clinton-foundation

WASHINGTON — Even after more than a decade as an analyst, anchor and public face for ABC News, George Stephanopoulos has never been able to shake the image that many Republicans have of him: Clinton hatchet man.

That image was glaring to the Republican strategists who blocked him from moderating a debate last year in the Senate race in Iowa.

It was the elephant in the room in 2011 when, after an interview that Mitt Romney’s advisers saw as especially argumentative, Mr. Stephanopoulos visited the campaign’s headquarters to try to reassure them that he was impartial.

And it has nagged at the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus, who has told people repeatedly that he does not want the anchorman anywhere near a debate stage in 2016.

On Thursday, the question of Mr. Stephanopoulos’s political leanings and his future as a leader of the network’s campaign coverage spilled out into the open as he acknowledged donating $75,000 to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation over the past three years. He withdrew from playing any role in a planned Republican primary debate on ABC and called his donations an “uncharacteristic lapse.”

Even Stephanopoulos unwittingly acknowledged the bad appearance of things during an April 28 appearance on The Daily Show, two days after his Schweizer confrontation. He told Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart: “I read the book that this is based on, Clinton Cash, and I actually interviewed the author on Sunday. This is a tough one, because when you actually look, look closely at it, he even says there is no evidence of any direct action taken on behalf of the donors. But everybody also knows when those donors give that money—and President Clinton or someone, they get a picture with him—there’s a hope that it’s going to lead to something. And that’s what you have to be careful of.”

When Stewart pointed out that “the entire system appears to be shrouded in that type of quid pro quo, or the appearance of it,” Stephanopoulos agreed, saying: “Even if you don’t get an action, what you get is access and you get the influence that comes with access and that’s gotta shape the thinking of politicians. That’s what’s so pernicious about it.”

Uh Yeah, That’s the ticket!



  1. NewFormatSux says:

    So he interviewed a guy who wrote a book about shady donations to the Clinton Foundation without disclosing that he made such a donation.

    The real story is that even George Stephanopoulos can’t get favorable treatment from the Clintons without paying them.

  2. NewFormatSux says:

    It may have just been protection money. Democrats threatened to pull ABC’s broadcast license if they published The Path to 9/11 which mentions some flaws in Clinton’s anti-terrorism activities as president. This item on which they spent tens of millions of dollars has never been released on DVD.

  3. Dwight E. Howell says:

    Anybody that knows jack about this man knows he’s about as partisan as a human can get. It isn’t news. That the network ever suggested otherwise means the network thought that a lot of their viewers see that as okay or a lot of their viewers are stupid. Take your pick.

  4. Tom says:

    Yawn…

  5. NewFormatSux says:

    So why was this story in Politico, when the Washington Beacon appears to be first to ask them for a comment? Did ABC give the story to Politico just to take away Beacon’s exclusive?

  6. noname says:

    Ok, a reporter (or not) donated to a party affiliated Foundation, is that the story?

    There are hundreds of reporters; how many of them have donated to a political party directly or indirectly?

    Is the story the amount he donated? What is the story?

    Is it a story because it’s in the news?

    Don’t we have more worthwhile and important issues for the public to grapple with in this country?

    • Death by a thousand paper cuts says:

      No.

    • McCullough says:

      So, keeping criminals from running the country for the next 8 years isn’t important to you.

      OK! then you sir are Ready for Hillary.

      • noname says:

        McCullough, your comment about “keeping criminals from running the country” is a hoot!

        It begs the question, which candidate in your so humble opinion is virginal and pristine so as not to be a criminal?

        I so look forward with relish to your answer!

        • MikeN says:

          That’s not the meaning of ‘begs the question’.

        • McCullough says:

          Like him or not, Ron Paul was as close to an honest politician I have seen in my lifetime.

          I have yet to see one from either side in this go round, maybe there’s time or maybe I just vote against the Clinton Crime Syndicate the best way I can.

          As a US tax paying expat, however, I dont get to vote.

        • Ah_Yea says:

          Take your pick, noname.

          ANY other candidate is more pristine than Hillary.

          • noname says:

            Well, let’s see:

            Ron Paul is double-billing his travel expenses to the House. Ron billed his member’s representational allowance for travel receipts while receiving reimbursements in identical amounts from either his campaign or one of a handful of libertarian nonprofits with one these nonprofits, a mother-in-law of one of his daughters was treasurer.

            I guess when you have low standards “Doctor No” the man of no principles, looks absolutely stellar.

            What is it about people from TEXAS that makes voting dullards believe they are honest?? You have LBJ, GWB, Rick Perry, Ron Paul and others who are always looking for a throw down, a war they wouldn’t send their own kids too….

            My choice is Elisabeth Warren, but sadly; she has too much integrity to run! The campaign is not over; I am not in the voting booth, so I haven’t made up my mind who I will vote for!

  7. jpfitz says:

    “Politicians in my eyes!

    Always tryin to be slick when they tell us the lies
    They’re responsible for sending young men to die
    we have waited so long for someone to come along and correct our country law, but the waits been too long

    They show you things that we see,
    but when they lie on TV, or
    say they can’t even be more than the man that you see
    but then they sit on their thumb and when they have all their fun”

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=rl3FstCc_OY

  8. NewFormatSux says:

    Columbia University Journalism School professor Richard Wald intones of the scandal that, “It’s a mistake, and it’s a dumb one, but it’s not a criminal offense; other people have done other dumb things,”Wald once worked as “ethics czar” for ABC

    • Dwight E. Howell says:

      I think you may have just defined his ethics. If it isn’t illegal it’s ethical. No internal moral compass at all. An awful lot of Americans are that way now.

  9. NewFormatSux says:

    That 85 cents on the dollar claim is rated by Politifact as ‘Mostly False’ even though it is true.
    Meanwhile, claim that Carly Fiorina said she wished she had fired 30,000 workers at HP sooner was rated by Politifact as ‘Mostly True’ even though the statement was about executives at the company.

    • Ah_Yea says:

      85 cents on the dollar is false. It’s 90 cents on the dollar.
      90 cents, that is, which goes to the foundation. Only 10 cents goes to “Charitable Causes”. (Which Charitable Causes, I bet, are beachfront property and hotels in Haiti, which happen to be owned by the foundation. We create jobs!).

  10. Greg Allen says:

    Do conservatives not know what a charitable foundation is? Donations don’t go to the Clintons.

    Republicans are relentless with these fake scandals after fake scandals. Then they will call Hillary ‘scandal ridden.’

    • ± says:

      Awww man…. , you can do better than that.

      • joedoe says:

        Yeah, dude. I frequently think how is this possible these idiots are still in charge. Are we blind ?

        • Ah_Yea says:

          Yes, as a whole we are.
          If we, the people, were more responsible then types like the Clintons would never get into power. That 40%+ would knowingly vote for an obviously corrupt and incompetent candidate shows how stupid and corrupt we the people have become.

    • Luecke says:

      Here’s some oldies but goodies, in case you can’t get enough of the vast right-wing conspiracy against poor Hill. Of course they’re all fake scandals you know.

      http://mrctv.org/blog/10-scandals-involving-hillary-clinton-you-may-have-forgotten

    • NewFormatSux says:

      The foundation pays Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea. And this one makes the United Way look like a great deal. 15% goes to grants. Donations to the foundation and paying for speeches for Bill and Hillary are the way to get what you want from the State Department and anyplace else they can lobby. It is how Russia got control of 20% of US uranium.

    • Dwight E. Howell says:

      How are you able to not know that according their tax records 90% of funds donated to the Clinton Foundations go to Administrative Expenses? This is a charity in name only with the primary beneficiaries being the Clintons and their cronies! Surely you can find a Liberal somewhere to vote for that isn’t this kind of gawd awful me firster you worster?

