ShareThis Page
Clinton Foundation aide said to have cited conflicts of interest |

Clinton Foundation aide said to have cited conflicts of interest

Bloomberg News
| Thursday, October 20, 2016 11:00 p.m

WASHINGTON — A top official at the Clinton Foundation said he could name “500 different examples” of conflicts of interest, including some involving former President Bill Clinton, according to more of the emails purportedly hacked from the account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.

The official, Doug Band, allegedly wrote on Nov. 17, 2011, that he had been required to sign a conflict-of-interest statement as a board member of the foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative, but that the former president “oddly” didn’t have to sign one “even though he is personally paid by 3 cgi sponsors, gets many expensive gifts from them, some that are at home etc.”

“I could add 500 different examples of things like this,” said Band, who’s no longer affiliated with the foundation. At the time, according to previous releases of alleged emails, Band was fighting openly with Chelsea Clinton as she expanded her role at the foundation and accused Band of misusing his influence. In one email he allegedly called her a “spoiled brat kid.”

Representatives of the Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton and Teneo Holdings LLC, a consulting firm where Band is president, didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has declined to confirm the authenticity of the more than 23,000 emails released so far by WikiLeaks in almost daily postings over the last two weeks that appear to come from the private account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. But Clinton and her aides have blamed the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin for cyber espionage aimed at swaying the election and GOP rival Donald Trump for exploiting the stolen material.

In an email dated Nov. 13, 2011, Band, who long served as Bill Clinton’s personal aide, allegedly wrote that his boss “is far more conflicted every single day” than Band himself, who co-founded Teneo while working at the foundation. Bill Clinton served for a time on the firm’s board.

“People sit on boards, for-profit ones and not-for-profit ones,” Band said of other Clinton Foundation officials. “I am sure there are many others we don’t know about.”

In an alleged response to Band’s complaints, Cheryl Mills, a longtime Clinton adviser and attorney who was then Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, said, “Many of issues you flag will get captured by corporate audit and receive common policy application as against all entities/individuals with multiple lines.”

Band’s purported attacks on his colleagues’ conflicts sounded much like Trump, who has said Clinton sold influence to foundation donors through her job as secretary of State and enriched her family. During Wednesday night’s presidential debate, he called the foundation “a disgrace.”

Hillary Clinton defended the foundation, citing its charitable work such as increasing global access to medication for HIV/AIDS. “I’m thrilled to talk about the Clinton Foundation,” she said. “It is a world-renowned charity.”

Jake Sullivan, a policy adviser to Clinton’s campaign, said Thursday that Trump has “acted as Putin’s puppet, defending Russia and refusing to admit and condemn the Kremlin’s actions.”

“This behavior has gone from bizarre to disqualifying,” Sullivan said, saying Trump’s advisers may have been aware of the hacked emails before WikiLeaks released them.

Categories: Politics Election
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.