Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Ooops Clintons Fail to Report $24 Million in Income
McClatchy has an interesting story about how Hillary, while following ethics rules fails to report $24 million of Bill's income. Here's where some of the income came from.
2004: .... $4 million from the offshore partnership with Burkle, the billionaire founder of the Los Angeles-based Yucaipa Companies LLC.
2005: .... $5 million from the Yucaipa partnership.
2006: .... He also received $2.6 million, some of it in ``guaranteed payments,'' from the Cayman Islands-based Yucaipa partnership, which invested in Xinhua Finance Media Ltd., China's leading, government-controlled financial and entertainment media company.For complete article please go here
Probably a little late to have much effect on tomorrow, butonce again she shows she's just one of us.
Advertisement
Comments (40)
Wait, that just makes 11.6 million. We're still missing... um... *gets out a calculator* ...12.4 million!! *gets out a magnifying glass*
May 5, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please note I said some. Read entire article to see it all.
May 5, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Passes Senate rules, fails the honesty test.
"On at least three occasions in February, however, Clinton campaign officials reassured the public that her Senate disclosure forms offered a sufficient look into her finances"
May 5, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Show me any official action Hillary has taken to benefit Bill's financial interests?
Barack Obama requested a $1,000,000 earmark to his wife's employer the University of Chicago Hospitals. This of course after he became a Senator and Michelle Obama received a 200,000 160% increase in her role as VP, external & Community affairs.
Those in glass houses should not throw stones, particularly if they have no evidence or even implication of any wrongdoing.
May 6, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weasel words, dijamo. She was promoted.
May 6, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many people get promoted at 200,000 increase 160%? If the hospital can prove it wasn't an unusual circumstance, I'm all ears. As the wife of a Senator she was more valuable to the hospital because of increased connections in her role dealing with contributions, government and communtiy affairs.
May 6, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This comment has got to be the stupidest I have read today: "Barack Obama requested a $1,000,000 earmark to his wife's employer the University of Chicago Hospitals. "
You must be a very stupid person, because you don't know SHIT ABOUT SHINOLA.
The University of Chicago Hospital, moron, probably employ 10,000 person. Michelle is one of probably 100 management persons in the hospital. There will be a STRICT, EXTREMELY HIGH Chinese wall between any thing she does and anything he can affect.
You Clinton people are truly mostly really stupid. Don't you think that Obama has a lot of pressure to help out hospitals in his district/state of all sorts? The answer is yes, bonehead.
Why does preference for Clinton make people say such REMARKABLY STUPID THINGS?
May 6, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am assuming they still teach ethics in Harvard law, but let's lay out the problems here:
1. IT'S HIS WIFE'S EMPLOYER AND SHE IS A MEMBER OF THEIR MANAGEMENT. Duh! Ethical alert #1 If Hillary was giving earmarks to a company Bill was on the board of, you'd be up in arms and rightfully so.
2. He's arguing against earmarks and puts one in for his wife's employer. Duh! Ethical alert #2
3. I am assuming Illinois has another Senator named Durbin. Why wouldn't the request be put in by a Senator that would not allow even the appearance of impropriety since again it is his wife's employer?
4. The gall of an Obama supporter to argue that my pointing out the ethical problems involved with Obama proposing an earmark to benefit his wife's employer (all fact - not a single distortion included) versus ridiculous and unproven lies posted about the Clintons like this:
"Offshore accounts, especially in the Caymans are used to hide income from the IRS. Avoiding taxes is not a crime, evading taxes is. Semantic games I know but there's no way to tell what's going on with those accounts. They are effectively out of reach. Back in 1997 Bill Clinton signed the Republican bill that all but obliterated the IRS's ability to audit the rich. He knew what what he was doing. After 9/11
George Bush made sure the new counter terrorism laws wouldn't touch these kind of accounts, Al Qaeda's money laundering be damned. "
or this
"The income tax returns that the SPOUSES are required to file is far more obtuse than the candidates themselves.
There is the legality of the off-shore tax haven status of the Yucaipa business interest - is that legal?? Does it circumvent the IRS?
What we should be concerned about is if the Clintons have been *bought*, or can be bought.
This will be spalshed all over the Republican ads this Fall should Hillary wins the nomination, so it's really no laughing matter."
May 6, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am sure that the 9,999 other employees of this hospital are right with you on this stupid, useless whine. What is it about Klintoonistas and their whining?
The economic impact of a hospital in the Chicago area is huge. You advocate that Obama should not obtain this earmark? Your position would be very popular in the Chicago area.
May 6, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did not get this earmark becuase it was attempt to circumvent the NIH budgeting of hospital appropriations based on national need versus political connections. And he got lectured by Ted Stevens of all people - KING OF THE EARMARKS. You can't make this stuff up.
May 6, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you would be happier if Obama was a co-sponsor of that extremely valuable Woodstock Memorial that Hillary wasted our time and tried to waste our money on. You Klintoonistas are stuck in the 60s, smokin' the weed, and finding moronic complaints to whine about.
May 6, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"3. I am assuming Illinois has another Senator named Durbin. Why wouldn't the request be put in by a Senator that would not allow even the appearance of impropriety since again it is his wife's employer?"
What a remarkably clever idea. So, your suggestion is that Durbin and Obama COLLUDE to evade the mythical ethical lapse that you have invented? That's a really good idea. Of course, then you whining Klintoonistas would have YET ANOTHER WHINE to WHINE about: "Did you realize that Obama and Durbin COLLUDED to EVADE the FAKE ETHICAL PROBLEM?"
What a clever idea. Collusion like that is much more serious. RICO or something, right?
May 6, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny you should mention that:
1. Hillary and Schumer signed on to the woodstock earmark request which is common when senator's are jointly supporting an earmark.
2. After the whole shady Obama earmark for Michelle's employer became public, Senator durbin's office came out and publicly tred to defend the earmark by saying he and Obama had both discussed it and he was in avor of the earmark. Something tells me if you are being above board to avoid the appearance of impropriety, the one who does not have a familial connection should sponsor the earmark.
It's common sense and I give Obama the credit of assuming he's not an idiot - the man went to law school where again I am assuming the taught ethics. It would take an idiot to not see this is an ethical problem
May 6, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your concept of the notion of conflict of interest is quite limited. In many cases, persons within the same institution do not have a conflict, depending on the size of the institution, the location of the linked parties and the target of the grant. I review for NIH, and have reviewed grants involving persons at my home institution. It requires pre-clearance from the NIH officer, but there are cases where COI is not considered to be serious enough to worry about.
With UoC hospital, a 1M grant is small. They spend that every day on sharps. So, I wouldn't be concerned.
May 6, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's an excellent argumnent - for having it go through the normal review process not an earmark. You don't use a position of authority to try to benefit an employer of your spouse period. I am in HR. Suppose my sister worked for a temporary staffing firm. It would be unethical for me to make the decision to request that business be directed towards her. If I did I would be fired on conflict of interest. Does it matter that she personally would not commission on temps place with us? No - it is the appearance of impropriety and nepotism that rational people in business, law, and yes even politics should avoid at all costs. This attempted earmark was shameful and that fact that you are defending him (while you'd grab a pitchfork if Hillary tried the samething) just goes to show that you have no intellectual honesty. It's wring if Obama does it. It's wrong if Clinton does it. t is wrong if McCain does it. Somethings are objectively right and wrong despite how you may try to turn the issue around.
Now if in full disclosure to my employer and in a competitive bid among other agencies (like requesting NIH funding) the agency employing my sister wins out I have nothing to fear because I did not try to circumvent the process to benefit her. See - ethics in action, not just words. Try it sometime!
May 6, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm not arguing that it was wrong for Clinton, but not for Obama.
I'm arguing that it wasn't wrong, and that your notion of COI is incorrect, and insufficiently nuanced. It's one thing if the 1M is a large amount. For UoC Hospital, the COI is so small that it cannot be seen, except by someone desperate for some idiotic new issue.
May 6, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
A final comment: I note that Clinton tried to get a 1 million dollar grant for a Woodstock museum. Obama got a 1 million dollar grant for a hospital.
Clinton: Woodstock memorials
Obama: Helping out hospitals.
It demonstrates the essential difference between them. Clinton is an intellectual lightweight, Obama is a major player.
