Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Does Not Like Transparency

The Clintons have repeatedly sought to avoid or undermine disclosure requests and requirements.

|

If there is a single, unifying theme to draw from the spate of negative stories that have dogged Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign so far, it is that the Clintons do not care for transparency.

That's the main thing we learned from the story that Hillary Clinton, while serving as

C-SPAN

Secretary of State, relied exclusively on a privately run nongovernmental email address to conduct her business. Clinton has since turned over thousands of emails to the Department of State for record keeping, but her aides chose which emails would be made available and which would be kept private. The email system, run out of Clinton's home, was designed in a way that made sure that only Clinton and her trusted lieutenants could access any emails she sent or recieved. Indeed, the server holding the emails was apparently wiped clean, preventing any further disclosure.

The follow-up to the email story, in which Clinton attempted to explain her reliance on the personal email account, only furthers the impression that she dislikes disclosure. Hillary Clinton provided a spate of excuses for why she kept her email private, but none of them were entirely convincing. She said she wanted to carry one device, but had previously admitted to carrying two. She said emails were sent to other government accounts that were auto-archived, but which weren't. She said she wouldn't allow server access in part to protect communications from her husband, President Bill Clinton, but Clinton reportedly doesn't use email. The parade of weak excuses gave, at the very least, a strong sense that Clinton did not want to be clear with the public.

That the Clintons do not like transparency requirements is also the biggest takeaway from the spate of stories about the intersections between the Clinton Foundation and its donors and Hillary Clinton's work as Secretary of State. 

More than $2 million in donations made from the family foundation of the founder of Uranium One—donations which coincided with State Department approval of a Russian takeover of the company—were "not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors," according to The New York Times.

In other words, Clinton, while serving as Secretary State, made an agreement with the White House to disclose Clinton Foundation donors—a transparency agreement—but did not follow through on the terms of that agreement.

Nor is this the only disclosure failure related to the story. The source of those donations was a Canadian partner of the Clinton foundation dubbed the "Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership," (CGEP) and it too was covered by the disclosure requirements in Clinton's agreement with the Obama administration. Yet according to a Bloomberg report yesterday, there are 1,100 undisclosed donors to that foundation. CGEP told Bloomberg that the organization was forbidden by Canadian tax law to make the names of its donors public, but "Canadian tax and privacy law experts were dubious of this claim," with a former tax official telling Bloomberg, "There's nothing that would preclude them from releasing the names of donors."  The Washington Post's Fact Checker looked into the claim that Canadian law prevented donor disclosure and found the statement dubious, giving it three Pinocchios.

In other cases, the Clinton Foundation (the main organization here in the U.S.) has complied with some transparency requirements. But not well. A Reuters investigation found that the Clinton Foundation's nonprofit disclosure documents were filled with errors, which the Foundation now says it will correct through refilling. Once again, transparency is at stake.

The unsettled numbers on the tax returns are not evidence of wrongdoing but tend to undermine the 990s role as a form of public accountability, experts in charity law and transparency advocates told Reuters.

"If those numbers keep changing—well, actually, we spent this on this, not that on that—it really defeats the purpose," said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government transparency advocacy group. [bold added]

The Clinton family can't even get its own record on transparency right. Chelsea Clinton, who is now included in the Clinton Foundation's full name, recently claimed, in defense of the organization, that "Transparency International and others have said we're among the most transparent foundations." But as NPR points out, while Transparency International did give Hillary Clinton a 2012 Integrity Award for her work as Secretary of State, it never gave any award to the Clinton Foundation. As NRO's Jim Geraghty says, it's more than just an error; it's a telling mistake, because it confuses Hillary Clinton's work at the State Department with the Clinton Foundation's non-governmental activities. The muddled distinction between the two is exactly the issue. 

None of the evidence so far has established a direct influence between Clinton Foundation activities and Hillary Clinton's work at the State Department, but the suggestion of impropriety is strong, and the consistent resistance to transparency makes it stronger still. We don't know everything that happened, in other words, but it's clear that whatever occurred, the Clintons have no interest in telling us about it.

Advertisement

NEXT: Mattress Girl Lawsuit: Can Paul Nungesser Beat Columbia in Court? Experts Weigh In

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Ducks Do Not Like Lava”

    News at 11

    1. “Slugs Not Enamored With The Idea Of Salt”

    2. “Hil is a transgender”

      Bruce throws up on her when discovered in bathroom stall.

    3. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here… http://www.work-cash.com

    4. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here… http://www.work-cash.com

  2. “Hillary Clinton Does Not Like Transparency
    The Clintons have repeatedly sought to avoid or undermine disclosure requests and requirements.”

    Really? I’ve been living under a rock for the last 2 decades and had *no* idea.

  3. Hey. If you want transparency, instead of granny here elect a 16-year-old. All you would want to know and more is on their various social media outlets for anyone to see.

      1. He can’t run again – some stupid amendment that got passed by slave holders, like, a hundred years ago or something.

        1. Why don’t they just ignore that, like they do other parts of the Constitution? And, incidentally, it probably should be just constitution, now. It no longer merits the capitalization.

          1. He will still be President the next time the electoral college meets. All he has to do is to use his proprietorial discretion and refuse to enforce that law just like he has immigration law.

      2. You can’t beat that with a stick.

  4. Y U NO HAZ NUKES IRAN ZOMG lol!!1!!111

    …followed by a selfie of him hitting the button to fire the missiles.

    1. Grr, that was supposed to be a reply to Fist, in the manner that 16 yr olds type on social media.

      1. Never explain – just claim to be an adherent of P Brooks.

    2. Thank Jeebus Greg Stillson didn’t have a Twitter account.

    3. +1 duck face and peace sign

  5. Really, why wouldn’t you vote for Hillary Clinton?

    1. Speed the Collapse 2016!

      1. Look into the Eyes of the Clinton and Despair 2016!

    2. “This time, why not the worst?”

      1. Wait, Nikki is Hillary Clinton?

        1. Young fool. Only now, at the end, do you understand.

          1. It’s amazing how slow these guys are on the uptake. How long have you known?

            1. I subscribe to Hit & Run Insider, so when the special Nikki cover story ran, what, a year ago?

      2. Nikki’s running?!?!

    3. Pro Libertate|4.30.15 @ 2:25PM|#
      “Really, why wouldn’t you vote for Hillary Clinton?”

      You’re not busy this afternoon?

      1. She’s profoundly terrible and I probably won ‘t vote for her. The only compelling reason to do so is to watch the hysterics it would throw her obsessed, crazy, and fanatical detractors into.

        1. american socialist|4.30.15 @ 5:01PM|#
          “She’s profoundly terrible and I probably won ‘t vote for her.”

          Bullshit.

      2. To vote for Bernie of course.

  6. She’s a woman, and it’s her turn. Fucking sexists.

    1. I’d like to propose a compromise. Instead of running some wholly incompetent and dishonest woman to be the first female president, why don’t we put her or Warren on the $20 bill instead? We can still vote for other women, just not these awful, awful people.

      1. Yuck.. No more twenties for me..

        1. What? You don’t want to gaze upon this or this every time you open your wallet?

          1. The second one came up as an error.

            Which is the best representation of Warren I’ve ever seen.

            1. Sorry about that. Even more sorry about this.

              1. What, she’s remaking The Wizard of Oz? I didn’t know she could act. Is she method?

                1. Chekhov.

        2. They’ll still have the old ones in circulation for a while, until the Clinton Foundation acquires them all under. . .questionable circumstances.

          1. Why wait? I’m sure the Clinton Foundation is willing to speed things up by printing a bunch on their own.

      2. No. It’s got to be the most incompetent and dishonest women for president, otherwise you’re sexist.

      3. Bruce Jenner

      4. Obama’s legacy will be his portrait on the $3 bill.

    2. The only time taking a turn on a woman is not an artifact of frat rape culture.

  7. So what you’re saying is that the Obama Administration learned it from her?

  8. PHAKE SKANDALZ! BUSHPIGS! CHRISTFAGS!

    1. Now you’re getting the hang of it!

    2. You forgot BEEENNNGHAAZZZI!!!

      1. You need to keep up, shitstain. Even the Chron is calling her a liar over Benghazi.

  9. Sometimes I wonder why we libertarians even fight the Hillary machine. The sooner this “American experiment” is over, and deemed a failure, the sooner we can get on with a true libertarian culture.

    1. Sadly, I believe that a libertarian society is unlikely to immediately arise from the ashes of this system’s collapse. I fear that something more authoritarian is more likely.

      1. ^^^^^THIS^^^^^

        And the left has positioned itself to make sure it pulls all the leavers of power and that the sheeple will go along.

        1. “And the left has positioned itself to make sure it pulls all the leavers of power and that the sheeple will go along.”

          Except for their failure to limit gun ownership. That shall be their undoing.

      2. We share the same fear. I’ve said before that we are one terrorist attack away from electing someone like Rudy G. to lead us to a bright future………

      3. Something more authoritarian!? That would be awful. We could find ourseleves living in a country where every conversation, every car trip, every phone call or social media account was monitored by government agents. Where the police routinely abused their authority to imprison, beat, even kill the people they are supposed to protect. Where the government acknowledged no constitutional limits on its authority to regulate our behavior. Where our elected officials claimed the right to imprison, even kill, American citizens without due process of law.

        I, for one, cannot imagine living in such an authoritarian wasteland. I’d also like to take this opportunity to hail our new (old) Clintonian overlords, and remind them that as an internet commentor with the name of a former President, I can be useful in rounding up my fellow citizens to work in the Clintons’ underground sex dungeons.

        1. The whole “things are bad now so how can they possibly get worse?” spiel has always been pretty much bullshit. No shit things can get more authoritarian. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot type shit is far worse than anything going on now.

          1. Of course things can get much worse. But we are already well on our way. Arguing that keeping the status quo is the best defense of liberty, while its collapse is most likely to bring about the type of genocidal regimes you mention is becoming increasingly difficult. The direction of the status quo is clear, and is not pretty. Absent some radical change, it will get us there.

            1. That doesn’t make any sense.

              1. The status quo is becoming increasingly authoritarian at an increasing rate. At one point, the collapse of said status quo is preferable for liberty than its continuation. “Better the devil you know” only goes so far.

                1. The danger of continuing on this course is that the line between fading republic and openly authoritarian regime may never be completely obvious. Look at the classic example of Augustus, who took great pains to preserve (and in some cases restore) the facade of the Republic. All while actually running a one-man shop.

                  1. And getting the danger of getting rid of the corrupt authoritarian Republic can easily give us Lenin/Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot.

                2. I don’t know isn’t increasing authoritarianism a change to the status quo? And wouldn’t a Augustus/Hitler-like regime that keeps the nominal trappings of the old still be a collapse of the “status quo”?

                  Anyone I wasn’t questioning whether or not the collapse of the current regime is the optimal solution but I was questioning the tendency of libertarians to dismiss fears of a worse future because of their dislike of the current situation which I find to be really stupid.

        2. Oh, it could get a lot worse. And I think things are pretty ugly now.

        3. Well, when you say it like THAT Calvin…

  10. The need for transparency only applies to the proles and the enemy, said enemy being the opposition political party and movement…

    1. Talking about transparency:
      http://www.klondikegoldcorp.co…..rcular.pdf

      Radcliff is a private foundation of Clinton donor Giustra, yet the only investments it makes is in mining companies Giustra also controls (there are plenty of other examples). How is this even legal?
      Well there is this: Philanthropist Frank Giustra hit with tax penalty.
      Perhaps the CRA should audit Giustra some more.

      1. Like these mining companies:
        http://ca.hotstocked.com/docs/…..cnpewr.pdf
        http://www.oceanicironore.com/….._10_09.pdf
        Even more investments from the Radcliffe Foundation.

  11. Peter, you missed an article in the Boston Globe today about the Clinton Health Access Initiative, which is headquartered in Boston.

    The Clinton Health Access Initiative never submitted information on any foreign donations to State Department lawyers for review during Clinton’s tenure from 2009 to 2013, Maura Daley, the organization’s spokeswoman, acknowledged to the Globe this week. She said the charity deemed it unnecessary, except in one case that she described as an “oversight.”

    Daley’s acknowledgement was the first by the charity of the broad scope of its apparent failures to fulfill the spirit of a crucial political pledge made by the Clinton family and their charities. The health initiative has previously acknowledged failing only to disclose the identity of its contributors, another requirement under the agreement.

    With a budget of more than $100 million a year, the CHAI makes up nearly 60 percent of the broader Clinton charitable empire, which includes the Clinton Foundation and several offshoots. Government grants to CHAI, nearly all of them from foreign countries, doubled from $26.7 million in 2010 to $55.9 million in 2013, according to the charity’s tax forms.

    1. And the hits keep on coming!

      This is a completely different violation of her disclosure agreement that won her the SoS approval than those discussed in the NYT or by Reuters. It also makes clear how important the disclosure was in getting her nomination approved:

      “Kerry’s Senate speech in her defense help clear the way for an overwhelming confirmation vote, 94-to-2.

      “All contributions by foreign governments will be subject to a review process by the State Department’s officials,” Kerry said on the Senate floor. “This review will occur prior to the receipt of any such contribution, and Senator Clinton has made clear that the process has been designed to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

      Will Democrats such as Kerry EVER tire of having her bend them over and peg them like this?

    2. At exactly what point – if ever – will someone in the media stop referring to this as a “charity” and start referring to it as “the sort of shit that normally gives federal prosecutors a throbbing RICO-boner?”

  12. Really, why wouldn’t you vote for Hillary Clinton?

    An Iron Fist in an Iron Vagina.
    Vote Hillary, OR ELSE.

    1. …an iron taste, an iron smell, and a Babel of iron sounds

      1. It tastes like pennies?

  13. So realistically what is the end result of all this? She isn’t dropping out and I doubt anything flagrantly illegal will come up to warrant indictments with today’s leadership.

    1. Even if flagrantly illegal dealings are exposed, who will prosecute it? No one.

      The Clintons are literally above the law.

      1. The UraniumOne business appears to me to be flagrantly illegal. And in light of it, her destruction of all emails from her time at State seems to be flagrantly illegal.

        This shit is actual treason. She should be tried, sentenced, and hanged.

        1. Hanged by the nuts.

    2. “Grand Moff Serious Man|2015/04/30 15:00:13|#5269228

      So realistically what is the end result of all this? “

      The real-world effect? it erodes enthusiasm of her base…

      …and also dissuades many people from speaking up to defend her statements, many of which are transparently false. While Hillary may not ever pay the price for lies, people who carry water for her may start to get the notion that Victory is not assured, and that their own reputations may potentially suffer.

      but the most significant effect is the wearing-down the Democrat popular base. Yes, Hill will continue to ‘poll well’, but i’d expect that by the time ‘grassroots support’ starts to matter that there will be less than half the # of people volunteering to campaign on her behalf as there was for Obama.

      The fact is, even the people already in the bag for Clinton get sick of being lied to, and stop cheerleading at some point.

      1. It is not when they get sick of being lied to. It is when they get sick of lying, and knowing that everyone knows they are lying in service to liars.

        Make note of every Clinton shill, then point and laugh at every opportunity.

        It is the only appropriate treatment they deserve.

        1. Exactly. Read the comment sections on left-leaning websites for articles such as this one. Leftists coming out to wish they had someone else to vote for, and opine that they may just stay home instead. Defenders are few and far between, usually outnumbered by established posters with severe left-wing bias who are tired of all this.

          It’s an overused trope to call someone who you don’t agree with a “paid shill” who is only posting because some political organization pays them to. But the Clinton defenders are hard to miss. They can’t cite facts, so the talking points are even more apparent, and Carvillian. “You can’t prove anything! This is all just lies from the right-wing conspiracy, and by believing them you become one of them! IT’S HER TURN GODDAMMIT!!!”

        2. “It is not when they get sick of being lied to. It is when they get sick of lying, and knowing that everyone knows they are lying in service to liars.’

          more or less the same point. the result is the same.

          a lot of it means they have to turn from ‘support’ of their candidate, to ‘attacking’ the opposition. that works for a time, but it still doesn’t improve the prevailing view of the candidate. The fact is that she’s barely above 50% with the people who are supposed to be supporting her. that’s pretty weak for a candidate with zero actual competition.

      2. Hi Gilmore,

        Good point! That’s very important because the central goal for libertarians is to make sure Jeb bush becomes president.

        1. Go fuck yourself, genocide enthusiast.

        2. thank you for the illustration of my point, socialist

          “a lot of it means they have to turn from ‘support’ of their candidate, to ‘attacking’ the opposition. that works for a time, but it still doesn’t improve the prevailing view of the candidate”

  14. The chaos…the scheming of these two mopes is breathtaking and never ending.

    Old, overweight, nasty white woman: Vote for Granny Clinton!

    1. Old. Overweight. Woman.

      These adjectives are detrimental in these arguments. Give me a libertarian woman who is old and white and overweight, and I’ll vote for her.

      1. I really want to see the Clinton Warren Dem ticket. Two mother in laws for the price of one.

      2. I view those aspects of her as reassuring considering how deeply shallow the voters are. Every cloud…

  15. “Transparency International and others have said we’re among the most transparent foundations.”
    But as NPR points out, while Transparency International did give Hillary Clinton a 2012 Integrity Award for her work as Secretary of State, it never gave any award to the Clinton Foundation”

    Well, i’m sure that was an honest mistake.

    1. “Well, i’m sure that was an honest mistake.”

      So that makes you and her! Oh, and at least several of her ardent supporters…

  16. So will Bernie Sanders officially become a Democrat now? And at least he supports civil liberties and doesn’t want to gut the first amendment…oh wait.

  17. You all hate her because you’re a bunch of haters–and haters gotta hate.

    She’s been the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI_SqqJIU14

    Of course she has her own email server!

    If it weren’t for all you haters, the GOP, and especially MRAs, who hate her for being a woman, I’m sure she’d be just as transparent as anybody.

    lol

    She should have been thrown in a federal penitentiary for Madison.

