The Associated Press suggested it was unethical for then-first lady Hillary Clinton to push for tax breaks for those who donated to nonprofit organizations while the William J. Clinton Foundation was soliciting donations for the Clinton administration's presidential library -- but its own article later undermined those claims, outlining how the proposed measure had been building momentum since 1997, three years prior to the alleged conflict of interest. In fact, as the AP admitted, the proposal in question would provide no "direct" benefit to the foundation.
Hillary Clinton endorsed a plan proposed by the Clinton administration to provide tax breaks to "private foundations and wealthy charity donors" while she was first lady, according to a May 22 report from the AP:
As first lady in the final year of the Clinton administration, Hillary Rodham Clinton endorsed a White House plan to give tax breaks to private foundations and wealthy charity donors at the same time the William J. Clinton Foundation was soliciting donations for her husband's presidential library, recently released Clinton-era documents show.
The AP suggested that the "blurred lines between the tax reductions proposed by the Clinton administration in 2000 and the Clinton Library's fundraising were an early foreshadowing of the potential ethics concerns that have flared around the Clintons' courting of corporate and foreign donors for their family charity before she launched her campaign for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination."has media reporting outlets of recent years always been trigger happy and halfazz when it comes to verifying what they report. for some is it that too big to be embarrassed syndrome, or has Americans thirst for dirt propelled the sensationalizing of the news, making up news and over embellishing the real story has shown to be very profitable for Fox at the cost of it's absence of integrity. supply and demand which is the real darkness if Americans did not want to see the seamier side of others perceived or factual makes no difference as long as it's controversial those that create that fantasy would have no market and we might have honest and fair reporting to as close to that phenomenon as possible.
does that point more to the recipients of the "NEWS" more than those who feed it as the darkness or vice versa????
