NYT Worried About Clintons' Conflict Of Interest, Wants Monthly Report

In the likely event that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is confirmed as secretary of state, the last thing she will need is a distracting ethics controversy.

That is why Mrs. Clinton's confirmation hearing, now scheduled to begin on Tuesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, must cover wider terrain than pressing world issues. It should address the awkward intersection between Mrs. Clinton's new post and the charitable and business activities of her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Read the whole story here.

Comments

[fayemac]

Maybe the NYT should worry more about thier own reputation. McCains unfounded afairs, the reporter who would rather spend time in jail than say who leaked a current spy, and now has the nerve to say that they think Hillary should be bound by thier rules of ethics? Stay out of politics until you do some of your own soulsearching.

[TheOuroborus]

I'd say the New York Times can suck it.

[blueskybigstar]

I absolutely agree with the New York Times. Hillary and Bill are crooked to the bone.

These are very good sites where you will learn everything you want to know about the Clintons. The Republicans know all this stuff. That is how they control them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=related
http://www.paulvclinton.com/
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/malak_la.html
http://makesusdumb.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/cia-cocaine-connection-evidence/
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5396/IMena.html
http://www.dangerouslogic.com/ron_brown.html
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/clintonfriends.htm
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1301
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/clintonfriends.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/itsdanger.htm
http://hillarytruth.blogspot.com/
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/billclintonscriminalbackground.htm
http://www.stewwebb.com/Hillary_Clinton_Murders_March_27_2007.htm
http://www.alamo-girl.com/0462.htm
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/wire/brian_simpson/2008/10/01/strange_bedfellows_clinton_defends_gramm_leach_bliley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf8TOGrq8Bo&feature=related
http://www.newworldordercafe.com/Pages/Conspiracy/Brown-Xray_01.htm

[StillAmused]

You left out the colony of space aliens under your bed... the ones who really control professional wrestling.

[westcoastsc]

tard

[fayemac]

God.... get a life loser!

[ApolloniaCreed]

While the opinion of the NYT is well taken; I think the O administration can figure out why types of reports it needs or doesn't need from the SOS.

[partyofone]

So the guarantees against conflict of interest are dependent on Bill Clintons "sound judgment and proper restraint." That is laughable.

Whether they like it or not, the Clintons have built a PERSONAL mega-million dollar fortune since 2000 by selling influence, add to that the mega millions contributed to the Cllnton Foundation, and Hlllary's campaigns, including the $13 million now-forgiven campaign "loan" (did those dollars come from the Saudis?).

Bill and Hillary Clinton are DEEPLY conflicted on international issues, have a record of missrepresentation and parsing words to hide their agenda, and have unabashedly sold influence to the highest bidders. If 'no perception of conflict of interest" is the standard, Hillary Clinton should not have been nominated and should never be confirmed.

[lochnessmonster]

So the American Dream is good for everyone else but not them?

[Glowcy]

.
the American dream is still good: in the clinton instance, there is a collision between a civil service post/job and the clinton pursuit of the American dream

.

[partyofone]

Selling prresidential influence on the auction block isn't "the American Dream."

[westcoastsc]

Fraud and thievery should not be the American Dream.

[fayemac]

You have nothing to back up what you just posted except what the repuks have been posting for years. They have been the most looked into couple in decades and nothing has stuck. I sugest nextime that you give examples of your ignorance before you critisize others.

[voltage356]

Oh please, in dealing with the Clintons they are going to need weekly reports instead of monthly reports

[HillaryGoAway]

LOL!!

[AnnfromCA]

Another star for the Obama team. How ridiculous to have to answer to the NY TIMES, the rag that publishes false stories and can't even fact-check.

How long till it stops the presses?

[mcostello]

It will be a sad day when the print ends. It will leave the internet so vulnerable to Big Brother.

[partyofone]

The NY Times is the most respected newspaper in the world, agree with its editorial opinons or not they have great influence.

[CalverH]

In the World or in the USA ...

[Wigelah]

I don't care what the New York Times wants. How about if they give a report about their finances and who they have donated to and when and why and what they had for lunch. And what they had for lunch 6 years ago on tuesday. They should report on who they have slandered or distorted or just generally gave wrong information about. It really is ridiculous. No wonder nothing gets done.

[lochnessmonster]

Bravo!

[partyofone]

Good Clinton-Bush-Rove strategy, attack the messagner.

[StillAmused]

Oh, dear me... are they attacking innocent "messagners" again?

When will it all end?

Illiterate clown.

[Wigelah]

Some messengers should be attacked. There is far too much nonsense going on. Time to be grown up and use some common sense here and work for the common good instead of nitpicking stupid stuff.

[edgeways]

sort of seems like an attempt to have a reason to write a monthly column bashing the Clintons neh? When the NYT decides to veer back from general senility perhaps they can worry about serious political reporting.

[HillaryGoAway]

Good job NYT!! Nobody in politics is above examination, not even the Clintons. Correction: especially not the Clintons. Bill gets millions from foreign donors while his wife,a Senator, is voting on legislation that may impact those donors. If they didn't investigate potential conflicts of interest, the media wouldn't be doing their job.

[partyofone]

The issue is not just the donors to the shady Clinton Foundation, which uses philanthropy as a cover, but the huge "speaking and consulting" fees Bill Clinton receives from international business interests.

He is in effect a lobbyist for Dubai, Middle Eastern oil interests, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement and on and on. He received $800,000 in 2005 from Colombia-based International Gold Service to promote the trade agreement. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/08/bill-clintons-ties-to-col_n_95651.html

And what is the current status of Bill Clinton's relationship with shady business partner Ron Burkle, Yucaipa Cos investments, and Dubai business interests?

Will Hillary recuse herself from any negotiations that involve Colombia, the United Arab Emirates, and Middle Eastern oil producing nations? Of course not, she will represent Bill's business obligations to the best of her ability. And because the Clitnons are a "team" (we have been told this for decades), I am sure she will brief Bill regularly on matters of State Department policy affecting his clients.

DEEP CONFLICTS.

[klondiker]

oh, NOW, they want monthly reports?? They didn't demand monthly reports from Cheney's Haliburton connections or from Bush's Texas oil connections. Where was the concern about conflict of interest then??

[Mavin1620]

Grow up NYT and hire some reporters. The Clintons do not need to do your work. I'd like to know about your (NYT) conflicts of interest.

[partyofone]

The New York Times is being resposible and casting a spotlight on a huge vulnerability for the fledgling Obama administration. The Clintons are deeply conflicted on international issues. Their "ethics" are highly suspect, and both have demonstrated terrible judgment in that regard. Their record says one thing, the Clintons are about the Clintons.

It is not pleasant to call into question the values and conflicts of a former president. But someone should do it before the Clinton love of drama and conflict engulfs Obama.

Shooting the messanger does not change the facts.

[StillAmused]

Sure... whatever you want, NYT. We don't want any appearance of "conflict of interest".

You can assemble an all-star team of your discredited, warmongering lineup -- let's say, Judith Miller, Thom Friedman, David Brooks, William Kristol and Bill Safire -- to review the reports and grade them.

... y'know, for ethical propriety.

[partyofone]

Or maybe they could assemble Frank Rich, Nicolas Kristof, Paul Krugman, and Thom Friedman. That would be an interesting vetting team.

The NYT has raised a valid issue.

[StillAmused]

Your inclusion of Friedman, one of the most enthusiastic cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq, in the group of 'progressi­ve'-leanin­g columnists tells us everything we need to know about the depth of your insight into the credibility of The Times.

The NYT has raised its leg.

Stands to reason you're impressed.

[GLaB]

Beautifully put.

[the-lexicon]

So, who died and left the job of Attorney General to the NYT??????

screw them!

lexicon

[PoliticalAmazon]

Hey, wait a minute. A MSM publication finally decides to hold the government accountable, and you criticize them?

Of course, it would have been better if they had become such good public servants when Bush/Cheney were in office, but I think the Clintons have as much chance to use Hillary's position to sc rew us over as many in the Bush administration have.

IMO, Obama is WAY off base in assuming he can control the Clintons and keep them in line. The Clintons' obsession is getting Hillary in the WH. If Obama thinks they aren't going to use her being SOS to polish her up for the 2012 run, he's delusional. And if he thinks that they are above using their proximity to Obama and his administration to build a dossier with which they can bring down Obama as 2012 grows near--hooo-boy! he's not paying attention to business.

So, yes, let's have the NYTimes keep their eyes on the Clintons.

What's the funniest about all of this, of course, is that the NYTimes thinks that, because they demand it, the Clintons will provide them full truthful disclosure.

Not if it gets in the way of Hillary becoming president, they won't.

[StillAmused]

Just for the entertainment value, give us your hypothetical fantasy of Hillary 'freelancing' as Secretary Of State, in direct opposition to administration policy, for the imagined benefit of Bill Clinton's charitable foundation.

You've already been "screwed over"... by your failed education.

Dolt.

[Hopalongpoppyseed]

Senator Clinton will be 69 in 2016. That should be too old to be elected President for her or anyone else. We should learn from the mental disability that was compromising Ronald Reagan's judgment at the end of his administration. In the future, it would be a good policy to not elect a President over 60 at the time of their first term. The office should be occupied by a person both wise and vigorous. Obama should pick a younger yet accomplished and promising Progressive for Vice President in his second term, thereby giving that person and opportunity to become our first real Progressive President since FDR. Biden will be 70 in 2012 and 74 in 2016. Obama has nothing to fear from the Clinton's in 2012, because if they challenge him, they will be totally rejected by the rank and file Democrats. Hillary's time to be President has passed, but her time to be a great SOS and peacemaker may be before her.

[vjoseph]

Off your meds again, aren't you?

[stell]

Hey, how come the Clintons never kiss on the lips?

[pupbayer]

They have more class than to show affection in public. I'm slightly young than the Clintons and public display of affection is something people our age see as tacky.

[Hopalongpoppyseed]

I am 63, and I agree with you about PDA, although it is OK to surreptitiously oggle, or cop a feel behind the podium.

[vjoseph]

PDA's are gross, whether you are 12 or 90

[StillAmused]

Nothing more important going on in your tiny world?

[glorialovelace]

On New Years Eve, where the Clintons were part of the ceremony, a video recorded a very lingering, swaying-ba­ck-and-for­th hug when the crystal ball completed its descent. It was quite affectionate.

[stell]

Kinda like when they were swaying-back-and forth in the Virgin Islands before the Monica thing was about to come out. Come on, it's a business partnership, you can't be that naive.

[RadhaColalurver]

This is such a stupid question.