10-27-2016, 04:01 PM
(10-27-2016, 02:23 PM)Duchess Wrote: Why is it bad to trade in on your status of being a former POTUS and getting money for charity? I don't ever see that addressed, so many would rather be scandalized by it. I don't have a problem with it and if I were important enough I'd do the same damn thing.
It's not a bad thing in my view either, and every former President I can think of has a charitable foundation and does the same thing. It just gives the opposition something upon which to heap innuendo in this case because Bill Clinton's wife happens to be a powerful and influential person who is running for President.
Paid speeches to private businesses by former government officials don't bother me either; that's something else that's done by every former President and high-level politician I can think of. But, I'm glad there are watchful eyes from both sides and from watchdog groups looking to ensure that those businesses don't get any favorable treatment when former government officials assume new roles in the government.
Charitable foundations accepting money from the Saudis, Qatar, Russia and other countries where human rights aren't as championed as they are here is something else that isn't a problem for me, SO LONG AS there is no pay-for-play or quid-pro-quo with government bodies. I think that Bill Clinton is right to step down from the Clinton Foundation if Hillary Clinton is elected -- there should be no chance or appearance of undue/illegal policy influence from foreign bodies.
In a similar vein......yesterday, I turned on CNN and then turned it right off. The talking heads were going on and on about how Trump took an hour or two off the campaign trail to make a speech at the opening of a new Trump property. So fucking what? It's his time, his money, and I don't see any conflict of interest with the self/branding promotion there either. I also wouldn't care if Trump had legal international business dealings with Russia, in the past, as a private businessperson..........SO LONG AS those dealings weren't to the detriment of the United States' security and Trump was open and transparent about them (instead, he's been coy and inconsistent in regards to his Russian connections, so I understand the concern there).