80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
roger
 
  2  
Tue 25 Aug, 2015 05:19 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
I firmly believe she is a paid provocateur


And I firmly believe you are projecting.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Tue 25 Aug, 2015 05:55 pm
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department
By David Sirota @davidsirota [email protected]
Andrew Perez @AndrewPerezDC [email protected] on May 26 2015 8:44 AM EDT



Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States' oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

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

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At a press conference in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.

Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.

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

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

In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual contributors’ donations, making a more precise accounting impossible.

Winning Friends, Influencing Clintons

Under federal law, foreign governments seeking State Department clearance to buy American-made arms are barred from making campaign contributions -- a prohibition aimed at preventing foreign interests from using cash to influence national security policy. But nothing prevents them from contributing to a philanthropic foundation controlled by policymakers.

Just before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation signed an agreement generally obligating it to disclose to the State Department increases in contributions from its existing foreign government donors and any new foreign government donors. Those increases were to be reviewed by an official at the State Department and “as appropriate” the White House counsel’s office. According to available disclosures, officials at the State Department and White House raised no issues about potential conflicts related to arms sales.

During Hillary Clinton’s 2009 Senate confirmation hearings, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., urged the Clinton Foundation to “forswear” accepting contributions from governments abroad. “Foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state,” he said. The Clintons did not take Lugar’s advice. In light of the weapons deals flowing to Clinton Foundation donors, advocates for limits on the influence of money on government action now argue that Lugar was prescient in his concerns.

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

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

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

National security experts assert that the overlap between the list of Clinton Foundation donors and those with business before the the State Department presents a troubling conflict of interest.

While governments and defense contractors may not have made donations to the Clinton Foundation exclusively to influence arms deals, they were clearly “looking to build up deposits in the 'favor bank' and to be well thought of,” said Gregory Suchan, a 34-year State Department veteran who helped lead the agency’s oversight of arms transfers under the Bush administration.

As Hillary Clinton presses a campaign for the presidency, she has confronted sustained scrutiny into her family’s personal and philanthropic dealings, along with questions about whether their private business interests have colored her exercise of public authority. As IBTimes previously reported, Clinton switched from opposing an American free trade agreement with Colombia to supporting it after a Canadian energy and mining magnate with interests in that South American country contributed to the Clinton Foundation. IBTimes’ review of the Clintons’ annual financial disclosures also revealed that 13 companies lobbying the State Department paid Bill Clinton $2.5 million in speaking fees while Hillary Clinton headed the agency.

Questions about the nexus of arms sales and Clinton Foundation donors stem from the State Department’s role in reviewing the export of American-made weapons. The agency is charged with both licensing direct commercial sales by U.S. defense contractors to foreign governments and also approving Pentagon-brokered sales to those governments. Those powers are enshrined in a federal law that specifically designates the secretary of state as “responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales” of arms, military hardware and services to foreign countries. In that role, Hillary Clinton was empowered to approve or reject deals for a broad range of reasons, from national security considerations to human rights concerns.

The State Department does not disclose which individual companies are involved in direct commercial sales, but its disclosure documents reveal that countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation saw a combined $75 billion increase in authorized commercial military sales under the three full fiscal years Clinton served, as compared to the first three full fiscal years of Bush’s second term.

The Clinton Foundation has not released an exact timetable of its donations, making it impossible to know whether money from foreign governments and defense contractors came into the organization before or after Hillary Clinton approved weapons deals that involved their interests. But news reports document that at least seven foreign governments that received State Department clearance for American arms did donate to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary: Algeria, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Thailand, Norway and Australia.

<snip>

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
engineer
 
  4  
Tue 25 Aug, 2015 06:03 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to not like the Clintons without making them up. Of course friendly nations gave to the Clinton foundation. Of course friendly nations got weapon deals. I firmly believe that those deals would have gone through regardless of the donations. The US sells weapons to 66 countries, so you can obviously get weapons without donating.
ossobuco
 
  2  
Tue 25 Aug, 2015 06:07 pm
@engineer,
Chihuahua! 66?
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Tue 25 Aug, 2015 06:27 pm
@engineer,
IBT isn't a RW news source.
engineer
 
  3  
Tue 25 Aug, 2015 07:48 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
Not saying it is. I am saying that correlation does not equal causation. The US sells weapons to everyone. Some people donate to the Clinton foundation. Therefore it is completely reasonable that some people who donated also bought weapons. I don't have a problem with picking on Clinton, just do it for real reasons.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Tue 25 Aug, 2015 08:05 pm
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

Not saying it is. I am saying that correlation does not equal causation. The US sells weapons to everyone. Some people donate to the Clinton foundation. Therefore it is completely reasonable that some people who donated also bought weapons. I don't have a problem with picking on Clinton, just do it for real reasons.


That is a ignorant answer, as most of the world is even more corrupt than we are. When the sellers comes with an agent with their hand out 99% expect that not filling the hand with money means no deal,

I am surprised at you Engineer, normally you are more life experienced than you are showing here. I still mostly trust you, but this is a FAIL.
roger
 
  1  
Tue 25 Aug, 2015 08:57 pm
@hawkeye10,
What he's saying is at least plausible. Not saying that plausibility equals accuracy, but there could certainly be a relationship.

I mostly trust him too.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Wed 26 Aug, 2015 06:36 am
@hawkeye10,
I would consider it more of a fail to assume the implied correlation without further testing the hypothesis. Did countries that normally get arms but did not donate find themselves denied? Can't find any evidence of that and I assume it would have made the press somewhere. Did a country that we normally deny make a donation and suddenly find themselves in favor? Again, no evidence. It shouldn't be all that hard. The US sells weapons to 66 countries. How has that pattern changed before Clinton to during Clinton to post Clinton? If the Clintons are open to big time bribes, it shouldn't be hard to find some evidence, even if it were circumstantial, but rather than dig that up, let's just point to some weak correlation and imply that proves the case. I'm open to the hypothesis, but you have to prove it and this article doesn't even try.

Again, the Clintons are not my favorite politicians, but there are plenty of real reasons to dislike them without making ones up.
bobsal u1553115
 
  3  
Wed 26 Aug, 2015 06:43 am
@engineer,
This one resonates for me. I still don't think the e-mails is such a much and I think Benghazi should have gotten her some sort commendation, State handled it well, in fact, I think she made a very, very good Sec'try of State. But her corporate friends are very troublesome.
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Wed 26 Aug, 2015 07:16 am
Detroit Free Press Poll: Clinton faces battle to win Michigan
Source: Detroit Free Press

WASHINGTON – Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is no doubt counting on Michigan being in the Democratic column again in the 2016 presidential race, but with more than half the people in a new poll expressing an unfavorable view of her, that’s not as certain an outcome as it had been.

Clinton, the favorite for the Democratic nomination, has seen her unfavorable rating rise across the U.S. with questions swirling about her use of a private email server during her time at the State Department. And, according to a new poll by Lansing-based EPIC-MRA done exclusively for the Free Press/WXYZ-TV, it’s no different in Michigan.

Some 55% of the 600 likely voters surveyed between last Tuesday and Saturday gave her an unfavorable rating, compared to 32% who viewed her favorably. Meanwhile, in head-to-head matchups with leading Republican candidates, she trailed former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush 45%-40% with 15% undecided, and barely led businessman Donald Trump 44%-42% with 14% undecided.

With 15 months to go until the election it’s too early to read too much into head-to-head results. But it’s still a notable turnaround for a candidate who in June led Bush in the same poll 40%-37%, and who counts among her top allies former Gov. Jennifer Granholm, whose Twitter photo shows her standing with the former first lady.

Read more: http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/08/24/michigan-presidential-poll/32279479/
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Wed 26 Aug, 2015 08:34 am
@bobsal u1553115,
I agree her corporate friends are very troublesome and the whole email thing is overblown. Not so sure she handled the Benghazi hearing too well, she was way too flip in her answers IMO. I'm still hoping Biden runs so I don't have to vote for her. Like I have said numerous times, I like Sanders but there are a few issues I actually disagree about.

The reason I think her focus on corporations is troublesome is because I would be afraid she would not focus so much on the workers. Something I have been disappointed in Obama about, although he did want to pass a JOBS program that went nowhere fast.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Wed 26 Aug, 2015 09:52 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Oh for ****'s sake.
The US has been selling arms to Saudi Arabia since 1950. To somehow tie those arms sales to the Clinton Foundation is asinine.

Arms sales are approved by the President and reported to Congress. Congress has 30 days to block any and every arms sale. Congress tacitly approved those arms sales. Does that mean the GOP benefited from contributions to the Clinton Foundation?
georgeob1
 
  0  
Wed 26 Aug, 2015 10:35 am
@parados,
I agree about the arms sales. This has been going on for a long time and there is little likelihood that anything significant changed in the matter in question on Clinton's watch in the State Department.

However the connection between Hillary's service as Secretary of State and contemporaneous foreign donors to the Clinton foundation is not at all beyond question. Indeed a number of suspect contributions have occurred coincidentally with contacts with the then Secretary of State. Trading political influence for personal benefit can be both corrupt and illegal. Moreover it has become increasdingly obvious that the Clinton foundation, among other things acts as employer for a large cohort of Clinton political accociates and consultants. That is, as a minimum, legally suspect.

In any event, the decline in the favorability indicators in Hillary's political standing appears to be continuing at a fairly steady pace. In addition she continues to show herself as a somewhat inept political communicator and campaigner. I suspect it is that combination that has stoked the Biden political prospects among leading Democrats. I do enjoy reading all the self-serving rationalizations about Biden's prospects among some here. The fact is he has long been regarded as a gaffe-prone gasbag, even in a crowd of other Senatorial gasbags, though in many way's he is a likeable guy. All things considered things don't look so good for the Dems now.

I believe the best thing the Dems have going for them is the continuing chaos among Republican candidates. I suspect the otherwise strange appeal of Donald Trump among many may be a public weariness with the politically correct platitudes which appear to have replaced meaningful political dialogue today. I don't mean to imply that Trump has replaced it with anything particularly meaningful: he has not. However he has challenged it and that has got him a lot of attention, much of it favorable. There appears to be a great deal of public frustration out there and that may suggest surprises ahead. I earenestly hope that Trump craters quickly and that the more serious Republican candidates come to the forefront soon.
parados
 
  3  
Wed 26 Aug, 2015 10:54 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Trading political influence for personal benefit can be both corrupt and illegal. Moreover it has become increasdingly obvious that the Clinton foundation, among other things acts as employer for a large cohort of Clinton political accociates and consultants. That is, as a minimum, legally suspect.

OMG... We better find out who is donating to all those PACs that are helping candidates. Oh, wait..... You only think it affects one politician when something she in no way benefits from is donated to.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Wed 26 Aug, 2015 02:29 pm
@parados,
The Clinton foundation is (supposedly) a charity, not a PAC.
parados
 
  2  
Wed 26 Aug, 2015 03:51 pm
@georgeob1,
Yep, and as such it has no influence on a politician. A PAC however is used to elect a politician so it has influence over them since clearly the politician is getting a personal benefit.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Wed 26 Aug, 2015 03:59 pm
@parados,
To bad the influence being peddeld by the Clintons is to foreign powers. All that money donated to a foundation that happens to be run and owned by the Sec of State. Tsk tsk
parados
 
  3  
Wed 26 Aug, 2015 04:36 pm
@Baldimo,
What influence exactly is being peddled? Vague accusations that accuse her of selling arms to Saudi Arabia for donations are ridiculous since Saudi Arabia has been sold arms since the 1950's and all those arm sales can be denied by Congress.

Hillary doesn't run and own the Clinton Foundation. Do you bother to think before you type that ****?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Wed 26 Aug, 2015 04:39 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Yep, and as such it has no influence on a politician. A PAC however is used to elect a politician so it has influence over them since clearly the politician is getting a personal benefit.


Except when the charity is used to pay the salaries of a politician's permanent staff of hangers on, including the ever present Huma, Sydney Blumenthal and others.
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 11/26/2024 at 09:51:33