Correct the Record logo
Clinton Foundation – Correct The Record http://correctrecord.org Correct The Record is a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks. Tue, 08 Nov 2016 06:06:00 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6.1 Fact Check: Widely-criticized Politico story botches the facts http://correctrecord.org/fact-check-widely-criticized-politico-story-botches-the-facts/ Thu, 01 Sep 2016 21:53:41 +0000 http://correct2016.wpengine.com/?p=4173 In an egregious example of journalistic malpractice, this morning Politico published a misleading story by Ken Vogel alleging that aides to former President Bill Clinton used taxpayer funds to subsidize the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

Yet within hours of publication, the article came under withering criticism from leading political reporters. TPM’s Josh Marshall called the report “tendentious verging on dishonest.” Veteran Washington journalist Jonathan Allen said “I’m still trying to figure out what’s shady/murky/troublesome about WJC aides being paid out of multiple pots for multiple functions.”  The Boston Globe’s Michael Cohen tweeted that “the only blurring of lines here is being done by Politico.”

Politico has already been forced to change their headline. Yet major errors remain uncorrected in the article.

Here are the facts: the Politico story falsely insinuated that taxpayer funding was used to “support [Clinton’s] wife’s private email server” and subsidize his foundation. This is incorrect. Taxpayer funds were never used for an email server for either of the Clintons. When General Services Administration funding  (which is allocated to every former president) was used, it was to pay for a database and server equipment for President Clinton’s correspondence and to compensate Clinton Foundation staff when they are specifically assisting Clinton in his capacity as a former president. As the GSA itself has noted, this is a common practice for all ex-presidents and their staffs.

Politico Was Forced To Correct Their Headline After Corrections From Clinton Campaign

 

Politico Story Falsely Insinuated That Taxpayer Funding Was Used To “Support His Wife’s Private Email Server”

Politico story falsely insinuates that taxpayer funding was used to “support his wife’s private email server.” 

Bill Clinton’s staff used a decades-old federal government program, originally created to keep former presidents out of the poorhouse, to subsidize his family’s foundation and an associated business, and to support his wife’s private email server, a POLITICO investigation has found.

Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon: Politico’s assertion that Bill Clinton used tax dollars to subsidize a private email server was “egregiously false.”

Angel Urena, press secretary for Bill Clinton: “No GSA funding was ever used for a private e-mail server. And the @ClintonFdn never housed a GSA-funded e-mail server, private or otherwise.”

In 2015 article by Ken Vogel, a Clinton spokesman made clear that no taxpayer money was used to purchase or maintain the email server used by Hillary Clinton. 

A Clinton spokesman also emphasized that no taxpayer money was used to purchase or maintain a private email server operated for the former president’s staff starting in 2007, which Hillary Clinton started using in 2009. Her use of the server to send emails as secretary of state has become the center of a swirling controversy about whether she skirted public records laws or State Department rules or compromised the security of top-secret national security information. The server was funded entirely out of Bill Clinton’s pocket, according to his office.

Brian Fallon: “Staffer wasn’t on GSA payroll until two years after he helped set up Clinton email acct.” 

Staffer who helped set up personal email account, Justin Cooper, was also paid out of Clintons personal funds in his capacity as an aide to the Clintons.

Politico addressed the issue by adjusting the headline of Vogel’s article: ‘Bill Clinton aides used tax dollars to subsidize foundation, private email support.’ The change finds an explanation at the foot of the article: ‘Note: The headline on this story has been revised to reflect that GSA funds were used for IT support.’ As for the article itself, a Politico spokesman said it is ‘one hundred percent accurate and remains unchanged.’ The headline change doesn’t exactly have the Clinton folks celebrating: ‘That is a stretch, too, given Cooper was also paid out of personal funds, and it does not put the genie back in the bottle in terms of other outlets that are now citing Politico to say taxpayers footed the bill for the purchase of the personal email server,’ writes Fallon to the Erik Wemple Blog.

  • Not until February 2011, did staff for President Clinton request GSA paperwork to allow Justin Cooper to receive GSA payroll. 
    We have two employees that need the GSA packages. Can you send them to me ASAP. The names are Justin Cooper and Oscar Flores. Joe is aware of this change.”
    Helen Robinson email to Alicia Boston-Grimes, 2/22/11

Database System And Server Equipment Purchased By GSA Was For President Clinton’s Correspondence, Was In No Way Email Related

GSA paid to purchase and maintain Intranet Quorom (IQ), a database system to maintain all of Bill Clinton’s correspondence and used by staff at both the president’s personal office and the Clinton Foundation. 

In at least one instance, GSA paid to purchase and maintain a specialty Lockheed Martin database system called Intranet Quorom, the supporting systems for which were housed at one time at the Clinton Foundation’s offices, and used by both foundation staff and Bill Clinton’s personal office staff to store and process his correspondence.

Equipment purchased by GSA to support Intranet Quorom system were simply data storage servers, had nothing to do with email, and were the only pieces of GSA-purchased equipment housed at one point at Clinton Foundation. 

The Clinton aide said servers supporting the Intranet Quorom system — which is used for data storage, not email — were the only pieces of equipment purchased by GSA that were housed at the Clinton Foundation at one point, but he said it was justified by the specific circumstances around it.

Clinton aide: “As staff needs to have the full picture of all correspondence sent by President Clinton, both staff from the Office of the Former President and the Foundation have access to, and can input into, the Intranet Quorum database.” 

As staff needs to have the full picture of all correspondence sent by President Clinton, both staff from the Office of the Former President and the Foundation have access to, and can input into, the Intranet Quorum database,” the aide said.

Clinton aide: “Staff at the Foundation and staff at the Office of the Former President may have similar tasks, and need to coordinate this work — specifically staff that handles President Clinton’s correspondence.” 

The Clinton Foundation’s website suggests that there’s a strict wall between the foundation and the ex-president’s personal office. ‘All Foundation employees are paid for work through the Foundation payroll,’ the website says. ‘No Foundation staff are paid for Foundation work with taxpayer dollars.’ But the aide acknowledged ‘staff at the Foundation and staff at the Office of the Former President may have similar tasks, and need to coordinate this work — specifically staff that handles President Clinton’s correspondence.’ That shared work is facilitated by the Lockheed Martin IQ database system, the aide said.

2001 GSA report: “To varying degrees, foundations associated with each former president are involved with the office operations” including “supplying some furniture and equipment.” 

To varying degrees, foundations associated with each former president are involved with the office operations. While the foundations themselves do not pay any portion of the office rental cost, they do assist office operations by supplying some furniture and equipment. At former President Carter’s office, which is leased from the Carter Presidential Center—a nonprofit foundation—two staff members of the Center use office space paid for by GSA. Simultaneously, however, GSA does not pay for other Center space that is used exclusively by former President Carter or his staff.

Discrepancy about Purchase of Servers

Politico reported that GSA officials chose not to pay for a Dell server to support the IQ database because they could not be certain the server would not be used for the foundation.  

But the system’s dual purpose raised questions among GSA officials, who pressed Clinton’s representatives when they submitted an invoice in September 2011 to the GSA to purchase a $7,700 Dell server and other IT equipment to support the Lockheed Martin IQ database. Clinton Foundation officials explained to the GSA that they wanted the Dell server housed at foundation headquarters rather than at Clinton’s personal office. They explained in an email that the foundation office had better air conditioning, allowing it to support ‘about 10-15 more servers,’ and also it was where IT staff were based, so ‘trouble shooting with the servers can be done ASAP.’ The GSA staff asked Graham, then serving as the foundation’s COO, to demonstrate that ‘safeguards are in place to ensure that the servers are solely for use by’ Clinton’s personal office. A note affixed to the bottom of an email produced pursuant to POLITICO’s FOIA indicates that the GSA ultimately decided not to purchase the Dell server. Asked about the reasoning this week, a GSA spokesman suggested that Clinton’s representatives failed to provide sufficient evidence that the Dell server was not for use by the foundation.

Clinton aides contradicted GSA, arguing GSA purchased the Dell server that operates the IQ database in 2010.  

But, perhaps highlighting the confusion caused by the overlapping spheres in the Clinton’s universe, the Clinton aide offered a different recollection. ‘We believe that the information GSA provided you with is incomplete. Our files show that GSA purchased the Dell server that operates the IQ database in 2010.’

Nothing Wrong With Bill Clinton Aides Being Paid Out Of GSA Allocations And Other Sources

All ex-presidents are allocated $96,000 per year for staffing.  

A GSA spokesperson declined to comment on specific employees, but said ex-presidents have broad discretion over how they choose to divvy up the $96,600 they are provided each year for staffing. They can give the entire sum to a single employee or divide it among multiple employees.

In 2001, a represented for Bill Clinton informed GSA that “some staff compensation will be paid by the former president and his presidential foundation.” 

A representative for Clinton in 2001 told the Government Accountability Office that, in addition to the GSA money, ‘some staff compensation will be paid by the former president and his presidential foundation,’ according to a 2001 GAO report. It made clear that most employees on the GSA payrolls of former presidents ‘also receive compensation from other sources.’

2001 GSA report: Most staff members in the offices of ex-presidents “also receive compensation from other sources,” including foundations of former presidents or their spouses. 

The office staffs of former presidents’ ranged from 6 to 19 persons and included full-time and part-time paid members along with volunteers and interns. In addition to receiving federal compensation, most paid staff members also receive compensation from other sources. These sources include the former presidents and his or his spouses’ foundations.

Clinton aide: “There is no legal prohibition that would preclude the former president’s staff from receiving compensation from other sources or doing personal work for the former presidents.” 

Generally, the aide explained that Clinton ‘wears several hats — among them being former President of the United States and the founder of the Clinton Foundation. His staffing reflects those roles.’ The aide added ‘there is no legal prohibition that would preclude the former president’s staff from receiving compensation from other sources or doing personal work for the former presidents. We are unaware of any legal prohibition that would preclude these activities.’

Aides to President Clinton assisted him “in a variety of settings” and were compensated according to the capacity in which they were assisting, be it his role as a former president, founder of the Clinton Foundation, or otherwise. 

According to several people familiar with the former president’s operation, the rationale behind the interwoven payrolls is that they allow for a small team to assist Clinton in a variety of settings without having to do logistically complicated hockey-like line changes. In a given day, Clinton might deliver a paid private speech (during which time his employees’ salaries could be paid by the executive services corporation) and a public speech in his capacity as a former president (during which his staff could be paid by the GSA funds). And he could attend events for the foundation (where staff time would be paid by the foundation) as well as his wife’s presidential campaign (staff time would be paid by the campaign).

Media Criticism

Critical Reaction: Politico’s Story Was “Tendentious Verging on Dishonest”

Ken Vogel Already Wrote This Story… Twice

Politico headline, 2008: “Taxpayers fund Bill Clinton spending.” 

Politico headline, 2015: “Taxpayer tab for Clinton Inc.: $16 million.” “

]]> Debunking Trump's Clinton Foundation “facts” http://correctrecord.org/debunking-trumps-ten-facts-about-the-clinton-foundation/ Mon, 22 Aug 2016 20:24:55 +0000 http://correct2016.wpengine.com/?p=3891 The Clinton Foundation has dramatically improved the lives of millions of people around the world. The Foundation has enabled more than 11.5 million people to access HIV/AIDS medication and supported physical education and wellness programs that have helped more than 18 million students.

In short, the Clinton Foundation has made the world a better place.

That hasn’t stopped the Trump campaign from falsely attacking the Foundation. Yesterday, the Trump campaign released ten facts everyone should know about the Clinton Foundation. Unsurprisingly, the implications contained in Trump’s “facts” are outright lies. The truth is there is no evidence whatsoever that the Clinton Foundation’s interests or donors affected any decision made by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. The Clinton Foundation is completely transparent about its finances and has gone above and beyond in making its donor lists public. In stark contrast, Donald Trump’s own tax returns and charitable efforts remain completely hidden from the American people. And Trump himself has a long history of selfishly reneging on his philanthropic commitments—even using his own foundation money to buy a $120,000 luxury trip in 2008.

TRUMP’S “FACTS”

REALITY
Trump Campaign claimed Clinton Foundation donors overlapped with campaign contributors and foreign donors with interests in U.S. policy, raising “red flags.” “Trump Campaign Press Release: There Are Major Overlaps Between Clinton’s Campaign Donors And Her Foundation Donors, Raising Ethical Red Flag…The Foundation ‘Has Given Contributors Entree, Outside The Traditional Political Arena, To A Possible President.’ ‘The financial success of the foundation, which funds charitable work around the world, underscores the highly unusual nature of another Clinton candidacy. The organization has given contributors entree, outside the traditional political arena, to a possible president. Foreign donors and countries that are likely to have interests before a potential Clinton administration — and yet are ineligible to give to U.S. political campaigns — have affirmed their support for the family’s work through the charitable giving.’ (Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger and Steven Rich, ‘Clintons’ Foundation Has Raised Nearly $2 Billion — And Some Key Questions,’ The Washington Post, 2/18/15)” [Trump Campaign press release, 8/21/16]

There is No Evidence Whatsoever That Donations to the Clinton Foundation Affected Any Decisions Made by Hillary Clinton at the State Department

State Department spokeswoman: “The State Department is not aware of any actions that were influenced by the Clinton Foundation.” “MS TRUDEAU: The State Department is not aware of any actions that were influenced by the Clinton Foundation. QUESTION: Any action at all over the course of Secretary Clinton’s tenure? MS TRUDEAU: Correct.” [State Department Daily Press Briefing, 8/11/16]

The State Dept. said it had no evidence that donations to The Clinton Foundation or Bill Clinton’s speaking fees affected Hillary Clinton’s actions at the State Department. “The State Department said Monday it has no evidence that any actions taken by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton when she was secretary of state were influenced by donations to the Clinton Foundation or former President Bill Clinton’s speaking fees. Spokesman Jeff Rathke said the department received requests to review potential conflicts primarily for proposed speech hosts or consulting deals for Bill Clinton and found no conflicts.” [Associated Press, 5/4/15]

Clinton Foundation Uses Its Funds to Improve Lives and Create a Better World for Millions

The Clinton Foundation holds an A rating from the American Institute of Philanthropy and made their “Top Rated” list.“Groups included on the CharityWatch Top-Rated list generally spend 75% or more of their budgets on programs [The Clinton Foundation is at 88%], spend $25 or less to raise $100 in public support [the Foundation spends $2 for every $100 raised], do not hold excessive assets in reserve, have met CharityWatch’s governance benchmarks, and receive “open-book” status for disclosure of basic financial information and documents to CharityWatch.” [charitywatch.org, April 2016]

The Alliance for a Healthier Generation’s Healthy Schools Program supports more than 18 million students by improving physical education, health education, child nutrition, and staff wellness policies and programs. “The Healthy Schools Program supports more than 18 million students by improving physical education, health education, child nutrition, and staff wellness policies and programs in more than 31,000 schools. The Healthy Schools Program receives the majority of its funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to support schools in states with the highest rates of obesity.” [Clinton Foundation, accessed8/22/16]

The Clinton Health Access Initiative has allowed over 11.5 million patients to get treatment for HIV/AIDS. “From 2002 to 2010, as an initiative of the Clinton Foundation, 4 million patients were able to access CHAI-negotiated ARV drugs and as of today, CHAI’s work, as a separate 501(c)(3), has over 11.5 million patients accessing treatment.” [Clinton Foundation, accessed 8/22/16]

The Clinton Global Initiative has secured nearly 3,200 commitments that have improved the lives of over 430 million people. “To date, members of the CGI community have made nearly 3,200 commitments which have improved the lives of over 430 million people in more than 180 countries.” [Clinton Global Initiative, accessed 8/22/16]

Contributors to the Clinton Foundation are Only Public because of the Foundation’s Voluntary Disclosure of its Donor List and Unprecedented Transparency

NBC News: “The Clinton Foundation agreed to voluntarily disclose names and donation ranges of its contributors.” “In late 2008, after Obama nominated Clinton to be secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation agreed to voluntarily disclose names and donation ranges of its contributors.” [NBC News, 4/25/13]

Foundation Continued Unrequired Practice after Hillary Clinton left the State Department

McClatchy: “The foundation is not required to publicly release its donors.” “The foundation is not required to publicly release its donors. A foundation spokesman said that the organization continued to release donor information after Clinton left the State Department to be transparent.” [McClatchy, 2/18/15]

Foundation Voluntarily Pledged to Refuse Foreign or Corporate Donations during a Clinton Presidency in Further Effort to Avoid Appearance of Conflicts

Bill Clinton said the Foundation would only accept contributions from U.S. citizens and independent charities if Hillary Clinton wins the White House. “Bill Clinton said if Hillary Clinton wins the White House, the family’s foundation would only accept contributions from U.S. citizens and independent charities. He added the foundation will continue its work, but plans to refocus its efforts in a process that will take up to a year to complete.” [AP, 8/18/16]

Donald Trump’s Own Charitable Foundation May have Violated Laws Separating Exempt Nonprofits from Political Activity

Donald Trump’s “campaign work and his foundation work have overlapped—putting himself at risk for penalties and his charity at risk of being shut down.” “On numerous occasions this year, Trump’s campaign work and his foundation work have overlapped—putting himself at risk for penalties and his charity at risk of being shut down…In key early primary states this year, Trump handed out Foundation checks to charities at campaign rallies. This also calls into question ‘whether the foundation provided the campaign with an illegal in-kind contribution by providing services for what was a campaign event. Under the campaign finance laws… providing anything of value to a campaign for free or at less than fair market value is a contribution to the campaign,’ said Larry Noble, the general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center.” [Daily Beast, 6/16/16]

In 2013, the Trump Foundation donated $25,000 to a political organization supporting Florida AG Pam Bondi at the same time Bondi was reviewing complaints surrounding Trump University, raising concerns for legal experts. “And in 2013, the Trump Foundation donated $25,000 to a political organization supporting Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi—an action the foundation is prohibited from taking, and which it failed to report on its disclosures. The Trump campaign blamed this failure on clerical mistakes, but legal experts are sounding the alarm because at the time Bondi was reviewing complaints surrounding the businessman’s controversial Trump University project.” [Daily Beast, 6/16/16]

In a number of instances, the Trump campaign contacted charitable organizations to arrange for them to be presented with a Trump Foundation check at Trump campaign rallies.“On Jan. 30, with Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. by his side at a campaign rally in Davenport, Iowa, Trump presented a $100,000 Trump Foundation check to Puppy Jake, a charity which supports veterans by providing service dogs. Puppy Jake’s executive director, Becky Beach, told The Daily Beast that the Trump campaign had been in touch with her about the Trump Foundation’s contribution…The next day, the day before the Iowa caucuses, the founder of Support Siouxland Soldiers, another vets charity, appeared on stage with Trump at a Sioux City campaign rally to accept a $100,000 Trump Foundation check. Support Siouxland Soldiers executive director Sarah Petersen told The Daily Beast that she had been in touch with a Trump staffer named Hope, and provided the phone number they used in order to discuss the donation. The phone number matches up with the campaign’s listed number for Hope Hicks, the Trump campaign’s spokeswoman.” [Daily Beast, 6/16/16]
Trump campaign implied Clinton Foundation donations from companies lobbying the Federal Government led to favoritism by the State Department.“Trump Campaign Press Release: ‘Several Major Clinton Foundation Donations Came From Companies Lobbying The Federal Government.’” [Trump Campaign press release, 8/21/16]

There is No Evidence Whatsoever That Donations to the Clinton Foundation Affected Any Decisions Made by Hillary Clinton at the State Department

State Department spokeswoman: “The State Department is not aware of any actions that were influenced by the Clinton Foundation.” “MS TRUDEAU: The State Department is not aware of any actions that were influenced by the Clinton Foundation. QUESTION: Any action at all over the course of Secretary Clinton’s tenure? MS TRUDEAU: Correct.” [State Department Daily Press Briefing, 8/11/16]

The State Dept. said it had no evidence that donations to The Clinton Foundation or Bill Clinton’s speaking fees affected Hillary Clinton’s actions at the State Department. “The State Department said Monday it has no evidence that any actions taken by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton when she was secretary of state were influenced by donations to the Clinton Foundation or former President Bill Clinton’s speaking fees. Spokesman Jeff Rathke said the department received requests to review potential conflicts primarily for proposed speech hosts or consulting deals for Bill Clinton and found no conflicts.” [Associated Press, 5/4/15]

Author of widely panned book accusing the Clinton Foundation of pay to play was forced to admit he had no evidence of any impropriety. “With the controversy around donations to her family’s charitable foundation growing, Democrats are bracing for more attacks on the former secretary of State — just the beginning of what they expect to be an 18-month assault on their party’s front-runner. […] Those attacks for now revolve around the upcoming book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer of the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Even Schweizer admits he has no smoking gun proving that either Hillary Clinton or former President Bill Clinton sought to further the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation in improper ways.” [The Hill, 4/28/15]

Foundation Voluntarily Pledged to Refuse Foreign or Corporate Donations during a Clinton Presidency in Further Effort to Avoid Appearance of Conflicts

Bill Clinton said the Foundation would only accept contributions from U.S. citizens and independent charities if Hillary Clinton wins the White House. “Bill Clinton said if Hillary Clinton wins the White House, the family’s foundation would only accept contributions from U.S. citizens and independent charities. He added the foundation will continue its work, but plans to refocus its efforts in a process that will take up to a year to complete.” [AP, 8/18/16]
Trump Campaign made note of foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation by governments and individuals, again implying a nonexistent ethical problem and providing no evidence. “Trump Campaign press release: ‘FACT THREE – The Clinton Foundation Accepted Millions From Foreign Governments… FACT FOUR – The Clinton Foundation Accepted Millions From Other Foreign Sources While Clinton Served As Secretary Of State: ‘More Than 40 Percent Of The Top Donors To The Clinton Foundation Are Based In Foreign Countries.’ ‘More than 40 percent of the top donors to the Clinton Foundation are based in foreign countries, according to an analysis by McClatchy.’ (Anita Kumar, ‘Clinton Foundation Limits Foreign Donations,’ McClatchy, 4/15/15).” [Trump Campaign press release, 8/21/16]

Once Again, There is No Evidence Whatsoever That Donations to the Clinton Foundation Affected Any Decisions Made by Hillary Clinton at the State Department

FactCheck.org: Nearly all contributions to the Clinton Foundation are used for its charitable activities. “Fiorina and others are referring only to the amount donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work is performed in-house. One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity. Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation — which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly.” [FactCheck.org, 6/19/15]

State Department spokeswoman: “The State Department is not aware of any actions that were influenced by the Clinton Foundation.” “MS TRUDEAU: The State Department is not aware of any actions that were influenced by the Clinton Foundation. QUESTION: Any action at all over the course of Secretary Clinton’s tenure? MS TRUDEAU: Correct.” [State Department Daily Press Briefing, 8/11/16]
Trump campaign claimed a potential FBI investigation was “scuttled by the Obama Administration.” “FACT SIX – The FBI Wanted To Open An Investigation Into The Clinton Foundation, But The Effort Was Scuttled By The Obama Administration.” [Trump Campaign press release, 8/21/16]

FBI Officials Previously Looked into Allegations and Determined Claims Not Worthy of a Case, and Requests for an Investigation Politically-Motivated

FBI Officials had looked into allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation following the release of “Clinton Cash” and determined claims were unsubstantiated and not worthy of a case. “FBI officials wanted to investigate whether there was a criminal conflict of interest with the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during Clinton’s tenure. The Department of Justice had looked into allegations surrounding the foundation a year earlier after the release of the controversial book ‘Clinton Cash,’ but found them to be unsubstantiated and there was insufficient evidence to open a case.” [CNN, 8/11/16]

Justice Department officials said the request “seemed more political than substantive.” “As a result, DOJ officials pushed back against opening a case during the meeting earlier this year. Some also expressed concern the request seemed more political than substantive, especially given the timing of it coinciding with the investigation into the private email server and Clinton’s presidential campaign.” [CNN, 8/11/16]

Legal and Ethics Experts Sought Investigation of Overlaps Between the Trump Foundation and Donald Trump’s Campaign

Sunlight Foundation’s Richard Skinner on the Trump Foundation and Trump campaign conflicts: “‘This should be investigated…There is definitely [use of] a charitable foundation in an inappropriate way.’” “Both the contribution to Bondi and the overlap between the Trump campaign and his charity should be publicly examined, government watchdogs said. ‘This should be investigated. There are troubling legal issues posed in both circumstances,’ said Richard Skinner, a money-in-politics policy analyst at the Sunlight Foundation. ‘There is definitely [use of] a charitable foundation in an inappropriate way.’” [Daily Beast,6/16/16]

In 2013, the Trump Foundation donated $25,000 to a political organization supporting Florida AG Pam Bondi at the same time Bondi was reviewing complaints surrounding Trump University, raising concerns for legal experts. “And in 2013, the Trump Foundation donated $25,000 to a political organization supporting Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi—an action the foundation is prohibited from taking, and which it failed to report on its disclosures. The Trump campaign blamed this failure on clerical mistakes, but legal experts are sounding the alarm because at the time Bondi was reviewing complaints surrounding the businessman’s controversial Trump University project.” [Daily Beast, 6/16/16]
Trump campaign claimed Clinton’s State Department Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, had “deep and simultaneous involvement in the Clinton Foundation.” “FACT SEVEN – Clinton’s Chief Of Staff At State Had A Deep And Simultaneous Involvement In The Clinton Foundation.” [Trump Campaign press release, 8/21/16]

Mills Spent a Day Volunteering Her Time to the Clinton Foundation to Help Review Candidates for a Top Position and the work was Completely Separate from her Role at State

Mills was performing as a volunteer for the Clinton Foundation to help review candidates, was not paid, and used no government funds for the trip. “According to Mills’ attorney, her work for the Clinton Foundation while she was employed at the State Department was strictly voluntary. She received no pay and no government funds were used to finance the short trip. Clinton’s presidential campaign re-iterated that Mills was working as a volunteer on the trip.” [CNN, 8/11/16]

Mills paid for her trip to help the Foundation and made “crystal clear to all involved that this had nothing to do with her official duties.” “‘Cheryl volunteered her personal time to a charitable organization, as she has to other charities,’ said campaign spokesman Brian Fallon. ‘Cheryl paid for her travel to New York City personally, and it was crystal clear to all involved that this had nothing to do with her official duties. The idea that this poses a conflict of interest is absurd.’” [CNN, 8/11/16]
Trump campaign attempted to make a connection between Sidney Blumenthal’s employment at the Clinton Foundation and “Libyan intelligence” he provided to Clinton. “FACT EIGHT – Sidney Blumenthal Collected $10,000 A Month From The Clinton Foundation While Providing Libyan Intelligence To Clinton…Blumenthal ‘Earned About $10,000 A Month As A Full-Time Employee Of The Clinton Foundation’ While At The Same Time He Provided Intelligence On Libya To Then-Secretary Clinton. ‘Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant of Bill and Hillary Clinton, earned about $10,000 a month as a full-time employee of the Clinton Foundation while he was providing unsolicited intelligence on Libya to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to multiple sources familiar with the arrangement.’ (Kenneth P. Vogel, ‘Clinton Foundation paid Blumenthal $10K per month while he advised on Libya,’ Politico, 5/28/15).” [Trump Campaign press release,8/21/16]

Blumenthal Occasionally Sent Unsolicited Emails to Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton made clear to committee members that Blumenthal was not “‘an advisor’ on matters pertaining to Libya.” “Clinton also spoke in more detail about her relationship with Blumenthal. She told committee members that she would not characterize him as an ‘adviser’ on matters pertaining to Libya. Clinton said she did not know who provided Blumenthal with the intelligence Blumenthal frequently sent in emails and memos. Clinton sometimes forwarded that information to staffers at the State Department.” [BuzzFeed, 10/23/15]

During his deposition Blumenthal swore “under oath that Clinton never asked him to send the correspondence.” ‘‘It is clear from these emails Secretary Clinton encouraged Mr. Blumenthal to send them in some instances calling into question her previous characterization of them as ‘unsolicited,’ Gowdy said in a statement. Blumenthal during a closed-door deposition last week said under oath that Clinton never asked him to send the correspondence. Democrats say Gowdy’s definition of unsolicited is off base because Blumenthal was sending his memo on his own accord.’ [Politico, 6/22/15]

Sec. Clinton explained Blumenthal sent her “unsolicited emails, which I passed on in some instances.” “The newly minted presidential candidate also told reporters that she won’t distance herself from allies if she’s elected president, even as some of those allies pose political problems. ‘I’m going to keep talking to my old friends, whoever they are,’ Clinton said. The comment came after a question about Clinton’s relationship with Sidney Blumenthal, a long-time ally who was the subject of a New York Times report documenting the emails the two had exchanged about Libya while Clinton was secretary of state and Blumenthal worked for clients with business interests in the country. ‘He’s been a friend of mine for a long time. He sent me unsolicited emails, which I passed on in some instances, and that’s just part of the give-and-take,’ she said. ‘When you’re in the public eye, when you’re in an official position, I think you do have to work to make sure you’re not caught in a bubble and you only hear from a certain small group of people.’” [CNN, 5/19/15]
Trump campaign claimed the Clinton Foundation failed to disclose $26.4 million in speaking fees while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. “FACT NINE– The Clinton Foundation Failed To Disclose $26.4 Million In Speaking Honoraria While Clinton Was Secretary Of State.” [Trump Campaign press release,8/21/16]

Unlike the Clintons, Charitable Funds Promised by Donald Trump Were Rarely Delivered

NBC News Headline: “Trump Foundation Has Given Little To Vets Groups” [NBC News, 1/28/16]

