digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

An Ex-President, a Mining Deal and a Big Donor

nytimes.com — A Canadian financier who traveled to Kazakhstan with Bill Clinton and won a big mining deal later donated millions to Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • stevo9er, on 01/31/2008, -7/+26You get 2 for the price of 1 with Billary.
    • RogerStrong, on 01/31/2008, -8/+8Yup. Proof that the Democrats are no different from the Republicans. It's just like Bush Sr. and Barrick Gold.

      • arcticsoft, on 01/31/2008, -5/+6I know people are sick of hearing about it, but why would someone vote for any of these clowns over Paul? Even if paul is a little crazy, at least hes honest. Thats far better than any of the others can say.
      • Suzilla, on 01/31/2008, -8/+2There's a BIG difference. Bill Clinton has spent his time, and used his connections to start and grow a charitable foundation. (This doesn't enrich himself or his wife, btw, as the article erroneously states.) Bush Sr, on the other hand, signed on with, among others (including the Bin Laden family), the Carlysle Group, which does nothing but enrich its members and consultants, personally.

        To put it succinctly, Bill Clinton's recent book was titled "Giving"; Bush Sr.'s book -- if he were literate enough to actually write one himself -- would more likely be called "Taking (and taking and taking ...)"
        • oldhick, on 01/31/2008, -1/+6Did you read the article? Did you understand the article???
        • Lyph5, on 01/31/2008, -2/+3Saying a Democrat is 'giving' is quite funny. Considering how everything they do to 'give' to the people comes from STEALING in the form of taxes.
    • Jordan117, on 01/31/2008, -1/+17Double the scandal, double the fun!
      • zephyr42, on 01/31/2008, -3/+1Double your pleasure.... with monica lewinski?

        I don't think I'm folowing this train of thought quite right.
      • skyfire1, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1I don't know about you but I'm not thinking about the gum.
    • dafragsta, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1But oh what a price.
  • synaesthesia, on 01/31/2008, -2/+53"Indeed, in December 2005, Mr. Nazarbayev won another election, which the security organization itself said was marred by an “atmosphere of intimidation” and “ballot-box stuffing."
    After Mr. Nazarbayev won with 91 percent of the vote, Mr. Clinton sent his congratulations."

    Good to see that the Clintons have such high standards for election fairness.
  • Walldo, on 01/31/2008, -21/+5This is nothing compared to the deals Obama has made with Rezko.
    • TyroPyro, on 01/31/2008, -2/+18Other way around
      http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01 ...
      • Walldo, on 01/31/2008, -1/+9Sarcasm doesn't translate well to the internet. A former President of the United States pulling typical 'buddy buddy' politics, bitch slapping the State Department ("The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe criticized the last presidential election [in Kazakhstan] as falling short of international democratic standards." as of Wiki) is infinitely more relevant than the supposed Rezko deals, even if the Rezko stories were actually true.

        Sorry for the confusion.
        • TyroPyro, on 01/31/2008, -2/+5I am just too used to the crap I read on Digg haha
        • aliengoods, on 01/31/2008, -1/+5Walldo, I dugg you down because I didn't pick up on the sarcasm.

          I would apologize, but you're a commie left pinko. //sometimes its better to make the sarcasm blatantly obvious, even if it loses some effect
    • marytnurse, on 01/31/2008, -2/+3lol amusing if poorly informed.
    • Jordan117, on 01/31/2008, -1/+7The Clinton scandal involves a murderous Asian dictator and billions of dollars in cash. The Obama "scandal" involved purchasing a ten-foot strip of land from a small-time political conman. I think one of these is a bit worse than the other.

      PS: I see from your comment that you were kidding, but some folks will believe anything.
  • akiraflux, on 01/31/2008, -1/+23Somewhat depressing that the majority of donations to his organization are hidden. They know how to play the game that's for sure. Just look around for the NYT article that documents their presidential library donors (that also got no attention).
  • meese, on 01/31/2008, -4/+27This is one of those very complicated corruption cases that folks like the Clintons usually get away with because the case is hard to explain in 10 seconds to the public on the news, but at the end of the day, this is the worst sort of corruption - supporting horrible dictatorial and environmental (nuclear) practices for millions of dollars. These sort of practices need to be heard by the American people.
    • Walldo, on 01/31/2008, -1/+7The headline has the all important buzzword 'uranium' though. Hopefully that is enough to at least turn some heads.
    • Jordan117, on 01/31/2008, -2/+4I don't know, it can be distilled fairly easily. "Clinton secures uranium corp. for wealthy donor under questionable circumstances." Bam.
    • rhartman, on 01/31/2008, -2/+4Dugg down for the "horrible environmental" practice reference. Nuclear is currently less destructive and environmentally damaging than fossil fuel use but the point (and as a result, your comment) is moot as this article was not about environmental but rather political issues.
  • jimmyhoffa2222, on 01/31/2008, -10/+17Hillary Clinton is evil.
  • meese, on 01/31/2008, -6/+48In reading more about this, I think the summary is something like this:

