Fact Checker: Did the Clinton Foundation pay for Chelsea's wedding?

[DonViejo]

By Glenn Kessler January 4 at 3:00 AM

“Clinton aide says Foundation paid for Chelsea’s wedding.”
–Fox News headline, Nov. 6, 2016

The 2016 presidential election is over, but two readers separately sent The Fact Checker a query about a news report that apparently swayed some voters at the last minute.

“I was a Hillary Clinton supporter, but since the election have heard from several people who voted for Donald Trump that the final straw for them were the news reports that Hillary Clinton was taking money directly for her personal use out of the Clinton Foundation and that the foundation paid for Chelsea Clinton’s wedding and virtually financially supported her. I follow news very closely and was not aware of either of these specific charges. … I know the election is over, but I would love to know the real facts.”

“I recently visited friends in upstate NY and, as everywhere nowadays, the dinner conversation turned to the 2016 presidential election. Our upstate hosts and all but one of the upstate guests relayed ‘facts’ they had read about in the media that supported their decision not to vote for Hillary Clinton and to vote instead for Donald Trump. These Trump supporters were a lawyer and his girlfriend, a judge, and a CPA. They asserted that their support for Trump was buttressed by media reports they had read that the Clinton Foundation had paid for all or part of Chelsea Clinton’s wedding. What can you tell me and your readers about assertions that the Clinton Foundation paid for all or part of Chelsea Clinton’s wedding?”

The Facts

This allegation first emerged in a tweet by WikiLeaks, which highlighted a 2012 email from a former Bill Clinton aide to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. “Chelsea Clinton used Clinton Foundation resources for her wedding,” the group tweeted the Sunday morning before election day.

-snip-

Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Podesta. WikiLeaks had been doling out leaks for weeks but presumably held on to this one for maximum impact just before Election Day.

The only U.S. newspaper that reported the story was the New York Post, which ran this print-edition headline: “Bridal $weet for Chelsea; Foundation cash for nups.”

-snip-

The Pinocchio Test

It’s important to remember that Band’s email was sent privately, with little expectation it would be aired publicly. On the one hand, that might indicate he would be more open about possible conflicts. But he was also feuding with Chelsea Clinton and so might have been inclined to exaggerate or embellish his concerns.

Even the email, at face value, does not justify the hyperbolic news coverage. There was no reference to foundation monies, just “resources.”

At the same time, the foundation, the family and the wedding planner deny the claim made in the email. This was a major social event with 450 guests, something that has to run on clockwork — at great cost. The wedding planner paid the bills and submitted one bill to the Clinton family.

We can’t really award Pinocchios here, since no specific person repeated this allegation. But we can fault the news reporting — and label this as a claim lacking any evidence. Readers (or their friends) who viewed this as the “last straw” about Clinton corruption need to be more careful consumers of the news.

No Evidence

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/04/did-the-clinton-foundation-pay-for-chelseas-wedding/?utm_term=.f3abae578bd9&wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1

[Historic NY]

1. But it does show people like Band had axes to grind.....

the almost seamless coordination between FOX News and NY Post is the highlight of the GOP/Murdoch propaganda machine.

[karynnj]

11. Band is close to Bill Clinton -- this was never intended to be public

He was feuding with Chelsea Clinton, who was not happy with the way he did things at the Foundation. As HE is linked to many things that brought criticism to the Clinton Foundation, she should be seen as concerned that her parents' reputaions not be tarnished by things he did. Good on her.

The key here is the meaning of "resources". That might include even using any information that the Foundation had on the events it planned.

[bettyellen]

23. Resources likely means using the same party planners or vendors they had before...

I'm sick of any prior relationships being dismissed at "establishment connections" or cronyism. When partnerships work it's a good thing, people.

[karynnj]

28. Exactly

or something like using the Foundation information to get current addresses for some people invited. Not to mention, Chelsea was working for the Foundation. Technically, if she called a vendor or party planner from work that would count too. I would assume that most of us did that leading up to our weddings.

[exboyfil]

2. Journalists not doing their damn job

When any leak came out, the first response should be to go to the author for authentication. Without that you have nothing. Note how the Trump tax return was handled. It was vetted with the accountant (who I think should not have answered the questions). The NYT would never have run the story without independent confirmation.

What the leaks were were a bunch of Killian memos breathlessly read as soon as they were posted online without any sort of due diligence. Rather lost his job for a whole lot less.

[yagotme]

19. "Journalists not doing their damn job"

Says it all right there...

[NCTraveler]

24. That is no longer an arguable point.

Don't get me wrong, I think it should be hammered home every day and is perfectly accurate. That said, HA Goodman has been called a journalist gleefully by members right here. Journalism isn't dead, it just no longer has any real definition or meaning.

[LonePirate]

3. Did these people pay no attention to PEOTUS' mishandling of his foundation' funds?

I am beyond sick of idiots holding Dems to high standards while simultaneously setting an extremely low bar for Repubs in the same situation.

[hamsterjill]

4. I saw this during the campaigns, and I thought it was preposterous.

Why on earth would the Clintons have done something/anything like this? It goes against common sense, which as we all know, is severely limited in media coverage these days.

And, of course, there are the haters out there reaching, searching, imploring for ANYTHING to justify their hate of the Clintons.

These types of ridiculous accusations need to be met with immediate and solid counters. If mainstream media can't or won't do it, we need to other reliable sources that will. We need to promote those sources.

[otohara]

5. Ahhhh Yes I Remember During Primary

all my son's progressive friends were posting this all over Facebook...

[BlueMTexpat]

12. With "friends" like these

self-styled "progressives," Hillary didn't need enemies.

[LisaM]

16. That really bothers me.

First, I agree that they aren't really progressive, but secondly, how could they fall for something like that?

[otohara]

21. Distrust of Government

establishment, Wall Street - Hillary's vote for IWR.

Hillary represented all and Sanders did not...but they knew nothing about him really or the process of picking a candidate. The difference between caucus vs primary, superdelegates.

They are the hippies of their generation who are in or followers of the jamband music festival scene, artists, dancers - bud trimmers... yoga teachers. Most went to college...white, mostly upper middle class upbringing, well traveled both here and abroad.

I was friends with about 49 of them - they thought I was cool until I outed myself as a Hillary supporter. I had to get off of Facebook during the primary I was so disgusted with the crap they were posting - the usual shit.... her with Robert Byrd, Donald Trump wedding, Henry Kissinger, Wall Street...memes galore of Hillary looking bad and snarky mean comments.

I figured after the primary it would change so I went back on but nope they were still raging.... the "it was rigged" shit started. Lots of #NeverHillary stuff and the DNC became enemy #1.

Peer pressure is powerful when you're young.

I had the honor of meeting Hillary at a private fundraiser because my son is friends with a billionaire's son and so I posted the picture... not one of them liked it.

My son was all for Bernie then switched and they treated him like a traitor. Most ended up voting but some did not or went 3rd party...

I had to deactivate - pretty disgusted with what I saw from these young folks who pride themselves on being "tolerant". Pretty sure the Democratic party is in real trouble with a huge chunk of millennials thanks to Sanders and his surrogates - maybe they'll change their tune post Trump. Who knows - I don't care - I'm glad I'm getting up in years.

[bettyellen]

22. And I am guessing they have nothing to say about Trump now?

They were obviously not in it for the long haul.

[otohara]

30. Deafening Silence... Crickets

as if it never happened ... just like many of the lefty sites who fed these folks daily doses of Hillary hate.

[radical noodle]

26. The effect of the Russian hacking of the DNC

can never be minimized. It was released at a time to do the most damage because Sanders' supporters had already been convinced that the primary was rigged for Hillary.

[LisaM]

29. One vote out of many thousands cast, prefaced by a very nuanced qualification.

Yet they all probably shop at Amazon, take Uber, and stay at Air BnB and have absolutely no reservations about how those companies tear apart the fabric of our society.

I was young and idealistic once, too. I've had exactly two of the people I went for in the primary be on the presidential ticket (Gore and Hillary). I still cheerfully voted for the candidate and up until 1992 actively worked for them (the only reason I didn't later was that national campaigns shifted and tended to bring in their own people to be on the ground).

It's just so maddening.

[NWCorona]

6. The linked article isn't really conclusive on the subject but I will say

That although I'm not really a Chelsea fan I respect her a lot more after reading the podesta-emails. She actually tried to clean up the mess at the foundation and brought in outside auditors to look into things.

[dionysus]

7. The clintons are loaded. I highly doubt they'd do such a trumpian thing.

[BlueMTexpat]

13. They didn't. eom

[dionysus]

14. Im sure they didnt

[Lucinda]

8. SMH

[HoneyBadger]

9. 2 friends were musicians at the wedding

They played for free. I think that they were just happy to be there.

[hollowdweller]

10. I never heard that one.

Seems like a good thing to play into the narrative of Clinton as being corrupt but you'd have to be nuts to really do that.

[Tavarious Jackson]

15. There is now a massive amount of corruption to worry about

and MUM us the word with these people. It's OK for Trump to rip off USA YUGE tho

[JI7]

17. This was pretty big on the internet

Not long before election day. Along with false accusations against the foundation itself.

[Starry Messenger]

18. And wikileaks pushed this bs like it was gospel. smh

[Warren DeMontague]

20. it bought her a rice cooker, but she never uses it

it's gathering dust next to the bread machine.

[NCTraveler]

25. It can and has been successfully argued...

That the Clintons are the most transparent wealthy couple in this country when it comes to their finances. Trump is one of the most undisclosed.

[MFM008]

27. Fake news

.........