing it.
No, please... address the point. I would like to know the answer. I'm neither agreeing or disputing it.
As I said, I'm giving you a chance. Let's see how you do first.
You are giving me a chance for what, exactly?
You said that you appreciate the advice to stop staying things that are dumb. I took that at first as a sincere comment, but the jury is out on whether you intend to follow through on it. As I said, let's see how you do. If you live up to it, then we can converse some more -- and I even suggested a place where we could do so. If you can't make it there, you are welcome to call or email me; my phone number is 713-269-5061 and my email is to gwebb@rice.edu. But again, let's see how you do. You've got an uphill climb.
(04-08-2019 02:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 02:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 01:24 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 01:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]93, my opinion is that Foundation was set up to be a smokescreen for influence peddling. Certainly not all the donations were to curry favor, and lots of good uses for most of the money were found. But a smart politician does not funnel those sorts of donations through personal accounts. They go to trusts and campaign funds, they go to relatives and staffers, the money winds a meandering trail(talk about money laundering!!!), and one reason is so they can release a personal return that looks and smells clean. Good politicians do this well, and the Clintons are smart people who learned from their early mistakes. None of their returns will show money coming directly from XYZ.
I have no idea how money got from Donors to the Clinton pockets, but I believe lots of it did.
I think the most damning evidence is how donations dried up when she no longer had any influence to sell. There was no change in the good programs sponsored by them, but all of a sudden (11-8-2016) people stopped sending money.
If the argument is that Trump must be bad because the Clintons were good, I fail to see it.
OO, I don't disagree with much that you say here. The evidence that you state regarding the donations after she wasn't SOS is damning.
I think the Foundation pre-dated her time as SOS quite a bit. That's why I was questioning how it was plainly obvious that it was originally set up as a conduit for shady donations.
I believe they also closed a significant portion of the foundation around the time she ran for office (which was already a plan of theirs, regardless of her run).
The donation history tells a different story than that, iirc. Donations were at the 200 million dollar level in 2016, I believe. 27 million in 2017.
Yeah - the Clinton Global Initiative stopped in 2017.
No question that some of the drop was due to her no longer being in the running to be president, but dropping the Initiative was huge.
You're off on your numbers too:
Quote:...$26.6 million in 2017, down from $62.9 million in 2016
https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/...nt-in-2017
Apparently, a lot of people seeking influence would have been better off renting rooms from the Trump Hotel.
Cheaper, too. Probably by a factor of 1000.
Too bad Harvard doesnt own a hotel. I could get my niece into Harvard by staying there a couple of nights.
(04-08-2019 04:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Too bad Harvard doesnt own a hotel. I could get my niece into Harvard by staying there a couple of nights.
Lots of universities have on-campus hotels. I don't think staying there buys influence, but it can't hurt. On the other hand, six- (or more) figure gifts to the university's foundation are purely altruistic.
(04-08-2019 04:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 04:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Too bad Harvard doesnt own a hotel. I could get my niece into Harvard by staying there a couple of nights.
Lots of universities have on-campus hotels. I don't think staying there buys influence, but it can't hurt. On the other hand, six- (or more) figure gifts to the university's foundation are purely altruistic.
My guess is you're alluding to the Clinton Foundation, that both 93 and I have said represented a significant conflict of interest, no?
And I think you actually make a great point that 93 said earlier - the Clinton Foundation, just like university foundations, are net set up solely to be conduits of influence. They have broader missions that they serve. However, they can be taken advantage of by both parties (givers and receivers).
I find it interesting that such smart people seem to poo-poo the idea that a hotel (or business in general) could be a conduit for influence peddling. I have to imagine there are lots of legal cases that deal with this very issue.
(04-08-2019 04:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 04:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Too bad Harvard doesnt own a hotel. I could get my niece into Harvard by staying there a couple of nights.
Lots of universities have on-campus hotels. I don't think staying there buys influence, but it can't hurt. On the other hand, six- (or more) figure gifts to the university's foundation are purely altruistic.
I'm more partial to buying the fencing coach's house at an inflated price. Taking a true lesson from the Chicago machine with that move....
(04-08-2019 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 04:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 04:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Too bad Harvard doesnt own a hotel. I could get my niece into Harvard by staying there a couple of nights.
Lots of universities have on-campus hotels. I don't think staying there buys influence, but it can't hurt. On the other hand, six- (or more) figure gifts to the university's foundation are purely altruistic.
My guess is you're alluding to the Clinton Foundation, that both 93 and I have said represented a significant conflict of interest, no?
And I think you actually make a great point that 93 said earlier - the Clinton Foundation, just like university foundations, are net set up solely to be conduits of influence. They have broader missions that they serve. However, they can be taken advantage of by both parties (givers and receivers).
I find it interesting that such smart people seem to poo-poo the idea that a hotel (or business in general) could be a conduit for influence peddling. I have to imagine there are lots of legal cases that deal with this very issue.
In theory it could be, but the risk seems quite small, and there does not seem to be evidence that it actually is.
On the other hand, we know that buying a politician's book, and making it known that one has bought it, has often been used to curry favor by signaling loyalty. Does a politician selling books disturb you? The reach of your standard seems to be that a politician should not be allowed to reap satisfaction from any activity outside politicking, lest someone engage in that activity in order to flatter the politician.
On the third hand, we have the Clinton enterprise -- one of the most notorious vehicles for influence peddling in recent history. And THAT's the one you think is readily excused?
I have analyzed many actual and potential conflicts of interest in my career, and have provided professional opinions on them (in fact, I'm involved right now in tow such analyses). Some situations are serious, some are moderate, and some are immaterial. On that spectrum, mere ownership of a non-monopoly hotel seems pretty close to immaterial; whereas directing a foundation for receiving gifts from influence-seekers and for employing cronies seems extremely serious.
(04-08-2019 04:25 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 04:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (04-08-2019 04:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Too bad Harvard doesnt own a hotel. I could get my niece into Harvard by staying there a couple of nights.
Lots of universities have on-campus hotels. I don't think staying there buys influence, but it can't hurt. On the other hand, six- (or more) figure gifts to the university's foundation are purely altruistic.
My guess is you're alluding to the Clinton Foundation, that both 93 and I have said represented a significant conflict of interest, no?
And I think you actually make a great point that 93 said earlier - the Clinton Foundation, just like university foundations, are net set up solely to be conduits of influence. They have broader missions that they serve. However, they can be taken advantage of by both parties (givers and receivers).
I find it interesting that such smart people seem to poo-poo the idea that a hotel (or business in general) could be a conduit for influence peddling. I have to imagine there are lots of legal cases that deal with this very issue.
I find it interesting that such smart people think a multi-billionaire would be influenced by such a paltry sum.
It's the difference between being one of a few guys donating $20,000,000 and one of a thousand paying $400 for a room.
Strange you think renting a room get's Trump's attention.
I once asked a local politician to meet me for lunch to discuss something. At the end, I asked if it would be a problem if I got the check. He said (jokingly), if you think I can be bought for a hamburger, you have another think coming.
PS. He voted against me. I guess somebody else got the combo.
But I want to know, how does he please all 1000 of his renters every day? So each morning, he calls for a list of who is staying there, and then he spends the day making sure they all get what they want - even if it goes directly against what another renter wants. How does he choose between hamas and Israel? The bigger room?