Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17246 Location: In a no-ship
Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 7:46 pm Post subject:
ChefLinda wrote:
If anyone ever proves a quid-pro-quo for an HRC policy position, then get back to me.
Is the whole system corrupt? Yes, I completely agree. But it's the system we have and you have to work within the existing system to change it. I actually do trust HRC to try to help change it.
Because she's done so well at that in her decades of political experience? Talk about trusting the fox to guard the henhouse...
You can say a lot of things about HRC, both good and bad, but it's a joke to think she'll be a campaign finance/Wall Street reformer. That's just not who she is.
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department
By David Sirota @davidsirota AND Andrew Perez @AndrewPerezDC On 05/26/15
Quote:
Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States' oil-rich ally in the Middle East.
[...]
But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally.[...]
These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.
The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.
Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.
The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.
American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.
The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.
[...]
In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual contributors’ donations, making a more precise accounting impossible.
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17246 Location: In a no-ship
Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 8:02 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Dems discuss dropping Wasserman Schultz
Democrats on Capitol Hill are discussing whether Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz should step down as Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairwoman before the party’s national convention in July.
Democrats backing likely presidential nominee Hillary Clinton worry Wasserman Schultz has become too divisive a figure to unify the party in 2016, which they say is crucial to defeating presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump in November.
Wasserman Schultz has had an increasingly acrimonious relationship with the party’s other presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, and his supporters, who argue she has tilted the scales in Clinton’s favor.
“There have been a lot of meetings over the past 48 hours about what color plate do we deliver Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s head on,” said one pro-Clinton Democratic senator.
The lawmaker said senators huddled on the chamber floor last week to talk about Wasserman Schultz’s future and estimated that about a dozen have weighed in during private conversations.
“I don’t see how she can continue to the election. How can she open the convention? Sanders supporters would go nuts,” said the lawmaker, who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.
There is no indication Wasserman Schultz, who is also a Florida congresswoman, has any plans to leave her post. And Senate sources stress that a final decision won’t be made until Clinton and Sanders negotiate some type of deal aimed at healing the party. President Obama, who selected Wasserman Schultz as chairwoman in 2011, is expected to play a major role in any such talks.
Not even Hillary's people like her. And to Hillary's credit this position is consistent back to 2008 as well. The only reason anyone tolerated Debbie is because she was a great fundraiser.
Goldman Paid Bill Clinton $200,000 For Speech Before Bank Lobbied Hillary Clinton
By David Sirota @davidsirota AND Andrew Perez @AndrewPerezDC On 04/27/15
Quote:
State Department records show that Bill Clinton’s $200,000 Goldman Sachs speech was delivered April 11, 2011, to “approximately 250 high level clients and investors” at a United Nations dining room in New York.
In federal disclosure documents, the Duberstein Group is listed as lobbying the Clinton State Department on behalf of Goldman Sachs between July and September 2011. Goldman Sachs paid the Duberstein Group $100,000 during that time.
Those records show that the firm was specifically lobbying the department on “proposed legislation” linked to a series of budget bills. One bill continued congressional authorization for the Export-Import Bank, a government-backed lender whose financing was critical for the prospects of a company in which Goldman owned a stake. The Duberstein Group did not respond to questions about its precise interests in the legislation at issue.
The original budget bill was introduced in July and did not include an extension of the Export-Import Bank, but the bank reauthorization was added in late September, during the same period Goldman was lobbying the State Department on the bill.
As Colombian Oil Money Flowed To Clintons, State Department Took No Action To Prevent Labor Violations
By David Sirota @davidsirota AND Andrew Perez @AndrewPerezDC AND Matthew Cunningham-Cook @mattcunninghamc On 04/08/15
Quote:
At the same time that Clinton's State Department was lauding Colombia’s human rights record, her family was forging a financial relationship with Pacific Rubiales, the sprawling Canadian petroleum company at the center of Colombia’s labor strife. The Clintons were also developing commercial ties with the oil giant’s founder, Canadian financier Frank Giustra, who now occupies a seat on the board of the Clinton Foundation, the family’s global philanthropic empire.