    "Bill Clinton rakes in $113 million for arranging $3 billion Uranium mining deal with 3rd world dictator"

    I think folks will get the picture.
    • impei, on 01/31/2008, -9/+3The money went to the charitable foundation not to him.
      • BadseedJR, on 01/31/2008, -1/+6I'm sure that isn't a way to get around taxes at all.
      • bullcutter, on 01/31/2008, -1/+5yeah, there's never influence or expectations of favoribility attached to that kind of philanthropy, is there? Bill Clinton, after all, is just as powerless as Bill Gates.

        /do i really need to put "s" here?
      • theutopian, on 01/31/2008, -1/+4I assume he's a highly paid employee of his own charitable organization?
        • fokov, on 01/31/2008, -0/+4Don't need to be paid if the org takes care of your every need.
  • tabularassa, on 01/31/2008, -3/+26Bill and Hillary are all about money and power. Screw the people.
    • aliengoods, on 01/31/2008, -2/+7Bill's done that too!

      //someone had to say it
    • Nightfall, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3All politicians are all about money and power. Screw the people.
  • ashObama08, on 01/31/2008, -1/+13I love the connection to that big ol' birthday party Bill threw for Hillary. Ha!
  • snotrokit, on 01/31/2008, -4/+17Holy crap. This family is just unbelievable. It just scares the crap out of me thinking what ol Bill will get away with if his wife ran this place. I sincerely hope that Hillary never makes it to the White House. Big House yes, White House, no way.
    • elkram, on 02/01/2008, -0/+0That bastard will be calling the shots if Hillary wins
  • kittybarbarian, on 01/31/2008, -1/+17Smells really bad. Hard to believe people would want to send these 2 Clintons back to the Whitehouse if they knew about this. People should send this articles to as many people as they can
  • soot, on 01/31/2008, -3/+8Hillary and Bill Clinton are entrenched in special interests that lay outside the realm of the American people, and they owe their allegiances to them.
    • FredFredrickson, on 01/31/2008, -2/+1So let's elect a Republican who will exterminate all those interests outside the motherland with nukes!
      • Erich100, on 01/31/2008, -1/+0The only one that will change anything is Ron Paul.
  • rangermatt, on 01/31/2008, -3/+9Hmmm, doesn't the phrase "Clinton scandal" seem oddly familiar and reassuring?
    No, I think I'm sick of hearing that phrase already. Barack the vote.
  • STEVExO, on 01/31/2008, -4/+10This is what scares the crap out of me about the Clintons being back in the White House. Bill would be free to shop his influence around and make millions (billions?) from anyone who wants a direct line to the President. I know all politicians are involved in things of this nature, but this is like lobbyists on steroids because of Bill's status as a former President.
  • meltlight, on 01/31/2008, -3/+10Bill Cheney. Hillary Bush.
    • FredFredrickson, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Because everything the Clintons have done is equal to the travesties committed by the Bush administration! Oh wait...
    • orangefly, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3can an ex-president run for vice president....god i hope not....
      • martalli, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1You have to be eligible for the presidency to run for vice president.
  • circleback2, on 01/31/2008, -2/+7Wow, the ex-president wining and dining one of the most repressive regimes on the planet. Way to go Bill. I hope more people read this and realize how entrenched in special interest this pair have their hands in.
  • bcclist, on 06/11/2008, -3/+3I love how Barack doesn't need to campaign negatively as the media highlights the shadiness of the Clinton(s) campaign for him. you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours. "the funny thing is my back..."
  • ElAssoWipo, on 01/31/2008, -13/+4I don't get what the scandal is.

    Clinton helped a guy cut a deal and the guy thanked him by donating to his charitable foundation, not to Clinton. And the Clinton foundation is just, well, great. There's nothing bad to be said about it.
    http://www.clintonfoundation.org/index.htm?gclid=C ...


    Clinton doesn't work for the government anymore. Unless someone can explain to me why this is scandalous, or what laws have been broken, I'm going to have to bury this as completely insignificant.
    • bcclist, on 06/11/2008, -3/+4did you miss the part about all the consulting fees the clinton's get to enjoy? charity, smarity.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 01/31/2008, -5/+4So he should work for nothing because he was president 8 years ago? He acted as a consultant and got paid for it. What's the scandal? The fact that it took 4 pages just to give the impression that there is one tells me there is none.
        • netant, on 01/31/2008, -0/+3My diggs aren't enough to express my agreement with your expression of COMMON SENSE. I don't see people freaking out over what Bush Sr. did for Carlyle.

          The outstanding question would be: What would Bill manage to sneak in if Hillary actually became president?
    • wheezyninja, on 01/31/2008, -0/+2It's not so much of a scandal as the lies within it, "I forgot I had a rushed meeting with an extremely evil man" Oh and I congratulated him on "fixing" elections yet again, while my other half is saying don't do that, yet that money that was given to him is now helping her air negative adverts towards Obama... Follow the $ you'll smell a rat.

      So basically NYT is just pointing out that the Clinton's aren't as perfect as some once believed, that they're willing to do what it takes to win, NO MATTER WHAT
      • ElAssoWipo, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Omg talk about guilt by association. Why would Clinton know the other guy fixed the elections? Is it even established that the elections were fixed? How does it demonstrate Clinton helped fix the elections?

        He was hired as a consultant to help a Canadian get a mining deal. What happened outside of that has absolutely no relation to him. This basically says Clinton is bad because he conducted business with some bad people, once, in a non political context, and not for personnal gain. And then he got CHARITY money. And somehow that becomes a bribe, but he doesn't work for the government, he's just a consultant.

        I don't even like Hillary or Obama, I'm a fan of Ron Paul and Kucinich. But that doesn't mean this article made any sense.
    • Herrold, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Or maybe you missed the part of the article where he went against Official US foreign policy in dealing with the Kazahk govt?
      • ElAssoWipo, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Canada doesn't care about US foreign policy. And he worked for a Canadian, not Kazahk govt.
  • nosecohn, on 01/31/2008, -6/+4I'm not a fan of Hillary, and I think Bill has been disgracing himself lately on the campaign trail, but after reading this whole article, I've got to say that there's really not much to this.

    Business works through contacts. Really rich people donate large sums to charitable organizations. There's nothing new here. It sounds like the Khazaks, the mining company, and Bill Clinton all analyzed the situation, took risks, worked the systems to their advantage, made a profit and met their goals. That's capitalism.

    Now if somebody had pocketed the cash instead of using it for the charitable purposes it was intended, or coerced one of the parties with threats of violence, that would be wrong and illegal. But using one's contacts to get ahead is just business.
    • bcclist, on 06/11/2008, -4/+3did you miss the part about all the consulting fees the clinton's get to enjoy? charity, smarity.
  • dagnabbit, on 01/31/2008, -0/+9They'll say anything and change nothing.
  • DiggedyDoo, on 01/31/2008, -3/+4Two words: Shay Dee
  • vmani, on 01/31/2008, -1/+5I wonder how much of the money went from the foundation to the charity case that is Hillary
  • bullcutter, on 01/31/2008, -1/+4This guy seems fishy for a number of reasons, but the primary reason is the BILLIONS he's made financing _uranium mining in Kazakhstan_. (primarily for nuclear reactors, but they forgot to add "and other things too")

    Also on his resume is being a founder of Lion's Gate Entertainment, whose top grossing film is (drumroll...) Fahrenheit 911...

    Why ever would such a nice philanthropist need governmental influence? Hmm...
  • lamprey187, on 01/31/2008, -1/+8For the love of whatever Deity you believe in, somebody please post or write an article of the Clinton dirty money rap sheet !!!!! This is like the tip of the iceberg on the money scandals and sell-us-up-the-river deals the Clintons have done.
    • digindrivefast, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Got a paddle to go with that boat? They are all corrupt! None of them give a damn about their voting public. It's all about them...
  • AllYourBase3, on 01/31/2008, -3/+7My god, what would Borat say?
  • knobbers, on 01/31/2008, -3/+2look at the polls..people love corruption:)
    we live in the land `0 Tards
  • lamprey187, on 01/31/2008, -3/+3http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Clinton_By_Far_W ...
  • TherealObadiah, on 01/31/2008, -8/+3Oh, so, ah, Diggers are now part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, huh? Glad to see you guys finally figured out what Conservatives have been saying for about 16 years now.
    • chall2001, on 01/31/2008, -3/+6They only thing diggers figured out is that Hillary stands in the way of Obama. Now we all get treated to hourly hit pieces that claim the Clintons are "eeeevil". Bill was a good president and its a shame that the neocons spent all their time trying to destroy him rather than help the nation. I would pick Bill's 8 years over W's 8 years in a heart beat.
      • FredFredrickson, on 01/31/2008, -1/+4Well said, I agree fully. Bill was a great president, and I'd take 10 sex scandals over 1 wrongful war.
      • netant, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Yes, I'd take Bill's 8 or 8 years of Carter over W.

        But stop softselling the wife. Hillary is not Bill.
    • rebelcommander, on 01/31/2008, -2/+3Does that mean you finally believe what we say about the douche from Connecticut, sorry, I mean Texas?
    • SoxSweepAgain, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Well, just because we are now seeing that The Clintons are intertwined into the gigantic corporate net, that doesn't invalidate just how anti-Constitutional and blatantly hypocritical the GOP has been for the past forty years (since Eisenhower, actually). At this point I dislike the Democrats, but I HATE the Republicans.
  • Herrold, on 01/31/2008, -2/+6They did have an article in the NYTimes that referred to the Clinton Presidential Library as 'Little Rock's Fort Knox'. They have been trying to get a full list of donors to the library and can't. The article went on to detail that the information that they do have on the donors:

    1. Foreign governments (Saudi Arabia was listed)
    2. There is a lot of crossover between who donated to the library and to Hillary's campaign
  • dalittle, on 01/31/2008, -1/+4At the end of the Bill Clinton Presidency he pardoned a tax evader who defrauded the US government for multi-millons (Marc Rich). Do you think the Clintons did this because they thought he had been wrongly accused and convicted. I bet eventually it will come out there was a bunch of dirty money that Rich sent to the Clintons just like this story.
    • mulling, on 01/31/2008, -1/+4Ironically, guess who prosecuted Rich in the first place? Giuliani.
    • netant, on 01/31/2008, -1/+3The story has been out for a while. Rich's have been quite generous with campaign donations to both Bill & Hillary, and their associated interests.
  • digindrivefast, on 01/31/2008, -4/+5Turn off Fox. Turn off CNN & MSN. Turn off your tv. Read. Think. Converse.
    Even Obama is whacked people!
    If they go to Serve the people, as they are meant to do, they serve the people!
    If they screw you, it's your fault for BLINDLY VOTING FOR THEM!
    Vote in a WOMAN... just to be the first!
    Vote in a man of Color... just to be the first.
    Vote in a Moron...just to be the first.
    Check their voting records.
    Check their financial records, taxes, contributions etc.
    Vote like it REALLY MATTERS TO YOU!
    • rjn17960, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1"Vote for a moron...just to be the first"

      Already taken care of in the last two elections. Probably wasn't the first, though.
  • sunyata76, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2I read that as "A Digg Boner". Apparently I'm 12 today...
  • JirkJiggler, on 01/31/2008, -1/+2Membership certainly has its privileges.
  • SoxSweepAgain, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1I used to be a big Clinton fan; now I feel that they are just another big cog in the machine of the same big hypocrisy.
  • igmuska, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1I wonder what they'll use to smear Obama? Perhaps this is also a campaign strategy to rid the Democratic party nominations of actual threats to the Republic party without actually allowing any of the GOP nominations to lower themselves to muchraking. hmmm
  • elbowman, on 01/31/2008, -2/+0How is this a scandal? It's not in any sense of the word, except 'disgraceful gossip about the lives of other people'.
    Bill, as a private citizen, helped a businessman obtain something of value to him.
    That person was grateful and made a donation to Bill's charity, which I will assume will help the less fortunate among us.
    How is this a bad thing?
  • unfairunbalance, on 01/31/2008, -3/+1Bill Clinton making business deals in Kazakhstan. Thanks to his buddy George Bush for invading neighboring Afghanistan to secure the regime for their self interest. It is well known that ex CIA Director daddy Bush recruited Bill to the CFR and NWO.
    http://911source.org/node/292
    With Republican front runner Lockjaw McCain and Democrat front runner Hitlery. The CIA -CFR feds will ensure their people are in the White House and in power. This will continue this fake terror war and lies that Saudis hiding in caves with box cutters conducted the biggest crime of the century. When all proof of 9-11 points to criminal elements in our own government.

    • brallsplp, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1Man, you guys even have to include Bush in Clinton's scandals, Bush derangement syndrome in full force!
    • DKSprocket, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0Wow that was an impressive rant.
  • mochaman, on 01/31/2008, -1/+1Why Why Why did the New York Times endorse Billary? Now you have to wonder having published this piece what was their motivation? I can't figure this out but there is a serious disconnect between the NYT editorial board and the newsroom! I guess that's good?
  • skyfire1, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1The proper term is "former president". "Ex-president" is derogatory and only used when the president left on bad terms.
    • tekkie001, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1In that case the term applies well to Ex President Clinton.
  • lgfaphile, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1Sounds like Bubba's (or is that "Ex" or "Former" Bubba) "charitable" foundation needs a good independent audit. Why do I doubt that such a morally upright chap as the "former" President would keep his hands out of that piggy bank? Haven't we had enough of this lowlife yet?
  • arevolutionof1, on 02/02/2008, -0/+1This is better than when former US and A Premier Bill Clinton made in the mouth sexy time with Monica Lewinsky. High five!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.