  11. Luecke says:

    Oh and another fake accusation, they just cant stop those crazy Repugs…..

    “Bill Clinton was very close to Jeffrey Epstein, court records show that the convicted billionaire pedophile that pimped out underage girls to powerful men had 21 contact phone numbers for Bill Clinton in his computerized phone directory. Clinton, meanwhile, flew on multiple occasions in the same plane to Epstein’s private Caribbean island, Little St James, between 2002 and 2005 as he developed his philanthropic post-presidential career. It would later be alleged in court that Epstein organised orgies on that same private island in the US Virgin Islands.”

  12. JAK says:

    This is what the rich do,it doesn’t matter what party they belong to. They look for ways to screw the poor and defenseless,they’re easier targets. What happen to the billions that were donated to Haiti for the earth quake,it was stolen by a system set up to do just that. It seems once your bank account get to a certain amount it some how shuts off peoples conscience.

  13. bobbo, in point of fact says:

    How long do I have to wait before I can post as: Captain Obvious?

    Such a great nom de flame.

    Its OBVIOUS:

    1. Stephanopolous is a Clinton Hack either by purpose or by natural circumstances.

    2. There will be a criminal running the Whitehouse NO MATTER WHO is elected.

    3. Hilary might be the first time that Voting Dumbo in face of the even worse Republican Party Machine being in office that I might not vote at all. She is soooooo obvious.

    4. Also up this week: Hint to those who walk without their knuckles on the ground: Iraq War No 2 was undertaken by false evidence planted then relied upon by the NeoCons thru their puppet BushtheRetard. Many Dumbos knew this then and now but don’t tell the truth …….. because…….. of the dumb voters.

    You know the type: not voting for Clinton because that will put a criminal in the WhiteHouse. Ready for another bailout for the Banks?…..ie===more outrageous obviousness on the hoof …. but we are kept distracted.

    Shark Tank proving to be excellent tv…. along with Lizzie Borden… I’ve never watched Mad Men but have the entire series on DVR now. Its gonna be a rough week.

    • McCullough says:

      Unfortunately…..all I can say is, welcome to the club.

      I have sat out more than one election for the same reasons. So is voting third party worse or better than this?

      I think I’ll check out Shark Tank.

      Sad World.

      • Ah_Yea says:

        As I said before, and will say again, vote for the person who doesn’t lie to you.
        It’s easy, and the only way to turn things around.

        The real problem is, people are so stupid and foolish they will vote for the person who lies as long as they and are lying to the “other guys”.
        When I was a kid, we still talked about “honest Abe and George ‘I cannot tell a lie’ Washington”.
        When was the last time you heard that? Since Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and all the apologist who excused him – “Don’t look at the man’s moral character, just look as how he is doing his job”.

        And look where it’s gotten us.

      • bobbo, in point of fact says:

        2 + 2 = 4. Voting third party unless the candidate has a reasonable chance of winning is the WORST voting strategy for any given desired outcome. This applies to any contest and any political position.

        Oh No===grow up. Politics IS NOT about good vs evil, right vs wrong, lying vs telling the truth. You have no business voting.

      • ± says:

        [to bobbo in post above this]

        The logic is simple. You cast your vote to hire evil, you get evil. You are the boss, you are responsible.

        I cast my vote for a third party, probably just as evil, but not KNOWN to be evil. You are clearly the problem. I am clearly not.

        I know you have never grasped this simple logic that if everyone used in deciding who to vote for in the next election, is the only way to possibly get real change. I don’t expect for you to suddenly get it now. Actually, I see you as the kind of person to dismiss logic, no matter how compelling, to rationalize your mindset.

        • bobbo, in point of fact says:

          [to bobbo in post above this] /// PM==you crack me up. Intelligent enough to own or have access to a computer and the internet, but otherwise about as insightful as Oh No. The only people evaluatiing politics on the good OR Evil dichotomy are children.

