ABC’s Stephanopoulos Gave $75G To Clinton Foundation Without Disclosing It

ABC has got a problem...and his name is George Stephanopoulos.

It now seems that Mr. S., an ABC News Anchor,has been a large individual cash donor to The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation WITHOUT disclosing that information to his viewers...as he continued to report on stories involving the Clinton Foundation, as well as Hillary Clinton's campaign.

This is textbook 'Conflict of Interest'...and in such a situation, a 'full disclosure' should have been made by Stephanopoulos... before he assumed the veil-like mantle of 'Unbiased Network News Anchor' for ABC News...and began reporting and interviewing on anything involving the Clinton Foundation or Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign.

As it now stands, Stephanopoulos has $75,000.00 worth of 'vested interests' in the Clinton Foundation.

To his credit, he has apologized...but that was only after this became public.

IMO, Stephanopoulos should be banned by ABC from reporting ANY and ALL news stories involving the Clinton Foundation and the 2016 Presidential race.

ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos got deeper in hot water Thursday with his network, which revised upward to $75,000 the amount of money he contributed to the Clinton Foundation without full disclosure to the network or viewers -- while he was covering Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and foundation controversies.

Stephanopoulos apologized Thursday and said he should have revealed the contributions, which were initially reported at $50,000.

But an ABC official told Fox News on Thursday afternoon the anchor has changed that number, to $75,000. He is also pledging not to moderate any presidential debates, Fox News has learned.

The anchor is a former Bill Clinton spokesman and aide, and his ties to the former first family are well-known. However, as first reported by Politico, he made multiple $25,000 donations to the foundation in recent years -- and while the donations can be found in the organization's records, Stephanopoulos did not disclose them to viewers as he covered the Clintons.

Even when he interviewed the author of "Clinton Cash" -- the high-profile book examining potential conflicts of interest behind Clinton Foundation funding -- on ABC's "This Week," Stephanopoulos did not disclose his own contributions.

Stephanopoulos said in a statement on Thursday: "I made charitable donations to the Foundation in support of the work they're doing on global AIDS prevention and deforestation, causes I care about deeply. I thought that my contributions were a matter of public record. However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air during the recent news stories about the Foundation. I apologize."

The Washington Free Beacon said Thursday that Stephanopoulos confirmed the donations to Politico only after the Free Beacon asked ABC News for comment.

Meanwhile, ABC News said they stand behind their star anchor.

A statement from the network said: "As George has said, he made charitable donations to the Foundation to support a cause he cares about deeply and believed his contributions were a matter of public record. He should have taken the extra step to notify us and our viewers during the recent news reports about the Foundation. He's admitted to an honest mistake and apologized for that omission. We stand behind him."

As of noon ET on Thursday, however, the ABC News website included no acknowledgement of the apology or the network's statement on the ethics issue.

Rich Noyes, research director for the conservative Media Research Center, said the contributions also weren't discussed when Stephanopoulos interviewed former President Bill Clinton in recent years -- but at least should have been disclosed when he interviewed "Clinton Cash" author Peter Schweizer.

"It's especially egregious that he did not talk about this [then] ... That was the time he needed to come clean," he said.

In that interview, the host of "This Week" posed tough questions to Schweizer, pressing him on whether he really had any "smoking gun" showing wrongdoing by the Clintons in their dealings with foundation donors and in Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state.

Noyes said such tough questions would be expected, but viewers might see them differently had the host disclosed his donations. Noyes said he hopes ABC News addresses the issue on air.

www.foxnews.com...

MORE:
www.politico.com...

freebeacon.com...

www.nytimes.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

will the GOP still let him moderate their debates? that would be the ultimate ride in the republican clown car after this disclosure.

a reply to: howmuch4another

He no longer has the job.

Uh, seems to me the clowns are in the other party, a man and wife team.

a reply to: howmuch4another

I would expect him to be banned from moderating any debates. But, these days...who knows?

You know, if we disbarred all the media personalities with ties to prominent politicians, we wouldn't have any media left, and that might just be a large part of the problem in this country.

Míster snufleupagus gave 75 grand to the Clintons?

Jesús..Sesame Street really paid well..

OK, was he legally obligated to disclose the donation?

a reply to: Aliensun

He did? That;s good if true.
and yeah the Clinton's are the ultimate clowns for sure but the way the GOP has let themselves get pushed around while at the same time failing to follow through on campaign promises doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy. I still want a more conservative libertarian to show up.

a reply to: ketsuko

Nobody cares how he votes...or even that he worked for the Clintons BEFORE he went to work for ABC as their Chief Political news-anchor.
What matters is that he currently has a large personal financial interest invested in the Clintons...and that he kept it secret from his viewers.

a reply to: ketsuko

That's exactly what I was thinking. Also, does anyone really believe ANY major news source is unbiased nowadays? Seems like a pretty naïve take if so.

a reply to: intrepid

Very good question.

Legally, I don't know...

Ethically? Hell, yes, he was. ...and people wonder why the media isn't trusted? *sigh*

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: howmuch4another

I would expect him to be banned from moderating any debates. But, these days...who knows?

He said in the article that he won't moderate any more debates so what's the big deal? All he did was to ask questions that was already written for him and another person kept a timer on the answers that were given.

originally posted by: intrepid
OK, was he legally obligated to disclose the donation?

Nobody is suggesting he should go to jail...but professionally and ethically and as a matter of honesty and fairness...he should've made a full disclosure to his viewers and employer.

Perhaps professionalism, ethics, honesty and fairness is expecting too much from ABC News.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: howmuch4another

I would expect him to be banned from moderating any debates. But, these days...who knows?

He said in the article that he won't moderate any more debates so what's the big deal? All he did was to asked questions that was already written for him and another person kept a timer on the answers that were given.

oh IDK maybe to avoid another potential Candy Crowley moment..

originally posted by: howmuch4another

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: howmuch4another

I would expect him to be banned from moderating any debates. But, these days...who knows?

He said in the article that he won't moderate any more debates so what's the big deal? All he did was to asked questions that was already written for him and another person kept a timer on the answers that were given.

oh IDK maybe to avoid another potential Candy Crowley moment..

Amen to that! Well stated, sir.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: intrepid
OK, was he legally obligated to disclose the donation?

Nobody is suggesting he should go to jail...but professionally and as a matter of honesty and fairness...he should've made a full disclosure to his viewers and employer.

One could also say that it's no ones business then if it wasn't legally warranted.

Perhaps professionalism, honesty and fairness is expecting too much from ABC News.

Man are you painting with a narrow brush. I can think of another that is fashioned off of the Vulpes genus that that could apply to as well.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: intrepid
OK, was he legally obligated to disclose the donation?

Nobody is suggesting he should go to jail...but professionally and as a matter of honesty and fairness...he should've made a full disclosure to his viewers and employer.

One could also say that it's no ones business then if it wasn't legally warranted.

Perhaps professionalism, honesty and fairness is expecting too much from ABC News.

Man are you painting with a narrow brush. I can think of another that is fashioned off of the Vulpes genus that that could apply to as well.

If it was Bret Bair...doing the same thing as Stephanopoulos...I would feel exactly the same way.
But it isn't someone else...is it?

a reply to: IAMTAT

Perhaps professionalism, ethics, honesty and fairness is expecting too much from ABC News.

Pretty much seems like it's expecting too much from any news source.



www.washingtonpost.com...

He should have disclosed the information. FOX should also disclose being the mouth piece of the GOP and defense contractors across the US.

a reply to: Pimpish

lol...You defend ABC Chief Political News Anchor George Stephanopoulos, by showing high school students analyzing a humor segment from a FOX political commentary show?

Apples to Apples please.
Show me where Fox Chief Political News Anchor Bret Baer did the same thing Stephanopoulos did.
If you can't...you're trolling and you're not seriously debating the topic at hand.