Washington Post: Trump had a habit of promising to give to charity, but rarely following through. “In recent weeks, The Post tried to answer the question by digging up records going back to the late 1980s and canvassing a wide swath of nonprofits with some connection to Trump.  That research showed that Trump has a long-standing habit of promising to give to charity. But Trump’s follow-through on those promises was middling — even at the beginning, in his early days as a national celebrity.” [Washington Post, 6/28/16]

Trump indicated to Howard Stern that he donated his millions in proceeds from “The Apprentice” to charity, but records did not reflect donations of millions of dollars. “By the early 2000s, Trump had recovered from his financial troubles, returning to the public eye as a different kind of mogul. More than ever, Trump himself was the product: He was selling his name on products from TV shows to steaks to high-rise condominiums around the country.  Again, Trump needed an explanation for why he needed the money.  ‘You’re getting paid over a million for your show,’ radio host Howard Stern said to Trump in 2004, when Trump was first hosting ‘The Apprentice.’  ‘Oh, a lot more than that,’ Trump said.  ‘You’re getting paid over two-and-a-half-million dollars!’ Stern said.  ‘Yeah, I don’t do it for that,’ Trump said. ‘I’m giving the money to charity.’ He named AIDS research and the Police Athletic League. That year, Trump’s foundation appears to have given $1,000 to AIDS research and $106,000 to the Police Athletic League.” [Washington Post, 6/28/16]

Trump promoted Trump Vodka by promising to donate the proceeds to charity, however only “a few hundred dollars” have been donated in connection with the venture. “Promoting Trump Vodka in 2006, Trump told Larry King, ‘I’m giving the money to charity.’ But the only apparent donation related to Trump Vodka is a ‘few hundred dollars’ given to a group supporting Walter Reed Hospital in connection with a specific promotion, as reported by CNN last month.” [Politico, 6/20/16]

Donald Trump’s campaign released a list of his claimed charitable donations, but not one of them was actually a personal gift of his own money. “Since the first day of his presidential campaign, Donald Trump has said that he gave more than $102 million to charity in the past five years. To back up that claim, Trump’s campaign compiled a list of his contributions — 4,844 of them, filling 93 pages. But, in that massive list, one thing was missing. Not a single one of those donations was actually a personal gift of Trump’s own money. Instead, according to a Washington Post analysis, many of the gifts that Trump cited to prove his generosity were free rounds of golf, given away by his courses for charity auctions and raffles.” [Washington Post, 4/10/16]

Speeches Dated back to 2002 and Earned Funds for the Foundation’s work

Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton gave speeches dating back to 2002 that earned funding for the Clinton Foundation’s initiatives. “The Clinton Foundation on Thursday released a list of nearly 100 paid speeches given by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton for which the foundation accepted the fees, shedding light on talks that brought in as much as $26 million for the family philanthropy. The Clinton Foundation has been under scrutiny as Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign has ramped up. Critics have warned that donations from foreign sources could be attempts to curry favor with a former secretary of state and possible future president. While donors to the foundation have been disclosed previously, the data released Thursday, which goes back to 2002, marks the first time a comprehensive list of speech fees has been released.” [Wall Street Journal, 5/21/15]

All of Secretary Clinton’s speaking fees from appearances at colleges and universities are donated to the Clinton Foundation. “Facing criticism from some quarters about her expensive speeches, Hillary Clinton said Friday that every dollar she’s earned speaking at universities since stepping down as secretary of state last year has gone into the philanthropic work of her family’s foundation. ‘All of the fees have been donated to the Clinton Foundation for it to continue its life-changing and life-saving work,’ she told ABC News. ‘So it goes from a foundation at a university to another foundation.’” [CBS News, 7/4/14]

Information Made Public Due to Unprecedented Transparency of Clinton Foundation

Information about funding for the Foundation earned through speeches was made public due to the Foundation’s unprecedented transparency for a charitable organization. “The foundation touts the disclosure as an example of its commitment to transparency. ‘In addition to the more than 300,000 donors who are all listed on our website, posting these speeches is just another example of how our disclosure policies go above and beyond what’s required of charities,’ said Foundation spokesperson Craig Minassian. Charities are not required by law to disclose donors, but the Clinton Foundation has done so since 2008, when Hillary mounted her first presidential run. ‘This funding allows the Foundation to effectively and efficiently use our resources to implement programs that are fighting HIV/AIDS and childhood obesity, increasing opportunity for women and girls, lifting people out of poverty and combating climate change,’ Minassian added.” [MSNBC, 5/21/15]
Trump Campaign highlighted Clinton Foundation spending on travel. “FACT TEN – Since 2003, The Clinton Foundation Has Spent More Than $50 Million On Travel.” [Trump Campaign press release,8/21/16]

Clinton Foundation Uses Its Funds to Improve Lives and Create a Better World for Millions

The Clinton Foundation holds an A rating from the American Institute of Philanthropy and made their “Top Rated” list.“Groups included on the CharityWatch Top-Rated list generally spend 75% or more of their budgets on programs [The Clinton Foundation is at 88%], spend $25 or less to raise $100 in public support [the Foundation spends $2 for every $100 raised], do not hold excessive assets in reserve, have met CharityWatch’s governance benchmarks, and receive “open-book” status for disclosure of basic financial information and documents to CharityWatch.” [charitywatch.org, April 2016]

The Alliance for a Healthier Generation’s Healthy Schools Program supports more than 18 million students by improving physical education, health education, child nutrition, and staff wellness policies and programs. “The Healthy Schools Program supports more than 18 million students by improving physical education, health education, child nutrition, and staff wellness policies and programs in more than 31,000 schools. The Healthy Schools Program receives the majority of its funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to support schools in states with the highest rates of obesity.” [Clinton Foundation, accessed8/22/16]

The Clinton Health Access Initiative has allowed over 11.5 million patients to get treatment for HIV/AIDS. “From 2002 to 2010, as an initiative of the Clinton Foundation, 4 million patients were able to access CHAI-negotiated ARV drugs and as of today, CHAI’s work, as a separate 501(c)(3), has over 11.5 million patients accessing treatment.” [Clinton Foundation, accessed 8/22/16]

The Clinton Global Initiative has secured nearly 3,200 commitments that have improved the lives of over 430 million people. “To date, members of the CGI community have made nearly 3,200 commitments which have improved the lives of over 430 million people in more than 180 countries.” [Clinton Global Initiative, accessed 8/22/16]

Donald Trump Used Trump Foundation Money to Bid on a $120,000 Luxury Trip

BuzzFeed Headline: “Trump Bought $120,000 Luxury Trip With Trump Foundation Money At 2008 Charity Auction”[BuzzFeed, 7/8/16]
]]> DISMISSING CLINTON FOUNDATION’S $30 MILLION HAITI RELIEF EFFORTS, RAND PAUL LAUNCHES SHAMEFUL SMEARS ABROAD http://correctrecord.org/dismissing-clinton-foundations-30-million-haiti-relief-efforts-rand-paul-launches-shameful-smears-abroad/ Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:28:10 +0000 http://correct2016.wpengine.com/?p=1615  

While engaged in admirable humanitarian aid work in Haiti this week, GOP presidential candidate Rand Paul nonetheless lobbed shameful and patently false attacks against Hillary Clinton and the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation.

Despite America’s proud tradition of politicians halting partisan attacks while abroad, Rand Paul just couldn’t resist, falsely attacking the Clinton Foundation’s efforts following the 2010 Haiti earthquake. This is a lazy and inaccurate line of attack—one that has been debunked time and time again.

In short, not only did Rand Paul hurl domestic political barbs while doing philanthropic work abroad, he didn’t even have the decency to approximate the truth. The Clinton Foundation has been a major part of rebuilding efforts in the island nation for five years. Rand Paul should be encouraging the efforts of the Clinton Foundation instead of exploiting them for political points.

Here are the facts:

 

  • PAUL’S CLAIM: “‘To me the most disgusting thing about the Clinton foundation is almost none of their money went to charity,’ Paul said.”
  • THE FACTS:
  • “Overall, the foundation spends about 89 percent of its money on its charitable mission, according to the independent American Institute of Philanthropy. Based on that analysis, the watchdog group gave the foundation a rating of A for 2013, on a scale that goes to A-plus.” [Washington Post, 6/2/2015]
  • “Comparatively little of the organization’s money goes toward bringing in more cash. The foundation devoted $7.8 million to fundraising, equal to 3.5 percent of its budget. Nearly 90 percent of foundation money went into its programs, while 6.5 percent went toward management and general expenses.” [AP, 12/26/13]
  • “In truth, the Clinton Foundation is among the most forthcoming of major charities and nonprofit foundations – especially those headed by public figures. […] So here’s a fact that should start appearing in news accounts and essays: In the world of big American philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation is remarkably transparent.” [Forbes, 4/26/2015]
  • PAUL’S CLAIM: “[Paul suggested] that only 6 percent of the Clinton Global Initiative’s revenue went to charitable grants.”
  • THE FACTS:
    • The Clinton Foundation provides the vast majority of its services through direct charitable work by staff, rather than through grant making.
  • “Although it has ‘foundation’ in its name, the Clinton Foundation is actually a public charity. In practical terms, this means both that it relies heavily on donations from the public and that it achieves its mission primarily by using those donations to conduct direct charitable activities, as opposed to providing grants from an endowment. Failure to understand the difference led to the widespread claim (covered by the New York Post, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and others) that only a small portion of Clinton Foundation spending goes toward charity. While measuring charitable endeavors by the amount of grants awarded may be appropriate for many private foundations, it is not for an organization that acts as a direct service provider like the Clinton Foundation.” [Op-Ed by Brian Mittendorf, The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 6/8/2015]
  • American Institute of Philanthropy president: “Regardless of whether you like [Hillary Clinton’s] politics or not, this is a good charity.”“Borochoff said his organization looks at both tax filings and a charity’s audited financial statement to analyze how much of spending goes to its charitable mission. He said, for instance, that an overall salary figure might be misleading — some salaries fund administrative workers, but other salaries go to charitable workers in the field. The Clinton Foundation has said that it employs 2,000 people around the world. ‘Regardless of whether you like [Hillary Clinton’s] politics or not, this is a good charity,’ he said.” [Washington Post, 4/27/15]
  • ONE LAST THING: Here’s what the last two GOP nominees for president had to say about the work of the Clinton Foundation.
  • John McCain:“Let me also congratulate you, Mr. President, on the great work of the Clinton Global Initiative. It says a lot about a man that after 12 years as a governor, and another eight years at the Resolute desk, he is still working hard in service to others.” [McCain remarks, 9/25/08]
  • Mitt Romney:“The Clinton Global Initiative has also demonstrated the effectiveness of entrepreneurship and social enterprise. You endeavor to not only comfort the afflicted, but to also change lives [through] freedom, free enterprise, and the incomparable dignity of work.” [Romney remarks to CGI, 9/25/12]

 

]]> Five Things “The Week” Should Have Reported About the Clinton Foundation http://correctrecord.org/five-things-the-week-should-have-reported-about-the-clinton-foundation/ Wed, 01 Jul 2015 17:54:09 +0000 http://correct2016.wpengine.com/?p=1416 Background: An article on the Clinton Foundation published June 27 in the magazine “The Week” contained significant misinformation regarding the Clinton Foundation. The author cited myths perpetuated in a now widely discredited book, “Clinton Cash,” which was written by Peter Schweizer, a former advisor to Sarah Palin. The article also contained a number of inaccurate and misleading claims without sourcing.