The details of these financial dealings remain murky, but this much is clear: After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation -- supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself -- Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it “strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.” The change of heart by Clinton and other Democratic leaders enabled congressional passage of a Colombia trade deal that experts say delivered big benefits to foreign investors like Giustra.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 10:45 pm Post subject:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
Quote:
Dems discuss dropping Wasserman Schultz
Democrats on Capitol Hill are discussing whether Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz should step down as Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairwoman before the party’s national convention in July.
Democrats backing likely presidential nominee Hillary Clinton worry Wasserman Schultz has become too divisive a figure to unify the party in 2016, which they say is crucial to defeating presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump in November.
Wasserman Schultz has had an increasingly acrimonious relationship with the party’s other presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, and his supporters, who argue she has tilted the scales in Clinton’s favor.
“There have been a lot of meetings over the past 48 hours about what color plate do we deliver Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s head on,” said one pro-Clinton Democratic senator.
The lawmaker said senators huddled on the chamber floor last week to talk about Wasserman Schultz’s future and estimated that about a dozen have weighed in during private conversations.
“I don’t see how she can continue to the election. How can she open the convention? Sanders supporters would go nuts,” said the lawmaker, who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.
There is no indication Wasserman Schultz, who is also a Florida congresswoman, has any plans to leave her post. And Senate sources stress that a final decision won’t be made until Clinton and Sanders negotiate some type of deal aimed at healing the party. President Obama, who selected Wasserman Schultz as chairwoman in 2011, is expected to play a major role in any such talks.
Not even Hillary's people like her. And to Hillary's credit this position is consistent back to 2008 as well. The only reason anyone tolerated Debbie is because she was a great fundraiser.
WS is a unique piece of work, but I won't fault her for being the face of the enemy conjured up by bernie. Of course the scales are tipped for Hillary. She's a Democrat running against a guy who isn't one, is transparently and admittedly just using their electoral mechanism, and has gone out of his way to neither support nor fail to stigmatize rank and file Democrats ad nauseum. Just like it isn't a bad thing that the gop equivalent wasn't rolling out the red carpet when Donald Trump decided to co-opt their infrastructure. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
If anyone ever proves a quid-pro-quo for an HRC policy position, then get back to me.
Is the whole system corrupt? Yes, I completely agree. But it's the system we have and you have to work within the existing system to change it. I actually do trust HRC to try to help change it.
Even the guy who made the Clinton Cash documentary admitted he found no evidence of wrong doing.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Tue May 24, 2016 10:58 pm Post subject:
angrypuppy wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
The problem many have with the Clintons are those huge speaking fees and the active lobbying for funds for their Foundation while at least one of them is employed in a very senior government position (and likely POTUS candidate). When the Clintons left the WH they were broke, now they are very wealthy. There is a perception that they've conflated public interest with private interest, and have reaped significant financial benefit.
I'll vote for HRC over Trump, but I am very uncomfortable with her as well.
It is also true that almost every politician has left office wealthier, or on the road to greater wealth, than when they arrived. Heck, lobbying firms line up to hire ex pols, and book deals, speaking engagements, and the like are the norm, as it would be in any field of work where such benefits accrue from reaching certain levels.
Can you even mention a single politician coming close to enriching themselves at a magnitude comparable to the Clintons?
Not sure, but is the argument that politicians don't enrich themselves post office or that the Clintons are better and more successful at it than most? Just look at their book deals. Her latest was a 14 million advance, and well worth it for the publisher. Both are in high demand to speak at a myriad of occasions. Are you arguing that she should have negotiated a smaller book deal, or requested that speaking engagements not pay so well?
Oh please, I don't besmirch business success, quite the opposite. The problem I have is that they appear to conflate public interests with private interests.
Other than the once-in-a-century futures trade (which was a front-running bribe) by the Clintons, I am hard-pressed to find the nature of their business dealings, outside of speaking fees and appearances. What makes this uncomfortable for me is that Hillary has been a Secretary of State and US Senator, receiving fees well in excess of any current or former Secretary of State or US Senator. You might argue that the Wall Street and corporate interests love her speaking abilities, but I doubt it. Those excessive fees have everything to do with her ability to manipulate policy. Ditto for Bill. Wall Street and the corporate interests know exactly what they're buying.
So was wall Street buying up the books for which they got obscene advances (which paid off for the publishers)? Maybe they just are really really good at the appearance and speaking racket? Bill's Uber celebrity also has somewhat of a halo effect on her.
Btw, did you know that there are a lot of people who get huge speaking fees like hers. Larry the Cable Guy and Jerry Seinfeld get 200k a pop. Condi Rice gets 150. Bernanke gets 400k. Bill Maher gets 100k. Gaga gets 200k. Numerous actors and athletes and coaches and other celebrities and big name ex politicians draw six figures.
These speeches are perks for various groups to staff and clients and others. They pay huge bucks for huge names to impress themselves and their peers. Unless you think Larry the Cable Guy is being bribed to influence policy, or Jerry Seinfeld is being bribed to spill secret economic insider data. Hillary is a big name and a big deal, and people want to be associated with landing her or getting a pic, or all the rest that goes with that stuff. Same as they do with Tiger Woods. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 26 Apr 2004 Posts: 17246 Location: In a no-ship
Posted: Wed May 25, 2016 12:25 am Post subject:
Omar Little wrote:
DuncanIdaho wrote:
Quote:
Dems discuss dropping Wasserman Schultz
Democrats on Capitol Hill are discussing whether Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz should step down as Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairwoman before the party’s national convention in July.
Democrats backing likely presidential nominee Hillary Clinton worry Wasserman Schultz has become too divisive a figure to unify the party in 2016, which they say is crucial to defeating presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump in November.
Wasserman Schultz has had an increasingly acrimonious relationship with the party’s other presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, and his supporters, who argue she has tilted the scales in Clinton’s favor.
“There have been a lot of meetings over the past 48 hours about what color plate do we deliver Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s head on,” said one pro-Clinton Democratic senator.
The lawmaker said senators huddled on the chamber floor last week to talk about Wasserman Schultz’s future and estimated that about a dozen have weighed in during private conversations.
“I don’t see how she can continue to the election. How can she open the convention? Sanders supporters would go nuts,” said the lawmaker, who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.
There is no indication Wasserman Schultz, who is also a Florida congresswoman, has any plans to leave her post. And Senate sources stress that a final decision won’t be made until Clinton and Sanders negotiate some type of deal aimed at healing the party. President Obama, who selected Wasserman Schultz as chairwoman in 2011, is expected to play a major role in any such talks.
Not even Hillary's people like her. And to Hillary's credit this position is consistent back to 2008 as well. The only reason anyone tolerated Debbie is because she was a great fundraiser.
WS is a unique piece of work, but I won't fault her for being the face of the enemy conjured up by bernie. Of course the scales are tipped for Hillary. She's a Democrat running against a guy who isn't one, is transparently and admittedly just using their electoral mechanism, and has gone out of his way to neither support nor fail to stigmatize rank and file Democrats ad nauseum. Just like it isn't a bad thing that the gop equivalent wasn't rolling out the red carpet when Donald Trump decided to co-opt their infrastructure.
The "down ticket" charges against Bernie are vastly overstated. And it's not like Hillary is doing much this election cycle either. I posted this link back on page 457, but next to none of the supposed money she's raising for down ticket candidates is actually going to them.
Quote:
In the days before Hillary Clinton launched an unprecedented big-money fundraising vehicle with state parties last summer, she vowed “to rebuild our party from the ground up,” proclaiming “when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen."
But less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed in the state parties’ coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission filings.
You are right about the "democrat only in name" charge though. That's how our political system is designed, unfortunately. If there were three equally strong parties, the House of Representatives would be choosing every president. That'll be the case until the Electoral College goes away and we have a Constitutional amendment changing things to a runoff election (two-round system). The likelihood of that happening is zero because the two parties don't want that.
Btw, did you know that there are a lot of people who get huge speaking fees like hers. Larry the Cable Guy and Jerry Seinfeld get 200k a pop. Condi Rice gets 150. Bernanke gets 400k. Bill Maher gets 100k. Gaga gets 200k. Numerous actors and athletes and coaches and other celebrities and big name ex politicians draw six figures.
These speeches are perks for various groups to staff and clients and others. They pay huge bucks for huge names to impress themselves and their peers. Unless you think Larry the Cable Guy is being bribed to influence policy, or Jerry Seinfeld is being bribed to spill secret economic insider data. Hillary is a big name and a big deal, and people want to be associated with landing her or getting a pic, or all the rest that goes with that stuff. Same as they do with Tiger Woods.
Comparing former Secretary of State and presumptive POTUS, Larry the Cable Guy's speaking fees to HRC is a poor analog, just like no one should accept "wealthier" as a Boolean operator; wealth is measured in dollars. I think you know that, you're just advocating your candidate rather than facing the obvious.
Unless you're asserting the HRC is so funny and charming as a standup comedian that she's a natural comparison with Jerry Seinfeld. That doesn't work for the rest of us, which is why her speaking fees are out of line with what other former Secretary of States earn from speaking engagements, which is $50,000 an appearance.
Donald Trump - $1.5 mil
George W. Bush - $150K
Condoleezza Rice - 150K
Colin Powell: $100,000-$150,000
Larry Summers - $135K
Al Gore - $100K
Sarah Palin - $100K
David Plouffe - $100K
Jimmy Carter: $50,000-$100,000
I used to work at a Wall Street firm and when they brought in speakers it was usually at an employee reward type dinner (Christmas Dinner, etc.) The speakers were hot off the political circuit (including media talking heads). The speeches were the same boring stuff you see them saying on any cable news show. No gotcha moments. Nothing earth shattering. No super-duper secret plans to dupe the unwashed masses.
Donald Trump - $1.5 mil
George W. Bush - $150K
Condoleezza Rice - 150K
Colin Powell: $100,000-$150,000
Larry Summers - $135K
Al Gore - $100K
Sarah Palin - $100K
David Plouffe - $100K
Jimmy Carter: $50,000-$100,000
Donald Trump - $1.5 mil
George W. Bush - $150K
Condoleezza Rice - 150K
Colin Powell: $100,000-$150,000
Larry Summers - $135K
Al Gore - $100K
Sarah Palin - $100K
David Plouffe - $100K
Jimmy Carter: $50,000-$100,000
Clinton has used her speaking engagements thus far to address women's rights issues, immigration and conflicts in the Middle East.
Those numbers are not from an accredited journalistic source, CL, as "neontommy" doesn't qualify, nor do they cite a reference. I don't doubt the Trump numbers, but they are not an equivalent. Trump's engagements were for duping morons into thinking that he was going educate them into being successful entrepreneurs. Goldman Sachs and Corporate America certainly wouldn't pay Trump that kind of money, let alone allow him to run his mouth on what it takes to make money.
Let's use the ABC link, as at least we know they have professional researchers and a national reputation to protect:
Quote:
Colin Powell & Madeline Albright - $50K
Both of these former secretaries of state are “in the $50,000 range,” said one person who has booked speakers but who could not discuss private contracts for attribution,” the New York Times reported, significantly less than their successors Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton.
This is the best comparable, as they are both former Secretary of States. The "value-added" component for Hillary is that she's the presumptive POTUS and that both her and Bill can exercise influence. The entire charity angle is also shared by former jocks that hock philanthropic works, yet all to frequently it is used to enrich themselves while obtaining a tax exemption. If Ms. Clinton was speaking only about Middle Eastern and gender equality issues, why has she resisted releasing any of her discussions with Wall Street or Corporate America, which has been a frequent request from the Bernie camp?
That link says they both earned $153 mil since 2001. Okay - $153 mil divided by 15 years = 10.2 mil per year. Divided by 2 people = that's $5.1 mil per year. That's Nick Young territory.
Donald Trump - $1.5 mil
George W. Bush - $150K
Condoleezza Rice - 150K
Colin Powell: $100,000-$150,000
Larry Summers - $135K
Al Gore - $100K
Sarah Palin - $100K
David Plouffe - $100K
Jimmy Carter: $50,000-$100,000
Clinton has used her speaking engagements thus far to address women's rights issues, immigration and conflicts in the Middle East.
Those numbers are not from an accredited journalistic source, CL, as "neontommy" doesn't qualify, nor do they cite a reference. I don't doubt the Trump numbers, but they are not an equivalent. Trump's engagements were for duping morons into thinking that he was going educate them into being successful entrepreneurs. Goldman Sachs and Corporate America certainly wouldn't pay Trump that kind of money, let alone allow him to run his mouth on what it takes to make money.
Let's use the ABC link, as at least we know they have professional researchers and a national reputation to protect:
Quote:
Colin Powell & Madeline Albright - $50K
Both of these former secretaries of state are “in the $50,000 range,” said one person who has booked speakers but who could not discuss private contracts for attribution,” the New York Times reported, significantly less than their successors Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton.
This is the best comparable, as they are both former Secretary of States. The "value-added" component for Hillary is that she's the presumptive POTUS and that both her and Bill can exercise influence. The entire charity angle is also shared by former jocks that hock philanthropic works, yet all to frequently it is used to enrich themselves while obtaining a tax exemption. If Ms. Clinton was speaking only about Middle Eastern and gender equality issues, why has she resisted releasing any of her discussions with Wall Street or Corporate America, which has been a frequent request from the Bernie camp?
Not to belabor this, but the ABC link shows Condi at $150K. Make of it what you will. Believe what you want. Vote how you want.
The former Secretary of State was recently paid $150,000 to speak at the University of Minnesota. Her speaking engagement was met with over 200 protesters, according to the Minnesota Daily.
That link says they both earned $153 mil since 2001. Okay - $153 mil divided by 15 years = 10.2 mil per year. Divided by 2 people = that's $5.1 mil per year. That's Nick Young territory.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Wed May 25, 2016 9:12 am Post subject:
angrypuppy wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Btw, did you know that there are a lot of people who get huge speaking fees like hers. Larry the Cable Guy and Jerry Seinfeld get 200k a pop. Condi Rice gets 150. Bernanke gets 400k. Bill Maher gets 100k. Gaga gets 200k. Numerous actors and athletes and coaches and other celebrities and big name ex politicians draw six figures.
These speeches are perks for various groups to staff and clients and others. They pay huge bucks for huge names to impress themselves and their peers. Unless you think Larry the Cable Guy is being bribed to influence policy, or Jerry Seinfeld is being bribed to spill secret economic insider data. Hillary is a big name and a big deal, and people want to be associated with landing her or getting a pic, or all the rest that goes with that stuff. Same as they do with Tiger Woods.
Comparing former Secretary of State and presumptive POTUS, Larry the Cable Guy's speaking fees to HRC is a poor analog, just like no one should accept "wealthier" as a Boolean operator; wealth is measured in dollars. I think you know that, you're just advocating your candidate rather than facing the obvious.
Unless you're asserting the HRC is so funny and charming as a standup comedian that she's a natural comparison with Jerry Seinfeld. That doesn't work for the rest of us, which is why her speaking fees are out of line with what other former Secretary of States earn from speaking engagements, which is $50,000 an appearance.
No, I'm just pointing out that speaking fees are derived from fame and the desirability of wealthy organization to land big names to their soirees. You think tiger Woods was speaking to corporate events in his heyday because of future influence, the intrinsic entertainment of his words, or merely because there was cachet in saying, tiger Woods is speaking at our convention? The fact that Hillary can charge more than most secretaries of state is directly proportional to her name value. Everybody knows who she is. She's a big deal. Same reason she gets bigger book deals. People buy more of them. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
On a side note, I saw a documentary yesterday called WEINER, which is the story of Anthony Weiner's 2013 mayoral race. The access the filmmakers had is incredible. It's fantastic and I highly recommend it. Here's the trailer:
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department
By David Sirota @davidsirota AND Andrew Perez @AndrewPerezDC On 05/26/15
Quote:
Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States' oil-rich ally in the Middle East.
[...]
But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally.[...]
These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.
The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.
Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.
The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.
American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.
The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.
[...]
In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual contributors’ donations, making a more precise accounting impossible.
Thing is Saudi Arabia being one of the biggest import customers of military hardware would have no problems buying weapons from non-US suppliers as they have in the past. Half of their air force is comprised of European fighter jets.
OK. We can now finally put Email-Gate to rest. Hillary Clinton has now officially been shown to have done something careless, inappropriate, and stupid, but clearly not criminal. As I noted last summer, her actions made it impossible for the Department to be in compliance with the Federal Records Act,and negligently prevented citizens of the United States from being able to make legal Federal Records requests in a reliable manner - but there is no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing whatsoever. Basically grandma didn't have an appropriate understanding of 21st century tech common sense. I don't think she's alone amongst grandma's in that regard. Just make sure someone clearly explains how "The Button" operates and we should all be good...
Quote:
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her senior aides did not comply with the State Department’s record-keeping policies, an internal watchdog determined in a report sent to Capitol Hill on Wednesday.
By exclusively using a personal email address routed through a private server, Clinton circumvented policies designed to follow federal records laws and might have jeopardized official secrets, the department’s Office of the Inspector General said in a report obtained by The Hill ahead of its official publication on Thursday.
Clinton never requested permission to use the personal server, which was located at her New York home, and it “would not” have been approved, in part, because of “the security risks in doing so,” the watchdog agency wrote.
Additionally, Clinton “never demonstrated” to State Department security officials that her personal server or BlackBerry device “met minimum information security requirements.”
And Clinton’s decision not to use an official email department email address “is not an appropriate method” of preserving emails under the Federal Records Act, the inspector general said in the hotly anticipated 83-page report.
“Therefore, Secretary Clinton should have preserved any federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary,” it said. “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act."
The conclusion is damning for Clinton, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, who has faced persistent criticism on multiple fronts for her use of the private server.
Clinton Not Guilty of Criminal Wrongdoing - Just Stupid _________________ I'm On point, On task, On message, and Off drugs. A Streetwise Smart Bomb, Out of rehab and In denial. Over the Top, On the edge, Under the Radar, and In Control. Behind the 8 ball, Ahead of the Curve and I've got a Love Child who sends me Hate mail.
The Clintons Earned Over $3.5 Million in Paid Addresses to Pro-Israel Organizations
Bill Clinton said he “would grab a rifle” and fight for Israel during paid speech.
By Sarah Lazare, Max Blumenthal | February 11, 2016
Quote:
But the media has been conspicuously silent about the large sums the Clintons have raked in from paid addresses to pro-Israel organizations, including the Jewish National Fund (JNF), which directly participates in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and Bedouin citizens of Israel. An evaluation of Hillary Clinton’s public disclosures from 2001 to 2015 shows that she and Bill, and their daughter, Chelsea, have earned roughly $4 million in speaking fees from pro-Israel organizations, including JNF and organizations allied with the right-wing government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The vast majority of these documented payments—$3,599,999—have gone toward the Clintons’ personal income, and up to $450,000 has been funneled into the Clinton Foundation.
[...]
Hillary Clinton has made her unflinching support for Israel a centerpiece of her foreign policy agenda. In November 2015, she promised to “reaffirm” the “unbreakable bond with Israel, and Benjamin Netanyahu,” suggesting she would adopt a friendlier posture to Israel’s right-wing leader than Obama had.
In a July 2015 letter to mega-donor Haim Saban, which her campaign distributed to the press, Clinton declared “we need to make countering BDS a priority.” It was the first time in American history that a presidential candidate mentioned by name the grassroots movement to boycott Israel.
Controversial Israel Supporter Funneling Millions Into Clinton Campaign
Massive donations from Haim Saban follow Clinton’s pledge to fight BDS.
By Sarah Lazare | February 4, 2016
Quote:
Haim Saban and his wife Cheryl together contributed $5 million to the Hillary Clinton Super PAC—Priorities USA Action—between 2015 and 2016 alone, according to disclosures available on OpenSecrets.org, affiliated with the Center for Responsive Politics.
While the contributions are not surprising from long-time Clinton-backers, $3 million of them notably poured in after the presidential hopeful authored a letter to Haim Saban in July of 2015, seeking advice on "how we can work together” to defeat the growing movement to Boycott, Divest from, and Sanction (BDS) Israel.
An extensive New Yorker profile of Saban recalls how Saban publicly described his “three ways to be influential in American politics” in 2009. One was political donations.[...]
On a side note, I saw a documentary yesterday called WEINER, which is the story of Anthony Weiner's 2013 mayoral race. The access the filmmakers had is incredible. It's fantastic and I highly recommend it. Here's the trailer:
The filmmakers were on Chris Haye's show last night with a clip. Haye's was shocked at the kind of access they got.
On a side note, I saw a documentary yesterday called WEINER, which is the story of Anthony Weiner's 2013 mayoral race. The access the filmmakers had is incredible. It's fantastic and I highly recommend it. Here's the trailer:
I definitely want to see it.
And of course, Weiner's wife, Huma Abedin, remains married to him, which is impressive if not amazing.
She's also (as you obviously know) one of Hillary's top aides.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
