Bill Clinton used tax dollars to subsidize foundation, private email server

I started to post this in the thread titled "If This Does Not Disqualify Hillary For The Presidency, It's Hard To Know What Will" www.abovetopsecret.com... but as most threads the story there seems to have played out and now is a bit of ATS history.

This is but one more example of how the Clinton's have miss used the benefits and perks of the political elite regardless of the seemingly impropriety.

Bill Clinton's staff used a decades-old federal government program, originally created to keep former presidents out of the poorhouse, to subsidize his family’s foundation and an associated business, and to support his wife’s private email server, a POLITICO investigation has found.

Taxpayer cash was used to buy IT equipment — including servers — housed at the Clinton Foundation, and also to supplement the pay and benefits of several aides now at the center of the email and cash-for-access scandals dogging Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

This investigation, which is based on records obtained from the General Services Administration through the Freedom of Information Act, does not reveal anything illegal. But it does offer fresh evidence of how the Clintons blurred the line between their non-profit foundation, Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the business dealings of Bill Clinton and the couple’s aides.

Evidently the job of president keeps on giving and giving... not to mention the connections and the pony up of another 2 Billion dollars that was really just a cash cow for private use and Clinton's future run for the white house. ... And that Ladies and gentlemen is not chicken feed IMO !

But even as the Clintons got rich and grew their foundation into a $2 billion organization credited with major victories in the fights against childhood obesity and AIDS — while paying six figure salaries to top aides — Bill Clinton continued drawing more cash from the Former President's Act than any other ex-president, according to a POLITICO analysis. The analysis also found that Clintons’ representatives, between 2001, when the Clintons left the White House, and the end of this year, had requested allocations under the Act totaling $16 million. That’s more than any of the other living former presidents — Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush — requested during that span.

credited with major victories in the fights against childhood obesity and AIDS

Must have hired a good P.R. Agent to write that line ?

Read more: www.politico.com...

From your source:

This investigation, which is based on records obtained from the General Services Administration through the Freedom of Information Act, does not reveal anything illegal

Yep. Stopped reading here.

EDIT: Read your linked article, though:

A GSA spokesperson declined to comment on specific employees, but said ex-presidents have broad discretion over how they choose to divvy up the $96,600 they are provided each year for staffing. They can give the entire sum to a single employee or divide it among multiple employees. George H. W. Bush has four people on his taxpayer-funded staff, while Bill Clinton has 10, which has been roughly his staffing level for most of his post-presidency, according to the GSA documents. That means that each earned about $9,600 a year — far from a living wage in Manhattan, where both the Clinton Foundation and Clinton’s personal office are located. Read more: www.politico.com... Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

So, each President gets the same amount; Bill Clinton used his allocation.

/shrug

Like most Clinton-bashing ... nothing wrong or even shady going on here.

His chief aid just tweeted that the story is egregiously wrong. The server was paid for with personal funds.
Story is still developing.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
From your source:

This investigation, which is based on records obtained from the General Services Administration through the Freedom of Information Act, does not reveal anything illegal

Yep. Stopped reading here.

EDIT: Read your linked article, though:

A GSA spokesperson declined to comment on specific employees, but said ex-presidents have broad discretion over how they choose to divvy up the $96,600 they are provided each year for staffing. They can give the entire sum to a single employee or divide it among multiple employees. George H. W. Bush has four people on his taxpayer-funded staff, while Bill Clinton has 10, which has been roughly his staffing level for most of his post-presidency, according to the GSA documents. That means that each earned about $9,600 a year — far from a living wage in Manhattan, where both the Clinton Foundation and Clinton’s personal office are located. Read more: www.politico.com... Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

So, each President gets the same amount; Bill Clinton used his allocation.

/shrug

Like most Clinton-bashing ... nothing wrong or even shady going on here.

Do you honestly believe there is no distinction between legal and right, or illegal and wrong?
It is perfectly legal for huge corporations to route profits through shady banks to avoid paying taxes, while the US citizens (those of us who still work for a living, anyway) pick up the check.

Just because it isn't illegal doesn't mean it's not right.

a reply to: lordcomac

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do believe there is a distinction between legal and right and/or illegal and wrong.

Clinton used the same funds that all past Presidents have access to. The linked article tries to make that sound different from what every modern President has done. There's no difference.

But again, no wrongdoing, no illegal activity. The Clinton Foundation has done amazing things around the world for years. (As has the Carter Foundation, for that matter).

If Bill used his stipend to buy a server or start the Foundation (and there's little proof here that he did "buy the server" with these funds) that's a lot better bang for the buck than anything the Bushes, Reagans or Nixons have done.

a reply to: lordcomac

Your little tale about corporate tax evasion is totally irrelevant to your thread. You're basically trolling your own thread with straw man arguments.

Just a bit of trivia I will not even try to validate here but he claimed a $10 charitable contribution for every pair of boxer shorts he donated to charity while gov. of Ar. Made the Ar. papers then.

originally posted by: CharlesT
Just a bit of trivia I will not even try to validate here but he claimed a $10 charitable contribution for every pair of boxer shorts he donated to charity while gov. of Ar. Made the Ar. papers then.

You won't even try to validate it ... just make a spurious claim?

How does that have anything to do with the topic here? Even nominally?

a reply to: Gryphon66

None I guess. Just more legal financial manipulation to benefit their bottom line.

I buy Fruit of the Loom for around $1 a pair.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: Gryphon66

None I guess. Just more legal financial manipulation to benefit their bottom line.

I buy Fruit of the Loom for around $1 a pair.

So... to summarize ... you have no backup for your silly claim, and it has nothing to do with the topic.

a reply to: lordcomac

There's no story here. It's just more oh look EMAILS AGAIN WHOOPIE🙌🙌🙌

It must mean......something no?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Take it any way you like. I don't really care. Whatever floats your boat.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: Gryphon66

Take it any way you like. I don't really care. Whatever floats your boat.

Yeah, it's not "the way I'm taking it" ... it's what you said.

Zero content. /shrug

Hey....the Clinton's were "dead broke" when they left the White House...Why shouldn't they use other people's money to set up their illegal Pay-to-Play scheme?

a reply to: Gryphon66

If you're trying to get a rise out of me it's not going to work. Truly, I don't care what you think of my comment so you should just let this go. I'm beginning to find your attempts fairly childish at this point.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: Gryphon66

If you're trying to get a rise out of me it's not going to work. Truly, I don't care what you think of my comment so you should just let this go. I'm beginning to find your attempts fairly childish at this point.

I'm not trying to get a rise out of you. I'm just pointing out your zero content post.

You admitted it was zero content, and now you're scrolling the screen telling me that you don't care that I pointed out the same thing you did.

Childish? Perhaps. At least I don't sound like a parrot.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Hey....the Clinton's were "dead broke" when they left the White House...Why shouldn't they use other people's money to set up their illegal Pay-to-Play scheme?

Did Bill Clinton use the same funds that are available to every President ... or not?

The same funds that Carter, the Bushes, etc. used.

This is another non-issue to hang Clinton-bashing on.

/shrug

a reply to: Gryphon66

Just illustrating the fact that Slick Willey was scum then and he is still scum.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: Gryphon66

Just illustrating the fact that Slick Willey was scum then and he is still scum.

Actually, you only illustrated that nothing that the Clintons have done is illegal, but regardless of that fact, the rabid right-wingers in this country will ALWAYS repeat the same ol' same ol' baseless BS.

Gratz.

a reply to: Gryphon66