          The logic is simple. You cast your vote to hire evil, you get evil. You are the boss, you are responsible. /// Either/or thinking. Simplistic beyond being retarded, highlighting your desire to be lied to. The truth being too complicated.

          I cast my vote for a third party, probably just as evil, but not KNOWN to be evil. You are clearly the problem. I am clearly not. /// I almost limited my response to this statement alone as any second reading of it should shock its author. Since you admit you don’t know what or whom you are voting for, you partner evil with ignorance as your politics. A sheep in full bleet.

          UNDERSTAND: all people, even politicians, are a mix of good and bad. To think you are voting “for evil” is just ……….
          …………. well …………… its just stupid.

          What you need to do is wise up and understand the way the world actually works as opposed to whatever fairytales you favor. The only way that you don’t know your third party candidate is evil or not is because you have never given such candidates a second look. You think because they are not D or R that they are not evil?…………….Stupid. Name any human on earth and look at what they advocate and you will find bad stuff. The challenge to an adult voter is to identify the good and the bad, weight the import of each, THEN compare this evaluation with the other candidates…….. AND THEN…. recognize you aren’t electing that person in a vacuum but rather that person as part of a party machine.

          There is still time….Please grow up.

          I know you have never grasped this simple logic that if everyone used in deciding who to vote for in the next election, is the only way to possibly get real change. I don’t expect for you to suddenly get it now. //// Huge typo there making your post totally garbled. I will assume you mean to post that “if everyone voted for the best/not evil” candidate, then we would have a better outcome?” Is that your point Bunky? I think the last “righteous” candidate was Jimmy Carter. A very morally erect person who turned down the thermostat in the Whitehouse and wore a sweater to move the USA energy policy/oil addiction along. TOTAL FAILURE as a political leader. I know….. again “IF” EVERYONE WOULD JUST act according to their better angels. Silly….the whole point is that humans don’t. When are you going to deal with reality?

          Just open your eyes and …………LOOK!

          Actually, I see you as the kind of person to dismiss logic, no matter how compelling, to rationalize your mindset. /// Logic? “if everyone”…. is very logical. Its just wrong.

          How about grasping reality?

          • ± says:

            You are unable to stand back and grasp the macro picture. The electorate will eventually destroy the country by continuing to hire D/Rs. This is perfectly clear. Your expostulations (metaphorically) about the paintings on the walls or how the chairs are arranged are irrelevant when the ultimate outcome is the destruction of the country. You are a part of the instrument of destruction when you vote R/D. Those who don’t try to hire R/Ds are NOT.

          • bobbo, in point of fact says:

            …..”in point of fact”…. its EXACTLY the macro effect I’m addressing and that you are missing.

            Micro Effect: voting for the candidate you prefer, by ignornance or hope or on merit

            Macro Effect: how that vote interacts with everyone else who votes.

            See the difference?

            …………….buy ((and use)) a dictionary will ya?

          • ± says:

            [to bobbo]

            You still don’t get it.

            The ultimate macro effect of the electorate continuing to hire R/Ds is the destruction of the country. Any other so called “macro” effect you want to talk about is irrelevant with that outcome.

            You are a part of that with your weasel “logic”.

          • bobbo, in point of fact says:

            You do know that merely repeating in mantra style fashion the same statement over and over again is not advancing your argument and has ZERO weight to anyone who actually understands the difference between Macro and Micro effects?

            ….. I know, not your target audience….. once you take the bulls eye off your own back.

            Holy dialectic Batman, he thinks knee jerk repetition is an argument!

            Ha, ha.

          • ± says:

            Is your “ha ha” sign off somehow supposed to mitigate that you totally didn’t address the logic?

            Regardless of how many times I (or anyone) says something which is true, that truth is not diminished.

