Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department

[candelista]

By David Sirota @davidsirota [e-mail]
Andrew Perez @AndrewPerezDC [e-mail] on May 26 2015 8:44 AM EDT

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.

Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region's fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At a press conference 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. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

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.

As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton also accused some of these countries of failing to marshal a serious and sustained campaign to confront terrorism. In a December 2009 State Department cable published by Wikileaks, Clinton complained of “an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.” She declared that “Qatar's overall level of CT cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region.” She said the Kuwaiti government was “less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks.” She noted that “UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups.” All of these countries donated to the Clinton Foundation and received increased weapons export authorizations from the Clinton-run State Department.

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Clinton Foundation did not respond to questions from the IBTimes.

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.

Much more at the link:

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

Cross-posted from the Socialist Progressives Group
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1024

I wonder if there were emails on Hillary's server about any of this.

[moobu2]

1. That's old news

it wasn't much of anything. She didn't make decisions like that. There were multiple agencies involved and checks and balances everywhere. It's nothing but a smear.

[candelista]

2. It was published today, August 24 of this year.

That's recent enough for me.

[moobu2]

3. I meant the issues covered in this hit piece

have been around for a long time and never amounted to nothing. It's just a smear.

[RiverLover]

9. It never amounted to anything that could be proven in a court of law. /nt

[yardwork]

24. Maybe you'd like to see the Bushes back in charge.

Are they pure enough for you?

[RiverLover]

32. Those are not our only choices. We don't need any more Bushes or Clintons in DC.

Ever

Again.

We need a fresh start. Bernie, O'Malley...either one would be absolutely fantastic for our country.

[randys1]

126. That is what some here want, no doubt. Bush, Walker, who cares, right?

Thanks for daring to say it out loud.

[merrily]

164. Bull puckies.

[merrily]

165. Bull puckies.

[candelista]

53. That suggests a new slogan for Hillary's campaign.

Hillary for President: 2016.
She will beat the rap in court.

[Kelvin Mace]

102. Clinton for President

"It's not illegal, it just seems that way."

[merrily]

166. How is that not a campaign button?

[OKNancy]

87. No it was in May - plus posted on DU at that time...

look again, or google the title.

It's been debunked too.
----------------------------

DU thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026730450

[yardwork]

110. The byline says May, and you just happened to dredge it up now?

Throughout this thread are suggestions that the Clinton Foundation is no different from Jared Fogle's pedophile ring. Interesting.

Looks to me like the usual right wing suspects leveraged the recent news about a pedophile's arrest to compare the Clinton Foundation to Fogle's fake "foundation" - which appears to have functioned as a shell from which to recruit victims.

And then you toss in the gratuitous speculation about the emails.

Smells like swift boating to me. "Some people say!" - Michelle Malkin

[roguevalley]

120. think about what they could get if she was President. Amazing.

[6000eliot]

4. It's a charitable foundation. It does a lot of good around the world.

The Clintons do not benefit from it. Get a fucking grip.

[Kelvin Mace]

105. As long as it does some good, who cares if the donor money comes

from merchants of death?

And the Clintons certainly DO benefit from their foundation in power, prestige and the ability to grant patronage to their allies. When they raise money by soliciting donors for the foundation, who pays for their travel (chartered jets) and entertainment expenses?

The foundation.

Getting a tad tired of this claim that "non-profit" foundations don't benefit their founders. Jared Fogle had a non-profit foundation, it certainly benefited him and his friends.

[yardwork]

107. Second comparison of Clinton Foundation to a pedophile in this thread!

Is this a new right-wing talking point?

It's one thing to question the policies and strategic goals of the Clinton Foundation, Gates Foundation, and any other charitable organization.

It's quite another thing to repeatedly compare them to a pedophile ring. If you are truly confused, do some googling and educate yourself.

Repeated assertions that the Clinto Foundation is somehow similar to Jared Fogle's pedophile ring are pathetic and lame. This smells like a new right wing talking point. Smells like when they swift boated John Kerry. Why are you helping spread this?

[Kelvin Mace]

111. Then stop asserting that foundations don't benefit the founders

To most celebrities, politicians and millionaire/billionaires, "non-profit" foundations are just another tool to perpetuate their wealth. Yes, there are exceptions, such as the Carter Foundation, but they are, sad to say, uncommon.