  18. I used to have a friend in college named Jerry. Whenever money was involved, he would make the same joke; you could always just give it to “Jerry’s kids”, as in give it to him.

    Some left wing hack “fact checker” is defending Clinton by claiming that the fact that the Clinton Foundation only gives 15% of its funds to charitable grants is totally okay since “the Foundation does much of its charity work in house”. Why give the money in charitable grants when you can just give it to Hillary’s kids?

    1. The Hells Angels do charity work, too.

      http://www.cnbc.com/id/102236598

      1. Barton Hinkle was on here yesterday claiming that since the Gulf States do charity work, their appalling theocratic repression is totally okay.

        https://reason.com/archives/201…..yo#comment

    2. Isn’t one of the criteria for Charity Navigator % of money used in overhead? I wonder where 85% puts ya.

    3. “Why give the money in charitable grants when you can just give it to Hillary’s kids?”

      That’s classic Seinfeld.

      The Clinton Fund is like The Human Fund.

      It’s money for people.

      1. Damn you!

    4. The Human Fund!

  19. people who carry water for her may start to get the notion that Victory is not assured, and that their own reputations may potentially suffer.

    Something, something, rats, ship, sinking…

  20. Hillary Clinton Does Not Like Transparency

    her being fully visible doesn’t work out that great for the rest of us. the goggles. they do nothing.

  21. I can’t wait until Hillary starts talking about how transparent her administration is going to be.

    1. It’s going to be amazingly transparent, because it isn’t going to exist. At least she’ll have her ill-gotten millions to console her.

    2. She is transparent in a way.

      I can see right through her!

      She’ll sell presidential decisions off to the highest bidder.

      Hell, with the power to grant Presidential pardons, she might start selling indulgences.

      1. I rather think she’d better start buying indulgences. She’s going to need a lot of them.

  22. Two of the pillars of her campaign are supposed to be “get unaccountable money out of politics” and “reduce income inequality”. I think she may need to find some new pillars.

  23. Tangentially related, some lovely CNN Derp:
    How Rand Paul learned to talk to black people

    Raoul Cunningham, president of the state and Louisville branch of the NAACP, keeps a file of newspaper clippings on Paul that portray him as a convenient convert to the cause of restoring voting rights to felons. The organization wrote a letter urging Paul to vote for Loretta Lynch for attorney general. Paul voted no last week, joining with all but 10 Republicans in opposing the first black woman nominated for the post.

    His refusal to vote for Loretta Lynch has *nothing* to do with her full throated support for the drug war, and everything to do with keeping the black woman down. 😀

    1. And he is the racist one not the person who is judging Lynch entirely based on her sex and the color of her skin.

    2. And all this time, I thought racism was overzealous focus on a person’s skin color at the expense of viewing a person as an individual human being first and judging them on the merits of their character.

    3. Also, she is not the first black person to be nominated for the post, as her predecessor himself was black. Nor is she the first woman nominated for the post, as Janet Reno previously held the position in the 90s.

      So we already broke the black thing and the woman thing. The black woman thing isn’t some watershed moment. Fuck these identity politics idiots.

      1. It can only get more comical as they strive to cheer for ‘firsts’.

        “The President has appointed, and Congress has confirmed, the first left-handed trans-gendered latina born on a Tuesday to the post of Attorney General. YAAAAAAAY!”

  24. I will believe Hillary is committed to transparency when that Huma Hillary sex tape is finally leaked.

    1. That’s gonna be this year’s October Surprise!

  25. If you looked like that, would you favor transparency?

  26. MMMM. Hillary in transparent panties…..

    1. It is coming, the Huma Hillary sex tape

    2. Eating Chipotle….

      1. You know, burritos are very sensuous meals.

      2. Check the link in my handle.

        1. I did. Hence my comment, as I am in complete agreement.

    3. *masturbates furiously*

    4. Aaaaaaaaaaagh! You bastard!

      I’m gonna fight that with a healthy dose of Kelley Brook.

  27. Hillary Clinton Does Not Like Transparency

    23 years ago say hi.

  28. Isn’t destroying evidence a felony? Alas, political considerations will preclude an indictment.

  29. The Gestapo never liked transparency.

  30. Has ANYONE reached out to the Geico Gecko for comment?

    Suddenly EVERY relationship looks suspicious.

  31. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  32. my best friend’s aunt makes $85 /hr on the laptop . She has been laid off for 10 months but last month her pay check was $18401 just working on the laptop for a few hours
    …… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  33. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,

    ————- http://www.work-cash.com

  34. my Aunty Brianna got a nice 6 month old Chevrolet Suburban SUV by working part-time from a laptop..
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.