Here are five things “The Week” should have reported about the Clinton Foundation:

1. Transparency

The Clinton Foundation goes above and beyond what is required to ensure transparency in contributions. The reason that reporters know about Clinton Foundation donors is because the Foundation voluntarily discloses all their donor names, on their website, for anyone to see. The Clinton Foundation refuses to take anonymous donations. No charity is required to do this but the Clinton Foundation does it on its own accord. We’re not the only ones saying it:

  • “In posting its donor data, the foundation goes beyond legal requirements, and experts say its transparency level exceeds that of most philanthropies.” (Washington Post, 2/18/15)
  • “So here’s a fact that should start appearing in news accounts and essays: In the world of big American philanthropy, the Clinton Foundation is remarkably transparent.” (Forbes, 4/26/15)

2. No conflicts of interest on philanthropy

The Clinton Foundation is a global philanthropy.  As with other charities, it receives donations from around the world because it is working to improve the lives of millions. As Bill Clinton said, “We ought to bring people together across great divides, around things that they can agree on and find something to do to make people’s lives better.”

While Republican operatives and pundits continue to attack the good works of the Clinton Foundation, claiming that charitable efforts create conflicts of interest, the Foundation is continuing to provide people in the developing world with access to lifesaving HIV/AIDs treatment, lower the cost of malaria drugs, and provide vaccines to children to prevent child death.

The money raised by the Clinton Foundation is spent directly on their charitable programs, with a majority of the work being performed and implemented by staff and partners on the ground. In fact, The American Institute of Philanthropy’s Charity Watch did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89% of its funding went to charity.

None of the Clintons have ever taken a salary from the Clinton Foundation. According to the Foundation’s website, “President Clinton and Chelsea Clinton, who serve on the Board of Directors, do not take a salary from the Clinton Foundation and receive no funding from it. Secretary Clinton did not take a salary when she served on the Board of Directors.”

3. Schweizer’s book has been debunked

Multiple outlets have reviewed Peter Schweizer’s book and found significant fabrications and errors. Schweizer’s work of fiction should not be cited in a news article as fact.

  • An independent review of source material by ABC News uncovered errors in “Clinton Cash.”
  • Politico wrote that “Clinton Cash” “presents little evidence” that Sec. Clinton’s support of the U.S.-Colombia free trade deal “was directly linked to [Frank] Giustra’s contributions.”
  • TIME found that the book’s “suggestion of outside influence over U.S. decision making” with regards to the purchase of American uranium mines by a Russian-backed company “is based on little evidence.”

4. There is no quid pro quo

There is no evidence of quid pro quo between the Clinton Foundation and its donors. The media and even some Republicans agree:

  • The Hill reported that “Even Schweizer admits he has no smoking gun proving that either Hillary Clinton or former President Bill Clinton sought to further the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation in improper ways.”
  • Vox wrote that Schweizer “couldn’t prove – or even assert – that Hillary Clinton took any official action because of contributions to the Clinton Foundation.”

5. Helping millions around the world

President Clinton formed the Clinton Foundation because he wanted to address global challenges and make the world a better place. In his farewell address as President, Clinton discussed how, by building partnerships, the Foundation could help improve the lives of billions around the world. It has already positively impacted millions of people. For example, since its inception, the Clinton Global Initiative has secured nearly 3,200 commitments in 180 countries that have already improved the lives of more than 430 million people, and that’s just one part of the Clinton Foundation.

]]> President of Correct The Record Brad Woodhouse calls attacks on Clinton Foundation Ludicrous http://correctrecord.org/president-of-correct-the-record-brad-woodhouse-calls-attacks-on-clinton-foundation-ludicrous/ Fri, 15 May 2015 13:03:57 +0000 http://correct2016.wpengine.com/?p=1324

]]> Shame On America Rising, Judicial Watch: Right-Wing Groups Cry Foul When Attacks Proven Empty http://correctrecord.org/shame-on-america-rising-judicial-watch-right-wing-groups-cry-foul-when-attacks-proven-empty/ Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:30:45 +0000 http://correct2016.wpengine.com/?p=889 In a bizarre twist to the anti-Clinton crusades of America Rising and Judicial Watch, the two organizations today cried foul when their own investigation into the Clintons’ financial reporting proved everything in question was done with full disclosure, review, and without conflict of interest.

So what do right-wing organizations do when their attacks prove empty?  What’s the next step when even a partisan-driven investigation proves everything was done above board and handled with careful attention to ethics and procedure?  Cry foul anyway, of course.

“Shame on America Rising and shame on Judicial Watch for yelling ‘fire’ when there isn’t even smoke.  Even a right-wing investigation turned up that on 215 occasions during Hillary Clinton’s tenure, Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation fully disclosed the details of his business and speaking arrangements and on all 215 occasions they were without ethical objection or conflict of interest,” Adrienne Elrod, spokesperson for Correct The Record, said.  “These folks need something better to do with their time if all they can do is complain about things going right.”

America Rising, an anti-Clinton organization, promoted, “A joint investigation by the Washington Examiner and the nonprofit watchdog group Judicial Watch found that former President Clinton gave 215 speeches and earned $48 million while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy,” today.

According to the report today,  “Under State Department protocols, a ‘designated agency ethics official’ is assigned to advise the secretary of state about ‘potential or actual conflicts of interest;’” and after thorough reviews, no conflicts of interest were found.

In fact, a December 12, 2008, memorandum of understanding was entered into between the Clinton Foundation and the Administration, setting up a thorough disclosure and review process to “not create conflicts or the appearance of conflicts” of interest “for Senator Clinton as Secretary of State.”  That memo has been publicly available for six years.

And the big scoop?  The protocols worked. Conflicts and the appearance of conflicts were avoided.

Shame on you, America Rising and Judicial Watch, for spinning the facts.

BACKGROUND:
Judicial Watch is “a tenacious political opponent that launched countless probes of the Clinton administration.” “On Thursday, Judicial Watch, a tenacious political opponent that launched countless probes of the Clinton administration, fired its latest legal salvo, nearly a decade after Clinton ended his second term. The group filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in the District against the National Archives and Records Administration, saying it should maintain and release the tapes under the Presidential Records Act.” [Washington Post, 10/28/10]

At one point, Judicial Watch was suing the Clinton administration on 18 separate matters. “Richard Mellon Scaife, the Pittsburgh billionaire whose foundations have bankrolled an array of anti-Clinton activities, gave one of his largest grants last year to Judicial Watch, the conservative group suing the Clinton administration in 18 separate matters, newly released records show.” [Washington Post, 6/10/98]

]]>