HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Report: Clinton changed s...

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 04:45 PM

Report: Clinton changed stance on trade deal after donations to foundation

Report: Clinton changed stance on trade deal after donations to foundation

The Clinton Foundation reportedly accepted millions of dollars from a Colombian oil company head before then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided to support a trade deal with Colombia despite worries of human rights violations.

The report in the International Business Times comes as Clinton readies an expected run for president. She’s been dogged by questions about whether foreign donations to her foundations could have influenced her official decisions.

The report centers on donations from Frank Giustra and the oil company that he founded, Pacific Rubiales. In a Wall Street Journal story from 2008, Giustra is described as a “friend and traveling companion” of former President Clinton who donated more than $130 million to Clinton’s philanthropies. He’s also a Clinton Foundation board member and has participated in projects and benefits for the foundation.

When workers at Pacific Rubiales decided to strike in 2011, the Columbian military reportedly used force to stop the strikes and compel them to return to work, IBT reports, citing the Washington office of Latin America, a human rights group. Those accusations of human rights violations were part of the criticism of the United States-Colombia Free Trade Promotion Agreement, which was passed by Congress later that year. Pacific Rubiales has repeatedly denied charges that it infringed on workers’ rights.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/238313-clinton-changed-stance-on-trade-deal-after-donations-to

28 replies, 1802 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 28 replies Author Time Post
Reply Report: Clinton changed stance on trade deal after donations to foundation (Original post)
Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2015 OP
johnnysad Apr 2015 #1
Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2015 #4
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #9
DonCoquixote Apr 2015 #28
arcane1 Apr 2015 #10
Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #15
Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2015 #19
Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #20
joeybee12 Apr 2015 #23
Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2015 #24
Katashi_itto Apr 2015 #27
Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #2
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #5
Metric System Apr 2015 #16
tularetom Apr 2015 #6
Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2015 #7
Renew Deal Apr 2015 #21
emulatorloo Apr 2015 #8
Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #14
emulatorloo Apr 2015 #17
Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #18
leveymg Apr 2015 #3
tularetom Apr 2015 #13
Lurks Often Apr 2015 #22
LittleBlue Apr 2015 #11
AtomicKitten Apr 2015 #12
tritsofme Apr 2015 #25
1000words Apr 2015 #26

Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 04:48 PM

1. It just keeps getting better

 

We really need Bernie

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnnysad (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 04:56 PM

4. Many will retort --

"But her positions on X, Y and Z are solidly Progressive."

Okay -- but is she the ONLY prospective Democratic candidate that holds those positions on those issues? I'll wager she's not. In fact, I'll wager just about any Democrat worthy of the title "Democrat" holds those positions on those issues.

The question then becomes: How encumbered should the Democratic candidate be with those things we keep seeing pop up? Waving them away on DU isn't going to keep them from merging during the general election. Her defenders -- regardless of how well-intentioned they may wish to be -- can't shout down these issues on Fox or talk radio or the internet.

Does O'Malley have this baggage? Or Sanders? Or Warren?

Name recognition isn't an excuse. Once the convention is held name recognition is a gimme.

So what excuses remain?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #4)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 05:01 PM

9. Then they should run...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #9)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 08:50 PM

28. with all due respect

it has become clear that unless you have the backing of the rich, you cannot run, period. Just blithely saying "They should run" is like saying "let them eat cake" when you know most other candidates cannot even afford to buy bread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #4)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 05:07 PM

10. I misread your subject line as "Manny will retort"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #4)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 05:57 PM

15. FOX news likes these types of post, why, because I for one do not take anything from FOX

As being factual. They use too many what it's and maybe and most people don't hear what it's and maybe's just take the rest as truth.

If you think any candidate is going to be perfect then when reality occurs you have been told before. No, Hillary isn't perfect but she has other qualities needed to be president. It isn't name recognition either, in Texas we know who Perry is but would never vote for him.

One reason I am skeptical of post like these is because I have not seen where Hillary has taken a position, just others stating her position. Also we change our opinions from time to time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #15)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 06:37 PM

19. "I have not seen where Hillary has taken a position, just others stating her position."

Are you implying others are mis-reporting Clinton's positions so as to fabricate appearances?

Since you claim, "she has other qualities needed to be president" that means you ought to know what her positions are/have been so as to be able to support her. Perhaps you could take a moment to show us what her positions have been in 2008 and subsequently during her tenure as SoS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #19)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 06:47 PM

20. I guess I need to state I have not seen where Hillary has taken a position, ergo I do not know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #4)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 07:05 PM

23. No, we will point out the garbage of this otherwise...

 

The "report" ran in the IBT, a right-wing rag, other publications, such as The Hill add nothing, yet run it as a story in essence confirming it because the IBT ran it, without confirming it on their own...that's how the right wing smear machine works...thanks for enabling them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #23)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 07:59 PM

24. Which part is untrue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to johnnysad (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 08:34 PM

27. As long as they paid her a lot for her Vote.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 04:50 PM

2. What did Clinton change from and to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #2)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 04:58 PM

5. Both she and Obama changed their positions after worker and human rights were added to the agreement

Guilt by post hoc ergo propter hoc innuendo I guess...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #5)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 06:02 PM

16. So you think Obama got some $$$ out of this too?

(Sarcasm)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #2)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 04:58 PM

6. Um, it's sort of explained in the post

And you don't even have to read very far into it to find out since it's in the first paragraph.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #2)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 04:59 PM

7. From the article --

On the campaign trail in 2008, Hillary Clinton, along with then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, opposed the deal as a raw deal for workers, according to IBT. The pair changed their tune after the election and publicly supported the trade agreement. As secretary of State, Clinton’s State Department certified annually that Colombia was “meeting statutory criteria related to human rights.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #7)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 06:54 PM

21. They probably both supported it all along

I'm still waiting for Obama to renegotiate Nafta

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #2)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 04:59 PM

8. The IBtimes article was posted a little while ago, you can see the claims here:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #8)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 05:46 PM

14. And I questioned the link also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #14)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 06:03 PM

17. Yes, I'm tiring of innuendos that the Clinton Foundation is 'dirty'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #17)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 06:05 PM

18. I would bet most who post negative about CGI has no idea of the projects which

Are a result of CGI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 04:56 PM

3. A demonstrated quid pro quo? Need to see more evidence.

But, that's the problem with the appearance of conflicts of interest. They just fester.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #3)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 05:14 PM

13. Agreed, it's an example of a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy

For the Hillary Clinton supporters among us, that means that it is the mistaken assumption that because event B occurred after event A, event B occurred because of event A.

The OP definitely doesn't establish a direct causal link between the contribution and Hillary's support. But it leaves wide open the possibility of a link. And that's the problem with the Clintons, there is always that nagging feeling that something slimy may be going on. Maybe there's nothing to it but you can be sure that political opponents will jump right in the middle of it and there will be yet another embarrassing press conference, full of fake outrage and emphatic denials, followed by a swarm of Clinton minions being dispatched to various pundit venues to accuse the press of meanness to the Clintons.

We've seen it plenty of times in the past, and we're probably in for a lot more of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #13)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 07:01 PM

22. "Always that nagging feeling that something slimy may be going on"

 

which asks the question, at what point do we even begin to consider whether or not at least some of the rumors ARE true?

And possibly the most important question, will we be able to acknowledge the rumor true if provided with real proof or will our willingness to believe in a politician (not just Hillary) be so strong as to blind us to real facts.

Certainly any prominent politician, regardless of party, gender or skin color, will have a certain amount of unpleasant rumors attached to them, it's been a part of politics since forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 05:08 PM

11. Yuck. And she's supposed to be our best candidate?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 05:13 PM

12. Follow the money.

 

Run.Elizabeth.Run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Thu Apr 9, 2015, 08:22 PM

25. What a bunch of nonsense. Clinton/Obama didn't change their positions.

They changed the agreement to address their concerns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Reply to this thread