Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

America For Sale ... Vote Hillary!!!

+8
Vikingwoman
Markle
Joanimaroni
knothead
polecat
dumpcare
2seaoat
EmeraldGhost
12 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

WASHINGTON (AP) — As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton opened her office to dozens of influential Democratic party fundraisers, former Clinton administration and campaign loyalists, and corporate donors to her family's global charity, according to State Department calendars obtained by The Associated Press.

The woman who would become a 2016 presidential candidate met or spoke by phone with nearly 100 corporate executives, Clinton charity donors and political supporters during her four years at the State Department between 2009 and 2013, records show. Many of those meetings and calls, formally scheduled by her aides, involved heads of companies and organizations that were pursuing business or private interests with the Obama administration at the time, including with the State Department while Clinton was in charge.

In addition, at least 60 of those who met with Clinton have donated or pledged program commitments to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. A dozen have been among Hillary Clinton's most reliable political fundraisers, bundling more than $100,000 in donations during her failed 2008 presidential campaign or providing larger amounts to Clinton-allied super political action committees this time. And at least six entities represented in the meetings paid former President Bill Clinton lucrative fees for speeches.

The AP found no evidence of legal or ethical conflicts in Clinton's meetings, in its examination of 1,294 pages from the calendars. Her sit-downs with business leaders were not unique among recent secretaries of state, who sometimes called on corporate executives to aid in international affairs, according to archived documents.

But the difference with Clinton's meetings was that she was a 2008 presidential contender who was widely expected to try again in 2016. Her availability to luminaries from politics, business and charity shows the extent to which her office became a sounding board for their interests. And her ties with so many familiar faces from those intersecting worlds were complicated by their lucrative financial largess and political support over the years — even during her State Department tenure — for her campaigns and her husband's, and for her family's foundation.

Among those she met with or spoke with by phone were chief executives such as General Electric Co.'s Jeff Immelt, PepsiCo Inc.'s Indra Nooyi, FedEx Corp.'s Fred Smith, former Morgan Stanley chairman John Mack and former Citigroup Inc. chairman Sanford Weill. There were also billionaires: investors George Soros and Warren Buffett and diet pioneer S. Daniel Abraham. Major Democratic Party fundraisers included entertainment magnate Haim Saban, real estate developer Stephen J. Cloobeck and American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten.

In its response to detailed questions from the AP, the Clinton campaign did not address the issue of the candidate's frequent meetings with corporate and political supporters during her State Department tenure. Instead, campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said "Secretary Clinton turned over all of her work emails, 55,000 pages of them, and asked that they be released to the public. Some of that will include her schedules. We look forward to the rest of her emails being released so people can have a greater window into her work at the department."

The State Department turned the Clinton calendars over to the AP earlier this month, documents the AP sought for two years under the Freedom of Information Act. The department censored many meeting entries for privacy reasons or to protect internal deliberations, making it impossible to discern all the identities of those who met Clinton. A State Department spokesman declined to comment on the agency's redactions of the calendars or the arrangements for Secretary of State John Kerry's daily schedules.

The AP has also sought detailed planning schedules that aides sent Clinton before each day's events, but the State Department has declined to search through the files of some of Clinton's close aides at the time. The State Department's release of Clinton emails has so far turned up at least 155 planning schedules, called "minischedules," but they account for only a tiny percentage of Clinton's four-year stint — 7 percent of the 1,159 days covered by those email releases.

Merrill said Clinton was not sent the planning "minischedules" every day or when she traveled, "which would account for why you see some on some days and not on others."

The AP also found at least a dozen differences between Clinton's planners and calendars involving visits by donors and longtime loyalists. In one example, a June 2010 Clinton planning schedule that the State Department released uncensored shows a 3 p.m. meeting between Clinton and her longtime private lawyer, David Kendall. But Clinton's formal calendar lists the 20-minute session only as "private meeting — secretary's office," omitting Kendall's name.