            As it is, the hypothesis that R/D hirers will destroy the country hasn’t been proven yet. So the only valid attack you have on my argument is whether that supposition is true. Anything else is the usual bullshit bobbo palaver¹.

            ¹here some may take the position that using the word palaver to describe the typical bobbo emanation is ad hominem. But how can it be ad hominem when it is totally descriptive?

    • MikeN says:

      DVR Shark Tank on CNBC, and skip Mad Men.
      I guess with DVR it’s OK. Don’t be afraid to use the fast forward though.

      • bobbo, in point of fact says:

        Thanks Mike. I’ve watched about 7 shows now. Still keeps my attention. Shark Tank Follow Up is a new show also worth the watch.

        Lizzie Borden is excellent for its “clear vision.” Even the Sopranos about murdering mobsters had gaps where for 2-3 weeks nobody even yelled at anyone else. With Lizzie, you get from 3 to 10 people murdered/killed every episode that is only mildly improbable for each event. At episode 7 she is now starting to vary by killing people to help other people whereas in the first 6 episodes she killed for her own profit motives/protection. I only wish whats her name was taller.

        Ha, ha. Best show on tv right now: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. More a straight news/review show presented with sarcasm and jokes whereas Stewart was more on the joke side. Matter of degrees, but telling.

        Good Wife is about politics and the courtroom without too much side personal issues. It looks better than the descriptions I’ve read.

        TV—very hit or miss with more shit than golden kernels. Same with books.

        What ya gonna do?

  14. Ah_Yea says:

    Just for anyone who wants to keep tabs on the ongoing Hillary Corruption Train.

    10 Scandals Involving Hillary.
    http://mrctv.org/blog/10-scandals-involving-hillary-clinton-you-may-have-forgotten

  15. Ah_Yea says:

    Lastly, and this is rich, the Clinton Crime Library.

    http://clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clintcrimefamily.html

  16. jpfitz says:

    Yeah, politicians are liars and crooks, BUT… it’s going to be a hell of a show, I don’t think there is a stage wide enough to hold the Republican debates. I can’t wait to hear what The Donald has to say.

  17. Likes2LOL says:

    Stick a fork in it, George Snuffleupagus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Snuffleupagus) — you HAD to have known better than to interview the guy who wrote “Clinton Cash” without disclosing your donations / conflicts of interest.

    I hear that guy wants a “rematch” interview; I DOUBLE DARE YOU to take him up on the challenge!

    P.S. Hillary Clinton provides her State Department emails in non-electronic form only (55,000 printed pages) and then complains that they’re not being disclosed to the public in a timely manner? HA!

  18. bobbo, in point of fact says:

    ± says:
    5/24/2015 at 7:54 pm

    Regardless of how many times I (or anyone) says something which is true, that truth is not diminished. /// True.

    As it is, the hypothesis that R/D hirers will destroy the country hasn’t been proven yet. /// “Logically” that is the position you take by advocating third party. Was that a typo, a thinko, or a stinko?

    So the only valid attack you have on my argument is whether that supposition is true. //// True.

    Anything else is the usual bullshit bobbo palaver¹. /// My usual palaver is to analyze the validity of the supposition. Anything else is usually humor. ……….. I know ………. most don’t get either.

    ¹here some may take the position that using the word palaver to describe the typical bobbo emanation is ad hominem. But how can it be ad hominem when it is totally descriptive? //// Ha. ha.==keep working on it. YES… ad hominem is totally descriptive. You aren’t understanding the term correctly.

    How could THAT happen?

    Is your “ha ha” sign off somehow supposed to mitigate that you totally didn’t address the logic? /// The absence of logic was established by correctly stating your “argument” as such was mere repetition. aka: there is NO logic in mere repetition. The “ha ha” sign off is a flag that my comment has been given to an idiot who doesn’t understand his own position and probably won’t even after the issue is explained to him…. just as you demonstrate.

    Ha, ha.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 5287 access attempts in the last 7 days.