When is the CLINTON secret Library DONOR list gonna be RELEASED?

[FrenchieCat]

Since the Clintons believe in "open" government. :shrug:

Saudis, Arabs Funneled Millions to President Clinton's Library
http://www.nysun.com/article/5137

Clinton Library Donors Remain Secret
September 27, 2007 2:20 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/clinton-libary-.html

Still Quiet on Library Donors
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/27/still_quiet_on_library_donors.html

Bill Clinton Will Not Reveal Library Donors
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/27/bill-clinton-will-not-rev_n_66186.html

Clinton Library Sells Secret Donor List
November 19, 2007
Three years after the William J. Clinton Presidential Library opened its doors, the list of donors who helped the former president build his $165 million complex remains a secret from the public.

Yet the Blotter on ABCNews.com has learned that the Clinton Foundation sold portions of the list through a data company headed by a longtime friend and donor.

"The fact that they've sold the list and then turned around and said that these names must be kept anonymous completely undercuts their argument," said Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based government watchdog group that tracks the influence of money in politics.
http://www.againsthillary.com/2007/11/19/clinton-library-sells-secret-donor-list/

[NWHarkness]

1. Crossposted from Free Republic? n/t

[Maddy McCall]

2. +1

[neutron]

16. I think "Frenchie Cat" is Bob Johnson from Daily Kurse

[rodeodance]

25. maybe fc gets "Frequent Visits" points????

[FrenchieCat]

49. Maybe you can frequent the

[karynnj]

37. No she isn't

577 posts in 3 months. One of the virulent Clinton brigade.

Many of us have seen her excellent rational posts for years. I respected them when we supported different candidates. They always had content and rational discourse.

[FrenchieCat]

48. I thought that personal attacks on DUers was not allowed here....

I know you just joined, but you need to read the rules. I know that anything Clinton don't follow rules though. They are too good for them, I guess.

[karynnj]

34. This is a valid question

It is a unique circumstance that the wife of a former President is running. It is an extraordinary honor to be given the Presidentcy for even one term, this will put them in the white house for their third. It is reasonable to ask that the former President allow transparency not required by law because with there is substance possible conflicts of interest with people giving huge sums of money to her husband.

This will be raised in the general if she is the nominee - and not just on Free Republic.

[Yossariant]

44. Barack breaks his promises when it's expedient. Bill Clinton does not.

The donors were promised confidentiality which is not unusual for those who give to chariable organizations, like the Clinton Library.

If Barack had donated any money to charity, he might know this, but he had a hard enough time "buyng" the house he couldn't afford.

"The Clinton library has steadfastly declined to reveal its donors, saying they were promised confidentiality. The William J. Clinton Foundation, which funds the library, is considered a charity whose contributors can remain anonymous.

In response to questions from The Washington Post, the foundation reiterated that it would not discuss specific sizes or sources of donations to honor the commitment it made to donors. But it acknowledged that some of the money Clinton received from the library came from foreign sources."

[CorpGovActivist]

65. Amen! n/t

[beachmom]

36. Ah, the usual response to criticism of the Annointed Ones: "Right Wing Talking Point"

Sorry, but this stuff matters to SOME of us.

Open government is one of my top issues.

[LostinVA]

43. Looks like it, eh?

[billbuckhead]

3. And what's illegal about any of this?

Now let's get back to Rezko, so when is :tinfoilhat:bama going to come clean about all these POLITICAL contributions and the kickback of the very house :tinfoilhat:bama lives in?

[FrenchieCat]

5. Openness - Transparency?

would be nice.

[neutron]

9. Who cares who donated to the Clinton Library?

except Obama.

[karynnj]

39. Every one concerned with conflicts of interests

The Clintons did not have a squeaky clean reputation in the 1990s. Unfortunately, the 1996 campaign problems hurt the far cleaner Gore. It is dangerous to reputations to be too close.

[Morereason]

61. Unbelievable how many Democrats dont understand the serious connection between Openness & Democracy

[billbuckhead]

10. What about Rezko then? when does Obama give the house back?

All this Bill Clinton stuff is private :+bama has a long term political relationship with Rezko, when is he done gving back money and why did it take a presidential run to bring about this new found attitude of giving back Rezko's money? Perhaps, situational ethics from the great cult leader?

[indimuse]

51. AUDACITY^^^^Let me present the key passages from Obama's 1995 memoir.

Who is Obama?

<<snip>>
"When enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli " to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Mr. Wright recalled, "with
Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."