Jared Fogal and his foundation are currently in the news, which invites comparisons when people claim foundations are evidence of altruism, and do not financially benefit the founders. If HRC was steering defense contracts to a foundation donor, that is a quid pro quo, morally, if not legally. And I can't see that supporting an arms dealer whose stock and trade is killing people is much different than a pedophile. Actually, it is arguably worse, given that arms dealers help kills thousands, perhaps millions, whereas a pedophile can't operate on that scale.

Also, the enemy of your political crush is not always a member of the GOP. Some of us simply don't like people who consider Henry Kissinger a "friend" and who values his "advice". Some of us haven't forgotten her defense of DOMA, her defense of "welfare "reform", her support for the prison system and her vote for war in Iraq.

[yardwork]

113. I haven't asserted anything of the kind.

And suggesting that I have any "political crush" is laughable. I've been on DU a long time and im not a fan of any politician. I can't think of a single politician I admire. However, I do know swift boating when I see it.

[Kelvin Mace]

114. You are correct,

you did not assert anything of the sort. I misread who I was responding to.

I apologize for the accusation and withdraw it.

I disagree that I am "swiftboating" anyone, as this is my personal view and I do not work for any organization involved in an effort to discredit HRC (I too have been on DU for a long time).

My objection to her is based on her actions and her record. Making sure a foundation donor got a defense contract is the type of thing politicians like the Clintons do. It is a brand of "pragmatic" politics engaged in by the majority of our elected officials.

[yardwork]

115. Thank you for the apology.

[murielm99]

5. Same old smears. n/t

[yardwork]

6. This is right wing trash. Smear piece.

[msanthrope]

12. Put out by Bernie Sander's former employee. ......Nice surrogate attacks, eh? nt

[yardwork]

13. Stooping low. This plays into the hands of Republicans.

[msanthrope]

14. Not very adept of the Sanders campaign. nt

[yardwork]

28. I was withholding judgement but it's starting to look that way.

A poorly conceived and rolled out hit piece, complete with talking points that compare Hillary Clinton to Jared Fogle.

Not ready for prime time.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. Still pushing that lie even after you were shown the obviousness of the context of the statement.

That doesn't make your lie any less of a lie. At first I thought it was you just flailing and failing to deflect but I reiterated to you how the statement referred to the sham charity that is the CF by comparing it to not just Fogle's sham charity but also the Susan B Komen Foundation that devours over 80% of donations in administrative overhead -- and yet, you continue.

You have been invited on numerous instances in this thread to show how much good work the CF has performed. Yet, you persist in pushing the pedophile line even after I corrected you.

It's like watching you shovel madly in an effort to bury the Titanic while you scream, "It's not sinking! It's not sinking!"

[whathehell]

83. "He should have his cock cut off, too, if he's a guy".

Tell us how you really feel, why dontcha.

[Quackers]

92. You realize that quote and your username went together perfectly, right?

[whathehell]

103. Uh, no..

Feel free to explain..

[Quackers]

119. Ok

While scrolling through the messages, I see the comment about cutting his penis off. Directly across from that quote was your username, whathehell?! I thought it was funny........

[whathehell]

121. I'm glad you realized it was a quote..

not much for castration, myself.

[Quackers]

122. Lol

Yeah, I knew it was a quote. I was juror #3. Lol

11:42 AM
Automated Message
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Tue Aug 25, 2015, 08:32 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Yes. Nothing but RW lies from this stinking, vicious,lying poster, who should be kick-banned.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7108176

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Violent insult - seems to be this poster's style but it doesn't belong here.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Aug 25, 2015, 08:42 AM, and the Jury voted 6-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The OP is smear-bait. Although overly descriptive, the OP and it's supporters deserve all the disrespect they bring to the table.

Quid pro quo.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with the alerter.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: You can't say bomb on an airplane!
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Violent insult is rude, insensitive, over-the-top.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I hate to hide it because I agree with the sentiment, but this is way, way over the top.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Doesn't belong on the DU!

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Cannot reply to automated messages

[whathehell]

125. Well done!!

What the hell (Yes, indeed!) was wrong with that poster?

It was hard to understand why anyone would have four hides in one thread,

but I do believe he was finally tombstoned.

[alcibiades_mystery]

128. Not tombstoned yet, but flagged for review

Would be interesting to see if IP matches or other sock detection turns up anything on that one.

[Raine1967]

135. Poster has been PPR'd

Trolling with multiple accounts (candelista, Beauregard), previously banned.
For more information see Terms of Service

by EarlG

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=322593&sub=trans

[Cha]

143. Good.. about time!

[Agschmid]

133. Yes I noticed that as well, it was awesome.

[yardwork]

84. I recommend that you delete this post, as well as the post below.

I disagree with the OP too but your posts are bizarre. They're also against the rules.

