RECENT POSTS
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
- White House State Dinner: The Menu, Entertainment, and Decor
- Dan Pfeiffer, White House Blogger
- Guests Begin to Arrive for White House State Dinner Festivities
- President Obama on Afghanistan Strategy: “It Is My Intention to Finish the Job”
- The Obamas Kick off their First State Visit, Welcome India's Prime Minister to the White House
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Clinton Family Loan Mystery
April 05, 2008 11:19 AM
Those of us old enough to recall the 1990s can remember presidential half-brother and pardon recipient Roger Clinton, as well as presidential brothers-in-law Tony and Hugh Rodham -- all of whom were caught up in the pardon-gate controversy.
None of them has been seen much (or at all) during Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, not without good reason. I don't want to be too harsh, but let's just say they all firmly seem to fall into the Bill Carter mold of presidential siblings.
The reason I bring them up is because according to Bill and Hillary's just-released tax returns from 2000-2006, the Clintons paid interest on loans to family members every year from 2001-2006. (The Clintons applied for an extension on their 2007 filing.)
Who were these loans to and how much are they for? Were Roger, Tony and Hugh among the recipients?
Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson politely says that's none of our bee's wax.
"The Clintons made interest-free loans to some of their family members," Carson says. "The amount reported is imputed interest on those loans. The IRS requires that an amount of interest be assigned to interest-free loans; it then taxes the loan giver as if he or she actually received that 'imputed' interest. Thus, imputed interest is not actually paid by the loan recipient nor received by the loan giver. The loans to family members are personal; the Clintons are going to respect their family members’ privacy."
Roger Clinton received a presidential pardon from his brother; Tony and Hugh were involved in that pardon controversy. Is it really none of the public's business if Sen. Hillary Clinton and her husband "loaned" any of them money?
- jpt
April 5, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (186)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Yes, Hillary and Bill's loans to their family members are none of our business. However, the 10% to "charity" was entirely given to the Clintons' foundation. Not their church, not the United Way; to their eponymous foundation. They still have control over how that money is spent, quite a different thing than when I give money to charity.
That is, given that the money is spent. Which half of it hasn't been, it's just been written off on their taxes and is now sitting in a "charitable" slush-fund bank account.
Not to mention that they filed a six-month extension to avoid exposing their most recent tax filings.
Look folks, these are politicians we're talking about. They should ALL, Obama included, be *presumed* crooked. It's just that the Clintons aren't even pretending they aren't. They are totally and transparently power-mad; anyone who thinks otherwise is being willfully delusional.
Posted by: Michael | Apr 7, 2008 7:28:11 PM
Hill the Bosnian General specializin in Snipers' Brigade made it again: Penn fired by Colombian government, 10 million charity to the Clinton Fundation and many more millions for family members, 5 million self borrowing to stillbirt campaign, etc.,etc, God bless America and God bless Obama.OBAMA08.
Posted by: BKMC | Apr 6, 2008 3:47:54 PM
Everyone attacking Obama has very little to attack him for. Gee, generalizing about caucuses in Western states, when in fact Montana is a primary state. Wow, that's such a big issue!
How about Clinton lying about dodging sniper fire? Lying about being against NAFTA? Lying about bringing peace to the Middle East?
Attack, attack, attack. That's all Clintonites for Hillary know to do.
Posted by: Paul | Apr 6, 2008 3:46:13 PM
She should make her tax records for 2007 available. Did Rezko give her some money too? Why the delay? What is she hiding? I guess this pathological lier is up to no good. If she makes her records available later and something bad is found, what next?
Posted by: Oretega M | Apr 6, 2008 12:01:27 PM
I don't care for the Clintons, but I don't think family loans are our business. It might be of interest if they were paying the questionable sibs to disappear.
A lot in the comments about presidential pardons. In Lincoln's hands, they were used in the causes of justice and mercy after the war. The question in the Clinton's case is were they sold either for cash or for donations of large amounts to their library? Apparently Mrs. Clinton's brothers were caught taking money to get pardons by Bill. That isn't about justice gone wrong or mercy to a woman who lost all her other sons in a war. Selling pardons to truly bad people is evil. If that happened, we need to know about it.
Posted by: karela | Apr 6, 2008 4:08:12 AM
I agree - it's none of anyone's business.
The bigger point--missed here--is that they gave around 10% to charity. In fact they should also be commended for sharing their good fortune with not only their family members but others in need of help. But, of course, writing a story about the Clinton's generosity with their family and others wouldn't fit into a Clinton bashing narrative.
Posted by: LB | Apr 6, 2008 2:27:34 AM
@ Vena
Hillary is broke?
MARCH was her second best fund raising month!
Poor "Politico" crying that her campaign was broke and she should drop out...they helped her campaign raise even more money.
and lies? pleeeease Obama is as big a liar as Hillary!
Posted by: John | Apr 6, 2008 1:45:24 AM
Obama is a genius.....
he[senator obama] seemed to mistakenly categorize Montana as a caucus state, when it is in fact holding a primary.
"Some people have been saying these caucus states out west out don't count that much," he said. "I don't know about you, but I think they're pretty important. .. I'm tired of people saying that some states don't count. I think every state counts."
-Washington Post
Posted by: John | Apr 6, 2008 1:38:50 AM
Hillary has more experience and more years at washington. However, all we see is an inefficient candidate who is constantly broke, has not even paid her bills to small busines owners who helped her in Ohio. Clintons are rich, they have lots of money. Yt they squeez out the poor Americans. SHAME ON YOU HILLARY, YOU TELL NEW LIES EVERYDAY. No one trusts you or your husband Bill when it comes to telling the truth!!!! CHEATERS!
Posted by: Vena | Apr 6, 2008 1:34:05 AM
Ken, the one that is an Obama supporter, you will lose your mind when Obama loses to Mccain. You are totally kidding yourself if you think the Rev. Wright matter is dead, it is simmering and will come to a boil just before the Nov. election. The MSM is in the bag for Obama but when and if he gets the nomination it's 527 time.
Posted by: Tina D | Apr 5, 2008 10:29:17 PM
ken: yeah, and Hillary supporters will have the last laugh because of "polls", like the New Hampshire primary "polls" ! ha ha ha ha ha
Posted by: Hillary is the One | Apr 5, 2008 10:05:57 PM
ken: I'll bet you people are sending millionaire obama or millionaire McCain money contributions all the time !
Posted by: Hillary is the One | Apr 5, 2008 9:48:51 PM
"Send contributions to Hillary"
No we won't.
Btw, who is so foolish to send money to a multi-millionaire?
Posted by: ken | Apr 5, 2008 9:47:04 PM
alison: "and on May 6th: Obama will win NC by 10-12%"
not so somber alison, our man is up 23% in today's Rasmussen NC poll! :)
Posted by: ken | Apr 5, 2008 9:43:07 PM
I thought this was about private loans from the Clintons - I've been wondering throughout the campaign where Hillary's brothers were keeping themselves. I know they're not up for election, but they were both in big trouble after Bill's term of office - and one had legal troubles about timely child support payments to former wife, B. Boxer's daughter.
Would be interesting to know who they're lending to in their own circles.
Posted by: Sara | Apr 5, 2008 9:26:17 PM
Yet MORE anti-Hillary articles on this blog....
Posted by: Clinton is the One | Apr 5, 2008 9:25:02 PM
Tina D
Crist is a decent gov - way better than Jeb -- and I don't care about his "preferences"
I was just pointing out to the uninformed posters here - why he will never be on a national ticket
(you seem to understand this already!)
Posted by: AMBER | Apr 5, 2008 9:23:42 PM
hillary will win PA by 5-8%
and on May 6th: Obama will win NC by 10-12% and Indiana will be within a handful of points either way
then - Sen Clinton will being to hear the steady drumbeat of super delegates for Sen Obama
She can stay in and win Kentucky- that same day Obama will win Oregon
And she can still stay in --
Clinton will lose Puerto Rico and Montana
Michigan will be seated 50%/50%
Florida - nothing will happen till the nomination is decide
The race is over - and the little old ladies will stop giving their lunch money to the $109 million dollar candidate
The Clinton's will owe over $25 million to people who gave them $2.3 for the general in addition to $2.3 for the nomination and they have not started to reserve those funds until last month
As I was dumb enough to give early - I am expecting my $2.3 back!
It is the economy stupid!
The Clinton's may be rich but their campaign is broke - and the sourcing dries up more every day
Posted by: alison | Apr 5, 2008 9:21:06 PM
Kerry, I hope you are right. Tim Russert had Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullavan on his show. Could he be more obvious, two people who HATE Hillary. You would think he would have someone on to balance the coverage, but they don't even care what they look like. I have never seen anything like the media hate-feast.
Send contributions to Hillary.
Posted by: Tina D | Apr 5, 2008 9:14:32 PM
Kerry, I hope you are right. Tim Russert had Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullavan on his show. Could he be more obvious, two people who HATE Hillary. You would think he would have someone on to balance the coverage, but they don't even care what they look like. I have never seen anything like the media hate-feast.
Posted by: Tina D | Apr 5, 2008 9:12:58 PM
Post a comment