AUDACITY^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Let me present the key passages from Obama's 1995 memoir. Obama writes of the first Sunday he attended Wright's church in 1987:

"The title of Reverend Wright's sermon that morning was 'The Audacity of Hope.' He began with a passage from the Book of Samuel ... As I watched and listened from

my seat, I began to hear all the notes from the past three years swirl about me. The courage and fear of Ruby and Will. The race pride and anger of men like Rafiq
Black Muslim]. The desire to let go, the desire to escape, the desire to give oneself up to a God that could somehow put a floor on despair."
That's a significant indefinite article in front of "God."

And in that single note -- hope! -- I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary

black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion's den, Ezekiel's field of dry bones. These stories -- of

survival, and freedom, and hope -- became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day,

seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal,

black and more than black... And if a part of me continued to feel that this Sunday communion sometimes simplified our condition, that it could sometimes disguise or

suppress the very real conflicts among us
include nonblack human beings, such as, say, his mother, sister, and maternal grandparents] and would fulfill its promise only through action , I also felt

for the first time how that spirit carried within it, nascent, incomplete, the possibility of moving beyond our narrow dreams.
Soon, Obama breaks into tears.

http://www.tucc.org/mission.htm

[Gman]

4. So what's your nick over at Free Republic?

You're big buds with RimJob too, huh? Be sure to donate to the Freepathon.

[FrenchieCat]

6. If there can be endless Snub posts......

I guess I can do this.

After all, the GOP will raise the issue. Might as well get it out now, right? :shrug:

[MonkeyFunk]

17. they already have raised it

and Bill smacked 'em down.

Donor lists aren't made public for a variety of reasons. And I suspect you knew that.

aww... big bad people started anti-obama threads, so you gotta make shit up and start a thread yourself in retaliation.

Pathetic.

[rodeodance]

28. its called monkey see; monkey do--and doggie dodo applies to the IP

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. Let it all come out, this needs to be part of the debate tomorrow....

she backhanded him with that "slumlord" remark in the last one. This is fair game now.

[Gman]

42. Ha! Like Obama didn't represent the slumlord

You defend Obama defending a slumlord while Hillary was doing much more noble things?

So Obama can represent the slumlord, but nobody can talk about it or else it's dirty politics? What color is the sky in your world?

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. my sky is very blue....thank you.

I'm saying let's flesh it all out, on both sides. Don't you think it best that this be fleshed out now, so that it can be diffused before she goes head-to-head with McCain? Of course, you know what the right & the press will do with this. It just seems that the name "Clinton" and "scandal" are synonomous.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. Probably never

people donate to charities with the expectation that their names won't be released.

[Justice Is Comin]

21. There is some kind of committee that has to vet everything.

Bill has put out more faster than any other president and has no control over releasing it.

Nothing like cluttering the facts with garbage.

[ursi]

11. I'm sure the MSM is working on that as we speak since bits and pieces of it are leaking out now.

[1corona4u]

12. When will we find out who financed Obamas' Harvard education?

I can't seem to find that info...Rezko has been suggested.

[DUyellow]

14. Another bad post... tsk tsk grow up

[1corona4u]

15. So, do you have an answer, or not?

[DUyellow]

20. you are putting something out there that has no legs. sad... And this whole thread is sad, bill....

is not hillary.

[karynnj]

40. I have never seen this suggested - except by you now

Care to post a link? 1000+ posts in less than 3 months - this is a full time job!

[DUyellow]

13. Bad Post... If i donated and was told that it would not be knowen i would expect that.

Come on now, there are many other things to go after Clinton for, this should not be one of them.

[DiamondJay]

18. WHO CARES? So the media can dissect it?

their donor list is probably a fuck of a lot nicer than the GW Bush or Reagan lists are. He was a man of the people.

[CorpGovActivist]

64. Oil Sheiks

What's http://www.nysun.com/article/5152">alredy public - so far.

- Dave

[suston96]

19. Who says it has to be "released"?

[bowens43]

22. Who cares? I oppose Hillary but this is bullshit.

complete bullshit and the same kind of tactics I have come to expect from Hillary .

[FrenchieCat]

23. Well, Then I"m not sure why this story in on the front page of tomorrow's NYT, then.....

4 pages.
All dealing with some of Clinton's donors and Uranium sales Human rights and QuidQuoPro

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3163238

[rodeodance]

26. yeah yeah--and nytimes promoted going to war on front pages!--Don't you learn anything?

[LittleClarkie]

30. So everything they say is wrong?

Or just where it pertains to the Clintons?

[City Lights]

35. Didn't you get the memo? Anything goes where the Clintons are

concerned. Anytime anyone says something even remotely critical, they're automatically dumped into the VRWC.

