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

WillyT

(72,631 posts)
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 10:27 PM Nov 2015

WOW... In Case You Missed This... 'Shaky Foundations' (HRC's To Be Precise)

Shaky Foundations
The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.

By Ken Silverstein - Harper's
November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm

<snip>

After endless delays and excuses, the Clinton Foundation released its 2014 tax return as well as amended returns for the previous four years and an audit of its finances. That fulfilled a pledge made last April by Clinton Foundation acting CEO, Maura Pally, who acknowledged that the foundation had previously made a few unfortunate accounting “mistakes.”

Journalists are going to be scouring through this new financial information and pumping out “balanced” stories that evade what is already evident, namely that the Clintons have used their foundation for crass profiteering and influence peddling.

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.

It is beyond dispute that former President Clinton has been directly involved in helping foundation donors and his personal cronies get rich. Even worse, it is beyond dispute that these very same donors and the Clintons’ political allies have won the focused attention of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton when she served as Secretary of State. Democrats and Clinton apologists will write these accusations off as conspiracy mongering and right-wing propaganda, but it’s an open secret to anyone remotely familiar with accounting and regulatory requirements for charities that the financial records are deliberately misleading. And not coincidentally, those records were long filed by a Little Rock–based accounting firm called BKD, a regional auditor with little international experience.

It’s odd that a small Arkansas-headquartered firm would handle the books for a giant entity like the Clinton Foundation, and even odder given that BKD has been implicated in a variety of misconduct. For example, last year the Securities and Exchange Commission sanctioned BKD for “violating auditor independence rules when they prepared the financial statements of brokerage firms that were their audit clients.”

It brings to mind Bernie Madoff, who also used a small accounting shop when he was running his notorious Ponzi scheme. And it’s worth emphasizing here that smaller firms are typically far less likely to challenge major clients, and the Clinton Foundation was one of BKD’s major sources of revenue.

The new audit that was released yesterday was prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), a major accounting firm. I’ve been told by multiple sources with knowledge of the review that PwC was under tremendous outside pressure to turn in a truthful audit as opposed to the shoddy work performed by BKD. “The audit is the key, it’s far more important than the amended tax returns,” Charles Ortel, an independent financial expert, told me. “PwC is a top firm and they will not be able to claim they didn’t know that the past audits were fraudulent because they have been informed of problems. If they certify that the Clinton Foundation is clean, when it is apparent it is not, PwC is done. It may go the way of Arthur Andersen.” Ortel, a former managing director of Dillon, Read & Co., who helped expose massive financial fraud by GE, GM, and AIG before the 2008 global financial meltdown, was referring to the accounting firm that missed massive fraud by Enron and subsequently collapsed.

A Canadian charity called the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership—which is run by one of Bill Clinton’s close friends, Frank Giustra—has been moving significant sums of money into the Clinton Foundation’s flagship in New York. There’s no way for the public to know precisely how much total money the CGEP has taken in over the years—or how much it has forwarded on to the Clinton Foundation—because, unlike in the United States, under Canadian non-profit law charities don’t need to report donors to tax authorities.

<snip>

Much More: http://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/


131 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WOW... In Case You Missed This... 'Shaky Foundations' (HRC's To Be Precise) (Original Post) WillyT Nov 2015 OP
Read it and wonder why more people aren't talking about it. Awknid Nov 2015 #1
Because it is some screamer's blog ConservativeDemocrat Nov 2015 #3
When Did Harper's Become A Blog ??? WillyT Nov 2015 #5
Look at the link ConservativeDemocrat Nov 2015 #15
harpers is a credible mag and the writers associated the same roguevalley Nov 2015 #66
Go peddle that on Free Republic ConservativeDemocrat Nov 2015 #70
pssst... Your Un-Reality Is Showing... WillyT Nov 2015 #91
You have got to be kidding yourself... MrMickeysMom Nov 2015 #100
Your nick is "conservative" and you are downing liberals on the DU for supporting a liberal? Hepburn Dec 2015 #123
LOL! bvar22 Nov 2015 #82
And I Have Yet To Understand What The /blog/ Distinction Means... WillyT Nov 2015 #95
Shhhht: the coronation committee is shooting the messenger. Betty Karlson Dec 2015 #125
It isn't actionable, yet Demeter Nov 2015 #39
Greenwalded? Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #2
Um... Ken Silverstein Is Not A Fan Of Glenn Greenwald... WillyT Nov 2015 #7
Okay, what about the story he is alking about which has been debunked? Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #12
Wow! NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #4
Ok Nance... Whatever You Say... WillyT Nov 2015 #9
It's not about whatever I have to say ... NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #17
Do You Know Offhand How Many Of The Watergate Sources Went On The Record Originally... I Don't... WillyT Nov 2015 #20
Changing the subject ... NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #21
How Is It... "Changing The Subject" ??? WillyT Nov 2015 #25
I think that bringing up Watergate ... NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #29
Did You Watch "All The President's Men" ??? WillyT Nov 2015 #31
So now Ken Silverstein ... NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #61
Well... We Will See... Many Papers Refused To Carry The WaPo Stories... For A While... WillyT Nov 2015 #62
Yeah. NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #63
Fair Enough... I'll Bookmark You... You Bookmark Me... WillyT Nov 2015 #64
Remember when "Good citizens check for duplicates"?... SidDithers Nov 2015 #22
Welcome to the New DU ... NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #24
A.) I Have A Knack For Attracting Views, And... B) This Story Is Just Going To Get Bigger... WillyT Nov 2015 #35
The "knack" for attracting views ... NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #46
And Why Do You Suppose Anti-HRC Posts Work Here... If They Do ??? WillyT Nov 2015 #55
Simple logic. NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #57
Many people go to auto races just to see the wrecks. (n/t) OilemFirchen Nov 2015 #54
Bring out your dead! randome Nov 2015 #79
Nance, all due respect, but Hillary has chosen to run for the presidency in spite of the fact that JDPriestly Nov 2015 #50
The Republicans have proven themselves ... NanceGreggs Nov 2015 #56
The Repukes are good at digging up dirt on Hillary because... Hepburn Nov 2015 #69
Ad Hominem again! rhett o rick Nov 2015 #88
I believe this falls under Ad Hominem... MrMickeysMom Nov 2015 #101
K & R AzDar Nov 2015 #6
Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation... CoffeeCat Nov 2015 #8
Thank You For That !!! WillyT Nov 2015 #10
This sort of thing will just continue to come out Awknid Nov 2015 #11
Yes it will. zeemike Nov 2015 #37
Is there something in which says a company can not donate to a Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #18
There is a very clear trail here... CoffeeCat Nov 2015 #23
So maybe we need to follow other money trails. If the fact everytime a defense contract is voted on Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #26
Unfortunately for you Bernie has never accepted donations or "speaking fees" from Boeing. JonLeibowitz Nov 2015 #38
Can he accept speaking fees? Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #44
Does Sanders have a foundation? zeemike Nov 2015 #41
Does he as a senator have influence to award contracts, yes he is in the position to award contracts Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #103
He has a vote in the Senate like all others. zeemike Nov 2015 #109
The spin like you are doing with the Clinton Foundation. How many billions has been spent on the Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #118
If it is a charity... Docreed2003 Nov 2015 #43
89% goes to program expenses tammywammy Nov 2015 #59
89% to "Program Expenses" ???!!!! bvar22 Nov 2015 #83
Charity Watch gave them an A rating tammywammy Nov 2015 #86
You ask some of the strangest questions. Well of course not. What is considered corrupt rhett o rick Nov 2015 #102
Contact info for the Department of Justice brooklynite Nov 2015 #13
The Clinton's are very adept at adhering to the letter of the law. think Nov 2015 #58
Thanks for posting. Broward Nov 2015 #14
Isn't that something?! nc4bo Nov 2015 #16
How long do you think the GOP would not have been all over this if it was a real story? My, my, Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #28
If you were the GOP JonLeibowitz Nov 2015 #40
Did I release the debunked Clinton released again tonight? Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #47
You keep mentioning this "debunking", bvar22 Nov 2015 #114
Maybe they are waiting to use it in the GE, they can't us it on Bernie, and he can win. bahrbearian Nov 2015 #72
They can use socialism and more stories not even revealed. Right now the GOP wants Sanders in the Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #73
Because the money is the whole point of everything she does: money, and power Demeter Nov 2015 #42
You must have your candidates confused, I know Hillary has donated to charity, has helped others, Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #49
Oh God, this is where the Clintons get sanctimonious and pretend that everyone's out to get them reformist2 Nov 2015 #19
Because the Canadian story has been put to sleep already. The revolving Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #27
My favorite is stalling an investigation for.months or years and then SwampG8r Nov 2015 #32
So no one was "out to get them"? Rose Siding Nov 2015 #34
I agree - the Clintons have always been as pure as the driven snow! reformist2 Nov 2015 #36
More like "driven-in" snow Art_from_Ark Nov 2015 #111
They made themselves such easy targets Demeter Nov 2015 #48
Yeah, it's the double super secret stuff that'll get 'em Rose Siding Nov 2015 #52
Don't kid yourself... tex-wyo-dem Nov 2015 #71
You can lay down for Kock and right wing attacks but I won't. Rose Siding Nov 2015 #74
I'm not saying laying down for the kochsuckers... tex-wyo-dem Nov 2015 #77
The "Kochsuckers" helped get Bill Clinton elected. bvar22 Nov 2015 #89
Speaking from firsthand Truprogressive85 Nov 2015 #30
Add the Welfare Deform that shredded the safety net and left 1.5 Million households living on $2/day Demeter Nov 2015 #45
The 1% Serving The 1% cantbeserious Nov 2015 #33
Last paragraph from your link..... postatomic Nov 2015 #51
Just goes to show Demeter Nov 2015 #53
Shifty, shady... SoapBox Nov 2015 #60
Shaky foundations, indeed. OnyxCollie Nov 2015 #65
tl;dr. nt msanthrope Nov 2015 #67
That says more about YOU than the long post. bvar22 Nov 2015 #85
It says that my legal training taught me that if you msanthrope Nov 2015 #87
Your "Legal Training"... Lolololololololol. bvar22 Nov 2015 #94
Dude.... my twitter account in my sig has my real name. Like other lawyers here, msanthrope Nov 2015 #99
Well, for a 'first year intern', you've certainly gotten around. randome Nov 2015 #110
No shit... there was a thread of about four or five of us DU lawyers msanthrope Nov 2015 #113
There you go again. bvar22 Nov 2015 #115
You just got proven incorrect. I understand your frustration. msanthrope Nov 2015 #116
How do you know? bvar22 Nov 2015 #117
I'm adding this to my browser's permanent bookmarks page--wow! and thanks zazen Nov 2015 #75
You are most welcome. OnyxCollie Nov 2015 #78
Thank you for taking the time to put all this information together and posting. /nt think Nov 2015 #80
You're welcome, my friend. nt OnyxCollie Nov 2015 #81
Outstanding! Thank you! n/t Hepburn Dec 2015 #124
Thank you Onyx Collie.... bookmarked nenagh Dec 2015 #129
Clinton Foundation Running Private Equity Fund in Colombia Dems to Win Nov 2015 #68
Finally someone exposes an issue. mmonk Nov 2015 #76
Harpers, huh Babel_17 Nov 2015 #84
Nothing but a smear campaign, many will buy it BootinUp Nov 2015 #90
And Time Will Tell... WillyT Nov 2015 #92
We already know WillyT. The baseless attacks BootinUp Nov 2015 #93
Talk To Me Next September/October... Right Before The Election... WillyT Nov 2015 #96
Sure BootinUp Nov 2015 #97
Hook... Line... And Sinker... WillyT Nov 2015 #98
Charity Navigator has the Clinton Foundation on a watch list Oilwellian Nov 2015 #104
Thank You For That !!! WillyT Nov 2015 #105
You're very welcome Oilwellian Nov 2015 #106
What's the problem? Regarding impropriety, HRC told them to 'cut it out'. sorechasm Nov 2015 #107
This in particular was interesting... Oilwellian Nov 2015 #112
Kick! nt LiberalElite Nov 2015 #108
kick! Segami Nov 2015 #119
Kick! Important information in this thread. senz Nov 2015 #120
Whoops. nc4bo Dec 2015 #121
Kick! artislife Dec 2015 #122
The Depth and Breadth of THIS demonstrates just How BOUGHT Is Our "Democracy" CorporatistNation Dec 2015 #126
Kick! n/t in_cog_ni_to Dec 2015 #127
Kick... nenagh Dec 2015 #128
Kick! n/t in_cog_ni_to Dec 2015 #130
kick! n/t in_cog_ni_to Dec 2015 #131

ConservativeDemocrat

(2,720 posts)
3. Because it is some screamer's blog
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 10:40 PM
Nov 2015

Rehashing already debunked Republican attacks.

That's why.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

ConservativeDemocrat

(2,720 posts)
15. Look at the link
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 10:58 PM
Nov 2015

h ttp://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/

Many publications support blogs now, written for basically nothing by partisan hacks looking more to pitch their perspective, than do any actual journalism. It's a cheap way to post clickbait for cash while at the same time not having to actually vet anything written by whoever is writing their blog.

So they play both sides from a business perspective. People who read those sorts of things are looking for validation anyway, not facts. So it isn't in the least bit credible.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

roguevalley

(40,656 posts)
66. harpers is a credible mag and the writers associated the same
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 02:32 AM
Nov 2015

their reports are out. it will become known that their pay and play foundation is a fraud.

ConservativeDemocrat

(2,720 posts)
70. Go peddle that on Free Republic
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 11:10 AM
Nov 2015

You'll get a lot more of a receptive audience there.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)
100. You have got to be kidding yourself...
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 11:41 PM
Nov 2015

Is this the "zinger" phrase that you're suppose to use when someone calls you on something like saying Harpers is a "blog"?

Hepburn

(21,054 posts)
123. Your nick is "conservative" and you are downing liberals on the DU for supporting a liberal?
Sat Dec 12, 2015, 05:07 AM
Dec 2015

Does the irony escape you?

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
82. LOL!
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 02:53 PM
Nov 2015

I was going to post a SARCASM post calling Harper's a Right Wing Blog, and unreliable.
I can't believe someone actually did that in all seriousness.
Attacking the messenger is ALL they have.
None DARE to discuss content.

 

WillyT

(72,631 posts)
95. And I Have Yet To Understand What The /blog/ Distinction Means...
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 10:09 PM
Nov 2015

Many sites employ it.

Does it mean unpaid pieces ???

Does it mean guest commentators ???

Does it mean opinion pieces ???

I really don't know.



What I do know is that Harper's would not risk a libel suit for some anonymous blogger.

But they did publish, so I think it met their standards.


 

Betty Karlson

(7,231 posts)
125. Shhhht: the coronation committee is shooting the messenger.
Sat Dec 12, 2015, 05:46 AM
Dec 2015

No disturbing while they do so. You are racist and sexist for interfering with their vital work.

 

Demeter

(85,373 posts)
39. It isn't actionable, yet
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:26 AM
Nov 2015

No indictment or charges....they get to "amend returns" and hope that that covers it up decently enough.

It's a new definition of chutzpah, to be sure.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
2. Greenwalded?
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 10:33 PM
Nov 2015

The Canadian deal has long ago been debunked but guess it never hurts to try try try.

NanceGreggs

(27,835 posts)
4. Wow!
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 10:41 PM
Nov 2015

So glad you posted this - because people may have missed all the other times it's been posted over the last few days!

Of course, if you really want to discuss "shaky foundations", you might want to check out Ken Silverstein's resume. He has a penchant for relying on multiple sources with knowledge who are never identified beyond "somebody told me" and/or "some people are saying".

But he does have an audience among those who don't care about reliable sources, or facts being supported by actual evidence. For some, "some (unidentified) people are saying" is as much proof as they need.

NanceGreggs

(27,835 posts)
17. It's not about whatever I have to say ...
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 11:02 PM
Nov 2015

... it's about what Ken Silverstein has had to say over the years - and how his "information" is almost invariably reliant on unidentified "sources".

And that still doesn't explain why you posted this OP - given that it has been posted numerous times (and responded to) on DU over the past few days.

 

WillyT

(72,631 posts)
20. Do You Know Offhand How Many Of The Watergate Sources Went On The Record Originally... I Don't...
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 11:11 PM
Nov 2015

Yet that story brought down a President.


 

WillyT

(72,631 posts)
25. How Is It... "Changing The Subject" ???
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 11:32 PM
Nov 2015
... it's about what Ken Silverstein has had to say over the years - and how his "information" is almost invariably reliant on unidentified "sources".


YOUR Post. Your point...



NanceGreggs

(27,835 posts)
29. I think that bringing up Watergate ...
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 11:43 PM
Nov 2015

... was clearly a change of subject from Ken Silverstein's journalistic credibility, along with the fact that this article has been the subject of several OPs over the last few days.

 

WillyT

(72,631 posts)
31. Did You Watch "All The President's Men" ???
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 11:53 PM
Nov 2015

They wouldn't answer the phone, or if they did, they would not let their name be used. They wouldn't answer the door, or if they did, they would not let their names be used... and would mostly tell them to go away.

"Deep Throat" was the ultimate unnamed source, and yet without him, the story may have never been told.

TPTB threatened the entire WaPo Editorial staff... the Editor, and the Publisher...

They argued over and over about whether they could go to print without named sources.

THE WHITE HOUSE THREATENED KATHERINE GRAHAM.

"...Katy's tit in a wringer."

Unnamed, and unreliable... are two different things.

And I'm pretty sure Harper's is well aware of the difference.


NanceGreggs

(27,835 posts)
61. So now Ken Silverstein ...
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 01:31 AM
Nov 2015

... has the same journalistic credibility as Woodward and Bernstein - because he won't name his sources?

By that reasoning, every tabloid hack who fabricates "news stories" based on unidentifiable sources is right up there with Bob and Carl!

You CAN'T be serious!!!!!



 

WillyT

(72,631 posts)
62. Well... We Will See... Many Papers Refused To Carry The WaPo Stories... For A While...
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 01:37 AM
Nov 2015

Then the dam broke.

NanceGreggs

(27,835 posts)
63. Yeah.
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 01:40 AM
Nov 2015

And I'm sure the "Clinton Foundation" story will break any day now - other than on DU, I mean.

 

WillyT

(72,631 posts)
64. Fair Enough... I'll Bookmark You... You Bookmark Me...
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 01:45 AM
Nov 2015

And somewhere down the line... we will see.





SidDithers

(44,333 posts)
22. Remember when "Good citizens check for duplicates"?...
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 11:18 PM
Nov 2015

I mean, it's not like the very same headline was halfway down the front page of GD: P when this one was started.

Sid

NanceGreggs

(27,835 posts)
24. Welcome to the New DU ...
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 11:26 PM
Nov 2015

... where every day is recylcing day!!!

And that recycling bin must be pretty empty - considering how many times certain people rummage around in its contents, only to come up with the same old plastic bottle being touted as "a valuable antique beverage container" just yesterday.

 

WillyT

(72,631 posts)
35. A.) I Have A Knack For Attracting Views, And... B) This Story Is Just Going To Get Bigger...
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:12 AM
Nov 2015

And as many of us warned... you really do not want a flawed candidate running when shit keeps dribbling out. DRIP... DRIP... DRIP...

You may want to defend her... I feel no such compunction.

She made her bed...


NanceGreggs

(27,835 posts)
46. The "knack" for attracting views ...
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:34 AM
Nov 2015

... on DU these days comes down to one thing: Make it anti-HRC - and your views are guaranteed.

And it doesn't even matter if what you're posting has been posted before - even multiple times with a matter of days - because if it's anti-HRC, you're headed for the Greatest Page!

When the "shit that keeps dribbling out" is the same shit day after day and gets re-posted over and over, the logical conclusion is that the shit that's getting thrown isn't sticking to the wall - thus the need for repetition, in hopes of a better result.

When it comes from a hack like Silverstein and his "unnamed sources", that shit isn't even substantial enough to stick to anything other than the bottom of some people's shoes.

 

WillyT

(72,631 posts)
55. And Why Do You Suppose Anti-HRC Posts Work Here... If They Do ???
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:58 AM
Nov 2015

Could it be that many here are old enough to know how she dog-whistled the POC and the gay community ???

I Remember those days... do you ???

And if you do... I beg you, because I do not get it...

Why doesn't it bother you ???


NanceGreggs

(27,835 posts)
57. Simple logic.
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 01:11 AM
Nov 2015

A site that consists of 85% BS supporters is going to have huge RECs and views for every anti-HRC OP that's posted.

DUH!!!

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
79. Bring out your dead!
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 01:26 PM
Nov 2015

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
50. Nance, all due respect, but Hillary has chosen to run for the presidency in spite of the fact that
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:48 AM
Nov 2015

she raises money for her charity f(and her campaign) rom people who want favors from the US government.

That is not a mix. That won't work. Sooner or later someone will accuse her of wrongful conduct, and whether the accusations are true or not, they will stick in enough minds to cause her candidacy great harm.

She is not a viable candidate although she still could win a general election if enough Americans decide that the Republican candidate's corruption is worse than her alleged corruption.

She should have known that she had to choose between her foundation which no doubt is a wonderful project or running for office.

With the combination of soliciting gifts for her foundation and soliciting votes for the presidency and the appearance and reality of her power, the APPEARANCE of corruption, whether the reality or not, will seriously weaken her candidacy.

As a lawyer, she should understand this.

Innuendo can be more damaging than fact. And someone is bound to find enough facts to support strong innuendo of corruption in Hillary's foundation, work as secretary of state, campaign fundraising and her candidacy.

NanceGreggs

(27,835 posts)
56. The Republicans have proven themselves ...
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 01:04 AM
Nov 2015

... to be extremely good at one thing: digging up dirt on Hillary Clinton. They have been at it for years, and have honed that skill to perfection.

And yet it is "concerned Democrats" who are now propping up unsubstantiated tales about the Clinton Foundation - a story even the professional dirt-diggers in the GOP aren't even trying to make hay of.

"Sooner or later someone will accuse her of wrongful conduct, and whether the accusations are true or not, they will stick in enough minds to cause her candidacy great harm."

Based on that criteria, I guess the Democrats should just nominate the person the GOP likes best and couldn't possibly make negative accusations about. And do you know such a person? Because I don't think they exist.

Have you looked at the polls lately? Because despite decades of trying to tie "the APPEARANCE of corruption" to any REAL corruption at the hands of the GOP, HRC still leads by a wide margin among Democratic voters.

Apparently, Dem voters are not persuaded by the very things you are convinced they will be persuaded by.


Hepburn

(21,054 posts)
69. The Repukes are good at digging up dirt on Hillary because...
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 10:59 AM
Nov 2015

...there is a ton of it to dig.

No skills needed...she has left a ton of it behind her. A simple look-see will do.

JMHO

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)
101. I believe this falls under Ad Hominem...
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 11:53 PM
Nov 2015
But he does have an audience among those who don't care about reliable sources, or facts being supported by actual evidence. For some, "some (unidentified) people are saying" is as much proof as they need.


I believe that's a firm slap to anyone of us who don't stayed glued to every post on DU (since I have a life, job, civic organizations, family), so I must be attracted to unreliable sources or supported facts, or evidence.

Nice behavior and very thin skinned.

I believe I'll assume that people can be their own judge the validity of what they see, hear or read on boards without hearing this pseudo scolding.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
8. Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation...
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 10:45 PM
Nov 2015

...and a consortium of defense contractors--led by Boeing--was granted a $63 billion dollar contract for fighter jets that will be delivered to Saudi Arabia.

Even worse, this deal went down when Clinton was Secretary of State. Going further with the bad news, one of her top aids stepped forward to say that this deal was a pet project of Clinton's that she saw through until completion.

Can you imagine how many "Boeing"-type-situations are out there? It's painful.

Details on the Boeing deal:
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
37. Yes it will.
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:21 AM
Nov 2015

But the big shit will not hit the fan until Hillary has the nomination...or at least that is the GOP's hope and plan.

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
23. There is a very clear trail here...
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 11:26 PM
Nov 2015

Boeing donates 900k to the Clinton foundation. They're awarded a billion-dollar defense contract from our government. A deal that Hillary Clinton personally spearheaded while she was Secretary of State.

You can rationalize this all you want.

The appearance is that the Clinton Foundation has become the playground for the rich and famous to trade personal favors and enrich each other.

No denying that The Clinton Foundation was enriched. No denying that Boeing was as well.

I never paid attention to "Benghazi" or to Hillary's email scandal. Both are nothing but trumped up, right-wing nonsense. But this stuff with the Clinton Foundation is really offensive. And there's proof. It's not speculation. Money changed hands. The Republicans will eviscerate both Hillary and Bill with this.

It's also demoralizing for the Democrats who are sick and tired of corporate influence, power and money being entangled with our politics and politicians.

I don't understand how the Clintons could be so myopic.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
26. So maybe we need to follow other money trails. If the fact everytime a defense contract is voted on
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 11:33 PM
Nov 2015

We should follow where and to whom rewards are made. If you can tie the contract to Boeing to the Clintons then surely we can find the trail from Lockheed Martin to Sanders also. Oh,it counts even if the trail isn't direct.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
41. Does Sanders have a foundation?
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:29 AM
Nov 2015

That gets millions in donations from them?...and is he as senator able to influence the awarding of contracts?

If you know of this please tell us all about it...we need to know.
We already know Hillary has so that would make them equal and we could just forget about it...two wrongs makes a wash.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
103. Does he as a senator have influence to award contracts, yes he is in the position to award contracts
Tue Nov 24, 2015, 12:07 AM
Nov 2015

He has influence and a vote to keep the F-35 program, Lockheed Martin is given this contract. It is well over budget, the experts says it would lose in a dog fight but the continue the program. Sanders was talking about cutting the defense contracts, he could have started with a no vote on this contract. The helmets cost $400,000 apiece. They are also involved with the drone production.Yes, he has influence. Now you can tell the others about Bernie and his influence.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
109. He has a vote in the Senate like all others.
Tue Nov 24, 2015, 09:55 AM
Nov 2015

And if you want to spin that as influence then you can.
But don't kid us, you know the score...no where near the influence that a Clinton with a billion dollar foundation has,

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
118. The spin like you are doing with the Clinton Foundation. How many billions has been spent on the
Tue Nov 24, 2015, 06:54 PM
Nov 2015

F-35 program. How many billions is spent by the government yearly?

Docreed2003

(18,714 posts)
43. If it is a charity...
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:33 AM
Nov 2015

And let's agree for the moment that it is....what percentage of its donations actually go to actual causes? How much is allocated as "administrative fees"?? By any measure the Clinton Foundation has not lived up to the promise it projects. This issue will not go away come GE time.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
83. 89% to "Program Expenses" ???!!!!
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 03:01 PM
Nov 2015

That is so corrupt.....that it is laughable while being disgusting.

How does she sleep at night?
I wouldn't be able to.

tammywammy

(26,582 posts)
86. Charity Watch gave them an A rating
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 04:14 PM
Nov 2015

They consider charities that spend 75%+ to be "highly efficient".

The ACLU spends 80% on program expenses. Human Rights Watch spends 78%. Doctors Without Borders USA spends 87%. Do you think they're corrupt?

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
102. You ask some of the strangest questions. Well of course not. What is considered corrupt
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 11:59 PM
Nov 2015

is when there is quid pro quo. Corporations are out to make more and more profits. Most of the time at the expense of the poor and working class. As corporate profits skyrocket, so do poverty rates.

Looks like from you posts that you favor corporate profits over feeding the hungry. And before you have to ask, no there is nothing that says that you can't do that. However, generally that's reserved for Republicons.

 

brooklynite

(96,882 posts)
13. Contact info for the Department of Justice
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 10:58 PM
Nov 2015
Messages to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be sent using this contact form. Emails from news organizations and other media may be directed to the Office of Public Affairs at Press@usdoj.govEmail links icon. Your message will be forwarded to the responsible Department of Justice component for appropriate handling.

Please note:

Before sending us your name or email address, please read our Privacy Policy for details about how we handle personal information.
Message and email accounts are not available for service of official, case-related or legal documents and email is not monitored for such submissions or for other time-sensitive communications.
Emails with attachments will be deleted as a precaution as they may contain viruses.
Please include your mailing address in the event that the Department replies via United States Postal Service.
If you know the specific organization or official you wish to contact, please indicate such in your message or check the Component Contact Information Page to contact them directly.

In some instances the volume of communication on a particular issue is such that we cannot respond to each message individually. We would like you to know, however, that all incoming messages are forwarded to the appropriate organization within the Department of Justice and you can be assured that your voices and views are being heard.

BY MAIL

Correspondence to the Department, including the Attorney General, may be sent to:

U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

BY PHONE

Department of Justice Main Switchboard - 202-514-2000

Department Comment Line - 202-353-1555

To call component officials, see the Directory of Department Officials


If you think criminal activity has occurred, it's really your duty to notify the authorities, right?

nc4bo

(17,651 posts)
16. Isn't that something?!
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 11:01 PM
Nov 2015


Hopefully this is just some huge misunderstanding and can be easily explained away. Oops. I'm sure a defense will be forthcoming......if the story continues to grow legs. Oops.

I'd think the real hope is this messiness just sorta fades away into a sunset. Oops. Best not to draw too much attention to it at this tender, young stage. Oopsie.



Why wasn't this shit cleaned up BEFORE she decided to run for POTUS?! JHC aren't politicians supposed to be smart ffs?! The GOP is going to just love this, plays right into their wheelhouse.







Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
28. How long do you think the GOP would not have been all over this if it was a real story? My, my,
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 11:41 PM
Nov 2015

Telling stories about Benghazi got them exactly what? Maybe we could "sweeten" up a few more stories.

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
40. If you were the GOP
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:27 AM
Nov 2015

If you were the GOP would you release any damning evidence now when the Dems can just nominate O'Malley or Sanders instead, or wait until you can spring an "October Surprise" and screw the entire party?

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
114. You keep mentioning this "debunking",
Tue Nov 24, 2015, 01:33 PM
Nov 2015

but have neglected to post any links to support your claim.
Please post your sources for the "debunking".

I have not seen this claimed "debunking", but over the years at DU I HAVE witnessed partisan members claiming that something has been "debunked" when nothing of the sort had happened,
so clue us all in.

Post YOUR sources:

bahrbearian

(13,466 posts)
72. Maybe they are waiting to use it in the GE, they can't us it on Bernie, and he can win.
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 11:59 AM
Nov 2015

Hilliary is unelectable

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
73. They can use socialism and more stories not even revealed. Right now the GOP wants Sanders in the
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:03 PM
Nov 2015

GE because they can beat him. Why else does Krystal push for Sanders, they already tried their best shot with Benghazi.

 

Demeter

(85,373 posts)
42. Because the money is the whole point of everything she does: money, and power
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:30 AM
Nov 2015

Not service, not charity, not reputation. Not good works, nothing.

And yet, the entire Party apparatus is bending over backwards for her benefit alone. Corruption is rampant, and there's no good way to stop it except by an electoral revolution.

I hope we get the chance.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
49. You must have your candidates confused, I know Hillary has donated to charity, has helped others,
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:40 AM
Nov 2015

And I might add, it is very well documented. Now, Sanders is know for helping NRA, Lockheed Martin so maybe you confused the two candidates, want to try again?

reformist2

(9,841 posts)
19. Oh God, this is where the Clintons get sanctimonious and pretend that everyone's out to get them
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 11:10 PM
Nov 2015

Those of us over 30 have seen this show before. Defending themselves against scandals is practically their stock in trade.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
27. Because the Canadian story has been put to sleep already. The revolving
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 11:35 PM
Nov 2015

Story door goes round and round, cognitive dissonance may fool some, it does not fool me, try another.

SwampG8r

(10,287 posts)
32. My favorite is stalling an investigation for.months or years and then
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 11:58 PM
Nov 2015

When the day comes when there is no more stalling they run around and say " oh this is old news"
Exhibited upthread BTW

Rose Siding

(32,629 posts)
34. So no one was "out to get them"?
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:06 AM
Nov 2015

Not with The Arkansas Project, Vince Foster whisper campaigns, endless Whitewater investigations? They learned to fight well and hard.

Now that there are right wing shops devoting half a billion dollars to opposing her that will come in handy. The attacks will keep coming because she's a good liberal candidate and will be a good liberal president.

Weird to see supposed libs attacking a charity, but then Jimmy Carter takes flack from some for just about everything and he has a global charity too.

 

Demeter

(85,373 posts)
48. They made themselves such easy targets
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:37 AM
Nov 2015

Trouble is, the crazies were not intellectually capable of dealing with the real scandals, so they invented some that were more their speed, which obscured the real ones quite neatly!

Rather like dropping tinfoil to fool the radar...camouflage.

Rose Siding

(32,629 posts)
52. Yeah, it's the double super secret stuff that'll get 'em
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:49 AM
Nov 2015


Easy targets, like being from Arkansas, knowing Vince Foster and practicing law.

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
71. Don't kid yourself...
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 11:47 AM
Nov 2015

The RW will bring out all those old scandals, both fake and real, as well as who-knows-what that they've been sitting on for the opportune moment. Koch money will be used to incessantly beat the public with never ending scandals and stories.

Rose Siding

(32,629 posts)
74. You can lay down for Kock and right wing attacks but I won't.
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:17 PM
Nov 2015

Hillary won't and never has.

And don't kid yourself. Defeating Bernie would be a walk in the park for the right. Already 50% of the public is firmly against a Socialist president. They may not have to do scattershot weak assed attacks on him because they'd only need the one! He'd become a laughingstock.

tex-wyo-dem

(3,190 posts)
77. I'm not saying laying down for the kochsuckers...
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:42 PM
Nov 2015

At all.

What I am saying is the the RW has had literally decades to prepare for a HRC presidential run. They undoubtably have a dossier on her thicker than my CRC Chemistry and Physics handbook sitting on my desk.

I'm just saying...be prepared, because it's going to get really really ugly.

On Sanders...he may be a democratic socialist, but that attack can only go so far. Nobody thought a black man with a Muslim sounding name could get elected either.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
89. The "Kochsuckers" helped get Bill Clinton elected.
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 09:39 PM
Nov 2015

The Koch Brothers both helped finance the DLC, and had two of "their people" on the Executive Board of the DLC.

It seems pretty cut and dried, and Bill certainly gave them a great return on their "investment".
Hillary will be no different.
I wouldn;t be surprised in the least to discover the MORE Koch Money was finding its way to the Hillary campaign.
Once a Clinton....always a Clinton.
Worst thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party.

Truprogressive85

(900 posts)
30. Speaking from firsthand
Sun Nov 22, 2015, 11:43 PM
Nov 2015

All im going to say is
Haiti

And bullshit ClintonBush foundation

You wanna find exploitation, cronyism look into the foundation

 

Demeter

(85,373 posts)
45. Add the Welfare Deform that shredded the safety net and left 1.5 Million households living on $2/day
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:33 AM
Nov 2015

That's 3 million children without even a poverty-level income. That is your Bill Clinton legacy.

http://www.twodollarsaday.com/ for further research.

postatomic

(1,771 posts)
51. Last paragraph from your link.....
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:48 AM
Nov 2015
So why haven’t the Clintons gotten caught? My intelligence source summed up the situation perfectly in explaining why the Benghazi Committee has not thus far bagged them. “The Democrats are stupid but they have ruthless leadership. The Republicans are even dumber. Donald Trump is an idiot but he’s right about one thing: We are led by stupid people. These are some of the dumbest motherfuckers I have ever seen.”

When did people stop reading? That's a serious question. I'm looking at all the replies in this thread and I have to keep picking my jaw off the floor.

 

Demeter

(85,373 posts)
53. Just goes to show
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:52 AM
Nov 2015

Teh Stoopid are not limited to the halls of power in DC. They are here, among us. And have declared war on Bernie supporters.

SoapBox

(18,791 posts)
60. Shifty, shady...
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 01:15 AM
Nov 2015

The more I've learned, especially this year, the more I became turned off to the Clintons.

I don't want them anywhere near the White House.

 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
65. Shaky foundations, indeed.
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 01:52 AM
Nov 2015

For your edification:

Perhaps the most important modern institution in the field of group power-and it contrasts dramatically with Maitland's picture of clubs, religious associations, and charities preferring the hedge of the trust and the anonymity of unincorporated status- is the "foundation" which flourishes in contemporary America.

