• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ABC’s Stephanopoulos gave $75G to Clinton Foundation without disclosing it...

Um, are you being sarcastic here?

There are an awful lot of charitable organizations dedicated to fighting AIDS and assisting its victims. Even a cursory search turns up dozens and dozens of them. But I have yet to see the Clinton Foundation show up on a single on of those lists, not even as a distant also ran. . . .

San Francisco AIDS Foundation
Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC)
Desert AIDS Project
Cascade AIDS Project
AIDS Project Los Angeles
AIDS Foundation Houston
AIDS Emergency Fund
Elton John AIDS Foundation
Project Inform
Pangaea Global AIDS Foundation
Keep A Child Alive (formerly Children Affected by AIDS Foundation)
mothers2mothers
Global AIDS Interfaith Alliance
Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation
Black AIDS Institute
Bailey House
International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI)
amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research
Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center
Top 20 HIV/AIDS Charities of 2013

One or two different ones here:
Top 20 HIV/AIDS Charities of 2014

And others:
https://www.aids.gov/federal-resources/around-the-world/global-hiv-aids-organizations/

And all of them operational long before the Clinton's set up their ...a.....Foundation to funnel money.


Ditto!

Heh. That was good. See? It's just not that hard to be a successful liar in politics and "journalism". These days it's pretty much a requirement on the left, and they've studied exactly what they can get away with, and what they can't. Stuffitupyourass knows he can get away with this, just like Reid knew he could lie with impunity, admit it after the fact and laugh about it. It's all a giant **** You, and what are ya gonna do about it?

Yep!

But everyone knows that if you care deeply, I'm talking, like, really REALLY deeply about aids like ole' Georgie Boy does, then the Clinton Foundation is the only place you can donate your money. All of those places you guys listed are for suckers:lol:

:lamo
 
Anyone that gives ANY money to a political party/candidate is incredibly ignorant/naive politically.

Giving away $75K? That's just plain stupid.
 
Some of the young, idealistic, whipper snappers here....and their tag alongs, the Progressive dopes, ignore all the Clinton shenanigans over the last 30 years.

Bill and Hillary have devoted their entire lives to pulling the wool over the heads of Americans and fleecing them for all they are worth.

Decades of practice and trial and error on how to do it smoothly, under the radar and get away with it. They are Master, white collar Crooks!

Georgie boy, the Clintons and many so called journalists(I use that term very loosely), will LIE to your face....when ever it suits them to accomplish their nefarious agendas!
 
Anyone that gives ANY money to a political party/candidate is incredibly ignorant/naive politically.

Giving away $75K? That's just plain stupid.

Maybe the Clinton's helped him secure his job at ABC, and he owed them something. ;)
 
Some of the young, idealistic, whipper snappers here....and their tag alongs, the Progressive dopes, ignore all the Clinton shenanigans over the last 30 years.

Bill and Hillary have devoted their entire lives to pulling the wool over the heads of Americans and fleecing them for all they are worth.

Decades of practice and trial and error on how to do it smoothly, under the radar and get away with it. They are Master, white collar Crooks!

Georgie boy, the Clintons and many so called journalists(I use that term very loosely), will LIE to your face....when ever it suits them to accomplish their nefarious agendas!

Very true, great point. The same could be said of the Bush dynasty beginning with grandpa busted for violating the trading with the enemies act during the War, to today. Why are Americans even considering either one of these two. Truly we have issues in America, and it's not all in Washington.
 
And all of them operational long before the Clinton's set up their ...a.....Foundation to funnel money.



Ditto!



Yep!



:lamo

I've been reading in the Washington Post and elsewhere how Obama is a bit frustrated that when he goes to Africa for a 'see-how-concerned-and-caring-I-am-about-you tour', it isn't Carter or Clinton and it certainly isn't Obama that folks there admire, but it is George W. Bush. Bill Clinton toots his horn very loudly and makes grandiose claims about his concern for AIDS on the Clinton Foundation website, but it is President Bush who gets most of the credit for measurable advances made against AIDS. And those people also know that since he left office, George and Laura, with little or no fanfare, have made regular trips to Africa to do hands on work with the people there. That is genuine concern for people with AIDS.

Alternately, even as President Obama has advocated huge outlays in 'stimulus spending' with little to show as results for all that spending, he has slashed a huge percentage of the AIDs funding for Africa. And, by implication, blames that on the Republicans. :)
 
I've been reading in the Washington Post and elsewhere how Obama is a bit frustrated that when he goes to Africa for a 'see-how-concerned-and-caring-I-am-about-you tour', it isn't Carter or Clinton and it certainly isn't Obama that folks there admire, but it is George W. Bush. Bill Clinton toots his horn very loudly and makes grandiose claims about his concern for AIDS on the Clinton Foundation website, but it is President Bush who gets most of the credit for measurable advances made against AIDS. And those people also know that since he left office, George and Laura, with little or no fanfare, have made regular trips to Africa to do hands on work with the people there. That is genuine concern for people with AIDS.

Alternately, even as President Obama has advocated huge outlays in 'stimulus spending' with little to show as results for all that spending, he has slashed a huge percentage of the AIDs funding for Africa. And, by implication, blames that on the Republicans. :)

That is an issue that Bush gets high marks for. Pity that the partisan left won't give credit where credits due. But then, we see the same in reverse too!
 
Maybe the Clinton's helped him secure his job at ABC, and he owed them something. ;)

No doubt.

But I would have thought they would rather have him help them on TV (as subtley as possible) rather then give them some money which they do not need.

Maybe they wanted both from him.

Ahhhhhh American politics...where honor goes to die.
 
That is an issue that Bush gets high marks for. Pity that the partisan left won't give credit where credits due. But then, we see the same in reverse too!

President Bush was pretty inept or incompetent in some ways, pretty good in some ways, and I rate him pretty mediocre over all. He absolutely was no conservative as he used big government to address almost every issue or problem. I railed against his environmental, immigration, energy, entitlement, and education policies. He was helpless to stop runaway spending by a self-serving Congress and, like most, I was frustrated at his often ill advised and badly thought out prosecution of the war in Iraq.

But despite all that, I have never wavered in my belief that he was and is a really good guy with all the right motives and with his heart in the right place. So much of his personal efforts to make lives better or more bearable was done intentionally out of the lime light and without media coverage. You don't hear much about Clinton or Obama going out of their way, without intentional publicity, to do anything for anybody. Bush did and does that a lot. And my hat is off to him for that.

But if George Stephanopoulos was concerned bout AIDS, he wouldn't have given that money to the Clintons. It would have given it to the Bushes or one of the many organizations working hands on to fight AIDS. And it really insults my intelligence, and I imagine all of yours, that he thinks we are all too dumb to figure that out.
 
No doubt.

But I would have thought they would rather have him help them on TV (as subtley as possible) rather then give them some money which they do not need.

Maybe they wanted both from him.

Ahhhhhh American politics...where honor goes to die.

I have to say that I don't watch his show, but assumed that when possible he would be helping them that way, no?
 
President Bush was pretty inept or incompetent in some ways, pretty good in some ways, and I rate him pretty mediocre over all. He absolutely was no conservative as he used big government to address almost every issue or problem. I railed against his environmental, immigration, energy, entitlement, and education policies. He was helpless to stop runaway spending by a self-serving Congress and, like most, I was frustrated at his often ill advised and badly thought out prosecution of the war in Iraq.

But despite all that, I have never wavered in my belief that he was and is a really good guy with all the right motives and with his heart in the right place. So much of his personal efforts to make lives better or more bearable was done intentionally out of the lime light and without media coverage. You don't hear much about Clinton or Obama going out of their way, without intentional publicity, to do anything for anybody. Bush did and does that a lot. And my hat is off to him for that.

But if George Stephanopoulos was concerned bout AIDS, he wouldn't have given that money to the Clintons. It would have given it to the Bushes or one of the many organizations working hands on to fight AIDS. And it really insults my intelligence, and I imagine all of yours, that he thinks we are all too dumb to figure that out.

Ok, but my point was that Bush should be acknowledge for that which he did that's good, by the left, but hard core partisans won't do that, as the hard core partisan right won't do for Obama. Nobody's right all the time, but more importantly, nobody's wrong all the time. For example, the fringe right that loves the fact that the US violated international law and Pakistanis sovereign borders to get OBL, they refuse to give Obama any credit for the mission, minimize and marginalize him on it. Though the "decider" received all the credit from them on "mission accomplished"
 
Ok, but my point was that Bush should be acknowledge for that which he did that's good, by the left, but hard core partisans won't do that, as the hard core partisan right won't do for Obama. Nobody's right all the time, but more importantly, nobody's wrong all the time. For example, the fringe right that loves the fact that the US violated international law and Pakistanis sovereign borders to get OBL, they refuse to give Obama any credit for the mission, minimize and marginalize him on it. Though the "decider" received all the credit from them on "mission accomplished"

But Obama didn't get OBL. The Navy Seals did. Obama gets credit for authorizing the mission, yes. But you can surely see how some don't think it makes him look good to then take credit for getting Bin Laden. Had he given the Seals all the applause and credit, he would have looked really good, and would have been properly acknowledged by both the left and right. He didn't and hasn't done that. And that is primarily the difference between him and a G W Bush. President Bush didn't take personal credit for much of anything. The closest he came to it was with a lot of 'we', but there was very little "I".

But I do acknowledge what you are saying. There are those who would criticize President Obama or President Bush for simply getting out of bed and saying good morning on any given day. Those won't acknowledge that the focus of their criticism ever did anything right.

So are we doing the same to George Stephanopoulus? I don't think so. In this matter the criticism is legitimate and so far as I see from most members, not exaggerated.
 
I have to say that I don't watch his show, but assumed that when possible he would be helping them that way, no?

Same here, I don't watch his show but assumed he was doing as you describe.
 
But Obama didn't get OBL. The Navy Seals did. Obama gets credit for authorizing the mission, yes. But you can surely see how some don't think it makes him look good to then take credit for getting Bin Laden. Had he given the Seals all the applause and credit, he would have looked really good, and would have been properly acknowledged by both the left and right. He didn't and hasn't done that. And that is primarily the difference between him and a G W Bush. President Bush didn't take personal credit for much of anything. The closest he came to it was with a lot of 'we', but there was very little "I".

But I do acknowledge what you are saying. There are those who would criticize President Obama or President Bush for simply getting out of bed and saying good morning on any given day. Those won't acknowledge that the focus of their criticism ever did anything right.

So are we doing the same to George Stephanopoulus? I don't think so. In this matter the criticism is legitimate and so far as I see from most members, not exaggerated.


If you'll look over my post which you quoted again, you'll see that I said the US, not Obama got OBL. I then pointed out that the right won't give him any credit, at all for the mission.

To the bolded. Yes, legitimate criticism. And I'm sure more of the same thing could be found, benefitting people of both political persuasion. Press secretaries are lifer loyalists. Occasionally you'll get one with some dignity, like Scott McClellan.
 
Last edited:
Seems like Mr. Stephanopoulos has a lot of company with a lot of media entities contributing to the Clinton Foundation. However, apparently Judy Woodruff's contribution, for example was specifically for Haiti relief and if the records show that the entire amount went to Haiti, that might not look so bad. More research is needed to evaluate the nature of the contributions. Those that went to the Clinton Foundation to be used for whatever are much more problematic when it comes to appearances of objectivity and impartiality in reporting the news.

Maybe Ms. Hillary should recuse herself from using ANY Clinton Foundation money for political purposes for this election cycle and, if she is elected, when she serves as President of the United States? But if any of that money was to curry favor, the deed is already done nevertheless.