[freshwest]

132. Thank you! It is indeed. n/t

[Agschmid]

8. This is a blatant smear.

[AngryAmish]

10. Sexist, too.

[candelista]

63. But not racist.

So it's not all bad.

[msanthrope]

11. Typical Bernie Sanders supporter smear....No wonder he's trailing Clinton......

To the jury....the supporter is the article writer, who is Sander's former spokesman......I

[Agschmid]

15. This isn't about Sanders supporters.

This reflects on this specific poster.

You can't broad brush us all, some, even most of us don't buy into this crap. Sometimes it seems like a silent majority unfortunately, and then some people really seem to get wrapped right up into the crap.

[yardwork]

18. It reflects on the writer of the article. Sanders should denounce this.

[msanthrope]

21. If a former Clinton spokesperson had written anything like this about BS.....

Well, we all know how that would turn out...

[yardwork]

26. There are now some other posts in this thread that reflect very poorly on Sanders' campaign.

Comparing the Clinton Foundation to a pedophile ring is so low, perhaps there might be a convo about this in the Sanders group?

I mean, this looks terrible. I don't think Sanders would approve. Ya'll don't look good on this.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. You're just oozing with desperation to push the pedophile line, aren't you?

Your desperation actually made me chortle.

[Agschmid]

36. What individual people say do is out of the control of the candidate.

[yardwork]

37. Of course, but campaigns have to control their message.

It's a difficult balancing act.

[Marr]

89. You're trying way to hard to make this a Sanders thing. /nt

[cyberswede]

136. You know, that poster was a troll, not a typical Sanders supporter

I think a lot of the discord being sown here is by trolls. Pretty effectively, too.

[yardwork]

140. Yes. That's their job.

[msanthrope]

158. Indeed...you have a few skating around for Bernie. nt

[cyberswede]

160. I don't think its possible to determine if a troll is even really "for" anybody

...or if they're just trolling. They can pose s anything they want.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. I see a lot of people denouncing it as a smear but no one is

demonstrating how it is appropriate for a government official to take large sums of cash from foreign entities that receive beneficial consideration from the official.

[yardwork]

17. Really? You don't see the difference between a charitable fiundation

and an individual?

Did Hillary Clinton use donations from the Saudis to redecorate her living room?

The Clinton Foundation is a charity. It collects donations and then provides grants to the poorest places on earth to try to help people a little bit.

Next we'll hear that Jimmy Carter's guinea worm eradication campaign was actually a "get rich quick" scheme."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. I hear the Susan B. Komen Foundation is a charity too.

And Jared Fogle has a charitable foundation.

How much of the money going in to the foundation is spent on "administrative costs" and how much goes to the end-users?

[yardwork]

22. Wow. Comparing the Clinton Foundation to a pedophile.

Do you think that this post reflects well on Bernie Sanders?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. Wow. Reaching for the pedophile angle rather than the obvious sham charity angle.

Because, you know, I only also mentioned SBK as well.

So how much of the Clinton Foundation's contributions make it to the end users and how much gets sucked up in admin costs?

Do you think that this post reflects well on Bernie Sanders?

I'm not Bernie Sanders -- or Martin O'Malley, even though you curiously let him out -- and I'm guessing the only reason he was dragged in to this is because if it looks bad for him it must be devastating for Clinton.

[yardwork]

27. A Sanders campaign employee wrote the article. Yeah, we noticed.

If ya'll are trying to keep the source of the hit pieces secret, you need to put different names on the byline.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. You keep dodging why the CF is so dodgy. You made the claim the CF is a charity yet you

seem more intent on lobbing ad homs against a solid progressive who called out the exact same nonsense when it was Rs perpetrating the corruption and graft.

Show us all the good work done by the CF and how the majority of the money it takes in goes to worthy causes.

I'm eager to see you extol the virtues of this "charity" you so vociferously defend.

[yardwork]

33. Look it up yourself.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

35. Obviously Google has deserted you in your time of desperate need.

[candelista]

39. In 2009-2012 The Clinton Foundation spent 15% on charitable activities.

From the Clinton Foundation's Wikipedia page:

Between 2009 and 2012, the The Federalist reported that the Clinton Foundation raised more than $500 million dollars according to its IRS filings. 15% of that, or $75 million, was spent on charitable activities. More than $25 million was spent on travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/26/1380519/-The-Clinton-Foundation-and-the-New-World-Order#

[Live and Learn]

57. Ugh, that is awful. Doesn't sound very charitable to me. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

38. Do you have evidence that the Clinton Foundation is a sham charity?

I mean, I've seen evidence that Fogle's foundation was a sham. It never even paid its $5 annual fee to the State of Indiana, and it never disbursed a single grant. According to the story circulating yesterday, 73% of its funds went to admin "costs," while the other 26% could not be accounted for. That's positive evidence that the charity was little more than a shell organization to enrich Fogle and his collaborator, Mr. Taylor.

Do you have similar evidence regarding the Clinton Foundation, or are you just "asking questions"?

[candelista]

40. See my post above.

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. Your post above provides no evidence that the Clinton Foundation

is departing from its mission; is it not operating as a legitimate non-profit foundation, disbursing funds in good order?

Please provide evidence. Thank you.

[candelista]

48. "No evidence"? :)

15% to charitable causes is "in good order"? Would you give to a charity like that? I wouldn't. Not unless I had an ulterior motive.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

49. don't confuse them with facts. It makes their brains hurt.

and stresses them to no end when they think that their Chosen One may not be inevitable or unbeatable.

[candelista]

52. LOL. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

85. LOL at your conservative ideologue source, friend

Sad that progressives should rely on such clearly right wing sources, especially when they have their own access to the data.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

91. Hey. I subscribe to AFA's newsletter

If we don't keep track of them, they can get away with murder.

Same reason why I read Mein Kampf, Mao's little red book, and other scary stuff.

[alcibiades_mystery]

96. Agree with you completely, Chairman

We should definitely be reading right wing sources and learning their arguments and tactics. The problem here is that candelista is using those sources uncritically in support of his or her arguments. Now, if the right wing sources were correct, that wouldn't be a problem in itself. I don't think the sky is green simply because a conservative ideologue like the one candelista is relying on says it's blue. But in this case, there is clear deception by the right wing author of the piece. We should always approach such sources critically, especially when we plan to cite them in support of our own arguments. Sadly, candelista took this source at face value, probably because he or she wanted to believe what the conservative ideologue was saying.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

100. normally it is relatively painless, but

the AFA in particular sometimes makes me sick. They are fucking crazy over there.

[alcibiades_mystery]

81. Well

My brain doesn't hurt, nor am I confused.

Well, I might be a little confused about why candelista is using the interpretation and deceptive writing and graphics of a right wing ideologue like Sean Davis to support his or her argument (more on this point in sub-thread below), but that's not really confusion about the subject matter. It should be clear, in any case, that Davis' deceptive reading of the financials are not "facts." I'm also not clear why progressives are not reading conservative rhetoric more critically and attentively.

I'm still open to arguments on the Clinton Foundation, but those should really be objective analyses, rather than bluster and dodges from sources that are very obviously conservative ideologues.

I'm also not very stressed. Have a good day, Chairman!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. "Do you have similar evidence regarding the Clinton Foundation, or are you just 'asking questions'?"

Actually, I was thinking her supporters would be beating down the door to extol her good works and show how much money is actually passed through to charitable grants.

[alcibiades_mystery]

47. So you have no evidence to support your speculation? Okay then.

When you make a claim you should support it. Throwing out various speculations, then looking on with some kind of grin when people don't take the time to rebut your evidence-less claims is simply juvenile and dishonest.

Feel free to support your claim at any time, though. I'm willing to listen to an actual argument, if you have one.

I suggest you start with a knowledgeable review and analysis of the recent financial statements provided to you below.

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. Nice graphic from the Federalist, a conservative web site

Good source there.

You're saying "10% went to charity." You're confusing charity with charitable grants. What are the other (non-grant) charitable activities of the Foundation? Your conservative source attempts to deal with that question in this paragraph:

While some may claim that the Clinton Foundation does its charity by itself, rather than outsourcing to other organizations in the form of grants, there appears to be little evidence of that activity in 2013. In 2008, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $100 million purchasing and distributing medicine and working with its care partners. In 2009, the organization spent $126 million on pharmaceutical and care partner expenses. By 2011, those activities were virtually non-existent. The group spent nothing on pharmaceutical expenses and only $1.2 million on care partner expenses. In 2012 and 2013, the Clinton Foundation spent $0. In just a few short years, the Clinton’s primary philanthropic project transitioned from a massive player in global pharmaceutical distribution to a bloated travel agency and conference organizing business that just happened to be tax-exempt.