[rodeodance]

24. Once again--Bill Clinton is not running for President.

[FrenchieCat]

32. right....I almost forgot.

It will be his wife, and he will only be sleeping there everynight. :eyes:

[rodeodance]

27. nySun, Huffpost and againsthillary.com website--HA HA--RW' hack jobbers

who will say anything against either Clinton. you fit right in frenchie.

[LittleClarkie]

29. Keep kicking it back up to the top, why dontcha

That's all you're doing when you reply multiple times like this.

[Major Hogwash]

31. Sold the names on the list huh? That's a great example of Clintonian thinking right there.

Sign up for this so we can sell your name to the highest bidder.

Sounds like something very similar to what the evangelical crowd did to raise monies for the electronic churches.

Pat Robertson, anyone?

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. Hillary Clinton should not make it through the primaries without

revealing this information. Sounds like business as usual.

[rndmprsn]

38. never...

that was easy

[Satyagrahi]

41. Matthew Yglesias: The Need for Disclosure

I wrote back in October about the lack of transparency surrounding donations from corporate titans and foreign princes to Bill Clinton's foundation. My view was that it made sense for liberals to push for this disclosure sooner rather than later so that we could see if there are any stinkbombs in those records before Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination. According to The New York Times there's at least one, where in exchange for a $31 million donation to the Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton helped a guy named Frank Giustra win some lucrative mining contracts from Kazakhstan's despotic government.

The only Hillary connection that the Times could uncover really highlights the lack of a Hillary connection here "Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York." Still, this obviously reflects quite poorly on Bill. And more to the point, it highlights the need for rigorous disclosure of this stuff. The Clintons are by no means unique in this regard -- the fundraising for the George W. Bush presidential library is super-shady. Normally, the relevant shadiness goes down during a president's lame duck phase so nobody really notices, but it's been a huge looming problem for years.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/the_need_for_disclosure.php

[Yossariant]

45. Donors were promised confidentiality. It's a charity.

[Satyagrahi]

47. If they gave their money to a charity, what do they have to hide?

More Kazakhstan deals perhaps? Why else be embarrassed about giving money to a charity?

Complete transparency is the only way to stop such rumors.

[Yossariant]

50. Typical right wing attack on privacy. Never heard that one before.

:puke:

[Satyagrahi]

52. Typical right wing defense of shady deals in the name of "privacy".

Cheers!

:D

[Yossariant]

53. That's up to the donors. Duh.

Nothing to hide -- let 'em frisk ya -- search your house when they please.

The morans from freerepublic have invaded.

:crazy:

[Tarheel_Dem]

54. so anyone who wants to know who's on that list is a "freeper"?

[MonkeyFunk]

58. You don't have a RIGHT to know who's on the list

[Tarheel_Dem]

59. I'm sorry, but that sounds like the biggest dodge in the universe...

If you've been around here for the past few years, we have all been pulling our hair out because of the super secrecy of the Bush administration. Are you now going to tell me that there's a double standard for the Clintons? And why sell the names to some anonymous entity? Some of us are very curious to know who's on that list in order to flesh out possible conflicts of interest. I don't think that's asking too much.

[MonkeyFunk]

60. It's not a dodge

it's the stone-cold truth!

You don't have a right to know who *I* donate money to. I don't have a right to know all about YOUR charitable donations.

And in case you haven't noticed, Bush is the President - the secrets he's keeping are OUR business. The Clinton Library is not a public agency, it's not our government - it's a private foundation.

Flip your argument around - for the last 7 years we've fought the violations of privacy this administration has committed. Now you want to force individuals to reveal their private charitable donations, or have them revealed by the recipient?

[Tarheel_Dem]

66. if they want to squash this..it's best that they do it now. As much as

the MSM hates the Clintons, this will be yet another Whitewater, and millions will be spent investigating it. It all just has a funny smell.

[MonkeyFunk]

57. sorry

but your personal charitable contributions are private. No one has the right to see them.

[CorpGovActivist]

55. FrenchieCat: We Should Talk

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=+site%3Awww.democraticunderground.com+corpgovactivist+secret+donor+list">Some background.

- Dave

[Robeson]

56. I'll out myself. I donated to the library.

[paulk]

62. hey! you and dave SHOULD talk!

while you're at it you should note how many of those threads on the google search were locked as flamebait.

and pay special attention to this post -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2544960&mesg_id=2545606

[Raine]

63. I'm on that list. I wish I could have my donation back

so I could donate it to someone who really needs it. I sure wouldn't have given it if I had known all those wealthy Saudis were financing it. Like the Clintons needed my "paltry" amount (though large to me). :eyes: