Hillary Spox: Criticizing Clinton Foundation Constrains the Work of Providing HIV/AIDS Meds

Thursday CNN’s “Wolf,” while discussing the pay-to-play accusations between then-Secretary Clinton’s State Department and her family’s organization, The Clinton Foundation, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said those who demand funding changes to The Clinton Foundation, “absolutely constrained the work of providing HIV/AIDS drugs throughout the developing world.”

Partial transcript as follows:

BRIAN FALLON: Just to take your first point first, the reason why I’m making that point is, sure, everyone can say, of course, we support the work of providing HIV/AIDS drugs to people, and then they move on to continue to criticize the foundation. Well, these things are all —

BRIANNA KEILAR:  Criticizing the foundation is not saying you don’t want people—or raising questions about the foundation is not saying you don’t want people to get AIDS medication.

BRIAN FALLON: Actually these things are interconnected. Let me explain what I mean. In 2009, when Hillary Clinton became the secretary of state, they imposed unprecedented, rigorous limitations on the foundation’s work, including the sources of funding that the foundation would accept going forward. That absolutely constrained the work of providing HIV/AIDS drugs throughout the developing world. Those sources of funding were contributing to that very cause. So when the foundation June unilaterally decides that going forward they will constrict the sources of funding that they can rely on in terms of donations that flow into the foundation, it absolutely affects the work of providing HIV/AIDS drugs. These decisions aren’t made in a vacuum. They actually do have a consequence. Yet, despite that fact they took very rigorous steps in 2009, and when she declared she was running for president, they went further. Now they’re voluntarily submitting to a bunch of new restrictions if she wins the presidency in November. All of this is going to have side effects and consequences in terms of the work that goes on. What we’re trying to do is strike the right balance, trying to allow the work to continue to the maximum extent possible, while also guarding against the appearance of any conflict of interest. We are committed to allowing a certain amount of that activity to continue because we think it’s so important. The people that say that the foundation should shut down or completely spin off, that will have consequences if it happens. All we’re pointing to is the fact that this is not — these things are not being made in a vacuum, these decisions. You have to deal with the unintended consequences of the people that won’t be helped if certain aspects of the foundation’s work did not continue.

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN