Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sen. Clinton's family charity not disclosed: paper
Reuters ^ | 2-27-07 | anon

Posted on 02/26/2007 10:18:21 PM PST by Pharmboy

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to list on annual Senate financial disclosure forms the family charity she operates with former president Bill Clinton, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

Sen. Clinton, a Democratic presidential contender, has been an officer in the family foundation since it was established in 2001, but none of her ethics reports since then have disclosed that fact as required by congressional ethics rules, the newspaper said.

The foundation has enabled the Clintons to write off more than $5 million from their taxable income since 2001, while dispensing $1.25 million in charitable contributions over that period, the newspaper reported.

The newspaper said Clinton's office immediately amended her Senate ethics reports to add that information late Monday after receiving inquiries from The Washington Post.

"The details of the Clintons' charitable family foundation and Senator Clinton's role in it have always been publicly available but, in an oversight that leaders of both parties have made, it was inadvertently omitted from her Senate filing, which has been corrected," Clinton's spokesman Philippe Reines told the newspaper.

Several other high-profile politicians have come under scrutiny for omitting family foundations from their financial disclosure reports, including former Senate majority leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record). They amended their disclosures, the Post said.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Politics/Elections; US: New York
KEYWORDS: senate; shrillery
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last
OK--we FINALLY got the Clintons. /sar
1 posted on 02/26/2007 10:18:23 PM PST by Pharmboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: doug from upland

I thought that Bill Clinton said he would be happy to pay more taxes? In fact, I'm positive he said that. To a national audience.

But now we find they're sheltering their money to avoid taxes.


2 posted on 02/26/2007 10:22:04 PM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

"in an oversight that leaders of both parties have made"

OMG. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS. GD.


3 posted on 02/26/2007 10:27:36 PM PST by TheZMan (Back to property-owner-only voting... now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
but none of her ethics reports since then have disclosed that fact as required by congressional ethics rules, the newspaper said.

So what is there a Senate ethics committee for? Oh, I know, its just a red herring.

4 posted on 02/26/2007 10:32:36 PM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

This is not a concern for the sheeple.

They want security not freedom.The Clintons promise everything
so the average dunce will accept this prima facie.

Integrity, honesty and traditional values have erroded. The
American has accepted compromised values so to ensure a
sense of security.

Why else would a Clinton be such a strong viable contender?


5 posted on 02/26/2007 10:35:04 PM PST by ChiMark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
Sen. Clinton, a Democratic presidential contender, has been an officer in the family foundation since it was established in 2001, but none of her ethics reports since then have disclosed that fact as required by congressional ethics rules, the newspaper said.

Well did anyone really expect Hillary to be ethical?

6 posted on 02/26/2007 10:36:13 PM PST by highlander_UW (I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
I thought that Bill Clinton said he would be happy to pay more taxes? In fact, I'm positive he said that. To a national audience.

But now we find they're sheltering their money to avoid taxes.

That is true of most rich folks and who can blame them for using legal mens to avoid taxes. The hypocrisy comes from lawmakers who cry "Tax the Rich" while creating these vehicles for avoiding taxes. That means the rich aren't taxed nearly as much as the middle class.

It is also true of rich liberals who sock much of their income into trusts and foundations while calling for higher taxes. Hypocrites all.

7 posted on 02/26/2007 10:37:59 PM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done, needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

"Forgetting" about a $5 million tax write-off means that she is either an idiot or a liar and unqualified to hold any public office.


8 posted on 02/26/2007 10:43:14 PM PST by Kirkwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

More of the usual Clingon "Mistakes were made" dodge... Notice that nobody's name is associated with them, though... Those darn mistakes just seem to make themselves...


9 posted on 02/26/2007 10:44:22 PM PST by Zeppo (We live in the Age of Stupidity. [Dennis Prager])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood

They forgot about mentioning them not taking the deduction.


10 posted on 02/26/2007 11:41:50 PM PST by bdfromlv (Leavenworth hard time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All

"write off more than $5 million from their taxable income since 2001, while dispensing $1.25 million in charitable contributions over that period"

Not bad going.. write off $5 million and give away $1.25 million.

Does that leave $3.75 million hanging somewhere?

Or just $3.75 million untaxed?


11 posted on 02/26/2007 11:54:20 PM PST by az_gila (AZ - need less democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ChiMark
With the Clinton's, charity begins a home and ends at home.
12 posted on 02/27/2007 12:11:03 AM PST by oyez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

"both parties have made"
But why is it the Republican party person is always the one who resigns, gos to jail, or has an investigative committee siced on them?


13 posted on 02/27/2007 2:58:18 AM PST by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like what you say))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

Taxes are good for the village Hillary, so why are you avoiding them? FRAUDS and PHONIES!


14 posted on 02/27/2007 3:07:38 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freeangel

Somehow they don't spin it right. They end up apologizing which sends the red flags up...you just announced you are guilty. The Clintons never do that.


15 posted on 02/27/2007 3:13:44 AM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
As usual the Clinton's will declare their right to a "DO-OVER" and the lap dog MSM will "move on"... Never changes. I think we can now declare Bill and Hillary Clinton to be "Teflon".
16 posted on 02/27/2007 3:30:11 AM PST by RedEyeJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

Looks like a set-up.


17 posted on 02/27/2007 3:33:16 AM PST by Son House ( The Presidents enemies, are my enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy

Opposition research is putting Evita on notice. We can play ruff too!


18 posted on 02/27/2007 3:35:39 AM PST by dennisw (What one man can do another can do -- "The Edge")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pharmboy
The newspaper said Clinton's office immediately amended her Senate ethics reports to add that information late Monday after receiving inquiries from The Washington Post.

Watch this link....

Personal Financial Disclosure for Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

19 posted on 02/27/2007 3:39:21 AM PST by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
The foundation has enabled the Clintons to write off more than $5 million from their taxable income since 2001, while dispensing $1.25 million in charitable contributions over that period, the newspaper reported.

Charity writeoffs of $5 million? That's a lot of used underwear...

20 posted on 02/27/2007 3:41:04 AM PST by GraceCoolidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson