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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Repressive Regimes Donated to Clinton Foundation, Got Federal Approval for Arms Deals [View all]NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)87. We agree and, yes, it's complicated.
First, the family foundation consists of multiple sub-foundations, among them the Clinton Global Initiative.
The Clinton Foundation encompasses a number of different efforts and entities, including the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI, spun off into a separate but related organization in 2010), the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI, split off after 2009 but reintegrated after 2013), Clinton Global Initiative University (CGI U), the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI), the Clinton Development Initiative (CDI), the Clinton Economic Opportunity Initiative, the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, the Clinton Health Matters Initiative (CHMI), the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, and the No Ceilings Project.
Not all of the data we see relates necessarily to the same organization.
It does give the campaign trouble in terms of the appearances, if nothing more.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
114 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Repressive Regimes Donated to Clinton Foundation, Got Federal Approval for Arms Deals [View all]
cali
May 2015
OP
Do you not see a potential conflict of interest when foreigner are allowed to "donate" to
rhett o rick
May 2015
#13
Unfortunately, many of the bad countries listed are our "allies". Poor judgement.
leveymg
May 2015
#19
In the case of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, that is virtually a certainty, especially paid proxies
leveymg
May 2015
#23
George Bush built a massive BASE in Qatar--it's not like "Clinton" invented that relationship.
MADem
May 2015
#29
I hope you don't expect us to believe these repressive regimes are committed to charity.
rhett o rick
May 2015
#15
I doubt that you really believe that these regimes are charitable. It makes much more
rhett o rick
May 2015
#100
I think Hill's campaign is dying the death of a thousand indiscretions.
Jackpine Radical
May 2015
#7
+1000 - There is not enough money to defend all of this AND get her message out!
TheNutcracker
May 2015
#30
Ahh... only when Hillary is in the game is "leftist" an epithet on this site.
Jester Messiah
May 2015
#27
As the official historian on DU can you also tell us how much money these
A Simple Game
May 2015
#65
No, but I'm sure you can. You probably can tell us how much they'll give in future.
MADem
May 2015
#75
How much did Senator Sanders take from foreign donors? HILLPAC was set up for
A Simple Game
May 2015
#81
You're insinuating that money buys influence or access. So what's the diff, here?
MADem
May 2015
#83
The diff is that Clinton gave the money to Sanders because he already dances to the
A Simple Game
May 2015
#86
You really don't see the diff do you? The diff is that HILLPAC gave a little money to
A Simple Game
May 2015
#107
Wow, quite a post, you didn't think I would read past the first sentence did you?
A Simple Game
May 2015
#109
You can read your own posts, I presume. When you repeat the same concept, over and over,
MADem
May 2015
#110
I didn't "claim" it--it's a simple fact that everyone who is halfway aware of their relationship
MADem
May 2015
#112
A cheap date is a gender based insult? Women can't date men? You are the one assigning
A Simple Game
May 2015
#113
Everyone knows what your meaning was, there. Don't even try to wiggle out of it.
MADem
May 2015
#114
Are we pretending the US wouldn't have done all of those arms deals without the foundation's
FSogol
May 2015
#16
He was a clerk for two conservative judges! Judge Richard Posner and Justice Antonin Scalia.
B Calm
May 2015
#41
Who knew that Scalia's clerk would be given a "liberal" label when someone likes the stuff he's
MADem
May 2015
#42
Actually, Congress can also get involved to block any arms sales. Even Jimmy Carter verbalized
still_one
May 2015
#38
your truthiness again. It was your name calling attack on DUers that got your thread locked
cali
May 2015
#47
Advance the BS? Some are shovelling on top of the pile already shovelled by the GOP.
Fred Sanders
May 2015
#68
Hillary Clinton has brought ALL of this upon herself, she's careless and arrogant, a liability.
NYC_SKP
May 2015
#84
Republicans are eating up these patently ridiculous Clinton Foundation attack/plays for an ally in the extreme left.
Fred Sanders
May 2015
#74
OMG! How many non-scandals is this now? Once you reach a certain number do the non-scandals
Fred Sanders
May 2015
#66
Indeed. Maybe there is a Unified Field Theory of Scandals just waiting to be proven regarding the Clintons??
Fred Sanders
May 2015
#69
Here's the thing. Some charitable foundations make grants as a primary function, others do things
Bluenorthwest
May 2015
#101
We also look at salaries that are drawn from the various organizations. FREDERIC POUST: $464,229/yr
NYC_SKP
May 2015
#103
Who is 'we'? And why won't 'we' address the points I raised? Why is your chart different in every
Bluenorthwest
May 2015
#106
Compare to Doctors Without Border's actual financial statement as opposed to unsourced pie chart:
Bluenorthwest
May 2015
#102
And of course Iran, North Korea, and Cuba didn't donate to the Clinton Foundation,
bornskeptic
May 2015
#78