People, I detest the Clintons politically as much as most here. However, I’m involved in charitable work in Africa and know for a fact that the Clinton Foundation does some pretty good work there. And ten percent of $109 million ain’t chump change. How many of the rest here donate 10% or more? (I did 15% last year, throwing in some field work in Uganda as well).

Their charitable work (primarily by Bill, likely from guilt about doing nothing about Rwanda) cannot be faulted, no matter what their innumerable other sins may be.

michaelo on April 5, 2008 at 1:34 AM

I cannot believe people like you rationalize the criminal behavior of the Clinton’s because they spent a few bucks on charity work.
Are you so naive that you do not realize that they sold the American taxpayer out to “earn” that 109 million? I guess you would rationalize a bank robber that gave to Africa charity too.

Have you forgotten that Bill Clinton sold our nuclear secrets to the Communist Chinese that cost the American taxpayer trillions to develop for a couple of million in bribes to the Clinton Campaign. This has allowed the Communist Chinese to leapfrog and back engineer nuclear weapons that would have cost them trillions to develop and they have now reached parity with us.

Do a google on Loral Space Systems, Charlie Tree and John Chung.
According to your argument it is all justified because they used the bribe money to fund a charity program in Africa.

When you see a mushroom cloud over a major American city remind me how charitable the Clintons were in Africa.

Their charitable work (primarily by Bill, likely from guilt about doing nothing about Rwanda) cannot be faulted, no matter what their innumerable other sins may be.

They [Clintons] used the IRS for political purposes when they were co-POTUS.

Never happen under Bush II. New tone. We’re all Club Members.

I think it was reported here at HotAir a few weeks ago: (Maybe it was FR or Lucianne); that Gore is bringing $150 million per year now… Scamming the Global Warming true believers (and Jesse Jackson style blackmailing of corporations who should know better) has got to be the biggest world wide con in history…. Even when adjusted for inflation.

Why should I care?

For me, it’s irrelevant.

It’s like Jerry Springer’s ‘Final Thought.’

The amazing thing is all this income was earned in what they call a “shitty” economic background as Bush and company ran the world into the ground! What a bunch of frauds……

Their debts or net worth is of less interest than where the money genuinely originates.

Speaking fees is an easy way to obfuscate retroactive bribes which pretty much seems to be how retired politicians nowadays get their loot. Getting the payoff later where the contributor gets a tax deduction for channeling the funny money through a university or other “nonprofit” which then practically launders the money into the lucky politician’s pocket under the guise of honorariums.

viking01 on April 4, 2008 at 4:39 PM

I could not agree more. Speaking fees are nothing but payment for services rendered while an elected official of our Government.

It disgusts me that our politicians are for sale to the highest bidder and their tax returns prove it.

I wonder how much the Clinton’s have hidden in Lichtenstein or other off shore bank accounts that will never be reported on their tax returns. My guess is about 10 times what they reported.

To this day, Lichtenstein,will not cooperate with the US Government on any IRS, criminal investigations or money laundering cases and pays the highest interest rates in the world on private numbered bank accounts.

Maybe that is why Bill Clinton spends so much time in Europe, probably making numerous cash deposits of his ill gotten wealth.

The Clinton’s have committed more crimes than Al Capone and history will record they made more money than any other single political family in recorded history off the backs of the American taxpayers.

We can limit income of private industry CEO’s, AFTER we limit incomes of politicians (and Hollywood/MSM celebs, trial lawyers, sports figures, union bosses).

Allahpundit on April 4, 2008 at 5:11 PM

I’m referring to this (which I may have falsely assumed accounts for the $20 million that is not specifically accounted for).

[Senate ethics] disclosures do not require Sen. Clinton to fully report her husband’s income, which obscures the picture of how much the former president has made in his business dealings with longtime friends and fundraisers.

and

Sen. Clinton’s forms do not list the exact amount of her husband’s payments, only that they totaled more than $1,000 over four years.

And

Will we be privy to the amounts and source of this income?

force an IRS on these people

Why not? They used the IRS for political purposes when they were co-POTUS.

When billionaire Ronald Burkle’s Yucaipa investment operation agreed to put more than $25 million into a Chinese media company this fall, the investor group didn’t include one of Yucaipa’s high-profile partners: former President Bill Clinton.

The absence of Mr. Clinton from Yucaipa’s investment in Xinhua Finance Media Ltd. appears to be the first tangible sign of a parting in the much-followed, five-year-old business relationship between Messrs. Clinton and Burkle. Mr. Clinton has been a senior adviser at Yucaipa and also had a financial interest in certain investments there.

But this week, Mr. Clinton indicated he plans to curtail his ties to Yucaipa should his wife, Hillary Clinton, win the Democratic presidential nomination. This follows a disclosure by the Clintons in June that they had sold millions of dollars of stocks to avoid situations — like the one that a China-related investment might raise — that could pose problems for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.

This week, in response to a report that a breakup between Messrs. Clinton and Burkle had already occurred, a Clinton spokesman said the former president hadn’t severed his ties to Yucaipa. But the spokesman said there would be an “appropriate transition” of Mr. Clinton’s Yucaipa investment if Mrs. Clinton becomes her party’s candidate. As part of his Yucaipa arrangement, Mr. Clinton has had the right to opt out of individual investments and he chose not to participate in the Xinhua deal, said a person familiar with the matter. It wasn’t clear whether Mr. Clinton had ever opted out of any other Yucaipa investment.

His relationship with Yucaipa began in 2002.

One reason Mr. Clinton might have chosen to stay in the Yucaipa arrangement as long as he has is to be able to receive profits from some of the Yucaipa deals that have recently come to fruition. Based on Mr. Clinton’s arrangement with Yucaipa, waiting for such profits could have brought millions of dollars to the Clintons.

In required financial disclosure forms for the Senate, Mrs. Clinton reported that her husband also had a partnership interest in a third Yucaipa fund, called Yucaipa Global Opportunities Fund I LLC. In those statements, Mrs. Clinton disclosed that her husband’s interest in that partnership was paying him more than $1,000 a year.