2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNothing to see here, folks. The Clinton Foundation is all about Good Works,
Peace and Love and fairy dust.
And it really is only about "helping the Children."
Well, except for that bump in the payments to Bill for his speeches in front of corporate podiums.
And except for Algeria giving lots of dough to said foundation while Algerian officials were conducting talks with the HRC-led State Department.
And then there is that nasty little matter of how one woman, who likes Big Business-style profitable deals and also wants to President, helped Russians secure the sale of one fifth of this nation's uranium supply.
And reports keep coming in about all the armaments dealings that have probably come about due to how so many officials in nations where deadly armaments are a daily part of life have gone and ponied up monies to same Foundation.
####
Links:
An April 2016 article from NYT's regarding Hillary's "sale" of one fifth of the nation's Uranium to Russians
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=1
Also Paul Thompson's tremendous work on a timeline of the Clinton Foundation --
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Foundation_Timeline_-_Part_1
(Part one is rather structural and it notes operative factors about the Foundation. Part two is where it gets rather juicy.)
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Foundation_Timeline_-_Part_2
2010 - 2012: The Clinton Foundation incorrectly lists no donations whatsoever from foreign governments in its yearly tax returns. These three years are the only full fiscal years during Clinton's term as secretary of state. In the immediately previous years, foreign governments donated tens of millions of dollars every year. In 2015, Reuters will report that in fact foreign governments did continue to give tens of millions each year during this time. After Reuters discovers the discrepancies, The Clinton Foundation will acknowledge the oversight and claims it will refile at least five years of tax returns to fix it. However, the Clinton campaign will also call allegations of corruption in The Clinton Foundation "absurd conspiracy theories." (Reuters, 4/23/2015)
Clinton and Algeria's President Abdelaziz Bouteflika meet in Algiers, Algeria, on October 29, 2012. (Credit: US Embassy Algiers)
January 14, 2010: Algeria makes a large donation to The Clinton Foundation in violation of the foundation's rules, while Algeria is heavily lobbying Clinton's State Department.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Here.
Remember, it is backed up with an article regarding HRC and an uranium deal from NYT's reporters, Jo Becker and Mike McIntire. In April of 2016.
The NYT's is a Wall Street controlled newspaper that heavily prefers Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump. So I assume the article from the two reporters must have substance or the Times would not have printed it.
annavictorious
(934 posts)The "pro-Clinton" New York Times had a deal at the time with the right wing author of the book "Clinton Cash". The NYT had exclusive access to parts of the book in exchange for advancing the author's "story line".
Those NYT reports caused such a public outcry from readers who objected to the reliance on a discredited right wing hack as a news source that public editor Margaret Sullivan was forced to address the lapse in journalistic standards. The embarrassed Times quietly backed away from its stories.
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/23/an-exclusive-arrangement-on-a-clinton-book-and-many-questions/
paulthompson
(2,398 posts)I just read that link, and I don't see anywhere what it says the Times "quietly backed away from its stories" or disavowed them. All that's concluded is that "The Times should have been much more clear with readers about the nature of this arrangement." That does not invalidate the content of the stories in any way, which grew out of original NY Times reporting from years earlier.
If you find any mention where the Times retracted their stories on this, please point them out.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)There's still time.
We must change course.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)an unregistered private-equity fund in Colombia?
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/new-questions-raised-about-clinton-foundation-equity-fund-in-colombia/
senz
(11,945 posts)scscholar
(2,902 posts)and the foundation has done a lot of great things since then.
dchill
(38,315 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Laughing Mirror
(4,185 posts)But it calls itself a Foundation so all that shadiness is for the common good.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)Laughing Mirror
(4,185 posts)The Clinton Foundation is a complete fraud. But if your name is Clinton you can call yourself a foundation and you can get away with anything.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)until it becomes almost impossible to peel it all off.
Thanks for taking the time to do some peeling.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Are harshly told how we are Right Wing neo cons, willing to defeat Clinton in order to bring about Trump!!
What goes on said on this board is that it is the RW, neo con branch of the Democratic Party stating that we Progressives are RW!
Hillary does not have the numbers to defeat Donald Trump and that is especially true if there is some Presidential Pardon or other work allowing for forgiveness on her criminality!
annavictorious
(934 posts)Is this the same Paul Thompson who had to make a public apology for misinformation in his 9-11 conspiracy book?
Is this the same uranium "deal" story that was debunked by multiple journalists earlier this year?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terror_Timeline#Author_-_Paul_Thompson
http://www.businessinsider.com/everything-we-know-about-the-hillary-clinton-russia-uranium-scandal-2015-4
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal/
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)to be published by Regenery and endorsed by Ann Coulter.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)with baseless gossip and lies.
How very Rovian (or should I say "Brockian" of you.
You can't refute the information, so you attack the messenger.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)I just compared Thompson to another couple of authors you might find informative and supportive of your point of view.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Today's Modern Democratic Party Wonderland, how much some of us must cry and seethe --
Those of us who lived in America's Golden Age, and also the newer crowd of young adults have some understanding of what corruption is and how corruption should be dealt with.
So how ironic is it that we Supporters Of The One Candidate that would rid both the nation and the Democratic Party of corruption must again and again hear that it is we Progressives who are destroying destroying the Party?
And this is happening even as every day of the week information shows up showing the entire world how corrupt, how "Republican" in nature today's Inner Elites of The "D" Party happen to be, so all anyone Progressive can do is
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Memes and slogans?
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)READ THE LINKS!
NYT's article is brand new, April 2016 (But then you would know that if you bothered to read the article at the link.)
As far as Paul Thompson, it is a straw man argument to refer to some other matter. I appreciate it when people use logic and not fallacies of logic to approach any amtter being discussed.
Since you don't seem to offer up anything you do know about the Foundation, or the armaments payments, or the Algerian situation, maybe you could "bone" up on those matters and then give us back the information you have learned.
annavictorious
(934 posts)It's a year old. And it's been debunked by multiple sources.
Shouldn't you be out investigating Vince Foster's murder?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Going by the things they mess up, like the lies leading up to both Poppy Doc Bush and a decade later, Baby Doc Bush's wars on Iraq, The New York Times isn't all that trustworthy.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)And yes, from your link: there were a couple of bits that turned out not to be true... they were from previously published sources, who later retracted, and Harper Collins removed those bits from later editions and Paul and the Center for Cooperative Research apologized. What would you have him do, not acknowledge and correct a mistake? Do you have any idea how many bits of information are contained in that timeline, and how many sources were used? It was a Herculean effort on Paul's part, and the fact that this is the ONLY thing that was found to be inaccurate -- and it was corrected as soon as the source corrected their information -- just goes to show what excellent work he did.
Even if one accepts the official story of 9/11, Paul's timeline is a very valuable resource. Please, do get back to us when you have done anything even remotely approaching Paul's contribution. I won't hold my breath.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Plastering the airwaves with tales of how good a Clinton Presidency will be for the nation.
Funny how the public is supposed to overlook statements which carry not a whiff of truth, but yet the public is expected to throw out an entire timeline document that only has a few errors.
dooner
(1,217 posts)Sounds like Paul Thompson and the Center for Cooperative Research did a lot of research for their book 911 - The Terror Timeline.
He apparently a public apology because they used some published news stories that were later retracted by the news sources.
This was mostly be about one guy, Al Amoudi and his relationship to Osama bin Laden.
The Terror Timeline had contained previously published reports that were subsequently retracted, including allegations against a Saudi man, Mohammed Al Amoudi, that he had funded, supported, or is associated with Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and their terrorist activities.[8] The sources cited in the book also incorrectly said that Al Amoudi was a defendant in a lawsuit filed by families of 9/11 victims.[8] These reports were based on published news reports that were later retracted but cited in first edition runs of the book before later being retracted by the news sources who made the allegations.[8] HarperCollins removed these references in reprints after January 2005.[8] Upon discovery of this, Paul Thompson and the Center for Cooperative Research made a public apology and the information was removed from the organization's website as well as from future editions of the book.[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terror_Timeline
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Response to annavictorious (Reply #4)
JTFrog This message was self-deleted by its author.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Read the article.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Frank G golfing with the President for Life of Natgasistan.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Octafish/971
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)Your first link to the NY Times is a non-news news story, it's filler material that boasts big sensationalized headlines, but actually deliver nothing of value. Reading it, the only conclusion presented is this, "Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown."
Thank you for wasting my time with more pointless speculating about a conspiracy theory.
You linked to this Paul Thompson's website twice, like it's really, really important, but when I go there I read his bio page where right up front he lays out his biases and warns that his "website is attempting to make the case that the email scandal is a real scandal..." He goes on to admit that his "aim is to document what Clinton did wrong, not what she did right." Yeah, OK, thanks for warning me upfront that you're out to trash Hillary by making stuff up match your conspiracy theories, saved me from reading another short story fiction.
Clearly you didn't check out this guy, Paul Thompson's biases, or you might have at least noted his disclaimer:
"Personally, I support Bernie Sanders." That admission sorta casts all his conjectures under suspicion, so I'm just gonna give this tripe a pass and go watch funny cat videos.
paulthompson
(2,398 posts)Yes, I'm a Sanders supporter. And guess what? 99.9% of anyone who writes on political topics has a bias and prefers one political candidate over another. I'd challenge you to find anyone who is totally neutral, including people at this forum. If that invalidates anything I write, then all news reporting is invalid. I'm being honest about it instead acting like many who hide their feelings and pretend neutrality. What I try to do is be objective as best I can, but I'm sure I don't always succeed with that. Nobody does.
How could I NOT be a Sanders supporter? I didn't start out that way, but when I learned about all the problems with the Clinton Foundation and Clinton's emails and server, I naturally preferred a candidate who isn't under FBI investigation and isn't involved with such problems. Pretty much any critic of Clinton is going to prefer someone else, almost by definition of being a critic. If you're going to restrict your reading of any criticism of Clinton to only other Clinton supporters, it's going to be a very short reading list.
What I see on this thread is a lot of the usual "blame the messenger" stuff because it's so difficult to counter the blatant conflicts of interest presented in the Clinton Foundation timeline. Yes, a lot of the criticism of the foundation has come from people with right wing agendas or others with anti-Clinton feelings, but that's how politics works. You're generally not going to find pro-Clinton supporters criticizing what Clinton has done. The foundation itself has admitted to mistakes and amended their tax returns and financial statements as a result, but you wouldn't know that from Clinton supporters here.
And by the way, no, I'm not planning on turning this latest research I've done into a book. I'm not attempting to profit from this in any way, shape, or form. If there was some potential profit, I'd donate it to charity just to make sure people wouldn't criticize my motives. Stick to criticizing the content instead of me, please. If there are specific relevant facts you think I've missed, point them out and I'll add them.
Oh, and as for the "mistakes" in my book, there was one, about a billionaire Saudi named Mohammed Al Amoudi. I made reference to mainstream news reports claiming he was a terrorist financier. At the time my book was published, he sued those news outlets and got them to retract their claims. Since I quoted those stories, I had to change those mentions too (just as many other books and news outlets did). I don't see how I can be blamed for that. If I quote a story in, say, Forbes magazine and that article turns out to be wrong, there's no way I could possibly know that until new reports come out about the article being changed or retracted.
procon
(15,805 posts)It's bad enough that the primary sources cited in these long, pained essays churned out daily by Bernie supporters are from Republicans, but there's a gleeful camaraderie in their like minded codependency. The cherry piked conclusions are made to fit puzzle pieces, tweaked bits, out of context lines, snippets of factoids, critical omissions, faulty conclusions, and monstrously unfounded conjectures woven together to support a bunch of cult like fanatical conspiracy theories... of which there are wide variety to choose from, and all of 'em purported to be true.
Republicans have one mission; to weaken the leading Democrat any way they can and make it easier to elect their candidate. Bernie supporters have the same goal, and you admit as much, noting that the anti-Clinton criticism stems from rightwing sources. I'm pretty sure that used to be called propaganda in a bygone age, but here we are, gleefully posting these daily rightwing screeds that help Republicans while trying to pass them off as a holy crusade to base the Democratic Party.
All these long winded and tiresome personal tirades are useless because the details of the whole story remains an unknown factor until the investigation is concludes. There is no inside sources or leaked information to support any of these wild claims. Even when a bonafide news service weighs in, they are careful to note that no conclusions have yet been made, but that doesn't deter the daily additions of these self serving paeans to individual egos and vanity that persist only to assist the GOP in bashing the Democrat frontrunner.
paulthompson
(2,398 posts)What if there's a Democratic presidential candidate who has legitimate problems that could eve be disqualifying for that person? What would that look like? Inevitably, you'd see criticisms coming from the right wing as well as supporters of other Democratic candidates. That's only natural.
Sometimes, candidates did do wrong and sometimes the critics turn out to be right. Look at how John Edwards flamed out after his sex scandal came to light in 2008, for instance. We need to look at the actual facts and not just say that anyone who criticizes a Democrat is carrying water for the Republicans.
If you have a problem with the information in the timelines I'm made, I'm game. Point out specifically which timeline entries you would change, based on what facts. I'm ready to seriously consider any constructive criticism.
And by the way, there are two major problems being discussed. One is the Clinton email scandal and the other is all the conflict of interest issues with The Clinton Foundation. This thread is talking about the latter. You're talking about an FBI investigation that deals with the former.
creeksneakers2
(7,468 posts)from neutral journalistic sources, or neutral journalistic sources following up on motivated accusations.
Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #62)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Look it up...
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)to the contrary, probable money laundering.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Vote2016
(1,198 posts)Well - Chelsea had to be paid.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Rather than ignoring others who needs help and people of means forgetting about them on charity day.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)And yet only nine million went to helping people.
Although it does seem that one employee of the Foundation, Sydney Blumenthal, managed not only to be hired on by The Foundation but at the same time was an "adviser" who helped the State Department go about bringing a disastrous war onto the heads and shoulders of the people of Libya.
And the fact that as Hillary railed against the many small nations of the Middle East for fostering terrorists, and helping terrorists, and saw to it that these same nations were then obliterated by US-supported military actions against them, she shared classified information with Blumenthal that one of HRC's pet projects, the Saudis, had been actively involved in terrorism. Yet it is only the small antions in the Middle East who have to fear the wrath of the USA - not the Saudis who perhaps even had a hand in Nine Eleven! (Bill Maher has even adopted this Saudis/Nine Eleven theory as one of his own.) This email exchange alone, between her and Blumenthal would have any other person but HRC facing charges of treason and espionage.
And that email ended up being "missing" from HRC's email server and Blumenthal's email server. Unfortunately for anyone attempting to hide the emails, the "Cloud" employed by HRC's providing server had indeed kept a record of that email.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Of those in need? Even Sanders wants to tax the rich and give it to others, the Clinton Foundation gets donations and gives it to others, what is the difference?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)I forget the percent of which went to those in need, but it was way more than 11 percent.
Doctors without Borders is prett decent too.
And St Vinnie's And Dw/o B never masterminded the start of any wars, either!
Anyway, I already explained the difference. (You ask "what's the difference."
Difference is:The Clinton Foundation is a charity only in that the a small portion of the money goes to helping people. The rest is more or less legalized bribery.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Charities, donate lots of articles, donate time and locate sources to donate. All of my donations and time is free, they hire people in St Vincent de Paul also. I gather you do not run a charity such as the Clinton Foundation. Are you against big donations to the Clinton Foundation helping those in need?
BTW, where did you find from reliable sources of bribery, not true, should not be said. Good RW talking point.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)"Salaries, transportation expenses, expense accounts" and probably kickbacks.
Oh and if you think the information is only from the RW, maybe you should bone up on foreign media. Unless you really think that outlets like Times of London and various French and German news media outlets are owned by Republicans here in the States!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Here is a link to their annual report.
http://2015.clintonfoundation.org/#!/
Fact check link to the percentage which goes to charity
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
In fact you are giving RW talking points which are wrong.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)believe it is anything other than a charity. A person who thinks that the Clinton Foundation is a criminal front is a waste of skin.
paulthompson
(2,398 posts)April 26, 2015: "It seems like The Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons." This comment is by Bill Allison, who is a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit government watchdog group. Law professor Zephyr Teachout, a Democratic candidate for governor of New York in 2014, was an organizing director there. (The Daily Mail, 4/27/2015) It is headed by Chris Gates, who was chairman of the Democratic Party in Colorado. (The Colorado Independent, 9/9/2014)
May 26, 2016: The Clintons are criticized for mixing government work with fund raising. Stephen Walt, a Harvard University professor of international affairs, says that the intertwining financial relationships between the Clintons, US defense contractors, and foreign governments who buy US weapons is "a vivid example of a very big problem - the degree to which conflicts of interest have become endemic. ... It has troubled me all along that The Clinton Foundation was not being more scrupulous about who it would take money from and who it wouldn't. American foreign policy is better served if people responsible for it are not even remotely suspected of having these conflicts of interest. When George Marshall was secretary of state, nobody was worried about whether or not he would be distracted by donations to a foundation or to himself. This wasn't an issue." (The International Business Times, 5/26/2015)
November 17, 2015: The Clinton Foundation is accused of being a money laundering front to benefit the Clintons. Longtime investigative journalist Ken Silverstein writes an expose about the foundation for Harper's Magazine. He asserts, "If the Justice Department and law enforcement agencies do their jobs, the foundation will be closed and its current and past trustees, who include Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton, will be indicted. That's because their so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich Clinton family friends." As one example, Silverstein notes that The Clinton Foundation has received more than $1 billion to purchase HIV/AIDS drugs for poor people around the world. "However, a unit set up to receive the money... clearly spent far, far less than it took in. In fact, the unit's accounting practices were so shoddy that its license was revoked by the state of Massachusetts, where it was headquartered." An unnamed "money-laundering expert and former intelligence officer based in the Middle East who had access to the foundation's confidential banking information" claims that all investigators would have to do "is match up Hillary's travel as secretary of state with Bill's speaking arrangements. Bill heads out to foreign countries and he gets paid huge amounts of money for a thirty-minute speech and then she heads out for an official visit as a favor. She racked up more miles than any secretary of state [other than Condoleezza Rice] and that's one of the reasons why. How can they get away with that?" The Clinton Foundation has not commented on the allegations. (Harper's Magazine, 11/17/2015)
Meredith McGehee, policy director at the non-profit Campaign Legal Center, will later say, "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. This shows why having public officials, or even spouses of public officials, connected with these non-profits is problematic." Gregory Suchan, who was a State Department official for over 30 years, will say that while foreign governments and defense contractors may not have made donations to the foundation exclusively to influence weapons sales, they were clearly "looking to build up deposits in the 'favor bank' and to be well thought of." (The International Business Times, 5/26/2015)
Or this quote from a Washington Post news story:
"The Clintons' steady cultivation of financial benefactors - many of whom had interests before the government - has led to charges of conflicts of interest and impropriety, such as Bill Clinton's end-of-term presidential pardons sought by donors. ... Most of all, the Clintons have excelled at leveraging access to their power and celebrity." (The Washington Post, 11/19/2015)
Or this one:
"At its heart, The Clinton Foundation is an ingenious machine that can turn something intangible - the Clintons' global goodwill - into something tangible: money. For the Clintons' charitable causes. For their aides and allies. And, indirectly, for the Clintons themselves." (The Washington Post, 6/2/2015)
Or this:
January 21, 2009 - February 1, 2013: While Clinton is secretary of state, at least 181 companies, individuals, and foreign governments that donate to The Clinton Foundation also lobby Clinton's State Department. Bill Clinton also collects $26 million in speaking fees from Clinton Foundation donors. These numbers will be calculated by Vox in 2015. Vox will comment that no one "has produced anything close to evidence of a quid pro quo in which Hillary Clinton took official action in exchange for contributions to The Clinton Foundation." However, "public records alone reveal a nearly limitless supply of cozy relationships between the Clintons and companies with interests before the government. ... That's not illegal, but it is scandalous." Vox adds, "Ultimately, it is impossible to tell where one end of the two-headed Clinton political and philanthropic operation ends and where the other begins." (Vox, 4/28/2015)
If you don't see a conflict of interest problem with what the Clinton Foundation has been doing, you're not looking.
Read the timeline I've made and tell me where I've misreported something. Start here:
http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Foundation_Timeline_-_Part_1
And note that I'm just getting started. There are entire problematic areas with the foundation I haven't even looked at yet. I have no doubt that the foundation has done a lot of very good charity work. But that doesn't make its real conflict of issue problems go away.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)and smearing. You've listed rumor mongering on a scale and a type hurled against John Kerry in 2004. I call bs on you. How about you come up with some convictions for money laundering, as those are crimes and you are just full of defamation.
paulthompson
(2,398 posts)Again,
Look at the links to the articles in the Clinton Foundation timeline I've posted. Please point to where I misquoted any information anywhere. Are those not mainstream sources? Where is the "rumor mongering?!"
If I quote something from the New York Times or the Washington Post or the like, take your issue up with those sources, not with me. I'm not quoting op-eds, which can be all over the map; I'm quoting news stories.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)Mexican drug cartels and their bosses have been convicted of money laundering. It's a bunch of lies and bullshit to accuse the Clinton Foundation of money laundering. Just bs.
That the New York Times have had it out for the Clinton's is no big secret. They breathlessly reported on Whitewater, and made up charges against Wen Ho Lee based on dubious sources, destroying his life. If there were any truth to the allegations, the State of New York, the local prosecutor and the DOJ and the Republican controlled Congress would have held hearings long ago.
It's goddamn bullshit and you should be ashamed of yourself. Just ashamed.
paulthompson
(2,398 posts)This is the same New York Times that officially endorsed Clinton for president? If you say that even reporting from the Times is "bullshit," then there's obviously no point talking with you.
And what about The Washington Post, which has also officially endorsed Clinton for president? Are they just as bad? Here's quotes from a couple of Post news articles (not editorials):
"The Clintons' steady cultivation of financial benefactors - many of whom had interests before the government - has led to charges of conflicts of interest and impropriety, such as Bill Clinton's end-of-term presidential pardons sought by donors. ... Most of all, the Clintons have excelled at leveraging access to their power and celebrity." (The Washington Post, 11/19/2015)
"At its heart, The Clinton Foundation is an ingenious machine that can turn something intangible - the Clintons' global goodwill - into something tangible: money. For the Clintons' charitable causes. For their aides and allies. And, indirectly, for the Clintons themselves." (The Washington Post, 6/2/2015)
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Unfortunately it will fall on deaf ears to the Clinton crowd. It will takecan indictment to open their eyes, and many will still remain in denial even then.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Now we Progressives get called Right Wing? How weird is that?
AzDar
(14,023 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)The rumormongering on this site must have Roger Ailes and Karl Rove beaming with pride.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Just doing charitiable work in Haiti, Honduras, and elsewhere.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Middle Eastern Countries where HRC's State Department got the green light to militarize some of those nations out of existence, I guess that all happened only to make HRC look bad.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)In 2016? Seems so.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)...are as deluded about the Clintons as Republicans were about the Bushes.
Total disconnect.
Or perhaps it's just all disinformation.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Which makes for a great cover. No matter how dirty they are, there are those who will always attribute their actions to a rw conspriracy against them.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Both the Clintons and Pres Obama were mercilessly hounded by the supposed RW regarding their activities that were either rather minor, or else of a racist nature, and not the callous corrupt activities that are the real problem.
I mean, For the Clintons -- Whitewater? Vince Foster's death?
And for Barack Obama -- Being born in the backwoods of Kenya? Are you kidding me?
Yet we don't hear media coverage about RW complaints regarding the Corporate takeover of the USA. or the fact that the Banking institutions became too big to fail, and too big to sue, and through Obama's enabling these corporate criminals, they could pull the plug on the economy any time they wanted to, with more Bailouts guaranteed when more economic failure occurs (Which is why it is important "they" gain full control over our Social Security Fund and the Trillions of dollars that are there - ripe for the taking.)
I suppose "ignoring" the Corporate Takeover is treated this way, witha big "Oh hum" is because many RW'ers are on the same page about doing whatever it takes to up the profits of the One Percent at the Expense of the rest of us.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)The people following the inner circle of Elites, who over the last thirty five years have ran both the Party and the Middle Class into the ground, must be mesmerized. That is all I can figure.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)It was all done legally, I suspect, so nothing to see here, move along...
randome
(34,845 posts)Perhaps you could read up on that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)something now totally legalized, and all anyone who is aware of what is really going on
can do is to say "Hey there. Please! Please look at the guys behind the curtain."
The reality of that peek behind the curtain reveals how it is that we have arrived at a point where two separate factions in Syria are now funded by US dollars, to fight each other and keep the children in that region of the world without food, water, medicine or schools to attend. So which side do we want to have win? Or is it more important to just keep the insanity of war going on and on and on?
If this was happening under George W Bush, we here at DU would be united in calling for wholesale examination of every bit of documentation as to who is profiting from this insanity.
But for those like you who continue to want to believe in the Great Wizards of Peace and Love, all I can muster the strength to say is: "Whatever..."
randome
(34,845 posts)Where are their mansions and yachts and car elevators? The Clinton Foundations shares their name but that's it. It is a public charity.
And yes, the situation in Syria is fucked up. But you know something? Assad fucked it up a long time ago. Now that Russia wants to prop him up, it's likely to get even more complex. If you want to talk about fucked up foreign policy, then you probably need to make an OP without the implication that the Clinton Foundation is some sort of James Bond-villain-style of organization.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)And please, remember, although it may be painful to do so, much of the nasty information about who the Clintons really are comes to us from the foreign press. As in the Times of London.
Or do you actually believe that the Times of London is controlled by the Republican Party of the US?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
immoderate
(20,885 posts)the first president whose family accepts speaking fees from foreign governments. Good plot material.
But remember, if she doesn't get indicted it's legal!
--imm
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Of course it will be hard to indict her, as many of the activities that are so unethical were carefully made "legal" before the activities occurred.
Much as how Sen. Di Feinstein had an aide re-write the US Senate Code of Ethics, right before before she embarked on her great schemes to enrich herself and hubby Richard Blum.
The activities she undertook included her leaking privileged information that she gleaned from Top
Secret Military Intelligence committees in Congress. She would find out where things in Iraq would be bombed to smithereens, and then her husband would bid on projects to build in those places and then he'd secure oodles of funding and then he didn't even need to build in those places, because by the time he had the funding the bombs would have decimated any of the "Construction Sites" he supposedly created.
The difference between Feinstein and Clinton is many here on DU hate Di Fi with a passion, but Hillary can participate in equally heinous activities and get a free pass.
EarlG
(21,885 posts)Fiorina and others are referring only to the amount donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Clinton Foundations charitable work is performed in-house. One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
Nice graphic though...
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)And you can count on Snopes to "prove" exactly what the proCorporate world wants to have us believe.
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)trudyco
(1,258 posts)How come he didn't step in with the conflicts or the insubordination? Was he oblivious or afraid?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Lately Hillary claims that she conceded to Obama right away - the instant when activities at the Convention in 2008 led her to realize that she wasn't going to get the nomination.
In actuality, it took her four days to concede. So what Quid pro Quo did her concession cost Obama?
And then we all find out that she gets a really nice bonus for her concession, unless Obama is just the most fantabulously generous person to ever run for office.
The Obama Campaign paid for all of Hill's debts. All of those that were remaining at that time.
And then she got offered the position of Secretary of State. To boot! Was there something other than this? We won't ever know, I am guessing.
In Obama's defense, he or someone at his staff let her know that she was not to deal with Sydney Blumenthal, a Clinton Foundation employee, and that she was not to keep going to him for advise on Middle Eastern affairs, as the Administration started to realize how disastrous that advice was.
But she was disobedient to Obama, despite him being her boss and also the Commander in chief of our Armed Services. So that fact that it is found out that she had emailed Blumenthal keeping him in the loop about the Saudis and the two of them exchanged classified information about the Saudis being in cahoots with terrorists plotting against us - that is doubly damning for her, because she not only broke US Code law, but also disobeyed the Commander in Chief.
senz
(11,945 posts)We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isnt rated?
It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204
The Clinton Foundation was on CN's Watchlist for a long time. Click on the "Archived Watchlist" link to learn more about the problems with the Clinton Foundation.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Last edited Mon May 9, 2016, 04:43 PM - Edit history (1)
As an "Entrepreneurial Partner." That one guy is a piece of work.
From Kissinger to Giustra, the Clintons have some mighty strange bedfellows.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)They must be stopped.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Hillary's misdeeds.
The Major Main$tream Media will be laser focused on bringing to light what is going on.
The History of recent State department activities will come to light.
The History of the Clinton Foundation will be coming to light.
By the time that the convention for us Democrats is held, there will be a real way to change the minds of the Superdelegates. Other than the Superdelegate factor, Bernie is pretty much exactly where Obama was on May 9th 2008!
And of course, one of the pro-HRC delegates has already been indicted for misuse of his power while in elected office. And for trading his Official favors for sexual arrangements! (And not Bill Clinton, BTW. Someone else.)
senz
(11,945 posts)NPR has been especially bad, lying about both Hillary and Bernie (positive for her, negative for him) in ways that I found unbelievable and shocking. I cancelled my support for them after a particularly egregious lie -- and let them know why.
My point is, we cannot be sure that the MSM is going to report objectively. Remember, Hill is the most corporate candidate -- she's pro-NAFTA, pro-TPP (with a quick pivot for the Dem primary), not the least bit protective of American workers. So the MSM could easily prefer Hill to the other candidate.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Back during the Kerry/Bush election, when they had on a "panel" supposedly comprised of 2 Republicans, 2 Democrats and a single Independent.
And get this: only the Independent was for Kerry!
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)that Pierre Omdiyar, Glenn Greenwald's benefactor, is a huge donor to the Clinton Foundation...
Somehow I don't think we'll see that little factoid in Glenn's next hate screed on the Intercept...
senz
(11,945 posts)That cannot be allowed to stand. Not in this country.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Right now the "Democratic Loyalists" number 29% of all registered voters. That is down some seven percent from where the figure stood in Spring 2008.
People have had it with both parties, and the indies are the majority. If Party Leadership won't stop to realize what the numbers means, then they are in for One Big Surprise.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)It's just that I have different conclusions, is all...
FWIW there is nothing more overrated and overplayed than the so-called "independent voter"...
When all these supposedly pissed off indies form their own party, we'll revisit the issue...
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Good to see you here.