May 6, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
BULLSHIT. Clinton also got earmarks to make sure NYC got our fair share of Homeland security dollars, $$$ for emergency response and upgrading our communication systems for firefighters and police to prevent travesties like on 9-11 the 300+ firefighters who were not able to receive warnings about the tower about to collapse.
Obama has supported earmarks for museums in Illinois as well. The republicans attacked Hillary's & schumer's earmark because they tied it to a celebration of drugs, hippies, etc. Nice to see the Obama folks again falling lockstep with republican criticism.
May 6, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You Klintoonistas make me laff!! It's simply hysterical. Whenever your whining about Obama hits the hysteria level, we know ONE THING FOR SURE: Whatever you are whining about, Hillary has done it MORE frequently, MORE emphatically, and with MORE chutzpah and brazen violations. Here we have a situation in which BOTH Clinton and Schumer COLLUDED to try to get this idiotic earmark for Woodstock, and all you can say is "Obama did it too."
Why did Hillary try to get this ridiculous waste of money into a bill? And if Obama did something comparable, what exactly did he do?
May 6, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's an earmark for a memorial to commemorate a cultural milestone. I am as far from a hippie as you can get, but this is not a bridge to nowhere earmark.
As far Obama's earmarks:
In other cases, Mr. Obama’s requests benefited political supporters.
His campaign’s list said the senator had secured $1.3 million of an $8 million request in 2006 for a high-explosive technology program for the Army’s Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The list said the program was overseen by General Dynamics.
One of Mr. Obama’s top supporters, James S. Crown, serves on the board of General Dynamics, a military contractor. Mr. Crown is a member of Mr. Obama’s national finance committee.
Mr. Obama also secured $750,000 of a $3 million request for renovation of a space center named for Mr. Crown’s grandfather, Henry Crown, at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.
In addition to the University of Illinois, Mr. Obama secured several million dollars for a project at Chicago State University. Emil Jones Jr., the president of the Illinois State Senate and an early and powerful political benefactor of Mr. Obama’s, has been a dogged champion of Chicago State, and one of Senator Obama’s closest friends. A Chicago businessman, James Reynolds, sits on its board.
May 6, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hold on a second! The Clintons did indeed obfuscate legally in reporting income as required of senators, but they did release their income tax returns, which is where the information about the un or under reported income Bill had. I don't see a problem here. This may be the only time I have been on the Clinton's side during this election season.
May 6, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The income tax returns that the SPOUSES are required to file is far more obtuse than the candidates themselves.
There is the legality of the off-shore tax haven status of the Yucaipa business interest - is that legal?? Does it circumvent the IRS?
What we should be concerned about is if the Clintons have been *bought*, or can be bought.
This will be spalshed all over the Republican ads this Fall should Hillary wins the nomination, so it's really no laughing matter.
May 6, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are gonna have fun, fun, fun in the fall regardless of who runs on the Dem side.
That's because hot li'l Cindy McCain has not released her tax returns. There is likely to be huge stuff buried in these, since she make about a gazillion bucks a week, and probably invests in chinese sweat shops and other such fun things.
May 6, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
They released their income tax returns in April, a full 2 months after they fully intended to already be the nominee.
So we really didn't have the full information when most of the votes had been cast.
May 6, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Offshore accounts, especially in the Caymans are used to hide income from the IRS. Avoiding taxes is not a crime, evading taxes is. Semantic games I know but there's no way to tell what's going on with those accounts. They are effectively out of reach. Back in 1997 Bill Clinton signed the Republican bill that all but obliterated the IRS's ability to audit the rich. He knew what what he was doing. After 9/11
George Bush made sure the new counter terrorism laws wouldn't touch these kind of accounts, Al Qaeda's money laundering be damned.
May 6, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
She didn't fail to report it, she didn't have to report it, just as Obama didn't report his wife's full income.
May 6, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Money, money everywhere. Clinton's ties to the Saudi's folks. I remember laughing when watching Farrenheit 9/11 with the Bush Dynasty "Shining happy people holding hands". Looks like good ole Bill was doing the same thing.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4203785
May 6, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other breaking news, the Berlin Wall fell!
This has already been disclosed on tax returns released in April. Second, they were not included in her Senate disclosure because they are not REQUIRED to be. Third, this is common practice in the Senate. Fourth, why would this have any impact AS SHE HAS ALREADY RELEASED THIS AS PART OF HER TAX RETURNS PREVIOUSLY RELEASED???
