Clinton Foundation Under Heat as Trump Urges Immediate Close

[NonoBadDog]

Is the issue everyone has with the Clinton Foundation the foreign connection? Or is it any donation?

Donations based on influence and access.
Emails reveal how foundation donors got access to Clinton and her close aides at State Dept.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-main_clintonfoundation-0720pm:homepage/story
One example:
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

 

[Mycroft]

The indictments for ever so long you were sure to come down the pike...or your pivot to the conspiracy that it will be Obama that makes the final decision, so waaa!

you forget already?

???

Indictments for what?

Dude...I think it's YOU who should be putting that bottle down (or putting out that roach). You aren't making a lick of sense.

 

[roughdraft274]

There is no direct evidence...only circumstantial, which has been mentioned here already. But then, that's why there have been calls for investigations. To see if there IS any direct evidence.

The thing is, though, none of that is even the point. The Clintons have been involved in so many shady and corrupt situations...this Foundation thing just being the latest in a long string...that, really, the best thing for her to do is completely shut the thing down to eliminate any further possible corruption since she cannot be trusted.

It's really the best thing SHE could do, given her circumstances and her desire to become President.

The clinton foundation has taken in over 2 billion dollars in donations since it began. And you think it's shady that some of the people that have donated to it have also gotten business from the government or have met with Hillary etc? You'd be hard to find a major national company that lobbies the government and deals with government contracts that hasn't donated to the foundation. Because it's a great charity by all unbiased accounts.

Laura Bush, Rupert Murdoch, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, T. Boone Pickens, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Barbara Bush etc. are a small list of notable Republicans that have actually attended events sponsored by the foundation etc.

The CEO of newsmax has written a full throated defense of the Clinton Foundation and doles out the facts responsibly.

In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

So, it is not every day that I defend Bill and Hillary Clinton, or the Clinton Foundation.

In fact, it may come as a surprise to some. In the 1990s I was described by both James Carville and George Stephanopoulos as the Clinton White House’s No. 1 press enemy. But after Bill Clinton left the White House, I came to admire him and his post-presidential work.

I was drawn to him largely for the very same reason he and his wife are being criticized today: the Clinton Foundation. Over time, I was impressed enough with its work that I even became a donor.

But let’s get back to the matter of the Clintons and their foundation. I have been involved with the foundation for over seven years now. During that time, I have always found it nonpartisan. I have never felt the whiff of politics from either its staff or any of its activities.

I recall attending my first Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) event and meeting Jack Kemp there. As you may remember, Kemp had run against Bill Clinton in the 1996 presidential race as the vice presidential candidate. At that meeting, Kemp had nothing but praise for what Bill Clinton was doing.

So what was the former president doing?

Rather than simply "cashing in," the young former president wanted to devote a substantial amount of his time and energy to making the world a better place, improving the lives of poor people and, at the same time, demonstrating in a real way that Americans cared.

Shutting this foundation down simply because a few idiots want to make completely unsubstantiated claims is ludicrous.

 

[robertblake60]

I object on the grounds that this is easily found information. Its the same source multiple people have been using to defend the Clinton Foundation. Show some intellectual curiosity, and dig for your own info. But I guess that means you cant reject the info out of hand if you find it.

I can maybe further illustrate what I mean.

This is a true example (I worked at a church last Saturday, funded by a non-profit charity) -

I work as a nurse and I work for a company located in California (I'm in Illinois) and they are sometimes hired by charities (or companies) to provide nurses to do health screenings at community centers and churches in under-served areas. I personally receive a salary from that company (I pay taxes and everything). Let's say I earn $150 for 5 hours work and the charity pays the company $300 ($150 for my salary, $75 for materials, $75 for company profits/overhead/etc). The charity can say that $300 was given to 'help improve the healthcare of the under served communities in Illinois' - which is a true statement. However, $150 of that $300 was given to me to help me purchase an expensive car. $75 of that $300 was actually given to my employer to pay for some of their employees and help the owner buy an expensive mansion, and only $75 of that was directly used on materials to help the under-served.

Can you see how this isn't a cut and dry as you want it to be?

 

[Paperview]

???

Indictments for what?

Dude...I think it's YOU who should be putting that bottle down (or putting out that roach). You aren't making a lick of sense.

Wow. The whole months and months and months and months of you going on about Hillary's email FBI investigation and --*poof* just gone like it never happened.


Indictments for what?

:lamo

 

[bubbabgone]

Well, that seems to be what she was saying, so I figured I'd ask. I think she might be under the impression that the foundation pays the Clintons for speaking, which would be wrong.




Ok, can you give me an example of this with evidence to back it up? I'm genuinely curious, because I've heard so much about the foundation but no actual evidence of wrong doing and no evidence that the Clintons have gotten rich off of the foundation.

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Russian Government Initiative Gave Millions to Clinton Foundation

In summary...

Frank Giustra, a long time shady good good buddy to Bill, flew him all over the globe to meet & discuss certain business interests with certain nefarious businessmen and dictators like the one in Kazakhstan.
Hillary was instrumental in consummating deals for the purchase of Uranium deposits in Kazakhstan(for Giustra et al in UrAsia) & the USA(by Russia who ultimately gobbled up UrAsia after it became UraniumOne) - the Quid.

So how did the Clintons get rich from that? Besides big donations to the Clinton Foundation, part of those deals involved Bill getting hired by investors to give speeches for as much as $500,000 each - the Quo.

 

[justabubba]

I showed you Hillary's Quid being the action she took to approve the Russian Uranium deal and the Quo being Bill's speeches at 1/2 million each as well as more big bucks to the C.F..

Now it's your turn to tell us what Bob Dole's Quid actions were, for whom, and how much the Quo was.

in neither situation was there a 'this for that'

You're a disgrace to the name bubba.

was hoping to quench the negative connotation of bubba while you seem insistent on promulgating it

 

[Mycroft]

The clinton foundation has taken in over 2 billion dollars in donations since it began. And you think it's shady that some of the people that have donated to it have also gotten business from the government or have met with Hillary etc? You'd be hard to find a major national company that lobbies the government and deals with government contracts that hasn't donated to the foundation. Because it's a great charity by all unbiased accounts.

Just because "pay to play" is the way our government works doesn't mean it's a good thing. Heck, isn't that what liberals have been telling us for decades? Big business and big government...and now big charity and big government.

Shouldn't our politicians stop doing that kind of thing? Or, should "some" politicians not do it, but for "other" politicians it's okay?

The problem for the Clintons...who like to complain about big business colluding with politicians...is that the collusion is with themselves. They are going to find it VERY difficult to deal with...if they don't deal with it now.

 

[Mycroft]

Wow. The whole months and months and months and months of you going on about Hillary's email FBI investigation and --*poof* just gone like it never happened.


Indictments for what?

:lamo

Email???

LOL!!

While Hillary hasn't completely put THAT scandal to bed yet, it's not the one we are talking about in this thread.

More squirrels, eh?

 

[roughdraft274]

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Russian Government Initiative Gave Millions to Clinton Foundation

In summary...

Frank Giustra, a long time shady good good buddy to Bill, flew him all over the globe to meet & discuss certain business interests with certain nefarious businessmen and dictators like the one in Kazakhstan.
Hillary was instrumental in consummating deals for the purchase of Uranium deposits in Kazakhstan(for Giustra et al in UrAsia) & the USA(by Russia who ultimately gobbled up UrAsia after it became UraniumOne) - the Quid.

So how did the Clintons get rich from that? Besides big donations to the Clinton Foundation, part of those deals involved Bill getting hired by investors to give speeches for as much as $500,000 each - the Quo.

I will use a conservative website for my source.

In Defense of the Clinton Foundation

In another instance, again to help the same donor, the U.S. government agreed to give a Russian company ownership of Uranium One, a firm which controls approximately 20 percent of the uranium mines in the U.S.

Knowing a bit how this administration works, it is preposterous to think that President Obama or his White House approved any deal to benefit the Clinton Foundation or one of its donors.

...

And, as it turned out, the Clinton donor had sold out his stake in Uranium One years before the Russians bought the company.

Importantly, The New York Times reported that no less than nine federal agencies and officials including the Defense, Treasury and Energy Departments, as well as the White House, had to approve the Uranium One deal.

Jose Fernandez, who held the position of the department's principal representative on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviewed the sale, told The Wall Street Journal: "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter."

So if you have any evidence that Hillary did indeed contact Jose Fernandez about this sale and tried to persuade him, or that the donor didn't actually sell his stake in Uranium One years before, or that indeed 8 other federal agencies ALSO had to approve this deal, then please show it. Otherwise I hope we can agree that this seems to be a pretty silly accusation given all of this info.

I understand that this doesn't prove that the foundation has never done anything illegal or shady, but would you agree with me that all of this new info makes the uranium deal accusation absolutely null and void?

 

[roughdraft274]

Just because "pay to play" is the way our government works doesn't mean it's a good thing. Heck, isn't that what liberals have been telling us for decades? Big business and big government...and now big charity and big government.

Shouldn't our politicians stop doing that kind of thing? Or, should "some" politicians not do it, but for "other" politicians it's okay?

The problem for the Clintons...who like to complain about big business colluding with politicians...is that the collusion is with themselves. They are going to find it VERY difficult to deal with...if they don't deal with it now.

I don't like pay to play. But I'm not going to get mad at only one politician for it.

But other than that, I've yet to see any evidence of any actual "quid pro quo" relating to the clinton foundation. And if you look at post 210, one of the accusations of "quid pro quo" is very clearly untrue. Would you agree?

 

[robertblake60]

Just because "pay to play" is the way our government works doesn't mean it's a good thing. Heck, isn't that what liberals have been telling us for decades? Big business and big government...and now big charity and big government.

Shouldn't our politicians stop doing that kind of thing? Or, should "some" politicians not do it, but for "other" politicians it's okay?

The problem for the Clintons...who like to complain about big business colluding with politicians...is that the collusion is with themselves. They are going to find it VERY difficult to deal with...if they don't deal with it now.

Can you tell me what group of politicians are trying to pass stricter campaign finance laws (laws the Clinton herself would vote for). Which group of politicians are more likely to vote for complete public financing of elections?

 

[Paperview]

Email???

LOL!!

While Hillary hasn't completely put THAT scandal to bed yet, it's not the one we are talking about in this thread.

More squirrels, eh?

Er, emails aren't part of this thread?

Oh really?

Perhaps you missed the OP and you know...all the discussion over what's in those emails.
\\

That still doesn't excuse your disbelief when I asked about the email bug-a-boo up your skirt for the last freakin'year and a half.

Indictments for what?

Wha? Waa ya mean indictments? LMAO.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't like pay to play. But I'm not going to get mad at only one politician for it.

But other than that, I've yet to see any evidence of any actual "quid pro quo" relating to the clinton foundation. And if you look at post 210, one of the accusations of "quid pro quo" is very clearly untrue. Would you agree?

LOL!!

You don't like pay to play, but you're not going to get mad at only one politician...Hillary...for doing it. Ummm...okaaay...

Sorry, but your quote in #210 has one part that doesn't ring true: "Knowing a bit how this administration works, it is preposterous to think that President Obama or his White House approved any deal to benefit the Clinton Foundation or one of its donors." I don't see it as "preposterous" at all. Heck, one thing we've learned in the past 8 years is that the Obama administration is as crooked as Hillary...that they'll lie at the drop of a dollar just as much as she will.

So...as I've said, there is no direct evidence but there is a whole lot of circumstantial evidence that demands further investigation and that the best thing Hillary can do is nip this stuff in the bud by closing the Foundation right now.

 

[Mycroft]

Er, emails aren't part of this thread?

Oh really?

Perhaps you missed the OP and you know...all the discussion over what's in those emails.

~snipped the squirrel~

The only thing "emails" have to do with this thread is that the emails that Hillary has tried to destroy is how we are finding out about the Foundation corruption. But the corruption is the topic of the thread...not the emails.

But hey...you'll point out any squirrels to avoid talking about the topic, won't you?

 

[Paperview]

The only thing "emails" have to do with this thread is that the emails that Hillary has tried to destroy is how we are finding out about the Foundation corruption. But the corruption is the topic of the thread...not the emails.

But hey...you'll point out any squirrels to avoid talking about the topic, won't you?

The title of the OP link: Clinton Confronts New Scrutiny Over E-Mails, Foundation Ties

Talking with you is like talking to jello.

 

[Mycroft]

Can you tell me what group of politicians are trying to pass stricter campaign finance laws (laws the Clinton herself would vote for). Which group of politicians are more likely to vote for complete public financing of elections?

Public financing of elections??? Why do we need that?

Why not promote voters to be cognizant and concerned about politicians who take pay to play and just not vote for them? We don't need another government...and taxpayer-funded...program to deal with something the voters should be dealing with.

 

[Mycroft]

The title of the OP link: Clinton Confronts New Scrutiny Over E-Mails, Foundation Ties

Talking with you is like talking to jello.

Oh...so all you did was read the article headline. The actual topic of this thread doesn't matter.

Figures...

 

[bubbabgone]

I will use a conservative website for my source.

In Defense of the Clinton Foundation



So if you have any evidence that Hillary did indeed contact Jose Fernandez about this sale and tried to persuade him, or that the donor didn't actually sell his stake in Uranium One years before, or that indeed 8 other federal agencies ALSO had to approve this deal, then please show it. Otherwise I hope we can agree that this seems to be a pretty silly accusation given all of this info.

I understand that this doesn't prove that the foundation has never done anything illegal or shady, but would you agree with me that all of this new info makes the uranium deal accusation absolutely null and void?

From your quote ...

"And, as it turned out, the Clinton donor had sold out his stake in Uranium One years before the Russians bought the company.

Importantly, The New York Times reported that no less than nine federal agencies and officials including the Defense, Treasury and Energy Departments, as well as the White House, had to approve the Uranium One deal.

Jose Fernandez, who held the position of the department's principal representative on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviewed the sale, told The Wall Street Journal: "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter." "

It's not new information. I already knew it. In fact I mentioned that Russia had bought out UraniumOne. And it was the Russian purchase that Hillary had to approve. Giustra's company was part of a different deal.

And elsewhere I mentioned that Hillary, being in Obama's cabinet, was a member of CFIUS and had to approve the Russian deal.
Two things to recall here is that this was during the Russian Reset so, being an Obama and Clinton initiative, the members of CFIUS would be inclined to approve it.
BUT... that doesn't mean they HAD to approve it and before she became SofS she had a history of being hard-nosed about such deals.
If Hillary had rejected it while the others approved the deal, it would have gone to Obama for his decision. So her not intervening with Jose Hernandez serves to further prove the point that she approved the deal.

As for Chris Ruddy, he does seem to have a bromance going with Bill and Bill's Foundation.
And Ruddy's comment that " Knowing a bit how this administration works, it is preposterous to think that President Obama or his White House approved any deal to benefit the Clinton Foundation or one of its donors." was itself a preposterous attempt at justification of the Russian Uranium purchase during the Russian Reset era. Did you notice the ho-hum treatment of the deal despite him knowing, I'm sure, that Russian companies are really State owned and run companies.

 

[Paperview]

Oh...so all you did was read the article headline. The actual topic of this thread doesn't matter.

Figures...

See what I mean?

Jello.

Your very first post to me was quoting my post ...in reply to another poster who brought up...the emails....about the Morning Joe interview, talking about...the emails and meeting with the Prince, that was discussed in...the emails...and you referring to it as a scandal.

S'long, Jello.

 

[Mycroft]

See what I mean?

Jello.

Your very first post to me was quoting my post ...in reply to another poster who brought up...the emails....about the Morning Joe interview, talking about...the emails and meeting with the Prince, that was discussed in...the emails...and you referring to it as a scandal.

S'long, Jello.

Again...the only relevance about any emails is that is how we've found out about the pay for play scandal.

But you'd rather talk about emails than about the scandal, itself...just as Carville wanted to talk about how much "good" the Foundation does instead of talking about the scandal.

Just a bunch of squirrels.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Everything that you posted had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread other than "but Trump".

Seriously?

The whole thing is about the headline and so much "HEAT"

Its day two of "heat', guess what....not one major news organization is covering them story.

So much for 'heat'

Now, thank you so much for that inaccurate and antagonizing post.


We won't speak again

 

[chuckiechan]

Cheney worked for Haliburton, but he was not a partner in it, and the company charged for services rendered. In a sense that is what Hillary is doing, except she is a partner in Clinton Foundation and her services rendered are providing access to public officials.

The fact that Cheney made money in a war should surprise no one, but no one has ever accused him of influence peddling to foreign countries. If anything Halliburton is guilty of being one of the few domestic companies large enough to take on such a huge task, including putting out over 700 oil rig fires on artesian oil wells. There were a total of four infrastructure companies, BTW, not just "Dick Cheney's" Hilliburton.

The profits from this work went into the companies operating capital, same as the Clintons, and it was used for company business just like the Clintons. The difference is 92% of the Clinton money was spent on Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee's travel, entertainment, and God only knows what else.

 

[Fenton]

Cheney worked for Haliburton, but he was not a partner in it, and the company charged for services rendered. In a sense that is what Hillary is doing, except she is a partner in Clinton Foundation and her services rendered are providing access to public officials.

The fact that Cheney made money in a war should surprise no one, but no one has ever accused him of influence peddling to foreign countries. If anything Halliburton is guilty of being one of the few domestic companies large enough to take on such a huge task, including putting out over 700 oil rig fires on artesian oil wells. There were a total of four infrastructure companies, BTW, not just "Dick Cheney's" Hilliburton.

The profits from this work went into the companies operating capital, same as the Clintons, and it was used for company business just like the Clintons. The difference is 92% of the Clinton money was spent on Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee's travel, entertainment, and God only knows what else.

Just FYI..... Halliburtons first " no bid contract " was given to them by Bill Clinton

Yup, during his Kosovo redirect

 

[Unitedwestand13]

In defense of the Clinton foundation.

The numbers and figures that often go unreported put the life-changing work of the Clinton Foundation in a context that matters. Today, for example, almost 10 million people in more than 70 countries have access to life-saving medicines through the Clinton Health Access Initiative(CHAI). In the U.S. 17 million children in more than 29,000 schools now have healthier food and more physical activity options. And through the Clinton Global Initiative, partners have made nearly 3,200 Commitments to Action that have improved the lives of over 430 million people in more than 180 countries.

Because of its commitment to put resources to work, the impact of the Clinton Foundation extends far beyond lifesaving HIV treatments. In Ethiopia alone, where I lived for three years and started the Foundation’s country program, the Clinton Health Access Initiative has worked to prevent mother-to-child transmission to prevent new HIV infections and offer treatment for children. Today in Ethiopia, Clinton Foundation staff continue to work closely with the Ministry of Health on initiatives including a maternal and child health program to reduce mortality at birth, and the CHAI Vaccines program that prevents more than 50,000 deaths among children each year in partnering countries.

Despite the efficacy of the Clinton Foundation, some have questioned why people give time and resources to support this work. They imply there must be an ulterior motive behind charitable giving and that it’s somehow unthinkable to support charitable work in underserved communities. How cynical must we be, to see positive change in places like Ethiopia, but question the motives of those who give to support it?

The Clinton Foundation does life-changing work worldwide | TheHill