The foundation is largely an American creation. No doubt the accumulation of vast wealth was one reason for its rise; another-at least in the days when Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others perpetuated their names through their now world famous bequests-was unquestionably a desire of wealthy and successful men to purge their consciences before God and man and to justify the acquisitive society which had enabled them to accumulate enormous riches by leaving a vast proportion of their wealth for the benefit of mankind.6 But in recent years these reasons for the earlier foundations have become less important, and the incorporated foundation or trust has become predominantly a business device, a paramount instrument in the struggle between the demands of the modern Welfare State and the wish of the individual entrepreneur to perpetuate his fortune and his name. The greatest and most influential of the foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie) are the creations of individuals or families, but the large foundations of the future will increasingly be the creations of corporations. The desires to give and to perpetuate the name of the individual or corporate donor are undoubtedly still important motivations, but the immense growth in the number and size of foundations in recent years7 suggests that business considerations play an increasing role. By either bequeathing or giving during his lifetime a proportion of his estate to a permanent institution established for officially recognized charitable purposes, the donor, usually the controller of an industrial or business empire,8 achieves a number of purposes.9 In the United States gifts to such organizations are exempt from gift taxes, and bequests to them are deductible for estate tax purposes. The organizations themselves are normally exempt from income tax, property tax, and other taxes. A charitable gift intervivos is an allowable deduction from the taxable income of the donor.10 The absence of the latter privilege in English law may be one reason why incorporated charities are not so widespread in Britain (apart, of course, from the vastly greater capital wealth of United States business). Otherwise, motivations for the establishment of charitable companies are very similar." The arithmetics of these benefits vary from year to year and are, of course, subject to legislative changes. Unless, however, there were to be a fundamental change in legislation in regard to charitable gifts,12 the advantages of transferring both capital and annual income away from the personal estate of a taxpayer in the high income brackets or away from a corporation are very considerable.13 But in the age of the managerial revolution and the Welfare State, a motive at least equal to that of providing a suitable mechanism for philanthropy and a tax free reservoir for an otherwise highly taxable income is the power which the foundation gives to the controller of a business or industry to perpetuate his control.14

Friedmann, W. G. (1957). Corporate power, government by private groups, and the law. Columbia Law Review, 57(2), 155-186.


The Clinton Foundation - About
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/main/our-work/by-initiative/clinton-foundation-in-haiti/about.html

The Clinton Foundation has been actively engaged in Haiti since 2009, focusing on economic diversification, private sector investment and job creation in order to create long-term, sustainable economic development. After the devastating earthquake in 2010, President Clinton formed the Clinton Foundation Haiti Fund and raised $16.4 million from individual donors for immediate earthquake relief efforts. Since 2010, the Clinton Foundation has raised a total of $34 million for Haiti, including relief funds as well as projects focused on restoring Haiti's communities, sustainable development, education and capacity building. In 2012, the Clinton Foundation concentrated on creating sustainable economic growth in the four priority sectors of energy, tourism, agriculture, and apparel/manufacturing, working to bring new investors, develop and support local organizations and businesses, and create access to new markets. The Clinton Foundation also continued working to support government efforts to improve Haiti’s business environment and supported programs in education and capacity building.


Washington Backed Famous Brand-Name Contractors in Fight Against Haiti’s Minimum Wage Increase
http://www.haiti-liberte.com/archives/volume4-47/Washington%20Backed%20Famous.asp

The U.S. Embassy in Haiti worked closely with factory owners contracted by Levi’s, Hanes, and Fruit of the Loom to aggressively block a paltry minimum wage increase for Haitian assembly zone workers, the lowest paid in the hemisphere, according to secret State Department cables.

The factory owners refused to pay 62 cents an hour, or $5 per eight-hour day, as a measure unanimously passed by the Haitian parliament in June 2009 would have mandated. Behind the scenes, the factory owners had the vigorous backing of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Embassy,
show secret U.S. Embassy cables provided to Haïti Liberté by the transparency-advocacy group WikiLeaks.

The minimum daily wage had been 70 gourdes or $1.75 a day.

The factory owners told the Haitian parliament that they were willing to give workers a mere 9 cents an hour pay increase to 31 cents an hour – 100 gourdes daily – to make T-shirts, bras and underwear for U.S. clothing giants like Dockers and Nautica.


Report: State Department-Backed Garment Complex in Haiti Stealing Workers’ Wages
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/10/17/headlines#10179

A new report by the Worker Rights Consortium has found the majority of workers in Haiti’s garment industry are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally owed due to widespread wage theft. The new evidence builds on an earlier report that found every single one of Haiti’s export garment factories was illegally shortchanging workers. Workers in Haiti make clothes for U.S. retailers including Gap, Target, Kohl’s, Levi’s and Wal-Mart. The report highlighted abuses at the Caracol Industrial Park, a new factory complex heavily subsidized by the U.S. State Department, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Clinton Foundation and touted as a key part of Haiti’s post-earthquake recovery. The report found that, on average, workers at the complex are paid 34 percent less than the law requires. Haiti’s minimum wage for garment workers is between 60 and 90 cents an hour. More than three-quarters of workers interviewed for the report said they could not afford three meals a day.


Clintons' Pet Project for Privatized 'Aid' to Haiti Stealing Workers' Wages: Report
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/16-4

Haiti's Caracol Industrial Park—the U.S. State Department and Clinton Foundation pet project to deliver aid and reconstruction to earthquake-ravaged Haiti in the form of private investment—is systematically stealing its garment workers' wages, paying them 34 percent less than minimum wage set by federal law, a breaking report from the Worker Rights Consortium reveals.

Critics charge that poverty wages illustrate the deep flaws with corporate models of so-called aid. "The failure of the Caracol Industrial Park to comply with minimum wage laws is a stain on the U.S.'s post-earthquake investments in Haiti and calls into question the sustainability and effectiveness of relying on the garment industry to lead Haiti's reconstruction," said Jake Johnston of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in an interview with Common Dreams.

Caracol is just one of five garment factories profiled in this damning report, released publicly on Wednesday, which finds that "the majority of Haitian garment workers are being denied nearly a third of the wages they are legally due as a result of the factories’ theft of their income." This is due to systematic employer cheating on piece-work and overtime, as well as failure to pay employees for hours worked.
...
Financers included the Inter-American Development Bank, the U.S. State Department, and the Clinton Foundation, who invested a total of $224 million with promises to uphold high labor standards. Its anchor tenant is the Korean S&H Global factory, which sells garments to Walmart, Target, Kohl's, and Old Navy, according to the report.


The Clinton-Bush Fund has closed up shop in Haiti: Here are the fruits of neoliberal "charity"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415607


The Clinton Foundation will give you a sweet deal on a home loan...

New Program Launched to Make Home Mortgages Available to Haitians
http://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/new-program-launched-to-make-home-mortgages-available-to-haitians

MARCH 24, 2011

The Clinton Bush Haiti Fund has announced the launch of a $47 million program to make home mortgages more widely available in Haiti.

Jointly sponsored by the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Haiti Reconstruction Fund, the program will provide home mortgages and home-repair loans to low-income Haitians and small businesses affected by last year's earthquake. The Development Innovations Group will manage the program, pending approval by OPIC's board of directors in June after implementation details are finalized.

The program was approved last week by the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission, a group formed in the wake of the January 2010 earthquake to review and approve projects funded by bilateral and multilateral donors, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. Funded by Haiti Reconstruction Fund ($10 million), the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund ($3 million), and OPIC ($34 million in debt funding), the program is modeled after similar efforts that have proved successful in other parts of the developing world.

"What Haiti needs today are smart investments that will create economic opportunities and lay the groundwork for long-term, sustainable growth," said Clinton Bush Haiti Fund CEO Gary Edson. "By providing funding for programs such as this, we're making it possible for ordinary Haitians to own their own home as well as their own future success and prosperity."


...problem is, only six homes were built.

ProPublica.org: How the Red Cross Raised Half a Billion Dollars for Haiti ­and Built Six Homes
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016124381
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes?google_editors_picks=true

-snip-
THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF CAMPECHE sprawls up a steep hillside in Haiti’s capital city, Port-au-Prince. Goats rustle in trash that goes forever uncollected. Children kick a deflated volleyball in a dusty lot below a wall with a hand-painted logo of the American Red Cross.

In late 2011, the Red Cross launched a multimillion-dollar project to transform the desperately poor area, which was hit hard by the earthquake that struck Haiti the year before. The main focus of the project — called LAMIKA, an acronym in Creole for “A Better Life in My Neighborhood” — was building hundreds of permanent homes.

Today, not one home has been built in Campeche. Many residents live in shacks made of rusty sheet metal, without access to drinkable water, electricity or basic sanitation. When it rains, their homes flood and residents bail out mud and water.

The Red Cross received an outpouring of donations after the quake, nearly half a billion dollars.
-snip-


Then there's HSBC Bank:

Clinton Foundation Received Up To $81m From Clients Of Controversial HSBC Bank - Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/10/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-hsbc-swiss-bank

~snip~

The charitable foundation run by Hillary Clinton and her family has received as much as $81m from wealthy international donors who were clients of HSBC’s controversial Swiss bank. Leaked files from HSBC’s Swiss banking division reveal the identities of seven donors to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation with accounts in Geneva.

They include Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate and one of the foundation’s biggest financial backers, and Richard Caring, the British retail magnate who, the bank’s internal records show, used his tax-free Geneva account to transfer $1m into the New York-based foundation.

~snip~

Caring was legitimately permitted to keep his assets offshore by a hereditary quirk of UK tax law, under which he is registered as “non-domiciled”, courtesy of his Italian-American father. The HSBC records suggest Caring’s $1m donation was paid in return for former president Bill Clinton’s attendance at a lavish costume charity ball organised by Caring in St Petersburg, Russia.

Another Clinton foundation donor who had a HSBC account in the tax haven is Jeffrey Epstein, the hedge fund manager and convicted sex offender who once flew the former president on his private jet for charity events in Africa. The identities of Clinton supporters who banked with HSBC in Geneva are contained in internal bank data leaked by a HSBC computer expert turned whistleblower, Hervé Falciani.


HSBC. How bad is it really?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026263884

The HSBC scandal continues to grow. Proof of their criminal activities grows each time you turn over another rock. How bad is HSBC?
For those who haven’t been following, the ICIJ (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists) uncovered and reported on HSBC’s enabling of criminal behavior by arms dealers, smugglers, drug lords and the just plain cheap who don’t want to pay taxes.

HSBC, headquartered in London, when informed about the global investigation, first insisted that the ICIJ destroy its data.
It was only after the ICIJ refused and people found out what was going on that their chairman Stuart Gulliver issued the apology for HSBC’s culpability in tax avoidance.

What is HSBC hiding?
In 2006, the Swiss Branch managed tens of millions of dollars for Saudi Arabian businessmen suspected since 2001 of donating money to Muslim terrorist Osama Bin Laden,

The bank also opened accounts for a crystal meth gang in the US and a drug dealer who was sentenced to seven years in prison
HSBC was aiding clients involved in Drug and Human Trafficking, arms dealing and Arms dealing according to Tages Anzeiger.

"HSBC profited from doing business with arms dealers who channelled mortar bombs to child soldiers in Africa, bag men for Third World dictators, traffickers in blood diamonds…”

Names include Frantz Merceron, an associate of former Haitian president Jean Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier, Former Egyptian trade minister Rachid Mohamed Rachid, who fled Cairo during the 2011 uprising, and people officially sanctioned by the United States Government, like Turkish businessman Selim Alguadis.

Currently, there are 10 separate investigations on 4 continents against the bank in nine countries: Asia: India, Europe: Belgium, Switzerland, France and Denmark, North and South America: Mexico, US, Argentina and Brazil (2 separate)

Asia: India. According to the Times of India, the Tax Office is expected launch criminal proceedings against the bank shortly.
The Indian Express reports that 1,195 Indian names are on the list at the tune of over $4bn. The Supreme Court has created a Special Investigative Team.

Several top businessmen on the list include Mukesh Ambani, Anil Ambani, Anand Chand Burman, and Shravan Gupta.
Also on the list are diamond traders, some of whom have left India and moved to other countries.
Also included are prominent politicians including former UPA minister Preneet Kaur, former Congress MP Annu Tandon and family members of former Maharashtra chief minister Narayan Rane.
India is going to pay the whistleblower from HSBC for more information; possibly as much as 10% of whatever they collect

Europe:
France. France appears to be preparing to go to trial. But a separate investigation into HSBC's parent company is ongoing

Denmark. 300 Danes are on the list the amount $370mn in accounts. Benny Engelbrecht the Tax Minister wants to know why, with information available, did his predecessors not act.

Belgium. HSBC faces criminal charges. HSBC initially refused to cooperate until Magistrate Ine Van Wymersch, announced that the investigating judge was issuing arrest warrants for past and current directors. Then HSBC decided they would cooperate.
*** See throw 'em in jail. They roll
***The judge was not identified by name in any article I perused

North America
Mexico: The government is investigating 2,642 names linked to $2.2bn

U.S.: The Justice Department is considering criminal charges against the bank and its clients. 4,183 names 13bn+ dollars

In Brazil 11 accounts held over 110 million dollars and is tied to the state-owned Oil Company, Petrobras
The Brazilian government is also looking into 6600 other undeclared accounts with HSBC's Swiss private bank affiliated in Brazil

In Argentina, the states Tax Office wants 3bn dollars held by 4,000 people in HSBC banks linked to Argentinians and Argentine businesses returned to Argentina. This, after Argentine authorities raided HSBC offices in Buenos Aires and are preparing criminal prosecution.

As of June, 2007, except for the Vatican, there doesn’t appear to be any country without a client on the list, though 15 of the countries do not appear to have any client hiding money to avoid taxes. The list of the ‘nulls’ include Laos, Burkina Faso, Tonga, Swaziland, Trinidad, etc.

There are 23 countries with the number of derelicts in their country in the thousands (UK 8,844; US 4,183; Saudi Arabia 1,504; Lebanon 2,988, Israel 6,554, Canada 1,859, France 9,187...). Their hidings are over 139bn.

on note: Even though they had the information available, the Cameron government gave the former HSBC chair Stephen Green a Tory peerage and appointed him trade minister “several months after the government was given information from the French government in May 2010”.

sourced through:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2015/02/09/4542851_belgian-judge-threatens-hsbc-directors.html?rh=1
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/09/us-hsbc-belgium-moneylaundering-idUSKBN0LD1HO20150209
http://www.thelocal.dk/20150209/denmark-ignored-information-on-hidden-swiss-fortunes
http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-others/hsbc-sheltered-murky-cash-linked-to-dictators-arms-dealers/
http://www.thelocal.ch/20150208/hsbc-swiss-bank-helped-terrorists-and-criminals
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/22/swiss-account-secret-of-hsbc-chief-stuart-gulliver-revealed
http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/feb/18/hsbc-swiss-bank-searched-as-officials-launch-money-laundering-inquiry


Bill Clinton met with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe to get donations for his Foundation.

Uribe meets with Bill Clinton
http://colombiareports.com/uribe-meets-with-ex-us-president-bill-clinton/

Bill Clinton, ex-president of the United States and husband of the current U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, met with Colombian president Alvaro Uribe on Wednesday in search of resources for the reconstruction of Haiti.

~snip~

While his wife is on a diplomatic tour of various Latin American countries, ex-president Clinton is using the opportunity to raise money for Haiti’s reconstruction following the devastating earthquake that happened there in January of this year. The money is being raised through Clinton’s own charity, the Clinton Foundation.

Clinton will also be taking a look at various projects in Colombia that the Clinton Foundation has helped fund while visiting the country.


Some background on Uribe:

Uribe was ‘the head of Colombia’s paramilitaries’: former AUC ringleader
http://colombiareports.com/head-colombias-paramilitaries-former-auc-leader-ex-president-uribe/

Former President Alvaro Uribe was the “head of Colombia’s paramilitary groups,” according to a former paramilitary commander and witness in the case against a presidential candidate loyal to the former head of state.

The accusations were made by Pablo Hernan Sierra, alias “Alberto Guerrero”, former commander of the Cacique Pipinta bloc of the paramilitary group AUC, during an interview with Venezuelan network TeleSur.

“He was our commander,” claimed Sierra. “He never fired a gun; but he led, he contributed, he was our man at the top.”

“The massacres, the disappearances, the creation of an {AUC} group: he is responsible,” said Sierra.

The ex-paramilitary is a key witness in an investigation into Uribe’s alleged ties with paramilitary groups, especially his role in the formation of an AUC bloc while governor of Antioquia department from 1995-97, and his use of the AUC to win votes in the 2002 Presidential election.


Details of testimony that involves Uribe in a massacre
http://colombiasupport.net/2008/06/details-of-testimony-that-involves-uribe-in-a-massacre/

The ex-paramilitary Francisco Enrique Villalba Hernández declared to the Colombian Attorney General’s
office this past February that President Alvaro Uribe and his brother Santiago participated in planning a
massacre in the north of the department of Antioquia, according to a copy of the testimony obtained by
the Nuevo Herald. Part of the confession of Villalba, whose credibility Uribe attacked this week, was
utilized by the Interamerican Human Rights Court (CIDH) to condemn Colombia for that massacre,
which occurred in the village of El Aro in 1997, according to an extensive decision of that tribunal two
years ago. Villalba did not involve the ruler or his brother in his testimony before the CIDH, but his
narrative was part of the proofs that served the tribunal to conclude that in the slaughter of El Aro
agents of the public security forces collaborated with groups of the United Self-defenses of Colombia
(Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia—AUC) to murder in cold blood at least fifteen campesinos “in a
defenseless position, taking their goods away from others and generating terror and displacement,”
according to the 160-page decision. This same decision cites a testimony to the effect that the
government of the department of Antioquia, at that time led by the currently president, refused to
extend protection to the inhabitants of El Aro, when they learned that the paramilitary attack was
imminent. “In the face of this situation, about two months before the occupation, the Community
Action Board (Junta de Acción Comunal) asked the government for protection, which was
not offered,” says the decision of the CIDH.

Until now, some of aspects of the declaration of Villalba to the Colombian prosecutors were only known
in an indirect and fragmentary way which where revealed surprisingly by Uribe during a radio interview
this week in order to reject what the ex-paramilitary pointed out. But the Nuevo Herald obtained a
complete copy of the declearation that, in fact, contains repeated testimonies of Villalba that Uribe,
when he was Governor of the department of Antioquia, hobnobbed with the highest leaders of the AUC
and gave them carte blanche to carry out the massacre. “{Alvaro Uribe told us} that what had to be
done, that we would do it,” declared Villalba in describing a meting in which AUC leaders, military
personnel and the brothers Alvaro and Santiago Uribe.
Villalba’s 19-page declaration describes, using
names and details a close relationship of complicity and camaraderie between military and police
authorities with the heads of the death squads.


Wiretapping scandal increasingly reveals political persecution under Uribe
http://colombiareports.co/wiretapping-scandal-increasingly-reveals-political-persecution-under-uribe/

As Colombia’s Supreme Court investigates illegal spying by the country’s former intelligence agency, an increasing amount of details are revealed about the alleged political persecution of leftist opponents of former President Alvaro Uribe.

A former director of Colombian intelligence agency DAS, Jorge Noguera, is currently on trial for various charges surrounding the wiretapping scandal that has already seen multiple convictions of Uribe’s former chief of staff and a second intelligence chief.

Colombia’s now-defunct intelligence agency, the DAS, did not report to anyone but the president and had been spying on the Supreme Court, journalists, human rights defenders and politicians in a scandal that was uncovered in 2008.


This is what Hillary Clinton had to say about Uribe (hat tip to karynnj).

SECRETARY CLINTON: President Uribe, let me begin by telling you how pleased I am to be here in Colombia for the first time. You have been so gracious in entertaining my husband and my daughter in the past. And now, I finally have completed the family visits to your beautiful country.

This is a trip I have looked forward to making for quite some time, and it is a real pleasure to see how far Colombia has come and how much Colombia is contributing not only to its own people but to those who face similar struggles beyond your borders. So thank you for your hospitality, thank you for the very comprehensive discussion that we have had together today, and for the opportunity to reaffirm the friendship and strong partnership between the United States and Colombia.

In the last decade, Colombia has confronted immense challenges. And by any fair measure, Colombia has made great progress. That is thanks to the leadership of your government and to the resilience and dedication of the Colombian people. And even with continuing challenges in your own struggle, Colombia is playing a positive and increasingly important regional role, whether it be on promoting clean energy or on relief and recovery efforts in Haiti. The United States has been proud to stand with Colombia, and we will continue to stand with you in the future.

President Uribe and I discussed Colombia’s continuing efforts in the fight against drug trafficking and organized crime. And I expressed the commitment of the Obama Administration to continuing to partner with Colombia as it works to consolidate the security gains of recent years.

We also discussed Colombia’s efforts to enhance human rights, the strides made, the challenges that remain, the ongoing need for vigilance and commitment. And I also want to publicly express our admiration for President Uribe providing a remarkable example of strong democratic leadership in respecting the constitutional court’s decision regarding another term.

Colombia is such a valued partner and a leader that we look forward to expanding and deepening our partnership. Colombia has helped to lead the way as an active member of the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas. Just a few examples that we look to and encourage others to do so as well: developing cutting-edge mass transit systems, exploiting the potential of biofuels, becoming a leader in the use of ethanol, spearheading an initiative to help build the infrastructure for long-distance electrical transmissions from Panama, through the Andean states, to Chile.

Colombia has also worked hard to address the historic lack of opportunity for many of its people, and in doing so has provided important models for other countries in our hemisphere. Recently, the United States and Colombia concluded the first steering committee meeting for our action plan on racial and ethnic equality, which will work to improve access to education, employment, and other opportunities for Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities.

We signed a new science and technology agreement today that will facilitate the exchange of ideas and technology to help both our countries compete in the global economy. All these and many other efforts speak to the enduring bonds of friendship and the stronger partnership for the future that we have, not just between our governments but between our peoples.

Mr. President, I speak for President Obama and myself when I say that you, personally, have been an essential partner to the United States. And because of your commitment to building strong democratic institutions here in Colombia and to nurturing the bonds of friendship between our two countries, you leave a legacy of great progress that will be viewed in historic terms. I know, though, as you said yourself in your remarks here today, you realize how much more is yet to be done.

This morning, I met with the two remaining presidential candidates. This is a choice for the Colombian people to make, but I have to say that the first round of voting was a testament to the vibrancy and strength of Colombia’s democracy. And the United States will work closely and constructively with whomever the Colombian people choose in this second round.

So thank you once again, Mr. President. And you’re right; we had a wonderful dinner last night here in Bogota among friends, some Colombian, some American. And we talked about how remarkable it was that such a common event could take place. And as I drove here to the presidential palace and had the chance to look out the window at this absolutely magnificent city, my heart was filled with the hope that I know fills the hearts of so many Colombians, that what has been accomplished will only go from strength to strength. We will stand with the people of Colombia to make that so.

Thank you so much, Mr. President. (Applause.)


Alvaro Uribe is now on the Board of Directors for Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.

News Corp. Nominates Chao, Uribe to Board as Directors Step Down
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2012-09-04/news-corp-nominates-chao-uribe-to-board-as-directors-step-down.html

News Corp. (NWSA), the media company run by billionaire Rupert Murdoch, nominated ex-Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and former U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao as directors, bolstering the board’s government experience.

Uribe and Chao will replace Andrew Knight and John Thornton, who plan to step down as directors following the annual meeting, News Corp. said today in a statement.

The changes presage a broader shakeup in News Corp.’s organization over the next year. Murdoch announced a plan in June to break up News Corp.’s publishing and entertainment divisions into separate companies. Murdoch will remain chairman of both businesses and CEO of the entertainment division.

Chao served as labor secretary under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2009. After that, she became a distinguished fellow of the Heritage Foundation in Washington. The Harvard-educated Uribe was president of Colombia from 2002 to 2010 and more recently served on an advisory council for JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM), News Corp. said.


The connection between News Corp and contributions to the Clinton's continues, this time to Hillary's campaign:

Of course, there's Hillary's friend, Rupert.

[IMG][/IMG]



Then there's Tom Perkins.

Who controls Fox News? A peek at the higher-ups
SFBG
http://www.sfbg.com/PDFs/politics/newscorpchart1009
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Thomas Perkins, a News Corp. director, is a Silicon Valley venture capitalist. He is a founding partner of Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers, an investment firm with stakes in Genentech, Google, Sun Microsystems, Netscape, Amazon, and others. He was previously an executive at Hewlett Packard. Perkins was the fifth husband of romance novelist Danielle Steel. He owned the 287-foot Maltese Falcon -- the largest and most expensive private sailboat ever built. A partner at Perkins’ firm, John Gage, also serves as a director of the Markle Foundation, a private nonprofit that provides recommendations for using technology to enhance the federal government’s intelligence-sharing abilities, according to a policy paper published by the foundation. Stanley Shuman, another News Corp. director, is listed as a managing director at the Markle Foundation.


bvar22

(39,909 posts)
85. That says more about YOU than the long post.
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 03:10 PM
Nov 2015

Some of us LIKE detailed posts that incorporate resourced information,
and some prefer one lineattack the messenger BS.

YOU are responsible for YOUR education.
There is nothing to be proud about turning your back because reading is too much work for you.

Cheers.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
87. It says that my legal training taught me that if you
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 04:19 PM
Nov 2015

can't be brief then don't bother. Since you've obviously read it why don't you summarize it for us?

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
94. Your "Legal Training"... Lolololololololol.
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 09:54 PM
Nov 2015

I have seen the results of your "Legal Training" on DU.
In my misguided youth, I had some REAL lawyers defend me.
NONE of them have agreed with the "advice" you hand out on DU.
In fact, it is laughable, and prompts me to doubt that you ever finished Law School, passed the bar, and actually defended clients in the Courtroom.

You sound more like a first year intern,
and after a few of your post here, I never took you seriously, mostly laughed at you based on my REAL courtroom experiences.
You have NO knowledge of REAL courtroom shenanigans.

Truth or Dare.
I DARE you to tell the truth about your Legal background.
If you ARE a real lawyer, I would never hire you to represent me. I prefer lawyers with experience in the REAL courtrooms, and the REAL World.
Those REAL lawyers have saved my ass more than once,
and NONE of them have EVER sounded like you.

You once advised me to "turn yourself in" for outstanding warrants......LOL.
No lawyer has EVER said that to me.
REAL lawyers said:
1) Don't go home, or to a "known associate".

2) do NOT "turn yourself in" until you have secured the Bond Money, and have a Mouthpiece to speak for you.

That has ALWAYS produced good results.
I have always walked.... immediately.

Glad YOU aren't MY lawyer.
Something YOU should take note of.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
99. Dude.... my twitter account in my sig has my real name. Like other lawyers here,
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 11:31 PM
Nov 2015

I'm easily findable, as is my bar number. I'm also fairly well known for my work with the Obama campaign as an election protection attorney. You know the New Black Panthers ward in Philly? That was my last stint.

You lose.

And the fact you needed someone to tell you to secure bond money before turning yourself in...which, apparently means you took my advice and did, in fact, turn yourself in....indicates to me that I should be thankful you were not my client. It sounds like whatever "mouthpiece" you hired collected his retainer, though, so I guess that's one for my profession.



 

randome

(34,845 posts)
110. Well, for a 'first year intern', you've certainly gotten around.
Tue Nov 24, 2015, 10:12 AM
Nov 2015

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]
 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
113. No shit... there was a thread of about four or five of us DU lawyers
Tue Nov 24, 2015, 01:26 PM
Nov 2015

Commiserating on the fact that without fail it is generally Assange / Snowden supporters who when faced with inconvenient legal facts accuse us of not actually being lawyers. And then we're just stupid poopy heads when we prove our bona fides.

I suppose if I gave a s*** I might actually ask bvar what the hell they are talking about regarding their outstanding warrants... like maybe a thread?

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
115. There you go again.
Tue Nov 24, 2015, 01:41 PM
Nov 2015

You are making "presumptions" that are not in evidence,

and THAT is WHY I would NEVER hire or consult with you about legal problems.
I have had enough experience with incompetent "lawyers", and there are plenty.

 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
116. You just got proven incorrect. I understand your frustration.
Tue Nov 24, 2015, 04:31 PM
Nov 2015

But I am glad that you took my advice and did finally take care of your outstanding warrants.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
117. How do you know?
Tue Nov 24, 2015, 06:04 PM
Nov 2015

You don't.
Again, assuming something that is NOT in evidence.

On what do you base your claim?

zazen

(2,978 posts)
75. I'm adding this to my browser's permanent bookmarks page--wow! and thanks
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:25 PM
Nov 2015

They're certainly not the only major foundation with questionable activities but they make a great contemporary case study in the phenomena, apart from the obvious party relevance right now.

 

think

(11,641 posts)
80. Thank you for taking the time to put all this information together and posting. /nt
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 01:33 PM
Nov 2015

nenagh

(1,925 posts)
129. Thank you Onyx Collie.... bookmarked
Sat Dec 12, 2015, 08:40 PM
Dec 2015

and have screen shots of your entire post...

for rereading when DU is down...

Though it makes for very distressing reading...








 

Dems to Win

(2,161 posts)
68. Clinton Foundation Running Private Equity Fund in Colombia
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 03:32 AM
Nov 2015
http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-foundation-running-private-equity-fund-in-colombia/

The Clinton Foundation is operating a $20 million private equity firm in Colombia, raising concerns from government and consumer watchdog groups who say the practice is unusual and could pose a significant conflict of interest.

The Bogota-based company, Fondo Acceso, could also lead to uncomfortable questions for Hillary Clinton as she criticizes the private equity industry on the campaign trail.

Fondo Acceso was founded by Bill Clinton, Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, and mining magnate Frank Giustra in 2010, financed with a $20 million joint contribution from the Clinton Foundation’s Clinton-Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative and the SLIM Foundation.

According to the firm’s Spanish-language website, Fondo Acceso is “a Private Equity Fund that seeks investment opportunities in the small and medium Colombian compan[ies] with the purpose of obtaining economic and social returns."

********ENDQUOTE

This is not even a charity anymore, it's a straight up money making venture.

The shady Clinton Foundation is a millstone Democrats don't need in 2016.

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
84. Harpers, huh
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 03:07 PM
Nov 2015

I don't see the campaign of Secretary Clinton as being prepared to deal with this during primary season. In a General Election campaign you can draw lines, us vs. them, and just point at the insanity on the right.

But Clinton is not the nominee of the Democratic party at this moment. So this issue, and everything related to it, is going to be a topic that's impossible to deflect to the point that it becomes seemingly irrelevant. Secretary Clinton can effectively respond to all of this. But the way her campaign would prefer to do that is within a context that doesn't include Senator Sanders, and Governor O'Malley.

Long story short, in comparison to the typical Republican she hopes to be facing, Clinton's fund raising could be just brushed off when she talks about it to the press. But the press has more than just Republican efforts as context for comparison. So this is going to be a bumpy ride for those defending that fund raising.

BootinUp

(51,323 posts)
90. Nothing but a smear campaign, many will buy it
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 09:43 PM
Nov 2015

hook, line, and sinker, they will ignore what the Clinton Foundation has done to help people.

Thankfully, while these impassioned Foundation attackers are loud they probably won't do any real harm.

No evidence, just a slime job.

BootinUp

(51,323 posts)
93. We already know WillyT. The baseless attacks
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 09:47 PM
Nov 2015

have been hurled at the Clintons for a long long time.

 

WillyT

(72,631 posts)
96. Talk To Me Next September/October... Right Before The Election...
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 10:15 PM
Nov 2015

A) Either they have nothing, and will throw the kitchen sink in an effort to discredit her.

Or...

B) They do have something, and will sit on it for the proverbial "October Surprise"

Like I said... time will tell.

For what it's worth... I like rooting for a candidate that has no October Surprises.

Very calming.


BootinUp

(51,323 posts)
97. Sure
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 10:20 PM
Nov 2015

I will still be supporting our strongest most experienced candidate, not worrying about some FUD.

Oilwellian

(12,647 posts)
104. Charity Navigator has the Clinton Foundation on a watch list
Tue Nov 24, 2015, 12:21 AM
Nov 2015
Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation is on Charity Navigator's Watchlist

Here's why:

(Links to all cited sources are included at Charity Navigator link below)

On February 19, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton "was one of the most aggressive global cheerleaders for American companies, pushing governments to sign deals and change policies to the advantage of corporate giants such as General Electric Co., Exxon MobilCorp., Microsoft Corp. and Boeing Co."

The article goes on to state that "at the same time, those companies were among the many that gave to the Clinton family's global foundation set up by her husband, former President Bill Clinton." The article says that "at least 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure donated a total of more than $26 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of public and foundation disclosures."

The article also states that "corporate donations to politically connected charities aren't illegal so long as they aren't in exchange for favors. There is no evidence of that with the Clinton Foundation.

All of the companies mentioned in this article said their charitable donations had nothing to do with their lobbying agendas with Mrs. Clinton's State Department."

For more information: The Wall Street Journal

On February 26, 2015, Politico Magazine reported on questions raised regarding the foundation's acceptance of foreign donations during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. According to the article, "The Clinton Foundation failed to submit a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government to the State Department for approval under an ethics agreement put in place as Hillary Clinton was being confirmed as secretary of state."

The article also states that "some dismissed recent scrutiny of the foundation's fundraising and management as a function of the news media's 'total obsession' with the Clintons, in the words of Chris Ruddy, the CEO of the conservative media outlet Newsmax, which last year pledged $1 million to the foundation."

For more information: Politico Magazine

On February 20, 2015, MarketWatch reported that the Clinton Foundation said "that if Hillary Clinton runs for president, it will consider whether to continue accepting contributions from foreign governments, a step that would be aimed at avoiding the appearance of conflicts of interest."

For more information: MarketWatch

On March 19, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Clinton "Foundation agreed not to seek donations from other governments, but cash kept flowing from individuals with connections to them. [. . .] In response to questions about foreign donations, a foundation official said the individuals have given to a host of other major philanthropies. 'Like other global charities and nongovernmental organizations, the Clinton Foundation receives support from individuals all over the world because our programs are improving the lives of millions of people around the globe,' said spokesman Craig Minassian."

For more information: Wall Street Journal


On April 15, 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that "the board of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has decided to continue accepting donations from foreign governments, primarily from six countries, even though Hillary Clinton is running for president."

For more information: The Wall Street Journal

On April 13th, 2015, The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported that "Hillary Clinton resigned from the Board of Directors of the Clinton Foundation on Sunday after formally declaring her candidacy in the 2016 presidential race." The article goes on to say, "The foundation said it would consider changes this week in its donor policies, possibly including more frequent disclosure."

For more information: The Chronicle of Philanthropy

On April 23, 2015, Reuters reported that "Hillary Clinton's family's charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors."

For more information: Reuters

On May 26, 2015, International Business Times published an article titled, "Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department"

For more information: International Business Times


On May 29, 2015, The Chronicle of Philanthropy published an article titled, "Longtime Clinton Friend Earned $10,000 a Month at Foundation"

For more information: The Chronicle of Philanthropy

On June 19, 2015, Factcheck.org published an article titled, "Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?"

For more information: FactCheck.org

About the CN Watchlist

(Charity Navigator, as an impartial evaluator of publicly reported financial, accountability/transparency and results reporting information, takes no position on allegations made or issues raised by third parties, nor does Charity Navigator seek to confirm or verify the accuracy of allegations made or the merits of issues raised by third parties that may be referred to in the CN Watchlist. However, given that our primary obligation is to donors, Charity Navigator has determined that the nature of this/these issue(s) warrants highlighting the information available so that donors are aware of the issues in question which may be relevant to their decision whether to contribute to this organization. (See How we decide to add a charity to the CN Watchlist).

Charity Navigator

sorechasm

(631 posts)
107. What's the problem? Regarding impropriety, HRC told them to 'cut it out'.
Tue Nov 24, 2015, 07:02 AM
Nov 2015

Surely the Clinton's wouldn't allow 'pay to play', would they? It's all defensible legally. Therefore, it must be moral.

The article also states that "corporate donations to politically connected charities aren't illegal so long as they aren't in exchange for favors. There is no evidence of that with the Clinton Foundation.

All of the companies mentioned in this article said their charitable donations had nothing to do with their lobbying agendas with Mrs. Clinton's State Department."


After all, this is from Rupert Murdoch's WSJ.

Oilwellian

(12,647 posts)
112. This in particular was interesting...
Tue Nov 24, 2015, 10:54 AM
Nov 2015
"corporate donations to politically connected charities aren't illegal so long as they aren't in exchange for favors. There is no evidence of that with the Clinton Foundation.



Then this is listed:

On May 26, 2015, International Business Times published an article titled, "Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department"

For more information: International Business Times

Yeah, that's why their foundation is on a watch list. Sleazy graft, all around.





CorporatistNation

(2,546 posts)
126. The Depth and Breadth of THIS demonstrates just How BOUGHT Is Our "Democracy"
Sat Dec 12, 2015, 10:43 AM
Dec 2015

More Clinton "Family" Connections... i.e., Friends With Benefits!! http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-intervened-firm-request-son-230152981.html

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»WOW... In Case You Missed...