Support NeoGAF

[MassiveNights]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKBN12E2IF

Hacked emails published by Wikileaks this week appear to show Qatar pledging to donate $1 million to Hillary Clinton's family's charitable foundation, despite her promise to curb new donations by foreign governments while U.S. secretary of state.

Hillary Clinton promised the U.S. government that while she served as secretary of state the foundation would not accept new funding from foreign governments without seeking clearance from the State Department's ethics office.

The State Department has said it cannot cite any instances of its ethics officials reviewing or approving new donations from foreign governments to the foundation while Clinton served as the country's top diplomat from 2009 until 2013.

The emails released by Wikileaks do not appear to confirm whether Qatar gave the promised $1 million, although the foundation's website lists the State of Qatar as having given at least that amount. There is no date listed for the donation. A spokesman for the foundation declined to confirm the donation.

Reuters could not rule out the possibility the $1 million was intended as a birthday present for Clinton personally, not for the foundation. His spokesman did not respond to questions.

The ethics agreement allowed foreign governments that already supported foundation projects to continue while Clinton was at the State Department. However, if one of those governments wanted to "increase materially its commitment," then the foundation was required to ask the department first.

Craig Minassian, a foundation spokesman, declined to confirm if Qatar gave the $1 million described in the 2012 email. Even if it had, he said he questioned whether the money would be considered a "material increase." He said Qatar has been donating since 2002, and that some of those donations have been greater than $1 million.

Qatar's embassy in Washington did not respond to questions. A spokesman for Clinton, who was campaigning in Seattle on Friday, also did not respond to questions.

There's a lot of not responding to questions here, which is never a good look. Personally I think at some point the Clinton campaign is going to have to respond to questions.

 

[KHarvey16]

"Even if it had, he said he questioned whether the money would be considered a "material increase." He said Qatar has been donating since 2002, and that some of those donations have been greater than $1 million."

How doesn't that sort of squash this immediately?

 

[MassiveNights]

"Even if it had, he said he questioned whether the money would be considered a "material increase." He said Qatar has been donating since 2002, and that some of those donations have been greater than $1 million."

How doesn't that sort of squash this immediately?

Because it's rather vague and he doesn't say for certain whether or not it's a material increase?

I dunno, I think the questions are valid here. Nothing wrong with questions. If that's really the case then what's the problem? Which of the donations were greater than $1m?

 

[geomon]

"Even if it had, he said he questioned whether the money would be considered a "material increase." He said Qatar has been donating since 2002, and that some of those donations have been greater than $1 million."

How doesn't that sort of squash this immediately?

Because Crooked Hillary or some shit like that.

 

[vikki]

This doesn't seem that bad. Maybe should've asked, but given that past donations were greater than a mil, a million doesn't seem uncharacteristicly large.

 

[KHarvey16]

Because it's rather vague and he doesn't say for certain whether or not it's a material increase?

I dunno, I think the questions are valid here. Nothing wrong with questions. If that's really the case then what's the problem?

If that's the case then they answered it.

 

[Chumly]

"Even if it had, he said he questioned whether the money would be considered a "material increase." He said Qatar has been donating since 2002, and that some of those donations have been greater than $1 million."

How doesn't that sort of squash this immediately?

seriously. What a joke. This is the best they can do for creating a scandal???

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

My god this is the stretch of all stretches. What ethical breach is this raising the possibility of?

 

[MassiveNights]

seriously. What a joke. This is the best they can do for creating a scandal???

Nobody is creating a scandal, let's calm down.

Reuters asked some questions.

 

[Toxi]

Nobody is creating a scandal, let's calm down.

Reuters asked some questions.

"Just asking questions"

 

[SporeCrawler]

.. should have defined material increase in that ethics contract.

 

[Kyou]

This is getting sad

 

[Eidan]

Eventually someone is going to have to produce an actual case of wrongdoing on the part of the Clinton Foundation. These continual articles about "potential problems" are becoming weaker and weaker.

 

[Kinyou]

Reuters could not rule out the possibility the $1 million was intended as a birthday present for Clinton personally, not for the foundation. His spokesman did not respond to questions.

Doesn't this sound even more outlandish than the original allegation?

 

[MassiveNights]

"Just asking questions"

That's kind of their job. They are an international news agency, not some Breitbart skidmark off the street.

I don't know why everyone's getting hysterical.

 

[Fat4all]

I'm wondering how many other highly rated charities have gone through as much transparency scrutiny as this one, because holy shit.

I don't know why everyone's getting hysterical.

really? with these kind of questions?

Reuters could not rule out the possibility the $1 million was intended as a birthday present for Clinton personally, not for the foundation. His spokesman did not respond to questions.

wtf is that even

 

[norm9]

It's like crashing into other cars to bump up your position in the first turn in racing games. It's not good, but it ain't illegal.

 

[GutsOfThor]

1 million dollars as a birthday present!?

I can't help but wonder if we'll be seeing that in a republican ad.

 

[dave is ok]

Qatar should probably spend that money on the safety of their own and migrant workers instead.

 

[RDreamer]

That's kind of their job. They are an international news agency, not some Breitbart skidmark off the street.

I don't know why everyone's getting hysterical.

Asking questions is absolutely their job, I agree, but publishing vague nothings without much actual answers doesn't seem to be a great idea.

 

[vikki]

Something is funny with the title. Is it ethical to breach Clinton foundation emails and then release them?

 

[titiklabingapat]

They got nothing.

 

[Trouble]

 

[Eidan]

That's kind of their job. They are an international news agency, not some Breitbart skidmark off the street.

I don't know why everyone's getting hysterical.

Hysterical? I think people are just treating questions about ethics violations on the part of the Clinton Foundation with healthy levels of skepticism after months of seeing how all of them amounted to "There were no ethical violations, but my god, the OPTICS!"

 

[MassiveNights]

If that's the case then they answered it.

Not necessarily. The foundation spokesman said Qatar had been donating since 2002 and some of the donations were over $1m.

What if they donated $2m in 2003, $1.5m in 2004, didn't donate for 8 years then donated $1m in 2012. Isn't that a material increase?

I don't know why they wouldn't just shut this down immediately. It was the vagueness and lack of comment from both Clinton spokespersons that seemed off with me.

 

[jackissocool]

That's kind of their job. They are an international news agency, not some Breitbart skidmark off the street.

I don't know why everyone's getting hysterical.

journalists shouldn't look at Clinton, obvs

 

[Beefy]

Wikileaks...

 

[Stinkles]

I'm wondering how many other highly rated charities have gone through as much transparency scrutiny as this one, because holy shit.



really? with these kind of questions?



wtf is that even

That is really weird for Reuters. They tend to stay pretty sterile and that is like an Alex Jones level question.

 

[rjinaz]

It's amazing that Clinton has a country hacking and combing through all the personal and private conversations they can get their hands on and they still come up with very little.

I actually think that says a lot about Clinton, that despite these attempts she comes out above it all. Too bad her critics will never see it as they pray for more leaks; how American!

 

[vikki]

Not necessarily. The foundation spokesman said Qatar had been donating since 2002 and some of the donations were over $1m.

What if they donated $2m in 2003, $1.5m in 2004, didn't donate for 8 years then donated $1m in 2012. Isn't that a material increase?

I don't know why they wouldn't just shut this down immediately. It was the vagueness and lack of comment from both Clinton spokespersons that seemed off with me.

This is normal for most companies though. Why do they absolutely need to shut this down?

 

[norm9]

It's amazing that Clinton has a country hacking and combing through all the personal and private conversations they can get their hands on and they still come up with very little.

I actually think that says a lot about Clinton, that despite these attempts she comes out above it all. Too bad her critics will never see it as they pray for more leaks; how American!

She's had decades of experience to learn the ropes and loopholes.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

It's amazing that Clinton has a country hacking and combing through all the personal and private conversations they can get their hands on and they still come up with very little.

I actually think that says a lot about Clinton, that despite these attempts she comes out above it all. Too bad her critics will never see it as they pray for more leaks, how American!

It's a disgrace, that's what it is.

 

[MassiveNights]

This is normal for most companies though. Why do they absolutely need to shut this down?

Because she had an agreement with the government that while she served as secretary of state the foundation would not accept new funding from foreign governments without seeking clearance from the State Department's ethics office and the State Department has said it cannot cite any instances of its ethics officials reviewing or approving new donations from foreign governments to the foundation while Clinton served.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

journalists shouldn't look at Clinton, obvs

Kind of fucked up where we're living in two different realities. In one reality, Clinton has to answer for QUESTIONS and POSSIBILITIES over "material increases" while Trump trots out a guy who pimped out boys and is a notorious fraud in the UK as proof he didn't assault women and Fox News is peddling it.

Two completely different standards being applied and realities being created.

 

[Toxi]

Reuters could not rule out the possibility the $1 million was intended as a birthday present for Clinton personally, not for the foundation. His spokesman did not respond to questions.

"Reuters could not rule out the possibility that the $1 million was intended to fund killing puppies and taking candy from babies."

 

[MooseKnuckles]

Doesn't this sound even more outlandish than the original allegation?

Reading the article it seems like there's no information to suggest that this would be the case, the reporter just asked the question and didn't get a response? Without any supporting information provided it seems like a bit of an odd thing to include.

 

[Balphon]

She's had decades of experience to learn the ropes and loopholes.

So the absence of evidence is evidence.

My head hurts.

 

[MattKeil]

That's it? 30+ years of digging and this is all you got?

Even if there was any evidence that this was at all shady, which there isn't, it would still leave Clinton as one of the most squeaky clean career politicians of the last 50 years. At the levels she has operated at, it's almost shocking, really.

Oh but yeah, I'm sure this totally makes her as bad as the racist who wants to round up all the brown people and grab women by the crotch. Lock her up or something.

 

[Burt]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKBN12E2IF
There's a lot of not responding to questions here, which is never a good look. Personally I think at some point the Clinton campaign is going to have to respond to questions.

Clinton campaign came out a said a while ago that they're no longer answering questions related to the hacking, because

1) In general, it's aiding a foreign intelligence service's deliberate interference in a presidential election
2) Specifically, it's very obviously a malicious internet troll-level smear campaign targeted directly at their candidate

and

3) every time,

We're way beyond (way, way, way beyond) the point of giving this stuff any sort of credibility.

 

[MassiveNights]

That's it? 30+ years of digging and this is all you got?

Even if there was any evidence that this was at all shady, which there isn't, it would still leave Clinton as one of the most squeaky clean career politicians of the last 50 years. At the levels she has operated at, it's almost shocking, really.

Oh but yeah, I'm sure this totally makes her as bad as the racist who wants to round up all the brown people and grab women by the crotch. Lock her up or something.

You understand that there's a wide spectrum between braindead racist Trump supporter spouting conspiracy theories and journalists doing their job right?

 

[BotoxAgent]

So fucking nothing? Got it

 

[MattKeil]

Further, who the fuck in their right mind thinks Clinton, who knew she would be making another run at the presidency in 2016, would have accepted a $1 million gift under these pretenses at that time? She was worth almost $200 million at that point. If you've got $200,000 in the bank, and someone offers you $1000 in a manner that is likely to get you fired and/or thrown in jail in a few years, would you take that? It's ridiculous.

You understand that there's a wide spectrum between braindead racist Trump supporter spouting conspiracy theories and journalists doing their job right?

Not in this case there isn't. This is the biggest nothing masquerading as a story so far. I mean the literal crux of it is "we couldn't prove it wasn't totally crooked." It's not journalism, it's muckraking, and it's pathetic.

 

[MassiveNights]

Clinton campaign came out a said a while ago that they're no longer answering questions related to the hacking, because

1) In general, it's aiding a foreign intelligence service's interference in a presidential election
2) Specifically, it's very obviously a malicious internet troll-level smear campaign targeted directly at their candidate

and 3) every time,

We're way beyond (way, way, way beyond) the point of giving this stuff any sort of credibility.

I understand that viewpoint and totally get it in relation to stuff like inside baseball political party stuff but this is about a potential breach of agreement with the US government during her time as secretary of state.

Transparency can be a positive.

 

[GhaleonEB]

It raises the possibility and then pretty much closes it at the same time. They're really digging to find something here.

 

[MassiveNights]

I'm wondering how many other highly rated charities have gone through as much transparency scrutiny as this one, because holy shit.



really? with these kind of questions?



wtf is that even

The birthday present bit comes from this, in the article, it's not out of nowhere:

The ambassador said that he asked "to see WJC 'for five minutes' in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC's birthday in 2011," Amitabh Desai, the foundation official, writes in his email, using the former U.S. president's initials.

 

[rjinaz]

She's had decades of experience to learn the ropes and loopholes.

She uses invisible email ink! Got ya.

 

[Slurpy2k20]

Can someone please explain to me why there's been almost zero mainstream coverage of the sham that is the Trump foundation that seems to be a complete scam? I've seen an article or two but barely anything compared to the scrutiny of the CF which is actually legit.

 

[MassiveNights]

Can someone please explain to me why there's been almost zero mainstream coverage of the sham that is the Trump foundation that seems to be a complete scam? I've seen an article or two but barely anything compared to the scrutiny of the CF which is actually legit.

Trump is too busy burning fires with the section of the electorate he requires to vote him to power, and it's all on tape.

 

[DR2K]

They better find something real quick this election is almost over:

 

[DOWN]

Because it's rather vague and he doesn't say for certain whether or not it's a material increase?

I dunno, I think the questions are valid here. Nothing wrong with questions. If that's really the case then what's the problem? Which of the donations were greater than $1m?

Nothing wrong with questions lmao

Implications without merit made via questions are the worst. That's how Fox News thrives. "I'm just a journalist asking questions. Was Obama born in America? Shouldn't we just have him answer?"