Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
Thu Apr 9, 2015, 04:45 PM Apr 2015

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Report: Clinton changed stance on trade deal after donations to foundation (Original Post) Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2015 OP
It just keeps getting better johnnysad Apr 2015 #1
Many will retort -- Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2015 #4
Then they should run... DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #9
with all due respect DonCoquixote Apr 2015 #28
I misread your subject line as "Manny will retort" arcane1 Apr 2015 #10
FOX news likes these types of post, why, because I for one do not take anything from FOX Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #15
"I have not seen where Hillary has taken a position, just others stating her position." Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2015 #19
I guess I need to state I have not seen where Hillary has taken a position, ergo I do not know. Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #20
No, we will point out the garbage of this otherwise... joeybee12 Apr 2015 #23
Which part is untrue? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2015 #24
As long as they paid her a lot for her Vote. Katashi_itto Apr 2015 #27
What did Clinton change from and to? Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #2
Both she and Obama changed their positions after worker and human rights were added to the agreement DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2015 #5
So you think Obama got some $$$ out of this too? Metric System Apr 2015 #16
Um, it's sort of explained in the post tularetom Apr 2015 #6
From the article -- Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2015 #7
They probably both supported it all along Renew Deal Apr 2015 #21
The IBtimes article was posted a little while ago, you can see the claims here: emulatorloo Apr 2015 #8
And I questioned the link also. Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #14
Yes, I'm tiring of innuendos that the Clinton Foundation is 'dirty' emulatorloo Apr 2015 #17
I would bet most who post negative about CGI has no idea of the projects which Thinkingabout Apr 2015 #18
A demonstrated quid pro quo? Need to see more evidence. leveymg Apr 2015 #3
Agreed, it's an example of a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy tularetom Apr 2015 #13
"Always that nagging feeling that something slimy may be going on" Lurks Often Apr 2015 #22
Yuck. And she's supposed to be our best candidate? LittleBlue Apr 2015 #11
Follow the money. AtomicKitten Apr 2015 #12
What a bunch of nonsense. Clinton/Obama didn't change their positions. tritsofme Apr 2015 #25
This message was self-deleted by its author 1000words Apr 2015 #26

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
4. Many will retort --
Thu Apr 9, 2015, 04:56 PM
Apr 2015

"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?

DonCoquixote

(13,617 posts)
28. with all due respect
Thu Apr 9, 2015, 08:50 PM
Apr 2015

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.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
15. FOX news likes these types of post, why, because I for one do not take anything from FOX
Thu Apr 9, 2015, 05:57 PM
Apr 2015

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.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
19. "I have not seen where Hillary has taken a position, just others stating her position."
Thu Apr 9, 2015, 06:37 PM
Apr 2015

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.

 

joeybee12

(56,177 posts)
23. No, we will point out the garbage of this otherwise...
Thu Apr 9, 2015, 07:05 PM
Apr 2015

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.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,802 posts)
5. Both she and Obama changed their positions after worker and human rights were added to the agreement
Thu Apr 9, 2015, 04:58 PM
Apr 2015

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

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
6. Um, it's sort of explained in the post
Thu Apr 9, 2015, 04:58 PM
Apr 2015

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

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
7. From the article --
Thu Apr 9, 2015, 04:59 PM
Apr 2015
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.”

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
3. A demonstrated quid pro quo? Need to see more evidence.
Thu Apr 9, 2015, 04:56 PM
Apr 2015

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

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
13. Agreed, it's an example of a "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy
Thu Apr 9, 2015, 05:14 PM
Apr 2015

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.

 

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)
22. "Always that nagging feeling that something slimy may be going on"
Thu Apr 9, 2015, 07:01 PM
Apr 2015

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.

tritsofme

(17,790 posts)
25. What a bunch of nonsense. Clinton/Obama didn't change their positions.
Thu Apr 9, 2015, 08:22 PM
Apr 2015

They changed the agreement to address their concerns.

Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Report: Clinton changed s...