What ties, beyond the name, does she have with the Foundation?
In short: She should do it because people are lying about it. Though once she does, they will just say it proves they were right.
Where are the NYT calls for Trump to distance himself from his foundation (which, by the way, has done none of the good acts the Clinton foundation has)?
I assume the Times has demanded that Trump sever all ties with his business interests.
I am guessing that HRCâs tax returns showed nothing sinister regarding the Clinton Foundation.
Let Donnie release his tax returns to prove that all his payoffs from the Russian government were properly handled / taxed; that all the defrauded Drumpf University students were paid back in full; and that all the charities received all the donations Drumpf promised.
Then HRC and Drumpf will be on an even footing to discuss what should, or shouldnât happen with their respective foundations.
MAYBE the NYT should stop being an advocate for the âmany people sayâ BS and go back to reporting the ânewsâ and maybe TRUTH in journalism. HRC could âcut tiesâ with the Foundation and the media and Trump supporters would STILL whine and snivel about it. The Clinton Foundation does good work. Period. There is no evidence they have done anything ELSE. Period. They are rated one of the top charities for donor money getting where it should. Period. There is no evidence or proof that there was ANY pay for play. Period. So NYTâŚSTFU and do YOUR job and stop worrying about stuff that are lies. I am AMAZED that the Trumpster spews a lie and the âfourth Estateâ drops everything they are doing to chase after it even when they know itâs BS before they begin and they totally ignore what used to pass for REAL NEWS.
But the board wrote, âTrump has reason to say that while Mrs. Clinton was secretary, it was hard to tell where the foundation ended and the State Department began.â
No he does not have a reason to suspect that. He however has a reason to go play âfetchâ with that third Annie Sullivan with the Foundation being the âboneâ.
Also everyone and his granny are very aware that Trump didnât state that from the get go, so stop putting words in his mouth.
âTrump has reason to say that while Mrs. Clinton was secretary, it was hard to tell where the foundation ended and the State Department began.â
Except, no he doesnât. At all. The reporting was all public.
Hereâs an interesting tidbit reported from Vox about a possible âSETI signalâ emanating from a star 94 light years distant and discovered by Russian Astronomers that has the media abuzz. One of the scientists interviewed was highly skeptical.Notice the similarities to the Clinton âscandals.â
Because the receivers used were making broad band measurements, thereâs really nothing about this âsignalâ that would distinguish it from a natural radio transient (stellar flare, active galactic nucleus, microlensing of a background source, etc.) Thereâs also nothing that could distinguish it from a satellite passing through the telescope field of view. All in all, itâs relatively uninteresting from a SETI standpoint.
[Thereâs no there there.]
But, of course, itâs been announced to the media. Reporters wonât have the background to know itâs not interesting. Because the media has it, and since this business runs on media, [other astronomers] will look at it. ⌠And weâll all find nothing. Itâs not our first time at this rodeo, so we know how it works.
The wishfull thinking âstoryâ is primary to the facts of the matter. Scientists, in general, are highly suspicious of the press since they almost always âfuck up the scienceâ in reporting it.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/8/30/12709286/seti-signal-aliens-hd164595
Also in Vox is a slendid article by Matt Yglesias exposing the Media double standard viz a viz Clinton v. Powell Foundations
https://www.google.com/amp/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2016/8/30/12690444/alma-powell-clinton-foundation
Who knows, maybe Hillz will follow your advice, but my attitude is âsuck it, NYTâ , fuckin hypocrites who still wonât admit that they made a mistake with Whitewater.
Ah yes, our Media Glitterati stil insists thereâs a seven course meal with their big nothingburger, pushing the endless narrative of âscandalsâ and whatever else.
Were it that they had the same passion for âcoming cleanâ when it was our Iraqi Expedition.
âThe Clinton Foundation has become a symbol of the Clintonsâ laudable ambitions, but also of their tangled alliances and operational opacity,â the board wrote. âIf Mrs. Clinton wins, it could prove a target for her political adversaries. Achieving true distance from the foundation is not only necessary to ensure its effectiveness, it is an ethical imperative for Mrs. Clinton.â
Today is August 31st
Iâm willing to do a wager that within two weeks, there will be an editorial from a moderate paper that states that seeing how the CGI is going to be folded into the foundation, its perhaps wise that the foundation is either divested of all the Clintons or shut down all together.
I canât wait for that editorial that again asks Trump to show his tax returns.
You hit that nail right on the head, and it is why I am of two minds about this. I figure, as you described using other words, that itâs going to be a no-win situation.
However, she could bow out pleading no time, more important focus at the moment, etc. Or she could do it once she has won, pleading the weight of the office.
But whether she is in or out, Chelsea and Bill are still in. So the slimers will continue to slime. And if they all bow out, well, then, it was all a scam anyway.
You canât win on this one.
Funny, though, that nobody is asking Donnie and Eric Trump to distance themselves from their âFoundationâ (probably because everybody knows it is a self-serving scam and there is no-one of any importance attached to itâŚ).
The Clintons already published their plan for the Foundation once HRC becomes president. This piece from Vox put the Clinton double standard in perspective for me.
Says more about The Times than Clinton when decisions are made on symbols rather than fact. If press did their job, an informed public would react to facts rather than to symbols. Apparently it is easier to report hype void of fact. Takes work to get to the truth. Was there ever any evidence of a conflict for Clinton? None have been reported.
So where was the Editorial Board when Alma Powell was (still is) the Chairman of Americaâs Promise Alliance while her husband was then the sitting Sec of State of the Bush Admin? Powell himself was the founder, the organization has received huge donations, and yet I donât remember the NY Times having any yuuge problem with it like they do with the Clinton Foundation. Do you?
Emails, charity, whatever⌠for the NY Times itâs a scandal only when it is something about the Clintons.
Thanks for the link â although I would have described it as âthe double standard vis-a-vis Clintonâ rather than âClinton double standardâ (the latter imples she âownsâ it, the former that she âsuffers fromâ it).
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-presidentâs 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.
from that storyâŚ
A more charitable interpretation is that the NYT knows that Trump will never be president and therefore is more concerned about Hillary matters being a distraction to her presidency. Do I believe this? Based on the NYTs treatment of the Emails, as far as I could drop kick a Plymouth Grand Fury in a swamp.
Trump does have reason to make wild claims about the Clinton Foundation.
His reason? He likes self-serving lies, unsupported by evidence, that his Hillary Hating followers will gobble up.