$1,000,000-$5,000,000
Carlos Slim
Chairman & CEO of Telmex, largest New York Times shareholder
James Murdoch
Chief Operating Officer of 21st Century Fox
Newsmax Media
Florida-based conservative media network
Thomson Reuters
Owner of the Reuters news service

$500,00-$1,000,000
Google
News Corporation Foundation
Philanthropic arm of former Fox News parent company

$250,000-$500,000
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publisher
Richard Mellon Scaife
Owner of Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

$100,000-$250,000
Abigail Disney
Documentary filmmaker
Bloomberg Philanthropies
Howard Stringer
Former CBS, CBS News and Sony executive
Intermountain West Communications Company
Local television affiliate owner (formerly Sunbelt Communications)

$50,000-$100,000
Bloomberg L.P.
Discovery Communications Inc.
George Stephanopoulos
ABC News chief anchor and chief political correspondent
Mort Zuckerman
Owner of New York Daily News and U.S. News & World Report
Time Warner Inc.
Owner of CNN parent company Turner Broadcasting

$25,000-$50,000
AOL
HBO
Hollywood Foreign Press Association
Presenters of the Golden Globe Awards
Viacom

$10,000-$25,000
Knight Foundation
Non-profit foundation dedicated to supporting journalism
Public Radio International
Turner Broadcasting
Parent company of CNN
Twitter

$5,000-$10,000
Comcast
Parent copmany of NBCUniversal
NBC Universal
Parent company of NBC News, MSNBC and CNBC
Public Broadcasting Service

$1,000-$5,000
Robert Allbritton
Owner of POLITICO parent company Capitol News Group

$250-$1,000
AOL Huffington Post Media Group
Hearst Corporation
Judy Woodruff
PBS Newshour co-anchor and managing editor
The Washington Post Company
Clinton Foundation donors include dozens of media organizations, individuals - POLITICO.com
 
Anyone that gives ANY money to a political party/candidate is incredibly ignorant/naive politically.

Giving away $75K? That's just plain stupid.

It's the "Pay if you want to play" sales pitch. If you donate you get perks. The perks pay off big time. It is kind of like an investment later down the road.
 
Well, it's good to know people are holding traditional network news anchors to a higher standard than the 24 cycle competitors.
 
ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos

ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos got deeper in hot water Thursday with his network, which revised upward to $75,000 the amount of money he contributed to the Clinton Foundation without full disclosure to the network or viewers -- while he was covering Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and foundation controversies.


Guess it slipped his mind. This jerk felt fine interviewing the author of "Clinton Cash", trying to smear and discredit him, as he himself is supporting the Clintons.

No integrity. What a hack.

I tend to agree with you, but having seen his apology on TV last night, I thought he handled it pretty well, admitting his poor judgment on TV.
 
I tend to agree with you, but having seen his apology on TV last night, I thought he handled it pretty well, admitting his poor judgment on TV.

Hes only pretending to be sorry because he got busted. He is not sorry about being a Clinton sycophant, no one is.
 
Hes only pretending to be sorry because he got busted. He is not sorry about being a Clinton sycophant, no one is.

He did not say he was sorry for being a Clinton sycophant, he said he was sorry for not having disclosed his financial ties to the Clinton Foundation to the public or to his employer. Can you see the difference?
 
He did not say he was sorry for being a Clinton sycophant, he said he was sorry for not having disclosed his financial ties to the Clinton Foundation to the public or to his employer. Can you see the difference?

Of course I can see the difference. I just doubt the sincerity.
 
I'm confused.

Is donating to the Clinton Foundation the same as donating to Hillary's run for Presidency?
 
This also begs the question, are there any other prominent "journalists" that donate money to a politically affiliated organization? This guy was going to go ahead and moderate a some debates!

If this is the slippery slop quid pro quo folks are so concerned about here, then I'd say ABC News needs to ensure he doesn't act as a debate moderator throughout the 2016 presidential campaign cycle. Otherwise, I don't see where he's done anything wrong here except not disclose he donated to a charitable foundation that happens to belong to both a good friend (the Clintons) and a 2016 Democrat presidential candidate while conducting an interview of an author whose book brings said foundation and one of its owners (Hillary) under scrutiny.
 
I'm confused.

Is donating to the Clinton Foundation the same as donating to Hillary's run for Presidency?

No. It's about gaining favorable treatment if she wins. We do live with the security of knowing that Hillary would never, ever consider such donations favorably with regard to policies when president, though. And we have Bill's assertion that she should avoid any appearance of impropriety, and coming from Bill, why, that holds a lot of weight.
 
Back
Top Bottom