MyDD :: Clintons invest in slave labor

Clintons invest in slave labor

by Dave Dial, Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:19:36 PM EST

If the Clintons care so much about poor people, why are they investing in a company that has horrible working conditions and little to no pay?

More....

Intro
You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long.
If the Clintons care so much about poor people, why are they investing in a company that has horrible working conditions and little to no pay?

Cross posted at DailyKos

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3 /10/212638/965/20/473904

More....

Clintons link in Brazil ethanol probe

Are these the types of investments that allow Hillary to 'donate' 5 million dollars of her own money to her campaign?

SAO PAULO, Brazil - A team from Brazil's Labor Ministry found "degrading" living conditions for 133 sugarcane workers employed by an ethanol company whose investors include former President Clinton and other high-profile financial players.

Just how bad were the working conditions?

At five sites inspected, workers "complained they were suffering from hunger and cold, and all of the locations were overcrowded and with terrible sanitary conditions," according to a statement issued Friday by Jaqueline Carrijo, who led the inspections last month.

And this from a story I read over at Commondreams yesterday.

Brazil's Ethanol Slaves
200,000 Migrant Sugar Cutters Who Prop Up Renewable Energy Boom

by Tom Phillips

Behind rusty gates, the heart of Brazil's energy revolution can be found in the stale air of a squalid red-brick tenement building. Inside, dozens of road-weary migrant workers are crammed into minuscule cubicles, filled with rickety bunk-beds and unpacked bags, preparing for their first day at work in the sugar plantations of Sao Paulo.

Are these the types of investments that fuel the Clinton Machine?

Inside the prison-like construction are the cortadores de cana - sugar cane cutters - part of a destitute migrant workforce of about 200,000 men who help prop up Brazil's ethanol industry.....
"It breaks your heart," said Cristina Vieira, a member of the local Catholic mission that offers support to the workers. .... When you talk to them a lot of them say: 'If I'd have known it would be like this I would never have come.' They have no rights and they can't complain to anyone - in a certain way they don't exist."

How many other investments like this have the Clintons profited from? When will Hillary release her tax returns so we can vet her?

Tags: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, slave labor, Brazil, Tax return, 2008 primary, Democratic (all tags)

Permalink :: 26 Comments :: Post a Comment

Tips for vetting (1.00 / 1)

Tips for vetting Hillary and her releasing the Clinton tax returns!

by Dave Dial on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:20:26 PM EST

Come on now (2.00 / 2)

I wouldn't even do this to Obama. Do you really believe they knew about this or condoned this?

Give me a break.

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:27:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You? (none / 0)

I don't know if you would or not. I've seen some questionable stuff from you, but I don't remember anything too bad.

The fact is, I want the tax returns released and the Clinton Library donations opened up.

by Dave Dial on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:39:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You? (none / 0)

I have to agree on those later points. If we're going to send someone into November, we should know what's in those tax returns now. It's going to be made public knowledge sooner or later. As for the donations to the Clinton library.. I doubt we'll ever see those, but the tax returns are something we will DEFINITELY see if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.

"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."

by Setrak on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You? (2.00 / 1)

When will Barack Obama be releasing ALL of his tax returns and ALL of his earmarks?

Also, can we stop pretending that this is some crusade for transparncy that Obama, and his supporters, really care about. All it is is an angle Obama is using to attack Clinton and his hope that he can find dirt in the tax returns. There's a reason he decided to shelf this attack for the most part until he decided to go negative.

Its one thing to try and spin but its another thing when you start believing your own spin.

And last, why do people even try to spin on blogs, the place where high information partisians, IE no chance in hell of changing their minds, dwell?

by world dictator on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:33:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You? (none / 0)

You're missing the point. She'll have to present her tax returns if she wins the nomination. There are no two ways about it. If we send her into November those documents are going to be made public. So why not end speculation and release them now rather than later?

"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."

by Setrak on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:39:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You? (none / 0)

She's already said she's releasing them on the 15th. No one sane is worried about it because we've already seen over 25 years of Clinton tax returns with nothing remarkable on them. You're certainly going to see them, and it will be one of the most boring experiences of your life.

You're not going to see the donations to the Clinton Library because the donors are entitled to privacy - and that is a fact. You're entitled to change the law so that future donors don't have that expectation, but until then you are SOL.

Thankfully, the Clintons don't have anything anywhere near questionable sordid as Obama's Rezko deal, so the level of concern is much lower, of course. I wonder why Obama lies about that so much? Weird.

by Little Otter on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:53:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You? (none / 0)

I know we're not going to see the donations. I said as much myself. However, you're citing those 25 years of Clinton tax returns- how much were they worth then? Enough to loan $5,000,000 to Hillary's campaign? There are legitimate reasons for wanting to see the tax returns. I'm hoping that she does release her tax returns on April 15th, but if she tries stalling.. don't be surprised at the ads that will be flying all over the place.

As for Rezko.. cooome on, there's nothing remotely illegal in what he was doing. Questionable? I don't think so. The previous owners of the property brought the facts to that whole thing. Stop kicking a dead horse. At least wait until something of substance comes out of the trial- not that I expect anything to. Even you have got to admit, the Clintons REALLY are not the ones who should be bringing real estate into it.. just, come on. Get real. Get with the program. Is it so horrible for me to raise a legitimate point? If this nomination is about who can best win against McCain, then tax returns are fair game.

"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."

by Setrak on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:39:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You? (2.00 / 1)

How do you know there's nothing illegal about what he is doing? You don't know what it is he wanted in return for purchasing that strip of land, now do you? And until you know that - and that is a very basic question - you have no idea if anything illegal transpired or not.

Asking a known mob affiliate under investigation by a federal prosecutor to do you a personal favor to the tune of $625k is a very, very suspect thing to do. There is no positive spin to put on it.

As the very least, it's one of the stupidest things anyone running for president has ever done. At the worst, he's the most corrupt Dem we've had run in ages.

He and his wife both stink to high heaven as far as I'm concerned, And they lie way too much for my comfort.

by Little Otter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 01:24:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You? (none / 0)

Now you're just trying to slander someone. You and Obama are trying to spin any amount of money that you don't agree with into an attempted attack on Clinton. Just look at your opening..."However, you're citing those 25 years of Clinton tax returns- how much were they worth then? Enough to loan $5,000,000 to Hillary's campaign?"

For your info...just a few tidbits. She got over $8M from her advance for her book dealj, with an additional $7M in royalties.

But the record has been outthere for quite a while. Obama and his campaign knows this, and what Hillary's financials are. To claim they don't, as well as anyone with access to a computer and the internet as those here would qualify; are being obtuse or just can't think for themselves. Here's is what I found in less than 3 seconds.

From 2007...money magazine:

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/mone ymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/in dex.html

It's really that easy. This is just a red hering to try and make the news story not about Obama and NAFTA or his actual plan for Iraq or any of his plans as a matter of fact. He's just gonna keep on "bamboozling and hoodwinking". He's run-a-muck. Led a stray. And trying to divide, while conquering.

I've only got one thing to say to Obama.

Get your hands off of my pockets!

He that lives upon hope, will die fasting. -Ben Franklin

by TxDem08 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:11:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You? (none / 0)

April 15th is a bit of a red herring. Sen. Clinton has not released her 2001-2006 returns to the public. The hint that April 15th has something to do with this disclosure was a artful misdirection by her campaign staff.

FWIW, I'd like to see her release them. Sen. Obama has released his returns regularly, like many public servants. (Story on 2006 return from the Chi. Trib) Transparency in govt needs to be a major Democratic value, especially in light the Bush Administration stonewalling.

We know Sen. Clinton filed a return, and she's on the public payroll, so what's the problem? I'm sure there's nothing terribly objectionable on them, but the secrecy is troubling in itself.

by Twin Planets on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 02:21:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You? (2.00 / 1)

You can't get a lot of information out of the Clinton library until a certain amount of years after Clinton is out of office. It's some federal law, but there's a certain amount of time before certain files can be released according to my wife, the archivist. That's why you're not seeing a lot of there; I'm not sure if donations fall under the same rules, but we'll have to wait awhile like we did for Johnson's information.

by ejintx on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:12:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You? (none / 0)

Just looked it up - it's twelve years.

by ejintx on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 12:18:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on now (2.00 / 2)

You Obama fans are crazy. Why don't you check out the story in The Chicago Tribune about the Rezko trial today. Obama's name came up several times today along with several of his campaign and supporters, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin and Democratic political heavyweight David Wilhelm, who had directed Blagojevich's transition team in 2002 it's all there in print I promise

by bradydundee on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:51:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on now (2.00 / 2)

The same David Wilhelm who is a spokeperson for the Obama campaign? Interesting...

by americanincanada on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:58:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on now (none / 0)

Obama's name came up once and in the most benign way. No wonder you didn't link the article. Here's what it says about Obama:

House Speaker Michael Madigan, state Sen. Emil Jones, U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin and Democratic political heavyweight David Wilhelm, who had directed Blagojevich's transition team in 2002, were among those making recommendations for the boards and commissions.

Ziegelmueller asked Hayden about a 2003 e-mail exchange with Lichtenstein, then the governor's top lawyer, in which Wilhelm made recommendations for the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board.

The name of Barack Obama, the Democratic front-runner for the presidential nomination, also appears in the e-mail as a member of a strategic team reviewing hospital board matters with the governor's staff when he was a state senator. The hospital board was scheduled to be revamped in the summer of 2003.

Obama was then chairman of the Senate Committee on Health & Human Services. Other legislative leaders, including Madigan, were part of that review panel as well, according to the e-mail.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local /chi-rezko-court-story,0,7957753.story?p age=2

by Piuma on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:08:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on now (2.00 / 1)

Yeah, obama needs to be vetted. he's displayed really, really bad judgement with this Rezko thing and we need to see what's there. Fortunately, the Clintons went through the Starr Inquistion and we know what's in their past because Ken Starr went through every check they ever wrote and every phone call they ever made - literally. So there's not any surprises there.
"

Obama, however, bought a house he couldn't afford with the help of an established mob affiliate. Naughty, naughty.

by Little Otter on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:56:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Go look (2.00 / 4)

at your 401k or mutual fund.

Do you know what is in there?

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:26:19 PM EST

Re: Go look (2.00 / 2)

Even as an Obama supporter, I definitely agree. I don't like cheap talking points to use against someone, and most people don't know where their investments are really going.

Until recently, Fidelity was investing in Sudan.

"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."

by Setrak on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:29:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

THESE ARE NOT CHEAP TALKING POINTS (none / 0)

Bill is invested to the tune of $20,000,000 in income with this fund (Ron Burkle). This is not like a mutual fund where a board or large group of investment managers are spreading hundreds of billions of dollars around. President Clinton and Mr. Burkle are personal friends - it is not too much to require (I'm sure Clinton has dozens of staff that could do this) that his name not be attached to these sorts of investments.

Whenever any of these issues come up, just think if the shoe was on the other foot. What would be Howard Wolfson's response if this were Obama?

by highgrade on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:51:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clintons invest in slave labor (2.00 / 3)

OMG...what is with some Obama fans? Jeebus.

If he is so inevitable...so unable to lose...if he is

THE ONE...

Why do you all feel the need to attack Clinton every moment of every day?! What are you afraid of?

by americanincanada on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:35:01 PM EST

Re: Clintons invest in slave labor (none / 0)

People are suggesting this is like a mutual fund or a 401K. Not so. Far different from it. This is part of the whole Ron Burkle mess Bill is involved in. Bill was a senior adviser to Yucaipa Cos. which raised over 5.5 million dollars for this company. This is just part of many pitfalls in that business relationship and many others which are being hidden in the non-disclosing of their tax returns and the Presidential Library donors. From the NY Times piece:

Clinton's connection is via an investment in Brenco by The Yucaipa Cos., a U.S.-based fund in which Clinton was a senior advisor until last year. His investment in Brenco is valued between $15,001 and $50,000, according to a financial dislosure report submitted last year by his wife, presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Yucaipa, whose chairman is prominent Democratic billionaire Ron Burkle, holds an overall 2.8 percent stake in the initial $200 million raised by Brenco last year to start up operations in Brazil's booming ethanol sector.

Bill Clinton spokesman Matt McKenna said that the former president's investment made via Yucaipa was small but that he had been assured Brenco was ''committed to the highest ethical standard with regard to the treatment of its workforce and of the environment.''

''The president finds these allegations deeply troubling and expects Brenco to move swiftly to ensure that those responsible are held accountable,'' McKenna said, adding that Clinton is ''taking steps to ensure that there is an appropriate transition for his business relationships should Senator Clinton become the Democratic nominee.''

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP -Brazil-Ethanol-Raid.html?_r=1&oref= slogin

by Piuma on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:55:34 PM EST

Re: Clintons invest in slave labor (2.00 / 0)

This is just absolute bullshit to cover up and gloss over the fact that Obama is buds with a slum lord and didn't do anything to help the Maytag workers when they needed him the most.

by Fleaflicker on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:23:09 PM EST

Re: Clintons invest in slave labor (none / 0)

Yucaipa spokesman Frank Quintero characterized the fund's investment in Brenco as small and said it has no management role.

"Newspapers report that Brenco has taken immediate action to remedy the situation," he said in a statement. "If that is not the case we will sell our shares in the company."

by Fleaflicker on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:26:55 PM EST

B.S. (2.00 / 2)

This is just plain garbage.

Clinton has his money in a fund. He doesn't direct every investment. It is a relatively small amount.

This just makes Obama supporters look silly and coniving.

by MediaFreeze on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 11:53:29 PM EST

Re: Clintons invest in slave labor (none / 0)

You don't want to go down this road Obamaites or we will be comparing not only investments but contributions over the years and you won't like the kinds of things the Obama's have contributed to and are associated with.
Here is one
www.islamichope.org

by coolofthenight on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:45:56 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.