A nice bit of trickery that gives that appearance of dealing with the objection while completely failing to do so. "There appears to be little evidence of that activity," Sean Davis* says. Let's hear more? Oh, we're going to switch to an "example." The example shows that the Clinton Foundation has stopped funding a particular initiative directly, shifting from $100 million in 2008 to $126 million in 2009, then dropping off to "virtually zero" and then $0 in 2012 and 2013. OK, so much for that particular program. Surely Mr. Davis will now show us how this drop off applies across the board for all Clinton Foundation programs? Um, nope. He ends with a sentence that deceptively applies the expenditures on this particular project to the foundation as a whole.

Be careful, candelista. When you read and cite right wing conservative Clinton haters as your primary sources, you have to be ready to read critically and attentively, rather than taking anything that say (much less their bozo graphics) at face value. Surely you've learned to be more critical of conservative rhetoric by now? Smoke and mirrors. Sad to see you abetting such nonsense.


* Mr. Davis' bio: "Sean Davis is a co-founder of The Federalist. He previously worked as an economic policy adviser to Gov. Rick Perry, as CFO of Daily Caller, and as chief investigator for Sen. Tom Coburn. He was named by The Hill as one of the top congressional staffers under the age of 35 for his role in spearheading the enactment of the law that created USASpending.gov. Sean received a BBA in finance from Texas Tech University and an MBA in finance and entrepreneurial management from the Wharton School."

[candelista]

67. The Daily Kos cited it. That's the link in my first quote.

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7107905

Send them an email and complain.

[alcibiades_mystery]

68. Nevertheless, the source is a conservative fanatic whose prose and data are demonstrably deceptive

I stand by my criticism of your source and claims. Provide some actual analysis of the financials yourself, instead of relying on Sean Davis, aid to Rick Perry and Tom Coburn, and CFO of the Daily Caller (!).

Do you have evidence that isn't a twisted account by a conservative ideologue?

[alcibiades_mystery]

76. Why would you do that?

candelista and I are having a perfectly reasonable conversation.

[alcibiades_mystery]

82. If I didn't know any better

I'd think this was a deliberate attempt to distract from the very real failings of some of the arguments above.

Oh well. The paltry tactics of internet discussions, I suppose.

[yardwork]

88. I was wondering the same thing.

This is a bizarre thread. Maybe the shock attack is designed to distract from the previous posts about the pedophile.

[alcibiades_mystery]

116. Interesting to note two data points

1) When candelista is locked out of his or her own thread due to a hidden post
2) When Beauregard starts attacking candelista with these violent posts on this thread

Just saying...

By the way, two of the alerts against Beauregard on this sub-thread were mine. There's no place for that kind of behavior on this board, whether it's authentic or not.

[yardwork]

117. Very interesting timing.

I find the pedophile references to be interesting as well, since they appear in at least three different places in this thread.

A well-known public figure is busted for pedophilia and child porn. He happens to have a "charitable foundation" that never filed paperwork.

A few days later, the Clinton Foundation gets talked about again in right-wing circles. An old column from last May makes its way to DU. The breathless whispers begin - "How is the Clinton Foundation any different from Jared Fogle's foundation??!" Emails! Benghazi! Saudis?!

"Some people say...." - Michelle Malkin

[alcibiades_mystery]

118. I would never use a right wing source to attack Bernie Sanders

much less stoop to the tactics you describe. I think your description has some merit, moreover. This comes up again now why?

Indeed, I don't think I have ever "attacked" Sanders at all. I quite like him and many of his positions.

It's sad to see people who are nominally Sanders supporters stooping to such nonsense to attack Secretary Clinton. In my view, they are not representative of the group as a whole. Sanders supporters I've encountered have tended to be quite civil, nice, and informed, and they certainly tend to read right wing propaganda very critically and attentively, unlike what candelista was doing in this thread.

In any case, if I was on MIRT, I'd certainly be tempted to compare some IP addresses about now.

[yardwork]

141. You were right. Socks of one another, now banned.

[alcibiades_mystery]

146. I sees 'em easy

They ain't smart.

[Agschmid]

130. FYI you nailed it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

145. Very easy to provoke that one into overreaction

Poor candelista. A year of trolling and gathering support, up in smoke. What a pity...





PS: If you're reading this in your silly little rage, candelista, a message: I win, you lose.

[yardwork]

86. You need to take a break.

You are either much too personally invested or you are deliberately trying to make Hillary's campaign look bad.

[BooScout]

98. He's toast.......

Got a bunch of hides on this thread and flagged for review. There is no excuse for what he's been saying.

[Agschmid]

129. Just FYI... turns out that Beauregard WAS... get this... Candelista.

Weird huh?

[OKNancy]

134. Beauregard and candelista are the same person

both were banned by EarlG today.
candelista made a pretend nasty Hillary person to slam her/himself. To make Hillary people look bad I guess.

[ismnotwasm]

138. And I'm not surprised

Oh no, not even in the smallest way

[Starry Messenger]

144. I must live a sheltered life.

I've heard of this happening, but never thought someone would really put in all that effort. I learned, and am a sadder and wiser person today.

[tblue37]

162. Sometimes it's how they earn a living. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

148. What a buffoon... the sad part is it was so transparent

It was clear what was happening from the moment "Beauregard" showed up.

An embarrassing and pathetic display.

[Live and Learn]

152. I though personal attacks were against TOS? nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

154. They are PPR'ed, and therefore are no more

I say "they" advisedly. candelista and Beauregard are the same poster!

Hit alert if you object to my characterization of the PPR'ed troll.

[Live and Learn]

155. Yeah, I just saw that post and came back to delete mine.

I never alert anyway. Just call it out when I see it. Given the circumstances I can see your point.

[Marr]

94. Charitable foundations can also be simple tax shelters.

I have no info on how the Clinton Foundation operates, but the other poster's repeated citing of it's 'charity' status doesn't mean much.

The Gates Foundation, for instance, it's hardly about giving money away. It's a smart place for a guy like Gates to put money, if you want to shield it from taxation while also using the funds to push your political agenda.

[yardwork]

97. You "have no information on how the Clinton Foundation operates"

But you're happy to assume the worst.

All charitable foundations push a particular point of view.

[Marr]

101. I've seen mother ducks who were less protective of their babies than

you are of Hillary Clinton, I swear.

I didn't 'assume' the Clinton Foundation works that way-- I specifically said I didn't know. I merely pointed out that chirping about the fact that something is a 'charitable foundation' does not, in itself, mean anything.

[Live and Learn]

163. +1 It is almost liike they assume we were all born yesterday.

We couldn't possibly understand how tax shelters are set up to look like charities.

Just because a charity doesn't actually perform any charitable work doesn't mean it isn't charitable.

[merrily]

167. 'Cause other DUers definitely do know exactly how the Clinton Foundation works, doncha know.

[Sunlei]

44. It's all Legal, here are Clinton Foundations IRS reports and financials for you to review.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about/annual-financial-reports

HERE IS MOST CURRENT IRS 990 SO YOU CAN SEE LIST OF DONORS to the charity "BILL, HILLARY & CHELSEA CLINTON FOUNDATION" FOR YOURSELF.

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

[Live and Learn]

58. Legal does not equal moral. nt

[Sunlei]

66. thousands of people Clinton Foundation has directly helped start think it's a 'Moral' Foundation

Here's just ONE group the Clinton foundation helped launch. There are many more.



The start up plan through Foundation 'donations'


Solar sisters today http://www.solarsister.org/

[Live and Learn]

69. If the numbers posted above are correct, the 'charity' is spending more

on administrative costs than actual charitable work. That is not my definition of a moral charity and not one I would donate to.

[alcibiades_mystery]

71. The numbers posted above are the interpretation of a right wing ideologue

Sad to see the Sanders camp deploying the deceptive rhetoric of The Federalist here. That's especially so when any one of the supposed experts on the Clinton Foundation in this thread could do their own analysis of the financials at any time, yet they rely instead on the weasel word arguments of Sean Davis, a conservative ideologue who worked for Rick Perry, Tom Coburn, and even the Daily Caller!

I repeat again that I'm really open to hearing arguments on this. Cutting and pasting right wing deceptions from right wing sources, however, is not really a form of argument good progressives should engage in, especially when they have their own access to the data.

Sad, really.

[Live and Learn]

150. Well they're foundation certainly isn't as straighforward as Carter's is.

And it is certain that the monies are not going straight to charities. Trying to figure out exactly what is happening with the monies this foundation accepts is, I found, quite murky. You tell me if you can figure it out: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

As for me, I will stick with charities like Carters that can tell me exactly where the monies go.

[alcibiades_mystery]

153. To be sure, they are very different sorts of foundations

I have yet to see any evidence that the Clinton Foundation isn't doing exactly what they pledge to do, however. The Carter charities have a far more straightforward funding mechanism, but they also have a more traditional vision of how charities are meant to assist communities. I should say that I am more partial to that traditional vision, but the philosophy of empowerment through building partnerships - while not my cup of tea - seems perfectly legitimate to me, and is something that should be tried.

The evidence provided by the OP in this thread turned out to be right wing propaganda on even cursory examination. That's not surprising, since the OP turned out to be a right wing troll, and has been shitcanned. Stranger still, the OP had two personas in this thread: candelista, the supposed progressive Sanders supporter, and Beauregard, a supposed Clinton supporter. The Clinton supporter persona attacked the Sanders supporter persona rather viciously. They are both the same person, a previously banned troll. That's not the sort of people I would throw in with, but that's just me. The only thing hinkey that's been exposed in this thread is candelista/Beauregard.

[Live and Learn]

151. Why would you post that? The OP did not quote the Ferderalist.

Please try to be more honest when replying. And you might notice that I am not resorting to your tactics by claiming that all Hillary supports do the same because that would be dishonest as well.

I gave you a fact Check link and it does not dispute what was said just claims they're may be some other reasons that all sound like claptrap to me. When I donate, I want the bulk of the money to go directly to the causes not to advertising and administration costs. I think the majority of people feel that way.

By the way, this is the first I had ever heard of this and I am quite appalled by it.

[Sunlei]

72. You don't have to.A real charity gets corp donors to commit so the charity doesn't have to support

the many start-ups they launched for life.

It takes 'administrative work' to get Corp. donations, which aren't usually a one time donation.

It takes 'administrative work' at ground level to even start-up the group ones- charity is going to help launch.

[Live and Learn]

149. Give me a break! A real charity only needs corp dollars?

When does a corporation ever donate without expecting something in return?

[Recursion]

19. Jimmy Carter's foundations have raised even more money than the Clintons' (nt)

[yardwork]

23. They'll be targeted next, by people supposedly on our side.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

51. except most of that money goes out to benefit the needy.

unlike Hillary's

[Live and Learn]

61. Quite a difference since 90% of his foundation's monies raised actually go to charity!

How much of my contribution goes to Carter Center programs?
In fiscal year 2013-2014, 90 percent of Carter Center expenses supported the Center's Health and Peace programs, 6 percent supported fundraising activities, and 4 percent supported the Center's administration.

http://www.cartercenter.org/donate/faqs/index.html

[candelista]

65. +1. nt

[Sunlei]

95. they're different charities with different focus. More of Carter foundation money pays for a

home or Doctor treatments, or medicines.

Clinton foundation 'empowers' a community, or trains a group of local woman to become entrepreneurs. The future benefits from entrepreneurs they can then pay for them selves. They also have groups they've supported through high school education and used charity paid-Admin. to assist placements in global colleges for even a higher level of education. Which will then benefit directly their home community.

[cantbeserious]

29. Surprise - Surprise - Better To Never Trust A Corpratist

eom

[Sunlei]

41. most of american 'big donors' get state and federal taxpayer money whenever they can. None as

much as Cheney Empire trillions but you know,rich or poor everyone wants some "free gov. money"

[SidDithers]

42. The right hates Hillary. The fringe left hates Hillary...

and, increasingly, they use the same smears to attack her.

Sid

[candelista]

55. "Fringe left." :)

Brilliant turn of phrase! That'll show those pinko fringe Hillary haters!

[SidDithers]

56. If the shoe fits...nt

Sid

[Live and Learn]

62. Well, we are for the 'fringe' candidate!

I can live with that.

[SidDithers]

161. Looks like you were both the Right and the Fringe Left...

Come back soon, again.

Sid

[GusBob]

45. "I wonder if there were any emails on Hillary's server about any of this"

Lol shameless

[candelista]

60. That's what I think she is really worried about.

Any emails on this subject could provide the connecting link between Hillary's activities as Secretary of State and donations to the Clinton Foundation. That could be much more damaging politically than the classified documents on her server.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

54. Not this shit again.

[Starry Messenger]

59. I guess Sirota, Hedges, et al miss the salad days of being able to write tragic pieces about

how much they hate Republicans. I hate to be cynical, but I guess successful Democratic administrations probably don't generate the kind of copy they could get with a Republican one. Because they sure do seem to be itching for a return to those times.

Must be nice to know you could survive either way.

[msanthrope]

159. See, Jane Hamsher. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

70. She was simply creating American jobs. I don't see what the big deal is.

[procon]

73. How is this any different than other politician?

Even if true, did everyone forget that bribery IS the accepted standard of tongue-in-cheek quid pro quo in American government. It's all an act, a tawdry play where we pretend that we still are a democracy, but the citizens, business and government merely enable one another to maintain that threadbare fiction. Voters turn a blind eye as billions exchange hands to benefit those who have the wealth in 'invest' in lucrative payola deals with their tame political pets, and we're supposed to look shocked when these bosom heaving exposees get served up as weak sauce to titillate the awaiting chorus into yet another fan fluttering, wailing lament against this protagonist.

[lumberjack_jeff]

78. Would it have been better if the Clinton foundation was doing business with mostly enemies?

For better or worse, this is what the Clinton foundation does - encourage "closer ties" between loose-knit allies.

It seems to be working, frankly.

[liberal N proud]

80. And the hit pieces just keep coming.

[OKNancy]

90. in a way, not really. THis was first published and discussed on DU back in May

Here is the DU thread from May http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026730450

[yardwork]

93. The hit pieces keep being recycled. Is it time for Benghazi again?

I hear Bill had affairs! Emails!!

[freshwest]

137. HRC too, they say! Janet Reno, Vince Foster and Huma Abedin! There's a pattern! Sorta. n/t

[liberal N proud]

108. So it is a regurgitated hit piece.

[OKNancy]

131. not only that but candelista and Beauregard were banned... same person!

Such a funny troll. Beaureguard got posts hidden when "he" said nasty things about "candlista" and they were the same person
LOL

[yardwork]

139. Typical troll behavior. Good work, MIRT.

[emulatorloo]

99. Recycling debunked right wing smears on DU can't be good for one's karma

[CajunBlazer]

106. Agreed +1 (n/t)

[Darb]

104. Weakest, weak-assed sauce for some time.

But you knew that.

Fucking stupid.

[CajunBlazer]

109. If this was supposed to get me to support Sanders, it had the opposite affect.

I this is how his supporter want to play, the hell with him.

I am still confused how money contributed for philanthropic purposes is supposed to buy influence with the Clinton.

[stevenleser]

112. This might be worth a look if it was unusual for the US to sell arms to Saudi Arabia

We have long provided the Saudis with the latest and greatest weaponry, to include our premier fighters, F-15's when they still were the best fighter jets in the world.

This is scandal-mongering of the worst kind.

[AtomicKitten]

123. "State Department will not review Clinton ethics pledge breaches"

l

Reuters) - The U.S. State Department will not review the breaches of the 2008 ethics agreement Hillary Clinton signed in order to become secretary of state after her family's charities admitted in March that they had not complied, a spokesman said on Thursday.

Clinton, now the Democratic front-runner in the 2016 presidential election, had promised the federal government that the Clinton Foundation and its associated charities would name all donors annually while she was the nation's top diplomat. She also promised that the charities would let the State Department's ethics office review beforehand any proposed new foreign governments donations.

In March, the charities confirmed to Reuters for the first time that they had not complied with those pledges for most of Clinton's four years at the State Department.

The State Department "regrets" that it did not get to review the new foreign government funding, but does not plan to look into the matter further, spokesman Jeff Rathke said on Thursday.

<snip>

link: http://news.yahoo.com/state-dept-not-review-clinton-ethics-pledge-breaches-204846487.html

[Kingofalldems]

124. Are you spamming DU with this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10249380

Sure seems like it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

127. Multiple copyright violations

Unedited, even though Starry Messenger noted that the other thread was a copyright violation. This one is, too.

I wonder why candelista would continue to post copyright violation OPs, even after being told not to. Strange.

[hrmjustin]

142. I see the mole and his/her sock have been banned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=322593&sub=trans

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=316121&sub=trans

[alcibiades_mystery]

147. Got 'eeeeeeeemmmmmm

[Kingofalldems]

156. But but no...He was a committed Socialist.

Not.

[blm]

169. DUers new to this tactic need to catch up to the reality of how GOP operates -

The tactic of infiltrating Democratic and left groups has been a standard in their playbook since the 60s.

[Cha]

157. Just Desserts!

[blm]

168. Long time coming, imo. Pretty obvious troll

using a recognizable tactic.