Can I get a duh?
May 6, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can get a 'conflict of interest' but I'll not give you the 'duh'.
Also, roo p, I really enjoyed your use of 'weasel words'. Short and to the point.
May 6, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Seattle Times just noted the loss of the summertime federal gas tax to Washington State would reduce federal funds for Washington state highways by $126 million. Which would just about meet or exceed Bill and Hillary Clinton's claimed income.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004395316_apwagastaxholiday.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/35929.html
May 6, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
We won't mention the Presidential pardons, k? Glass house? puhleez!!!
May 6, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me that I remember HUGE HUGE contributions from Mark Rich to Bill and his little library. That is, Mark who he pardoned. Did Hillary get any luv from ol' Marky-Mark?
May 6, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try - again how did Hillary use her influence as Senator to benefit her husband's interests?
May 6, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
AWWWWWW Dijamo is getting in a huff because Clinton can't win.
Go ahead and stomp your foot.
This thing will be over in a matter of a few weeks.
...sending Clinton back to NYC where a moderate Republican is going to kick her ass in her next reelection bid.
Unless of course, she decides not to run for reelection. After Obama is elected President, Clinton is not likely to have any interest in DC. Her run for Senate in NY was merely a preview of her disasterous Presidential campaign. With no hope for the Presidency, I figure Clinton retires and hits the book speaking circuit.
May 6, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
My my aren't a few of in a snit over this post. Here was my point in putting it up. Not that Hillary did something ethically wrong. she followed the rules. I do think the rules need to be changed, but that is not what this post was about. My concern is where Bill made his money.
Djamo as far as Michelle raise she wasn't a VP and got made one. Her salary is in line with other VPs at the University Hospital.
As far as the 1 million earmark. A hospital in his district makes sense to me.
You of course are free to find fault with any of the above if you choose.
Finally Obama was the first candidate to release all his earmarks including this one for public review
May 6, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only reason to be concerned where or how Bill made his money is to ensure that Hillary in her official actions is not taking any steps to benefit him financially. She has not. But you shot yourself in the foot because when you asked the question, the ready response is has Barack used his official capacity to attempt to benefit his wife's financial interests and there is a clearer case to be made against him than Hillary. Transparency is not just for Hillary but Barack as well. For your next post, I recommend a headline like "BARACK OBAMA REQUESTS KICKABACK EARMARK TO WIFE'S EMPLOYER SHORTLY AFTER SHE RECEIVES a 160% $200,000 PROMTIONAL INCREASE" is actually based on proven facts rather than lies and hyperbole.
May 6, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just checked my foot, it seems to be fine. Let's see what happens when I get up and try to walk.
Please show me your proof that this benefited his wife? I know you think it did, but thinking it so doesn't make it so. Yes had it gone through it would have benefited the hospital, but prove to me it benefited his wife other than with supposition.
Your are free to have your own opinion, you are not free to create your own facts.
Do you know for a fact that Obama didn't know the community would benefit from this new wing, which the earmark was for and hence his reason for doing it? Do you know for a fact that the only reason he did was to benefit his wife.
Now to your other point my concern with Bills fund is the China connection. You can't have one member of this very political family going to bat for China while the other is saying we need to take a hard look at trade with China. One of the two is beig less than forthright. Again my opinion.
Now I am done with this post. As dharmachord so aptly put it a bit more time was spent on this than was necessary.
May 6, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is springboarding her carpetbagged Senate seat into a chance to put her husband back in the White House - that's how she's using her official capacity to benefit Bill.
May 6, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congratulations to those of you who spent 3 hours arguing over someone else's money!
First, Bill helped himself by supporting globalization efforts during his presidency. It's too bad he isn't investing all of his money in American companies, since, you know, he was president.
Second, you are arguing over $1M in earmarks. Really?! Every time Bush burps he wastes about $1B.
Maybe we could use our time better working to help each other defeat the GOP?
May 6, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be so silly, Dharmachord. The commenters here are not interested in defeating McCain or winning the general. Their only priority is defeating Clinton. They don't support Obama, they don't even know Obama. They just know they hate Hillary. That's all this is about.
May 6, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment