Repressive Regimes Donated to Clinton Foundation, Got Federal Approval for Arms Deals

[cali]

Once again. It's a simple formula: $$$=Access=Influence.

A couple of points: That's a Slate headline, not mine. International Business Times is not Investors Business Day which is a wingnut publication. IBT Times, like virtually all business rags does lean right, but this is a piece of investigative journalism, and the people they spoke to, like Lessig, are certainly not all on the right. Lessig is decidedly left wing. I realize that this is upsetting to HRC supporters and expect most of them to consider this a right wing attack. To me, it's just disturbing, and an illustration of why the Clinton Foundation should not have been taking donations from the governments of foreign countries during her tenure at the State Dept..



Repressive regimes in Algeria, Kuwait, and Qatar donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and also "gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons" during that time, an International Business Times investigation reports.

The IBT piece reviews all known donations to the Clinton Foundation by countries and defense contractors involved in arms deals that were approved by the State Department during Hillary Clinton's tenure. During a broader increase in military exports under the Obama administration, more than $300 billion worth of weapons shipments were approved to 20 countries that were or have since become Clinton Foundation donors. Some of these recipients were longtime United States allies, such as Australia and Germany, with relatively upstanding recent records on human rights. Others weren't:

The State Department formally approved ... 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.

<snip>

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/05/26/clinton_foundation_state_department_weapons_deals_donations_approval_coincided.html

One disturbing piece of information was just how much arms sales increased under the Obama adminiistration:

<snip>

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.

<snip>

“The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the Clintons was to give to this foundation,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, an advocacy group that seeks to tighten campaign finance disclosure rules. “This shows why having public officials, or even spouses of public officials, connected with these nonprofits is problematic.”

Hillary Clinton’s willingness to allow those with business before the State Department to finance her foundation heightens concerns about how she would manage such relationships as president, said Lawrence Lessig, the director of Harvard University’s Safra Center for Ethics.

“These continuing revelations raise a fundamental question of judgment,” Lessig told IBTimes. “Can it really be that the Clintons didn't recognize the questions these transactions would raise? And if they did, what does that say about their sense of the appropriate relationship between private gain and public good?”

<snip>

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

[Agschmid]

1. Unfortunately many of the "bad" countries listed, are our allies

Frustrating isn't it?

[cali]

3. Yes, it is. So is the fact that U.S. arms sales increased so much during the Obama

administration, and so is the snarl of money and policy.

[Agschmid]

4. Yes, a knot which seems increasingly difficult to untangle.

[geek tragedy]

8. US defense spending declined, so other countries filled the void.

the alternative to US hegemony in a region can be everyone else arming themselves to the teeth. If you think these numbers are big, wait until countries in Asia start worrying whether the US will keep the Chinese off their backs.

[rhett o rick]

13. Do you not see a potential conflict of interest when foreigner are allowed to "donate" to

the Clinton Fdn while she was SS? And also now that she is the front runner for the Presidency?

[Agschmid]

79. Did I say that somewhere?

Just wondering what would give you that idea?

[rhett o rick]

95. I simply asked a question. I made no assumptions. nm

[Agschmid]

97. Ok.

[leveymg]

19. Unfortunately, many of the bad countries listed are our "allies". Poor judgement.

Absolutely disqualifying poor judgement, but some don't think anyone should pay attention to this.

You seem to get some kind of kick out of that bit of irony.

[Agschmid]

21. I usually get a kick out of irony.

It's rediculous that we continually find weapons which then within 5 years are turned against us.

It has to stop.

[leveymg]

23. In the case of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, that is virtually a certainty, especially paid proxies

such as ISIS/ISIL, al-Qaeda, al Nusra Front, the Taliban or whatever one or several favored Sunni militia groups is calling themselves these days.

[MADem]

29. George Bush built a massive BASE in Qatar--it's not like "Clinton" invented that relationship.

Qatar is where we base those guys we don't have over there, if ya know what I mean....We used to have them in Saudi Arabia, but we've dialed that game back. We didn't go away, we just moved next door.

Our relations with that government go back to when the Clintons were still in university.

This is one of those examples where an association is used to "explain" something that has been ongoing since well before the association even existed. Tsk, tsk.

[Agschmid]

80. Yup.

[NYC_SKP]

2. People will distract you by saying she was working for Obama at the time...

...which has nothing to do with what the Clinton Family Foundation was doing.

Hell, the Foundation itself admitted it was breaking the rules, if not the law:

The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

[geek tragedy]

5. That $165 Billion figure looks impressive, until one subtracts:

United Kingdom: $38 Billion
Canada: $24 Billion
Australia: $23 Billion
Italy: $12 Billion
Germany: $10 Billion
Netherlands: $4.6 Billion
Taiwan: $3.8 Billion
Norway: $3.35 Billion
Total: $112 Billion

Also, someone should inform Lessig that the Clinton foundation is a charitable instiution.

And if they did, what does that say about their sense of the appropriate relationship between private gain and public good?”

[MaggieD]

11. OMG - stop with the facts already!

LOL!

[rhett o rick]

15. I hope you don't expect us to believe these repressive regimes are committed to charity.

The money is donated with the expectations of quid pro quo. While the charity may do wonderful work, the question is who is paying for it.

[okasha]

89. All those Middle Eastern regimes

have been buying weapons from the US for decades.

And yes, there is a quid pro quo. They get the guns, we get the oil. Nothing to do with the Clinton Foundation.

[rhett o rick]

96. Why do they donate money to the Foundation? nm

[okasha]

99. Possibly because the Foundation is doing

considerable good work among their neighbors, and stable societies in the area contribute to their own stability and security?

Some of those "repressive regimes" are considerably less repressive than others, by the way.

[rhett o rick]

100. I doubt that you really believe that these regimes are charitable. It makes much more

sense that they wish some quid pro quo.

[okasha]

104. The quid pro quo

lies in the arms for oil equation, and has for decades and across party lines. Those that occupy strategic positions with regard to the Straits of Hormuz also offer tactical partnerships against Iran. They don't need to give to the Clinton Foundation to get the bang-bangs. That's a done deal. If you want to argue otherwise, produce some actual evidence.

On the other hand, all these states have a stake in more stability in Africa and Western Asia. Obviously a certain amount of self-interest is involved.

[JEB]

6. Is that the sound of

one hand washing the other?

[Jackpine Radical]

7. I think Hill's campaign is dying the death of a thousand indiscretions.

None is in itself sufficient to derail her, but each one takes its toll. Each one is a repetition of the Hillary-->Yuck associative link, and builds her negatives at a visceral level. She's losing the War of Pavlovian Conditioning.

[TheNutcracker]

30. +1000 - There is not enough money to defend all of this AND get her message out!

I'm so so happy to support Bernie Sanders...we won't see him tripping over issues, to cover or distract from another one.

[MaggieD]

9. Looks like flamebait to me

[cali]

17. It's not. It's a serious issue. And flamebait is your forte

as we just witnessed.

This is a big issue- way bigger than HRC and this specific story.

[MaggieD]

18. LOL - Sanders saying he likes and respects HRC is flamebait?

No, more likely it just pissed off the Sanders supporters. It is amazing to me that some folks her post smears on our front runner day in and day out. But they consider Sanders saying he likes and respects HRC to be flamebait.

Only on DU.

[Jester Messiah]

22. Oh yeah, she's the "front runner"

Way out front. So far out front, why, you can't even see her.

[MaggieD]

24. I can see her....

And so can the people being polled, apparently.

Do you think it hurts the Dem party brand when we attack her non-stop? I have asked how this is helpful to us retaining the WH many, many times. I never get an answer.

I sure wish you guys actually believed in Bernie, especially when it comes to his distain for the negative campaign crap.

[Jester Messiah]

25. It's a personal flaw, I admit.

I have this hatred for right-wingers and corporate lackeys. I'll try to work on it.

[MaggieD]

26. The right wing echo chamber sure does seem to work on...

... the radical left. That's for sure.

[Jester Messiah]

27. Ahh... only when Hillary is in the game is "leftist" an epithet on this site.

Also, you don't have to be all that far to the left, certainly not into "radical" territory, to be to the left of Hillary.

[MaggieD]

61. I know you think that, but that's not reality

Right now, the radical left is supporting a socialist that may caucus with Democrats, but clearly doesn't want to change his party identification to Democrat.

That's much more left than 85-90% of the democratic party voters. 87% of whom consider HRC a liberal (because she is one, by the way. Always has been).

Certainly the right wing is trying to convince Democrats she is not liberal. Because that's all they have got. They would much rather run against Bernie than HRC. The right is being pretty successful with that strategy, at least here on DU. IMO.

[Jester Messiah]

77. The right wing needn't bother.

Her donor list will suffice.

[cali]

28. no. it was your characterization of duers

that got your thread locked- as you very well know, but thanks for your usual truthy crap

[MaggieD]

37. LOL - nah, that wasn't it

My post didn't characterize DUers at all, in fact.

Still propping up right wing libertarian, Lessig? Whatever it takes to smear HRC, right?

[MADem]

39. It's simply what happens when people don't know history.

American relations with these nations predate either Clinton's influence on the international stage. Algeria, in fact, was one of the first countries to RECOGNIZE the USA as an independent nation following the American Revolutionary War.

I don't think Hillary was alive when that happened.



If these associations are so awful, what can be said about a candidate for the Presidency who took money from Hillary Clinton for a Senate campaign, who took an endorsement from her, and who counts her as his friend for 25 years, and who refuses to attack her?

It's all silliness, this kind of "guilt by association" game. Worth a bookmark, though, for future reference.

[A Simple Game]

65. As the official historian on DU can you also tell us how much money these

countries gave to American charities before Hillary was Secretary of State?

[BrotherIvan]

72. ^^^That right there^^^

Saudi Arabia gives for what causes?

http://www.arabnews.com/news/453031

In Saudi Arabia, there are approximately 700 charity centers and foundation registered with the Ministry of Social Affairs. The majority of donations to those charities go to organizations with religious affiliations, which are concerned with building mosques, supporting Qur’an teaching schools, sponsoring orphans and general charity work. The rest goes to health organizations and social services.

However, charity work is still below the level of expectations in terms of both quantity and quality. If we compare the numbers of registered charities with that of a country like the United States, which has over 1.8 million charity organizations — the city of New York alone has more than 98,000 active foundations — we would sense the urgent need for increasing the number of working charities in the Kingdom.

And Algeria is so interested in helping Haiti but puts up substantial roadblocks to charitable organizations operating within its own borders?

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/jan/20/red-tape-charities-public-confidence-donations

The registration process has been one hoop for charities to jump through. In Belarus, public associations and foundations must prepare and submit a package of documents for registration. The most onerous provision concerns the number of founding members required.

A local public association operating in Minsk, for example, would need 186 founding members in order to represent the majority of its 22 districts, 307 village councils and 22 urban communities. In Algeria, registration requires intrusive scrutiny, including seemingly irrelevant questions on marital status.

The report states: "By requiring a high number of founding members, governments not only limit the development of smaller, but nonetheless vital local organisations, they also send an extremely damaging message to the public that establishing a not-for-profit is out of reach for most ordinary people."

If you have a brain, even a few seconds to think about it and you're already thinking something is very wrong. Unless you don't allow yourself to think, then it's all right wing smears from the radical left!!

[MADem]

75. No, but I'm sure you can. You probably can tell us how much they'll give in future.

Say, since giving money to people guarantees influence, (that IS what you're trying to say, isn't it? Playing "A Simple Game," are you?) we must then assume that Senator Sanders will do SECSTATE Clinton's bidding.

Ahhhhh....perhaps he's already co-opted...could it beeee?

After all, he took a generous donation from her HILLPAC, and he also took money from the Senate Leadership PAC, which, at the time IIRC was managed by Clinton's senior in the NY delegation, Charles Schumer --as well as endorsements from all the major Democrats in the Senate during that 2006 election, to include access to their donors, many of whom made individual donations to his war chest--as well as Howard Dean (cough-now working for Clinton on her campaign-cough), who also gave him a handsome chunk of cash from DFA.

So, is the good Senator Sanders dancing to THEIR tune? Did all that Clinton and Clinton-ish money buy him?

All things being equal, and since we're playing a simple game, here, of course!!!

[A Simple Game]

81. How much did Senator Sanders take from foreign donors? HILLPAC was set up for

one thing only, well probably two but we won't get into that now, and that is to provide money for like minded individuals running for political office. You equate that to foreign governments donating money to American charities instead of some of their own charities? Perhaps those foreign countries don't have any charities to donate to, that must be it, no problems in those countries.

Apples and oranges but you already knew that, why do you assume others don't?

[MADem]

83. You're insinuating that money buys influence or access. So what's the diff, here?

Either it does, or it doesn't. Money is money.

If you want to play a game that Clinton will be a tool of foreign governments, why can't I play an equally stupid and simplistic game that Bernie will dance to the tune of Clinton, Schumer, Reid, and all of the big money private donors--most of whom were from OUT OF STATE--not Vermonters--who donated to ensure Bernie won his seat. Gee, what was the matter with those donors, to take a page out of your "simple" book? Didn't they have some of their OWN CANDIDATES to donate to?

And these donors, they made these contributions to Bernie at the behest of those silverback Dems from states that were NOT VERMONT, who called those donors, and asked them to open their hearts and their checkbooks. Oooooh, why didn't they keep their money at HOME?????

Apples and oranges indeed--it's all fruit, and you're gobbling it up. You lower the discourse with these kinds of shady insinuations.

Don't toss it if you don't want it flung back at you.

[A Simple Game]

86. The diff is that Clinton gave the money to Sanders because he already dances to the

same tune as Clinton, neither she or Sanders had to change the record. And why would all those democrats give to a third party candidate instead of the Democratic candidate, the plot thickens. And a good thing they all gave Sanders so much money, he only won with 71% of the vote over 50% more than his main opponent. probably would have lost if not for all the bucks. And just how many bucks are we talking about? Must be a fortune huh? Seems as if it was only 6% of the total raised by Bernie where the money from individuals was 93%. I'm sure that 6% had a lot of sway on Bernie. As for big money donations? Small donations were almost twice as much as large donations. What is considered a large donation? That would be $200 or more, really big bucks there. As for out of state donations? Well they all take them don't they.

You made a funny when you mentioned OUT OF STATE money, coming from someone that supports someone that was a carpetbagger as a Senator.

But you already knew all of that didn't you?

Gobbling it up? The only thing I'm gobbling up is your lunch.

Fling! The balls in your court. Try not to hit another one of those easy lobs, let's have a challenging shot.

Won with 71%, how many of those do you think were Republican or conservative, or Democrats? Do you think that many people in Vermont are registered Democratic Socialists? That kind of support is scary isn't it, or would be if you are a Hillary supporter.

[MADem]

92. OK--you just made my point. That's not a "diff" it's a similarity.

The diff is that Clinton gave the money to Sanders because he already dances to the same tune as Clinton

"Same" is not a synonym for "different." You're now averring that Sanders does what Clinton tells him to do--he dances to her tune.

OK.....


Apparently election law isn't YOUR strong suit, either. Clinton was not a carpetbagger--she was a property tax paying HOMEOWNER. As was the New York-Brooklyn born and raised Senator Sanders when he first entered public life in Vermont.


She met all requirements for running for office, in fact, she had more "roots" in New York than Bobby Kennedy did when he ran.

New York, unlike "A Simple Game," welcomes new citizens to their state. Who knew someone posting on an ostensibly progressive board would be so opposed to someone who, as a consequence of following her husband around in his government jobs, lived in a number of states before she was able to settle down? Mmmm, mmm, mmmmm!


Are you one of those people who shakes a fist at "furriners," too? Don't like those "outsiders?" Jennifer Granholm? How dare you have served as a governor! Get your ass back to Canada! And how about that carpetbagger Tom Lantos, coming over here from Hungary, all high and mighty, and serving so many honorable years in Congress--the NOIVE of that guy!!!

Wow, these provincial viewpoints of yours are certainly telling!

You're not gobbling my lunch, I am sorry to tell you. Your sense of taste, along with your sense of decorum and the democratic principles of inclusion for all citizens, have failed you--that's not my lunch--it's your own foot you've been chewing on!

[A Simple Game]

107. You really don't see the diff do you? The diff is that HILLPAC gave a little money to

Sanders because they supported his positions and were not trying to change his positions.

But you knew that, didn't you.

Tell me why Hillary didn't run for Senator from Arkansas. Bernie was a carpetbagger? Do you know how long he had lived in Vermont before he ran for Senator? No comparison, but you knew that didn't you.

As a New York resident I have some idea about how the state welcomes new citizens, we elected Hillary didn't we, but don't think the people of New York didn't know why she moved here. But to suggest she didn't move to New York to run for the senate is displaying something other than intelligence. How did we get to "furriners?" Keep your prejudices to yourself, I don't have any.

[MADem]

108. You're the one who is INSISTING that money is equal to INFLUENCE.

Except when it isn't. Let me try to figure out your convoluted logic, here.

So, if HILLARY gives money to Sanders, she's not trying to influence him....because there's NO DAYLIGHT BETWEEN THEM on matters of policy. Look--either they are on the same page, or they're not. Now you're insisting that they're on the same page--well, to read the pages of DU, you sure could have fooled me!

The only people I see who are claiming that they are the Bobsey Twins are the Socialist Workers, who are furious at Sanders for becoming a "Democrat!"

But if anyone else gives money to a foundation with separate auditors and a very small administrative footprint (most of the money is "impact" cash--goes directly to the needy, not for offices or staff) that means they don't give a shit about clean water, or education, or wiping out diseases...it just means THEY are trying to influence someone named Clinton. It couldn't POSSIBLY mean that there's no daylight between the giver and the receiver on issues of charity, that they want to eliminate starvation, dysentery, disease, and do it in a way that marshals the greatest number of experts and agencies at the lowest cost to attack a problem from multiple levels. Nooooooo....they don't care about that at all, they just want to INFLUENCE her....otherwise, they'd rather throw a little money here, a little money there, and piss into the wind and get nothing done.

Yeah. Sure!

If you're such a wired in New York resident, you shouldn't have made that crappy carpetbagger argument in the first place--unless you're hating on "carpetbaggers" like RFK, Bernie Sanders (NY-VT), Howard Dean (NY-VT), etc., etc., and so forth. Hell, that Moynihan "jerk" that preceded HRC, you remember him, he was the one who was BEGGING her to run for his seat when he was planning on retiring, and who introduced her to the political establishment in the state --he had the nerve to be born in Oklahoma! Stone him!!! Rudy Giuliani tried to use that carpetbagger argument on HRC before he dropped out of the race--as I recall, it didn't go over too well.

The Clinton Foundation, and the former POTUS Clinton's offices, are IN NEW YORK. It's quite clear that her entire family had, as their goal, to establish residency in the state and make it their home base. They didn't WANT to go "back" to Arkansas--a place where Hillary Clinton ended up ONLY because that's where her HUSBAND's career took her. Sheesh--you keep sticking your foot in it!! Now you're asking why the little woman didn't toddle on back "home" where she 'belonged?" Here's a real CLUE for you--the Clintons did not own a home in Arkansas. So why would they go back there? Because her HUSBAND was born there, that determines HER destiny? As WJC famously noted, they spent most of their lives living in "public housing." By your logic, they should have just found a place in Dupont Circle and stayed in DC....since you're the gatekeeper on who is "allowed" to come to "your" state and run for office in NY.

New York has a history of welcoming new politicians, because they don't want some asshole who is just going to sit on their best intentions and do nothing, they seek OUT movers and shakers who will bring energy and a high profile to the state. As a New York resident, you should have known that. Instead, you lowered yourself to name-calling. You're the one with "prejudices" against "carpetbaggers"--YOU brought it up, not me.

And for someone who claims to know "all about Bernie" you're shy on that score, too. It could be argued, since in his early years in VT after his divorce he bounced back and forth between NY and VT, working in a NY hospital, that he was less "sincere" about his VT affiliations, especially after he lost a slew of elections in his early years. Of course, I won't make that charge, because I'm not going to call the guy a carpetbagger, like you're doing to Clinton. I suppose you would have preferred she NOT live with her husband in the White House and establish an "appropriate" period of residency to suit you? Please. If your advice is anything like your analysis, she'd do well to disregard it.

Your argument has fallen on its ass. Enjoy that lunch.

[A Simple Game]

109. Wow, quite a post, you didn't think I would read past the first sentence did you?

As for me "INSISTING that money is equal to INFLUENCE" I don't think I ever insisted any such thing. Could you provide a quote please?

[MADem]

110. You can read your own posts, I presume. When you repeat the same concept, over and over,

I take that to be insistence.

You are the one who claims Clinton is being bought because nations know a good charitable program that delivers bang for their buck.

You're also the one claiming that Sanders took money from HILLPAC, the Senate PAC, and individual donors steered to him by mainstream silverback Dems, but somehow, magically, he wasn't bought....and that's because, as you said, they were "on the same page." Which is more truth than most people here at DU want to admit....

[A Simple Game]

111. You were the one to claim Sanders took money from HILLPAC not me.

You are the one that mentioned silverback Dems, I don't even know what they are. And now you think Bernie is bad because he and Hillary have many of the same principles in common? You have me confused now.

As the vast majority of his contributions were less than $200 each you must think Bernie is easily bought, unlike Hillary which may cost up to $400,000 plus per diem. At those rates nobody is going to call Hillary a cheap date, but another word does come to mind.

You have put enough words in my mouth, made up enough stuff and you have even attributed things to me that you said yourself, so this conversation is done, have a nice day.

[MADem]

112. I didn't "claim" it--it's a simple fact that everyone who is halfway aware of their relationship

already knows about. They've been friends for 25 years.

I don't think "Bernie is bad." I think Bernie is good. I think he and Hillary are a lot alike, actually. That's an opinion I share with the Socialist Workers.

The vast majority of his Senate contributions were from OUT OF STATE donors, many of whom couldn't find Vermont with a map of New England, who were guided to support this candidate by old school politicians with great virtual rolodexes. He can't go to those wells again. Those donors are pledged to Clinton.

FYI, Silverbacks are old gorillas who "run" the group--bosses. It's a term used in business, industry, politics and the legal profession to indicate those who run the show.

This comment of yours:


At those rates nobody is going to call Hillary a cheap date, but another word does come to mind.

is sexist, vile, and offensive in the extreme. Can't believe you wrote that here on a progressive message board. Now, are you gonna claim I put that gem in your mouth, too? You really stepped in it, there.

I guess now we know what you're about. Took you awhile to show your true colors, but there they are.

You have one of those real nice days, too. I don't blame you for running off, because you're reduced to making gender - based insults and that's never a good look on DU. Further, I don't see any point in continuing to talk to people like you, who can insinuate that kind of sexist "Ewww, she's something worse than a cheap date" type shit, because they're so intent on....WINNING that they'll throw half the population under the bus to do it. Yeah, we've got your number now. Disgusting.

A Simple Game
111. You were the one to claim Sanders took money from HILLPAC not me.
View profile
You are the one that mentioned silverback Dems, I don't even know what they are. And now you think Bernie is bad because he and Hillary have many of the same principles in common? You have me confused now.

As the vast majority of his contributions were less than $200 each you must think Bernie is easily bought, unlike Hillary which may cost up to $400,000 plus per diem. At those rates nobody is going to call Hillary a cheap date, but another word does come to mind.

You have put enough words in my mouth, made up enough stuff and you have even attributed things to me that you said yourself, so this conversation is done, have a nice day.

[A Simple Game]

113. A cheap date is a gender based insult? Women can't date men? You are the one assigning

a gender to the insult, not me. A cheap date is a common reference to someone that isn't very demanding or cost a lot when going out with another person, be it another man or another woman. And after you call some people primates? That's not derogatory at all is it?

There you go making things up again. Bye.

[MADem]

114. Everyone knows what your meaning was, there. Don't even try to wiggle out of it.

Your remarks were directed AT Clinton--not any generic person.

Double down on offensive sexism, and play the clueless card.

I suppose it's not surprising.

[Agony]

10. Seems like corruption to me. nt

[AtomicKitten]

12. something for something

[MisterP]

14. besides money, what else has the GCC inspired the Clinton campaign on I wonder

[FSogol]

16. Are we pretending the US wouldn't have done all of those arms deals without the foundation's

involvement? Selling weapons is what the US does.
Total non-story with RW intent on damaging the Clintons. Pure dreck.

[MaggieD]

20. Apparently we are pretending that....

But more likely it's just another BS excuse to smear HRC.

[B Calm]

32. Looks like right wing propaganda to me!

[MaggieD]

33. It sure does....

Sadly that seems to be all the rage on DU lately.

[cali]

34. Lawrence Lessig doesn't think so, nor do many other liberal pundits and academics

[MaggieD]

36. Didn't he clerk for Scalia?

Yeah, that's right. He did.

[B Calm]

41. He was a clerk for two conservative judges! Judge Richard Posner and Justice Antonin Scalia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig

[MADem]

42. Who knew that Scalia's clerk would be given a "liberal" label when someone likes the stuff he's

flinging? Bit of a stretch, I'd say!

Talk about an "ouch" moment.

[cali]

46. Yes, he did. He's still not a member of the vast right wing conspiracy out to get

poor Hillary.

[MaggieD]

50. He's either part of it or...

He doesn't know jack about this issue. One or other.

The right wing is sadly playing the radical left for fools, IMO.

[DURHAM D]

31. Agree. This is a non-story.

Hope they write a follow-up explaining that all arms sales stopped under Kerry.



Oh wait, these are WH decisions anyway.

[cali]

35. No, they're not solely WH decisions. I suggest reading the articles.

This isn't a non-story, and it shouldn't be. It's a big problem that extends beyond HRC.

[still_one]

38. Actually, Congress can also get involved to block any arms sales. Even Jimmy Carter verbalized

about limiting arm deals did a few good ones himself:

"In February 1978 Carter authorized the transfer of two hundred advanced combat aircraft to three countries in the Middle East—-supplying sixty F-15s to Saudi Arabia, fifty F-5Es to Egypt, and a combination of ninety F-15s and F-16s to Israel. Six months later he gave preliminary approval to the sale of another $12 billion worth of high-tech weaponry to Iran. Other major sales of this sort were announced in the final months of his administration."

and every administration has been doing so for some time now

I imagine you will have a problem if Bernie because President and authorizes arm sales to Israel, because he will, just as every president previously has done so

[jberryhill]

40. Pretty much, yeah

We're also supposed to pretend that Congressional authorization isn't required for these sales.

[MaggieD]

43. Whatever it takes to smear HRC

God it's pathetic at this point.

[B Calm]

44. What's pathetic is these right wing posts go un-hidden!

[MaggieD]

45. But they will hide an HRC supporter

Quoting Bernie saying he likes and respects her. In a heartbeat apparently. SMH.

[cali]

47. your truthiness again. It was your name calling attack on DUers that got your thread locked

and YOU know it. That story about Bernie liking and respecting HRC has been posted a half dozen times here and NEVER locked. It was your flamebait twist that got yours locked.

Making shit up that is obvious is just weird. Why do it?

[MaggieD]

52. What name did i call anyone?

Sounds you're the one being "truthy" (speaking of name calling by the way).

[cali]

62. I believe you made some silly comment about how

Bernie's nice words about HRC would disqualify him with the "radical left"- obviously referring to posters here. It was flamebait, and rather dim and obvious flamebait at that. Earlier today you referred to a segment of DU as "extremists". Please keep it up, maggs.

[jamzrockz]

48. Last year the US refused to sell

Weapons to the Nigerian govt they said they needed to fight Boko haram. Yea they gave some silly excuse for their denial. So these things are not 100% guaranteed. Maybe someone in the govt didn't pay off the right person to push the sale

[tammywammy]

94. Agreed.

The State Dept which also gets approval from the DoD for foreign military sales would have approved a deal to Saudi Arabia and Qatar even if Hilary was never SoS. Plus there's the congressional approval too.

[salib]

49. Certainly does not appear to be a quid pro quo.

However, I have to concur with the OP:
"an illustration of why the Clinton Foundation should not have been taking donations from the governments of foreign countries during her tenure at the State Dept."

It is really not a good way to operate and it could easily ruin her chances, which sucks as she could easily be our nominee, and we need to win.

[MaggieD]

56. Meh, this is all made up bullshit

If it wasn't this being made up it would be something else. No reason a charity should suffer because of that.

What's disappointing is the persistent buying into this crap from those that say they are Democrats. I have never seen the right so effectively co-opt the left. It's embarrassing at this point.

[clarice]

51. Good God....this is TERRIBLE !!!!! nt

[heaven05]

53. all I can do

is understand, that this is business as usual and it will continue as long as the total political system of this country is driven by corporate/banker dollars and the shills that lap up those dollars on both sides of the aisle.

[MineralMan]

54. When did Lessig become "decidedly left-wing?"

I must have missed that notification, somehow. I don't think it's correct. He's a rightie, clerked for Scalia. He's only on the left in someone's imagination or because he said something someone agreed with.

Right wing source. Right wing propaganda. There are arms deals with many countries, most of them longstanding. That applies to these, as well.

Nice try, cali, but not at all convincing and very right-leaning criticism with a slant that ignores some basic facts. Too bad.

[MaggieD]

57. The minute he smeared HRC with BS, apparently

Ugh.

[MineralMan]

88. Any port in a storm, I guess.

Or, any enemy of my enemy is my friend. Any attack on Clinton is apparently valid, regardless of its source. I'm heartened by Senator Sanders' refusal to attack Hillary Clinton. It shows character and a sense of what is appropriate. That's one of the reasons I support him.

[MaggieD]

90. You sir, are an honorable Sander's

Supporter in my book. I salute you!

[MineralMan]

91. Thanks. If he gets the nomination, I'll campaign hard

for him. If not, I'll campaign equally hard for Clinton. I am a Democrat.

[ananda]

55. Is this worse than what the Kochs, rightwing thinktanks, and Fox are doing?

Which corrupted money is worse?

[SoapBox]

58. Drip, Drip, Drip...

True or not true...good or bad...

Doesn't matter to FakeNews, KKKoch Kreeps, Puke and Baggers...they will use it against her, 24/7 when the campaigns really get rolling.

[MaggieD]

59. So should DUers advance this BS?

What do you think?

[Fred Sanders]

68. Advance the BS? Some are shovelling on top of the pile already shovelled by the GOP.

[NYC_SKP]

84. Hillary Clinton has brought ALL of this upon herself, she's careless and arrogant, a liability.

She's really not qualified for the job and it was a mistake to let her "serve" as SOS.

She served herself, she served Exxon and Chevron.

[Fumesucker]

60. Right wingers don't think repressive right wing regimes are bad

So there's no way this could be a "right wing attack".

[MaggieD]

63. But they sure know how to play the extreme left

That much is obvious. It's just another version of AstroTurfing. And it worked so well to form the Tea Party. Why shouldn't they try this twist on it?

When the NY Times writes an article about it, you can be sure the republicans are high fiving themselves.

And by the way, Lessig is NOT a liberal.

[Fred Sanders]

74. Republicans are eating up these patently ridiculous Clinton Foundation attack/plays for an ally in the extreme left.

The enemy of my enemy makes for a new friend.

Something like that.

[MyNameGoesHere]

64. DU has entered stage 2 of the Democratic primaries

Can't wait till stage 3. The banishment stage.

[Fred Sanders]

66. OMG! How many non-scandals is this now? Once you reach a certain number do the non-scandals

merge into one little actual for real, not made up on the spot, scandal?

Yawn.

Again.

The Clinton Foundation is an international charity working in dozens of nations, so supporting the GOP screeching that it was ever anything else is.....sad.

Remember when "90% of the Clinton Foundation donations are not used for charity" screeching lasted like a whole weak before being proven a total speculative lie?

Once again, my friends, once again.....it is getting boring.

[FSogol]

67. The Unifying Benghazi Scandal!

It'll tie up all the lose ends from Whitewater to Vince Foster to the evil practice of earning money by giving speeches to groups who want to hear you talk!

* ?

[Fred Sanders]

69. Indeed. Maybe there is a Unified Field Theory of Scandals just waiting to be proven regarding the Clintons??

[MaggieD]

70. Well don't look now, but they just repeated the same BS in a new thread

Now that this one has been debunked.

[ALBliberal]

73. Per their 2013 financials....

Expenditures: 88% programs 5% fundraising 7% administrative. Looks like a respectable breakout for a charitable organization.

Maybe it's important to look at the programs that are being implemented in some of these countries. Apparently to (paraphrasing) assist women and children, improve economic health, address climate change, assist business, government, and personal partnering. Is it possible that governments might contribute to the foundation to encourage the Clinton foundation to come to their countries to bring this expertise and skill for the good of the country's people?

Of course there's overlap. There are countries that were also sold arms that indeed have programs. Vice versa. I just don't think Hillary Clinton would abuse the foundation like that nor do I believe she would agree to sell arms for foundation contributions. She is a patriot. A loyal public servant IMO.

The PROBLEM is that it is complicated. It certainly can trip her up. She needs to get out in front of this situation. Many Americans don't have the time willingness or curiosity to get comfortable with this. She needs to address soon and very directly.

[NYC_SKP]

76. Graphic:

[ALBliberal]

85. with all due respect

Different missions will show different percentages

I truly admire Doctors without Borders and I don't know too much about the Clinton foundation.

Possibly they are similar to a United Way on a global level though I hear United Way administrative costs are very high compared to program expenditures.

No more research here. But maybe we can both agree that Hillary has a messaging/appearance problem.

[NYC_SKP]

87. We agree and, yes, it's complicated.

First, the family foundation consists of multiple sub-foundations, among them the Clinton Global Initiative.

The Clinton Foundation encompasses a number of different efforts and entities, including the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI, spun off into a separate but related organization in 2010), the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI, split off after 2009 but reintegrated after 2013), Clinton Global Initiative University (CGI U), the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI), the Clinton Development Initiative (CDI), the Clinton Economic Opportunity Initiative, the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, the Clinton Health Matters Initiative (CHMI), the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, and the No Ceilings Project.

Not all of the data we see relates necessarily to the same organization.

It does give the campaign trouble in terms of the appearances, if nothing more.

[ALBliberal]

93. Yikes! thanks? for that! nt

[Bluenorthwest]

101. Here's the thing. Some charitable foundations make grants as a primary function, others do things

themselves and make grants as a secondary function, others make no grants at all and exist to carry out their own work. These two foundations do not have the same objectives, the two charts offer no comparison that is useful and the MSF actual website breaks their spending down differently, stating 88.7% on Program Services, 10.4% on fundraising and .9% on management. It is not the pie chart you are using, and it does not use the terminology that chart uses. MSF does not refer to itself as 'making grants' because what they do is send emergency funds, volunteers and materials, 'making grants' would be MSF sending money to another relief organization to support that organization's efforts.

Politicizing MSF for any reason, even to employ them as a rhetorical tool in politics is in my view a very dubious action. Material presented as theirs should be actually theirs and up to date. They are an intentionally non political group, so again, I think that should be respected.
The official MSF Financial Pie Chart is at this link....
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/about-us/financial-information

[NYC_SKP]

103. We also look at salaries that are drawn from the various organizations. FREDERIC POUST: $464,229/yr

Some pay over $400,000/year.

The clinton family foundation pays them well.

It's in the Form 990, Part VII, page 6.

FREDERIC POUST: $464,229/year salary, plus another $20,028 in "other compensation"

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf

[ALBliberal]

105. I agree that's a large salary

What is his position though? With this huge global non profit organization maybe his salary isn't that much? To get top quality talent even a non profit has to be somewhat competitive.

Am I naive to hope that the Clinton Foundation in all it's vastness and complexities might also be a force for good?

Doesn't Hillary have millions and millions with many opportunities to make more? I don't see her screwing over America to make money.

Sorry this got off point....

[Bluenorthwest]

106. Who is 'we'? And why won't 'we' address the points I raised? Why is your chart different in every

way from the chart on MSF's actual website? Answer that, then we can talk. They have a website. They have a chart. It is not the one you use and they do not use the terminology of grant making you present as if it proved something. Why is that, exactly? I read your post, went to check it at MSF, and it does not agree at all. It's not the same. It's not the same terminology and not the same figures. Their Program Services expenses are almost identical to those of the Clinton Initiative. I'm not interested in pretending otherwise out of agenda.

[Bluenorthwest]

102. Compare to Doctors Without Border's actual financial statement as opposed to unsourced pie chart:

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/about-us/financial-information

[bornskeptic]

78. And of course Iran, North Korea, and Cuba didn't donate to the Clinton Foundation,

so we didn't sell any arms to them. Is there anybody else we refused to sell arms to?

[Thinkingabout]

82. Gotta choose better links, ones not fueled by RW.

[L0oniX]

98. K & R