The Clinton campaign could not explain those discrepancies but said the candidate had made a good faith effort to be transparent by giving her work-related emails to the State Department for public release.

The calendars offer hour-by-hour depictions of Clinton's hectic diplomatic schedule in Washington and her foreign tours crammed with meetings with dignitaries. Even so, she found time to meet CEOs, loyalists and donors.

"It shows Hillary Clinton marrying her political interests with the business and policy interests of powerful people," said Lawrence Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota. "These are the people you cultivate to lay the groundwork for running for president."

Clinton favored a select group of visitors — at least two dozen — for repeated meetings. Abraham, the billionaire behind SlimFast diet products and chairman of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, met with Clinton at least three times and was slated to meet her three other times, according to her calendars and schedules. Clinton's calendars showed they met at her office in May 2009 and October 2010. Clinton also spoke at an Abraham Center event in April 2010.

Abraham has given $5 million to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation and donated $1.2 million in 2012 to Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting Clinton in 2016. Abraham told the AP that he assumed that he and Clinton discussed Mideast policy during their contacts.

Teachers' union chief Weingarten met Clinton three times, in 2009, 2010 and 2012. Emails released by the State Department show that Weingarten's policy aide, Tina Flournoy, messaged Clinton at her private account in mid-September 2009 saying that "Randi and would like to visit you re: child labor issues — if that's possible, whom should I contact to schedule?"

Clinton responded: "I would love to see you and Randi. I'm copying Lona (Clinton's scheduling aide) to see how soon we can schedule. Hope you're well."

Less than three weeks later, Weingarten and Flournoy — now chief of staff to Bill Clinton — met Hillary Clinton for a half hour, according to the calendars. That year, the union spent nearly $1 million lobbying the government on issues that included child labor in Uzbekistan. The union also spent at least $1 million in both 2010 and 2012, the other years Weingarten met with Clinton.

"We discussed a range of issues with Secretary Clinton — including the growing refugee crisis, expanding access to education globally and curbing child labor practices," said Kate Childs Graham, speaking for the union.

Weingarten's union endorsed Clinton's 2016 presidential bid in July, and Weingarten is on the board of Priorities USA Action. The union has also given $1 million to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and committed, along with two banking partners, to launch a $100 million loan fund to expand classrooms for young children under the auspices of the charity's Clinton Global Initiative.

PepsiCo CEO Nooyi also had at least three scheduled contacts with Clinton. In February 2010, Nooyi and GE's Immelt met Clinton as part of the State Department's efforts to secure corporate money for an American pavilion in China's Shanghai Expo in May of that year.

PepsiCo spent $6.8 million in 2010 on government lobbying. Nooyi talked twice with Clinton by phone in 2012, a year when PepsiCo spent $3.3 million on lobbying Congress and federal agencies, including State Department officials, on issues such as trade pacts and Russia legislation.

PepsiCo spokesman Jon Banner declined to discuss conversations or meetings the firm's senior leaders may have had. A top executive with PepsiCo's main rival, Coca-Cola, which donated $5 million to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, also discussed the Shanghai event with Clinton in a 2009 conference call along with executives from PepsiCo and several other firms.

Nooyi is not a prominent Clinton political supporter, but PepsiCo has been active with the Clinton Foundation. PepsiCo's foundation pledged in 2008 to provide $7.6 million in grants to two water firms as a commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative. The Clinton charity also listed a PepsiCo Foundation donation of more than $100,000 in 2014, the same year the soda company's foundation announced a partnership under the charity to spur economic and social development in emerging nations.

A dozen other executives and political supporters met or were in phone contact with Clinton at least twice during her State Department tenure — among them Immelt, Saban, Soros and Clinton intimate and now-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, according to the calendars.

Another was Alfonso Fanjul, one of four brothers who run a Florida-based sugar and real estate conglomerate and are politically active in the state's Cuban-American community.

Fanjul, whose family subsidiaries include Domino Sugar and Florida Crystals, was a Florida co-chairman for Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign in 1992, supported Hillary Clinton's 2008 run and has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Florida Crystals spent $1 million lobbying the Obama administration in 2011 and nearly that amount in 2009, 2010 and 2012 on issues related to sugar and its use as a biofuel.

Fanjul met Hillary Clinton for a half hour in October 2009. Gaston Cantens, a spokesman for the firm, said Fanjul sought the 2009 meeting because he was having "customs issues coming in and out of the country and wanted help." Cantens said Fanjul's entry and exit problems eased.

Clinton met Fanjul again at a 10-minute "pull-aside" during a Brookings Institution luncheon in June 2012. The event honored Saban and his wife, Cheryl, who both bundled donations to Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign and whose family foundation has donated between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

The calendar doesn't say what they discussed, but the event came two months after Fanjul returned from a trip to Cuba with a Brookings delegation. Fanjul, a Brookings trustee who had been a longtime foe of U.S. trade with Cuba, has publicly reversed course on the issue and is now open to investments there.

Cantens said Fanjul and Clinton discussed topics "related to Brookings," but added: "I'm not saying Cuba didn't come up."


http://news.yahoo.com/calendars-show-clintons-availability-supporters-083158830--election.html



Last edited by EmeraldGhost on 12/1/2015, 8:50 pm; edited 1 time in total

2seaoat



I read your post twice. It said nothing twice. Help me.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:I read your post twice. It said nothing twice. Help me.

Why waste a second explaining to you what you willfully ignore?

Hillary is corrupt... she is a liar... she has a pure greed for power and will do literally anything to acquire it.

dumpcare



PkrBum wrote:
2seaoat wrote:I read your post twice.  It said nothing twice.  Help me.

Why waste a second explaining to you what you willfully ignore?

Hillary is corrupt... she is a liar... she has a pure greed for power and will do literally anything to acquire it.

They are all corrupt and liar's. So at election time whoever are the final two you just have to flip a coin.

polecat

polecat

PkrBum wrote:
2seaoat wrote:I read your post twice.  It said nothing twice.  Help me.

Why waste a second explaining to you what you willfully ignore?

Hillary is corrupt... she is a liar... she has a pure greed for power and will do literally anything to acquire it.


You sold me
I'm voting HRC

Guest


Guest

polecat wrote:
PkrBum wrote:
2seaoat wrote:I read your post twice.  It said nothing twice.  Help me.

Why waste a second explaining to you what you willfully ignore?

Hillary is corrupt... she is a liar... she has a pure greed for power and will do literally anything to acquire it.


You sold me
I'm voting HRC

No surprise here. People without ethics of their own are her target demographic.

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

2seaoat wrote:I read your post twice.  It said nothing twice.  Help me.

The equivalent of:

America For Sale ... Vote Hillary!!! 3+monkeys+3

knothead

knothead

Demonizing HRC is in vogue it seems and frankly I see her warts, imperfections . . . . . whatever . . . . . my point is what is the alternative? There is no reasonable alternative . . . . . . it's either Bernie or HRC at this point.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

knothead wrote:Demonizing HRC is in vogue it seems and frankly I see her warts, imperfections . . . . . whatever . . . . . my point is what is the alternative? There is no reasonable alternative . . . . . . it's either Bernie or HRC at this point.

Terrible situation for the US.

Markle

Markle

knothead wrote:Demonizing HRC is in vogue it seems and frankly I see her warts, imperfections . . . . . whatever . . . . . my point is what is the alternative? There is no reasonable alternative . . . . . . it's either Bernie or HRC at this point.

At least ten great alternatives.

Vikingwoman



knothead wrote:Demonizing HRC is in vogue it seems and frankly I see her warts, imperfections . . . . . whatever . . . . . my point is what is the alternative? There is no reasonable alternative . . . . . . it's either Bernie or HRC at this point.

I like Bernie but he's not going to get the nomination. I will be voting for Hillary as we will get two for one. Bill Clinton may have been a whoredog but he was a good President and no different than Kennedy who is revered. I would never vote for any of the republicans period especially in this congress. A terrible situation in the US would be Trump getting the nomination but Hillary can beat him.

Sal

Sal

Allow me to reveal the key to understanding the article you c&ped ....

The AP found no evidence of legal or ethical conflicts in Clinton’s meetings in its examination of 1,294 pages from the calendars. Her sit-downs with business leaders were not unique among recent secretaries of state, who sometimes summoned corporate executives to aid in international affairs, documents show.

You're welcome.


America For Sale ... Vote Hillary!!! Nothingburger

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

It's not so much about the "meetings" themselves .... it's about the MONEY!

America For Sale ... Vote Hillary!!! Hamburger-made-of-money-GoodSalt-kibas0084

gatorfan



EmeraldGhost wrote:It's not so much about the "meetings" themselves .... it's about the MONEY!


Purchasing influence is nothing new in politics but Hillary and Bill have taken it to a new level through their "Foundation" and paid speeches.

Anyone who thinks big money donors are giving money just to feel good about themselves or because they care about foundation initiatives are fools.

Guest


Guest

The clinton slushfund foundation is now "adjusting" not only their irs obligations for the years 11, 12, 13... but also 14.

Apparently their largest subsidiary is some health initiative... it is now manipulating their reporting for the last two years.

I wonder if lerner paid any attention to this?

Guest


Guest

The AP found no evidence of legal or ethical conflicts in Clinton's meetings, in its examination of 1,294 pages from the calendars. Her sit-downs with business leaders were not unique among recent secretaries of state, who sometimes called on corporate executives to aid in international affairs, according to archived documents.


Fourth paragraph.  The article should have ended here.

Not a Hillary supporter and I still feel the constant barrage of accusations, like she is the first one to do this, is appalling.  It gets everyone stuck in the mire of what has happened and what will happen with ALL candidates and those holding office.  It's American "money"tics.

Guest


Guest

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/564ae72be4b08cda348a6239

NEW YORK,Nov 16 (Reuters) - The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation and an associated charity refiled tax returns for sixyears with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to amend their reporting of donations from foreign governments and other errors,the charities said on Monday.

The foundation refiled its Form 990 tax returns for 2010,2011,2012 and 2013, while the Clinton Health Access Initiative refiled its returns for 2012 and 2013 after Reuters discovered errors in the forms earlier this year.

The charities said they were not legally required to refile the forms and were only doing so in the interest of transparency following what the foundation's president,Donna Shalala, called an "exhaustive review."

The charities are best known for their work on health and environmental issues in the developing world,but have come under renewed scrutiny this year with Hillary Clinton's decision to seek the Democratic Party's nomination for the presidency in the election in November 2016.

Her critics,especially political rivals in the Republican Party,have said the charities' reliance on millions of dollars from foreign governments creates conflicts of interests for a would-be U.S. president. They have also criticized the charities' admitted failure to comply with an ethics agreement Clinton signed with Barack Obama's incoming presidential administration in 2008 in order for her to become secretary of state.

Among other amendments,the foundation now reports receiving nearly $20 million in funds from governments, mostly foreign governments,between 2010 and 2013. The foundation had previously neglected to separately state its government funding as required on its original returns,although it continued to acknowledge foreign governments' support throughout this period on its website and in its publications.

The charities pay no taxes on their donations,but are required to file annual returns with the IRS to maintain their tax-exempt status and to make them public to anyone who wants to see how they raise and spend money.

The amended forms also break out the charities' income derived from the Clintons' speeches to corporations, among other amendments.

Reince Priebus,the Republican National Committee's chairman,said in a statement the foundation's incorrect returns had shown a "contempt for transparency and disclosure."

"This episode demonstrates what we have long known: unabated,the Clinton Foundation's massive foreign fundraising poses a serious conflict of interest,and Hillary Clinton has no intention of voluntarily complying with ethics guidelines or federal taxlaws," his statement said.

Clinton,whose spokesmen did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Monday night,severed her formal ties with her family's charities upon announcing her presidential run in April,but her husband,former President Bill Clinton,and their daughter,Chelsea Clinton,retain active roles.

Sal

Sal

You're trying really hard to carve out a standard that applies exclusively to Hillary Clinton, random internet guy.

Guest


Guest

PkrBum wrote:

The foundation refiled its Form 990 tax returns for 2010,2011,2012 and 2013, while the Clinton Health Access Initiative refiled its returns for 2012 and 2013 after Reuters discovered errors in the forms earlier this year.

The charities said they were not legally required to refile the forms and were only doing so in the interest of transparency following what the foundation's president,Donna Shalala, called an "exhaustive review."


Clinton,whose spokesmen did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Monday night,severed her formal ties with her family's charities upon announcing her presidential run in April,but her husband,former President Bill Clinton,and their daughter,Chelsea Clinton,retain active roles.

So we have reports that are provided, not necessary, and Hillary backed away from the charities when she announced she was running for President.

And the issue is??????

Again, not a Hillary backer but the mush needs to be parted and let the issue come to life which reveals a nonissue.

Rolling Eyes

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

Salinsky wrote:You're trying really hard to carve out a standard that applies exclusively to Hillary Clinton, random internet guy.



Ah, c'mon .... Hillary's taken political favors for cash to an unprecedented and obscene level.  

If it was a Republican doing the same you'd be screaming for them to be thrown in the slammer .... and you know it.

Really, how do you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously with your eternal blatant partisanship in the face of incontrovertible facts.   (Well, I s'pose there are some people naive enough to swallow it)


Floridatexan

Floridatexan


You have no proof that Hillary Clinton traded political favors for cash...none. But you have ample evidence that the Bushes and the Cheneys made out like bandits on the profits of war. I'll take the Clintons' charitable efforts over the smarmy warmongering profiteers any time.

Markle

Markle

America For Sale ... Vote Hillary!!! Donations%20from%20foreign%20countries._zpstalo50fi

America For Sale ... Vote Hillary!!! Hillary%20and%20Watergate_zpsea7ihjdt

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp

Claim: Hillary Clinton was fired from the House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigation by Chief Counsel Jerry Zeifman.

FALSE

You can stop lying about it now, Markle.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
You have no proof that Hillary Clinton traded political favors for cash...none. But you have ample evidence that the Bushes and the Cheneys made out like bandits on the profits of war. I'll take the Clintons' charitable efforts over the smarmy warmongering profiteers any time.

http://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/

After endless delays and excuses, the Clinton Foundation released its 2014 tax return as well as amended returns for the previous four years and an audit of its finances. That fulfilled a pledge made last April by Clinton Foundation acting CEO, Maura Pally, who acknowledged that the foundation had previously made a few unfortunate accounting “mistakes.”

Journalists are going to be scouring through this new financial information and pumping out “balanced” stories that evade what is already evident, namely that the Clintons have used their foundation for crass profiteering and influence peddling.

If the Justice Department and law enforcement agencies do their jobs, the foundation will be closed and its current and past trustees, who include Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton, will be indicted. That’s because their so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich Clinton family friends.

It is beyond dispute that former President Clinton has been directly involved in helping foundation donors and his personal cronies get rich. Even worse, it is beyond dispute that these very same donors and the Clintons’ political allies have won the focused attention of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton when she served as Secretary of State. Democrats and Clinton apologists will write these accusations off as conspiracy mongering and right-wing propaganda, but it’s an open secret to anyone remotely familiar with accounting and regulatory requirements for charities that the financial records are deliberately misleading. And not coincidentally, those records were long filed by a Little Rock–based accounting firm called BKD, a regional auditor with little international experience.

It’s odd that a small Arkansas-headquartered firm would handle the books for a giant entity like the Clinton Foundation, and even odder given that BKD has been implicated in a variety of misconduct. For example, last year the Securities and Exchange Commission sanctioned BKD for “violating auditor independence rules when they prepared the financial statements of brokerage firms that were their audit clients.”

It brings to mind Bernie Madoff, who also used a small accounting shop when he was running his notorious Ponzi scheme. And it’s worth emphasizing here that smaller firms are typically far less likely to challenge major clients, and the Clinton Foundation was one of BKD’s major sources of revenue.

The new audit that was released yesterday was prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), a major accounting firm. I’ve been told by multiple sources with knowledge of the review that PwC was under tremendous outside pressure to turn in a truthful audit as opposed to the shoddy work performed by BKD. “The audit is the key, it’s far more important than the amended tax returns,” Charles Ortel, an independent financial expert, told me. “PwC is a top firm and they will not be able to claim they didn’t know that the past audits were fraudulent because they have been informed of problems. If they certify that the Clinton Foundation is clean, when it is apparent it is not, PwC is done. It may go the way of Arthur Andersen.” Ortel, a former managing director of Dillon, Read & Co., who helped expose massive financial fraud by GE, GM, and AIG before the 2008 global financial meltdown, was referring to the accounting firm that missed massive fraud by Enron and subsequently collapsed.

Canadian charity called the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership—which is run by one of Bill Clinton’s close friends, Frank Giustra—has been moving significant sums of money into the Clinton Foundation’s flagship in New York. There’s no way for the public to know precisely how much total money the CGEP has taken in over the years—or how much it has forwarded on to the Clinton Foundation—because, unlike in the United States, under Canadian non-profit law charities don’t need to report donors to tax authorities. Earlier this year, after being severely criticized by the Canadian press, the CGEP released the names of twenty-four of its donors, but more than 1,000 are still unknown. (CGEP wrote in an email that “going forward [it] will publicly disclose all future donors.”)

The Clinton Foundation’s list of donors on its website puts the CGEP in the top category of $25 million-plus, however a financial-industry source who has seen the relevant records estimated that the figure is at least $33 million. According to Ortel that number is certainly understated. “There are no effective controls over the Clinton Foundation or the Giustra entity,” he told me. “No independent party has had access to the bank account records, including wire transfer records. There are no independent directors ensuring compliance with the law. Only a fool would have any confidence in their numbers; it’s like Al Capone forming a foundation.”

One money-laundering expert and former intelligence officer based in the Middle East who had access to the foundation’s confidential banking information told me that members of royal families in Middle Eastern countries, including Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, have donated money to the CGEP that has then been sluiced through to the Clinton Foundation. He added that the CGEP has also received money from corrupt officials in South Africa during the regime of Jacob Zuma and from senior officials in Equatorial Guinea, one of the most brutal and crooked dictatorships in the world. “Equatorial Guinea doesn’t give to the Clinton Foundation in New York because it’s too embarrassing,” he said. “They give the money anonymously in Canada and that buys them political protection in the United States. The Clinton Foundation is a professionally structured money-laundering operation.”

In an email, a CGEP spokesperson wrote that the organization “has never received funding from any members of any royal family from any countries around the world.” Similarly, on its website the CGEP claims that it doesn’t take money from foreign governments. However, my source in the Middle East said, “in countries like Equatorial Guinea and Kuwait, there is no difference between government money and private money. You can call it private money but it’s stolen from the government and when these individuals donate they gain protection for their governments.”

“I can’t say for certain that it’s illegal because I don’t have access to all the financial information but at best they are skating along the edge,” the source added. “They get away with it because the major media outlets are too lazy to look into it but the [Congressional] Benghazi Committee has access to the key information, and so do government agencies like the IRS, the SEC and the FEC. If you put together the information that all of these agencies have it’s obvious that the foundation is a fraud.”

The Clinton Foundation declined to comment for this story.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have in tandem made enormous sums of money since Bill left the White House. According to the Washington Post, they netted at least $136.5 million between 2001 and 2012. “All the Benghazi committee has to do is match up Hillary’s travel as secretary of state with Bill’s speaking arrangements,” my source in the Middle East said. “Bill heads out to foreign countries and he gets paid huge amounts of money for a thirty-minute speech and then she heads out for an official visit as a favor. She racked up more miles than any secretary of state [other than Condoleezza Rice] and that’s one of the reasons why. How can they get away with that? The committee is either corrupt or incompetent, or both.”

There are other signs that the Clintons and their foundation may have violated federal, state, and international law. Under Treasury Department money-laundering rules, the Clinton Foundation is required to disclose every financial account it holds abroad. It has failed to disclose an account linked to the CGEP on its past eight tax returns.

I have been told by a source with firsthand knowledge that the Treasury Department, the IRS, the FBI, and Canadian tax authorities were informed of this and other transgressions many months ago but thus far have done nothing.

So why hasn’t the Obama administration’s Justice Department looked into the foundation? One can only speculate, but you have to wonder if it isn’t because it would be too embarrassing to Obama’s former secretary of state and to the president himself. For example, Obama donated part of the money he received for winning the Nobel Peace Prize to the Clinton Foundation’s scandal-plagued earthquake relief efforts in Haiti. And the domestic partner of Cheryl Mills—Hillary’s former chief of staff who shared now-classified information with the Clinton Foundation and currently sits on its board of directors—was involved in Haiti relief?

Surely, any competent government investigators with subpoena power should be able to quickly figure this all out.

Since it was founded by Bill Clinton in 2001, the Clinton Foundation has been very opaque in its accounting practices. It was only in 2008, in the face of mounting public criticism, that it started disclosing its donors.

Its biggest donors include some truly wonderful people and countries. There are, to name a few, the torture-happy, terror-exporting government of Saudi Arabia; a foundation controlled by Victor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian oligarch accused of bribery and corruption; and Frank Giustra, a penny-stock artist who became filthy rich with the generous assistance of Bill Clinton. In 2008, a former Kazakh official told reporters that Giustra, who established the CGEP with Clinton, donated millions to the foundation after Clinton helped him purchase uranium deposits in Kazakhstan. (At the time, Giustra denied this claim, pointing out that he had been engaged in mining deals in Kazakhstan since the 1990s.)

The Clinton Foundation has received more than $1 billion over the years to purchase HIV/AIDS drugs for poor people in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. However, a unit set up to receive the money—the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative, Inc., which was run by Ira Magaziner, a Clinton administration veteran with close ties to Hillary—clearly spent far, far less than it took in. In fact, the unit’s accounting practices were so shoddy that its license was revoked by the state of Massachusetts, where it was headquartered.

One foundation deal, which involved Magaziner, is the mysterious “Procurement Consortium” that was announced in 2006. The consortium works with more than seventy world governments to coordinate their health care purchases from international vendors, supposedly at attractive prices. Data gleaned from these discussions can be enormously valuable, particularly to startup firms in the health-care industry. Magaziner is heavily involved in the health-care industry and previously, as reported by the New York Times, he was the “chief architect of the Clinton Administration’s ill-fated health plan.”

A number of other Clinton cronies have been on the Clinton Foundation’s payroll. Take two: Doug Band, a Clinton administration veteran who subsequently became a founding partner of a bipartisan clusterfuck called Teneo Holdings, and Huma Abedin, an employee of the Foundation and of Teneo during 2013. (Disclosure: Abedin is married to former New York congressman Anthony Weiner. Sydney Elaine Leathers, one of the women who exposed Weiner’s sexting scandal, is a personal friend of mine.)

There’s also Sidney Blumenthal, another Clinton administration veteran and long-time Clinton family hatchet man. (Perhaps I’m biased but my view is that allowing Blumenthal to operate in the political environment is like letting Typhoid Mary loose in an orphanage.) Blumenthal was paid as a consultant at least $120,000 annually by the Clinton Foundation and has also been lavishly subsidized by Media Matters and American Bridge, two groups that are pushing Hillary’s 2016 campaign.

Now let’s return to the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, the Clinton Foundation’s dirty slush fund. On its website, the CGEP says it was established so that “Mr. Giustra and other Canadian residents could receive a charitable tax credit in support of Mr. Giustra’s vision of working toward innovative solutions to poverty alleviation on a global scale.” As examples, it notes that in Colombia the good people at CGEP have provided “4.3 million meals to 4,000 underserved children” and “skills training and various construction certifications to 5,424 marginalized individuals.” It’s enough to bring tears to your eyes, but if you stop to think about it, providing “various construction certifications” and food to a few thousand “underserved” kids in a country like Colombia probably doesn’t cost a lot of money.

The CGEP has released the names of only a fraction of its donors and partners. But consider a few members of its rogues’ gallery:

• Ian Telfer, a friend of Giustra’s who formerly chaired a company called Uranium One. While Hillary was the secretary of state, the State Department cleared the sale, for good reasons or bad, of Uranium One to a state-run company in Russia.

• Sergey Kurzin, who worked with Giustra on a mining deal in Kazakhstan.

• Eric Nonacs, of the Skoll Global Threats Fund, who at one point was simultaneously employed by Endeavor Financial, the company Giustra set up to run his Kazakh deal, and the Clinton Foundation. (Nonacs was the foundation’s highest paid employee in 2005.)

• Lukas Lundin, a mining magnate who runs his family-founded Lundin Group from Vancouver. Giustra and Lundin are good pals and they do business the same way, namely, as the old saying goes, by investing when there is still blood on the ground. In the case of Gisutra and Lundin, they typically jet off to poor countries where corruption thrives, and buy assets up for suspiciously cheap prices. Then, after failing to deliver on public promises to invest a lot of their money and provide social projects for the poor, they make a killing by flipping the assets or they monetize their gains by setting up shell companies that go public on the stock market in Vancouver, which is notoriously lax on regulation.

So why haven’t the Clintons gotten caught? My intelligence source summed up the situation perfectly in explaining why the Benghazi Committee has not thus far bagged them. “The Democrats are stupid but they have ruthless leadership. The Republicans are even dumber. Donald Trump is an idiot but he’s right about one thing: We are led by stupid people. These are some of the dumbest motherfuckers I have ever seen.”

EmeraldGhost

EmeraldGhost

SheWrites wrote:The AP found no evidence of legal or ethical conflicts in Clinton's meetings, in its examination of 1,294 pages from the calendars. Her sit-downs with business leaders were not unique among recent secretaries of state, who sometimes called on corporate executives to aid in international affairs, according to archived documents.


Fourth paragraph.  The article should have ended here.

Not a Hillary supporter and I still feel the constant barrage of accusations, like she is the first one to do this, is appalling.  It gets everyone stuck in the mire of what has happened and what will happen with ALL candidates and those holding office.  It's American "money"tics.

Again ... it's not so much about the "meetings" themselves, per se .... it's about the money!

Show me one other candidate (in history) of either party that has peddled as much influence for cash as Hillary Clinton has & I'll condemn them too.

There's a reason for the "constant barrage of accusations" you speak of.  She's earned it.  The woman is just sleazy & shameless IMO.

Were I of a political mindset to be inclined to vote for a liberal I'd have to vote for Bernie Sanders simply based upon the sleaze/trustworthy/honesty factor .... regardless of policy difference considerations.

My God ... what's wrong with the Democrat Party they would even entertain this woman as a serious candidate?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum