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

[grasswire]

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

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.

snip...........

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.

snip...............

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.

[olddots]

1. ooops

[Unknown Beatle]

2. Quid Pro Quo

[cantbeserious]

26. ^^^ This ^^^ - A View Of War To Come?

eom

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

37. Not good. Can you see Bernie doing this?

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Fred Sanders]

62. Bernie establishing a world-wide highly respected charity? I probably could!

[bvar22]

97. Selling guns in the Middle East is now a charity?

That is a stretch.

[randys1]

102. Clinton Foundation was selling guns?

[senz]

104. First pay my foundation. Then you can buy guns.

[randys1]

106. I wonder what President Cruz will do in the ME.

[senz]

108. I wonder what President Sanders would do.

All you can say for your candidate is that she's better than Cruz?

My kitty's butt is better than Cruz.

[randys1]

109. Exhausting

[senz]

112. Wouldn't be if you backed the right candidate.

Obfuscation, deflection, and emotional blackmail are indeed exhausting, randys1.

But you don't have to live that way. Be bold.

[senz]

3. Surprised we haven't heard more about this.

It came out in May and seems awfully damning.

Ah, yes, she "worked hard for her money."

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.

It certainly gives the impression of corruption.

“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.”

Gives new meaning to the phrase, "shadow government."

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.

As I read this (and will need to reread tomorrow), I kept wondering why President Obama, whom I support, would nominate her for Secretary of State. Does not seem like a wise move.

I can imagine an influx of commenters saying, "Move along, nothing to see here."

Thanks, grasswire.

[dreamnightwind]

22. Lessig's concern helps defend against the source attackers

Lessig is a man of great integrity, and no right wing attack dog.

This belongs on my list of why Hillary is exactly not who I want to be the Democratic Party nominee, probably about item number 823, though sorting by importance would give it a higher number.

Seriously, who supports this? Why are we even selling all of these arms to all of these nations in the first place? Peace through arming every possible nation? Not a chance, it's about corporate profits on the weapons supply side, corporate profits on the resource extraction and processing side, and money for the Clintons and their neoliberal "charity".

Add to that the fact that Hillary was SOS at the time, and the SOS access - U.S arms sales - Clinton Global Initiative donors web is reprehensible. I'd think even worse if it was a Bush or, god help us, Trump. There's no excuse for anyone here to support this.

[enid602]

134. sirota

Sirota serves these up every few months. He started his career as a Sanders' staffer. He plays bad cop to Bernie's good cop. Just like the Bernie Babies found on this board.

[KoKo]

143. Oh Please....read the article

[Fumesucker]

4. Those were the days my friend

When we would mock Dubya for his association with the Saudis.

Now we must learn to cheer things that we once mocked.

[Enthusiast]

29. But only 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis.

[Fumesucker]

40. True, it was the Iranian hijackers who were the real enemy

Only Very Serious People can fully appreciate the situation.

[KoKo]

84. Those were the days, my friend....indeed.

Now we must learn to cheer things that we once mocked.

[arcane1]

94. If it was a Bush, DU would be UNANIMOUS in opposition to it. Not one post would be in support.

And everyone reading this article damn well knows that.

[moobu2]

5. Werent all these Republican attacks debunked

back in the summer?

[Scootaloo]

17. You're really going to call David Sirota a Republican?

That's what you're gonna do, huh?

[think]

33. No. They were dismissed not debunked.

[AzDar]

6. Jesus.

[roguevalley]

7. wow. this is bidness as usual. no wonder they get along with the bushes

so well as to be considered family. if you can gut this up as acceptable, then there is no hope for you. (I am speaking generally. Not to anyone on this thread) Shit stinks no matter whose shoes its on and I smell something real bad now.

[SunSeeker]

8. Another OP dredging out the old, debunked "Clinton Cash" talking points.

The reason this May 2015 article went nowhere is because it is bullshit, like "Clinton Cash" that came out that month, all timed to try to hurt Hillary after she announced she was running.

http://www.newsweek.com/everything-you-need-know-about-clinton-cash-327694

[senz]

10. Hmm, well, the source looks pretty reliable ...

The International Business Times "was ranked by Alexa as the fifth-most visited site among business newspapers as of September 2015, and has an audience of over 55 million people every month."[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Business_Times

As for "Clinton Cash," apparently that's something else, from a book.

[SunSeeker]

14. The New York Times published Clinton Cash excerpts back in May.

Apparently otherwise "reliable sources" can't resist the clicks a salacious Clinton bashing brings.

[Fred Sanders]

70. Yes. And of course the same reliable readers fall reliably for the same unreliable propaganda.

[senz]

110. This has nothing to do with "Clinton Cash."

Nice try.

[SunSeeker]

114. It's the same bullshit.

And posting a 5 month old article as if it was hot off the presses is not even a "nice try."

[senz]

119. It's factual, shocking, and new to me.

Her lies and low blows during the 2008 election disgusted me, and reports (in the NYTimes) about Clinton Foundation doings turned me further off, but I didn't know about the Clinton quid pro quo for weapons sales to terrorist countries while Hillary was SoS. I didn't know that such sales nearly doubled in 3 years of Clinton SoS from what they were in the last four years of the Bush presidency. With the buyers lining Clinton's pockets.

She's corrupt to the core. Either that or Bill was pushing for it and she couldn't resist.

Either way, not what I want in a President.

Not what you should want either.

[SunSeeker]

122. Claiming it was quid pro quo is not factual. It is just someone's opinion.

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone's got one.

[senz]

128. Blatant correlations should not be ignored

if you care about this country.

Remember? We used to stand for something nobler than money.

[SunSeeker]

132. "Correlation" does not mean causation.

I don't believe Hillary has chosen to go into public service for the money.

You obviously choose to imagine the worst possible scenario, whether it makes sense or not.

[senz]

137. So we should shut our eyes and look the other way.

I don't think she went into politics for money. I think she (and Bill) went into it for power and ego. Then they got in deep enough to learn that power relies on money and close connections to moneyed sources. So that's the direction they chose. Their goal is a second stay in the White House (great power and prestige) and they will do or say anything to achieve that goal.

I have never seen Hillary fight for the little people. Ever. The only time she mentions them is when she's running for office. So when she does, it comes off phony.

I did see how Hillary conducted herself during the 2008 campaign, and that is what formed my strongest opinion of her. Nothing I've read and seen of her since then has convinced me otherwise -- quite the contrary.

[SunSeeker]

139. No, but you should not make shit up.

Hillary has spent her adult life fighting for the poor and middle class, especially women and children. Her first legal job out of law school was at the Children's Defense Fund. As first lady, she pushed through CHIP, which gives medical coverage to 11 million poor children. I could go on and on, but it does not fit your narrative and I know I am wasting my time.

[grasswire]

111. yeah, keep telling yourself that fable...nt

[Fred Sanders]

59. From GOP propaganda coffers directly to the OP sections of DU....there is an obvious co-relation.

It is getting painfully obvious....and pitiful at the same time.

[pnwmom]

9. None of this money was going to benefit the Clintons personally. The foundation is for charity.

And the State Department has always helped promote major companies like Boeing.

Big deal.

[senz]

12. Unfortunately, the article contradicts this.

It states that "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."

Some of us might consider that a "big deal."

Why don't you read the article?

[pnwmom]

15. Again, Presidents have always promoted the US air industry, which is a major producer

of jobs in the US, and it is nothing new for retired Presidents to get paid for speeches by American contractors.

Yawn.

[senz]

88. Governments & corporations gave money directly to the Clinton FAMILY.

You yawn at that?

Don't you ask any ethics at all of your candidate?

[pnwmom]

93. All I saw in the article is that they paid the former President for speeches.

There is no indication he broke the law or that the family accepted bribes, which is what you are implying.

[senz]

116. Speeches? This isn't about "speeches." Try weapons sales to terrorists for cash.

You're falling back on talking points, pnwmom.

[pnwmom]

121. There's nothing in this article that says that. n/t

[senz]

126. There's a disturbing correlation

between arms sales and huge donations to the Clinton Foundation (from both sellers and buyers) while Hillary was SoS. These sales skyrockted during her tenure.

And if you weren't trying so hard to cover up, you might be willing to take a look at it yourself and ask what it means.

[Scootaloo]

16. Actually, I think it IS a big deal

Independent of any particular candidate for just a moment... SHOULD the State Department be so chummy with these companies?

[pnwmom]

18. Yes. Promoting US interests is part of what the State Department does, and Boeing provides

more than 162,000 good jobs.

[reformist2]

21. Helping to escalate the global arms race is good, because it save jobs here??? Wow are we lost.

[dreamnightwind]

23. Yes some of us appear to be /nt

[PosterChild]

25. Ask 162,000 Boeing employees ....

..... whether it's better that Boeing supply these planes , or Russia does. Deals like this are better for our national security and for our workforce .

[JRLeft]

47. Hillary is anti gun didn't you know?

[senz]

120. +1000 lol lol lol

Better to laugh than to cry, so thanks, JRLeft.

[JRLeft]

142. Providing facts about Hillary is called bashing her.

[grasswire]

113. Orwell was an optimist.

Up is down.
There are no absolutes.

[senz]

123. Orwell was prescient

in so many ways. This morning while making coffee, I remembered very clearly where I was and how I was feeling when I finished 1984 and how many years have passed from then (1967) to now, and how inexorably we've moved, bit by bit, toward that unimaginable dystopia.

And I felt, again, how sad this is for young adults, for little children, for babies not yet born.

Bernie Sanders may not be perfect -- he's not slick and polished, not slippery or a magician -- but he knows what's happening and is willing to stick his neck out to rally the rest of us to stop it.

I'll back that.

[arcane1]

95. Selling billions worth of weapons to a country that beheads more people than ISIS.

Is that "promoting US interests"?

I swear, people will spin anything.

[azurnoir]

24. it's not like the wife of one of her biggest donors in 2008 and now is on the BoD of Clinton Fd.

oh wait ....... it is Cheryl Saban wife of Haim Saban

[That Guy 888]

11. Saudi Arabia getting US weapons requires bribery??? come on...

I'm voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary, but the article doesn't convince me of wrong doing. Why the Saudis are considered great allies in the Middle East is beyond me. What will happen to those weapon systems if/when the Royal family gets overthrown by the Wahabis that they support?

[senz]

13. Well, they don't state that it's bribery, per se. Although appearances aren't too good.

And it's not just Saudi Arabia. Also, arms sales had already nearly doubled that of Bush's second term after three years of Clinton as SOS -- all the while with simultaneous gifts being made to the Clinton Foundation.

The article states,

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.

[mhatrw]

146. The "real world" runs on grease. The Saudis were just greasing the skids.

Nothing to see here. Just like Cheney's millions in Halliburton stock had nothing to do with invading Iraq. Not even the appearance of a conflict of interest ...

[Bernblu]

19. Clinton supporters will say it was just business as usual, nothing to see here.

Let's move on to the coronation!

[reformist2]

20. I often forget that the Secretary of State approves all these arms deals. She's deep in all that.

[zalinda]

30. Let me get this straight

Saudi Arabia wants planes and Boeing wants to sell planes, but in order for the deal to go through, Hillary has to approve the deal. So, both parties donate to the Clinton Foundation and then the deal is approved.

My question is, why donate to the Clinton Foundation if there is no quid pro quo in the deal?

And, lastly, why if you are going to run for President, do you allow EVEN THE APPEARANCE of 'bribery' to happen?

While this whole thing may be legal, it certainly looks bad and skirts the rules of Secretary of State.

I really don't understand, Hillary and Bill are supposed to be very intelligent, but they do things that are really iffy, and then dribble out the details for months. And, while it turns out that what they did may or may not be illegal, it certainly puts their ethics and common sense in the gray zone.

Z

[JRLeft]

46. They are republican lite.

[senz]

89. +1000

[6chars]

27. Whoooo caaaarrreeesss???

The American people are tired of the damn emails, and they are tired of the kerfuffles over the Clinton foundation. Besides, there is no smoking gun.

[RiverLover]

28. Why should we care that she is corrupt? /nt

[Enthusiast]

31. We should sacrifice anything to make her the next president.

[img][/img]

[RiverLover]

39. WINNING

is all that matters. Even when the "D" is actually "R". And the layers of corruption can never be fully peeled back nor proven in a court of law. I have a coworker who calls HRC a genius. That she is.

[senz]

90. Yes, why? We LOVE corruption! Corruption is GOOD.

It doesn't matter what a candidate does. All that matters is what they look like!

After all, this is the United States of America!

[leftofcool]

32. Already debunked.

[think]

34. Dismissed yes. Debunked no. The facts are what they are.

[leftofcool]

48. Yea, those GOP "facts" come up a lot on DU

[think]

50. GOP facts. What are those? Facts that don't fit your narrative?

Please tell me did Clinton as SoS allow the sale of weapons to countries with dubious human rights records after those countries donated money to the Clinton foundation or not?

A very simple question.

[senz]

92. David Sirota is GOP? Wow. When did he switch?

[grasswire]

117. LINK?

Surely you can document the "debunking"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. REDUX

As Hillary Clinton 's march to the nomination and the presidency becomes more and more unstoppable expect the attacks on her to become more vitriolic as they grow exponentially...

[think]

36. Are you claiming the article contains factual inaccuracies or just that you disagree that facts

in the story are relevant to a discussion of Clinton's character and previous actions?

The facts in the article have not been refuted. You can claim they are not relevant to the character of the SoS and surely you are entitled to that opinion. Still others may not consider foreign governments that give large sums of money to the former SoS's foundation and then getting U.S. arms sales even though they have a record of violating human rights a matter of concern.

Events like this one are very disturbing to me whether done by a Dem or the GOP:

That year, the Algerian government donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation and its lobbyists met with the State Department officials who oversee enforcement of human rights policies. Clinton’s State Department the next year approved a one-year 70 percent increase in military export authorizations to the country. The increase included authorizations of almost 50,000 items classified as “toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment” after the State Department did not authorize the export of any of such items to Algeria in the prior year.

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

It would be one thing if there was a single account of this happening. However, the article highlights the accounts of this activity happening on a routine basis with many countries that have dubious human rights records who got expanded access to U.S. military weaponry after making donations to Clinton's foundations. Those appear to be facts. Not baseless accusations or events & actions taken out of context.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. If you believe Hillary Clinton has violated the law I will extend to you the courtesy ...

If you believe Hillary Clinton has violated the law I will extend to you the courtesy of providing the address of the Attorney General where you can file a complaint:


Loretta Lynch
Attorney General Of The United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001


You're welcome.

[think]

41. Activities can occur without violating the letter of the law that still are questionable at best.

Dick Cheney is the poster boy for doing things that have not been declared as violating the law but still smack of irresponsible and unethical activity. (This is not a comparison but rather an extreme example of impropriety that was not declared as illegal.)

It is a fact that Hillary Clinton as secretary of state sold weapons to Qatar in vastly increased quantities after receiving large donations from that country and no one is disputing this fact including you:

The monarchy in Qatar had similarly been chastised by the State Department for a raft of human rights abuses. But that country donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was running the State Department. During the three full budgetary years of her tenure, Qatar saw a 14-fold increase in State Department authorizations for direct commercial sales of military equipment and services, as compared to the same time period in Bush’s second term. The department also approved the Pentagon’s separate $750 million sale of multi-mission helicopters to Qatar. That deal would additionally employ as contractors three companies that have all supported the Clinton Foundation over the years: United Technologies, Lockheed Martin and General Electric.

Qatar is known to send weapons to extremists that the U.S. is actively fighting against. This is also a fact:

How Qatar is funding the rise of Islamist extremists

The fabulously wealthy Gulf state, which owns an array of London landmarks and claims to be one of our best friends in the Middle East, is a prime sponsor of violent Islamists

By David Blair and Richard Spencer 10:00PM BST 20 Sep 2014

Few outsiders have noticed, but radical Islamists now control Libya's capital. These militias stormed Tripoli last month, forcing the official government to flee and hastening the country's collapse into a failed state.

Moreover, the new overlords of Tripoli are allies of Ansar al-Sharia, a brutal jihadist movement suspected of killing America's then ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and of trying to murder his British counterpart, Sir Dominic Asquith.

~Snip~

Qatar, the owner of Harrods, has dispatched cargo planes laden with weapons to the victorious Islamist coalition, styling itself "Libya Dawn".

Western officials have tracked the Qatari arms flights as they land in the city of Misrata, about 100 miles east of Tripoli, where the Islamist militias have their stronghold. Even after the fall of the capital and the removal of Libya's government, Qatar is "still flying in weapons straight to Misrata airport", said a senior Western official...

~Snip~

Last December, the US Treasury designated a Qatari academic and businessman, Abdul Rahman al-Nuaimi, as a "global terrorist". The US accused him of sending nearly £366,000 to "al-Qaeda's representative in Syria", named as Abu Khalid al-Suri.

~Snip

But critics question why Qatar has failed to act against him. "It's deeply concerning that these individuals, where sufficient evidence is in place to justify their inclusion on the US sanctions list, continue to be free to undertake their business dealings," said Stephen Barclay, the Conservative MP for North East Cambridgeshire...

Read more:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/qatar/11110931/How-Qatar-is-funding-the-rise-of-Islamist-extremists.html

That action of allowing a country known for funneling weapons to radical extremists to purchase substantially larger amounts of U.S. military weaponry after that country donated a large sum of money to Clinton's foundation is certainly circumspect. It may not have violated the law but it is indeed an action I consider counterproductive to U.S. long term interests in combatting extremism in the middle east.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. If you believe there was a quid pro quo then you have established one of the elements neccessary

If you believe there was a quid pro quo then you have established one of the elements necessary to prosecute a person for violating 18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

I already gave you the contact information for the AG.

I don't believe there is much more I can do.


You're welcome

[think]

44. Did you even read what I wrote? good grief....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. I gave you the statute and the contact information for the A G.

That's more than anybody has done for me on this site.


P.S. I want to continue in being helpful. Perhaps Senator Sanders can bring it up in the next debate.

[think]

49. I wrote right in the title that letter of the law wasn't violated but keep ignoring the damn subject

Instead of discussing the actual activities that occurred you go straight into claiming I claimed that actual laws were violated which is complete bullshit.

Your constant posting of the attorney general's contact information is NOT a rebuttal of questionable activity. Just because it doesn't violate the law does not make it any less unsavory and counterproductive to the interests of the U.S.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. If I am guilty of anything it's trying to be helpful./nt

[think]

52. No. You're trying to avoid discussing what actually happened. So be it...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. I sincerely regret you feel that way.

Have a nice week.

[think]

54. Did SoS Clinton increase sales of military weaponry after donations were made or not?

It's that simple.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. If you believe you have satisfied the elements of bribery I gave you the Statute and A G info.

You're welcome.

[think]

63. Thanks for not answering the simple question and then making a baseless claim once again....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

68. If she didn't violate any laws what is the point of our tete a tete?

We still have elections to determine who is and isn't morally fit for office.

[think]

77. It's a question of character which is the subject here. Do you approve of the selling of weapons

by SoS Clinton to Qatar in vastly expanded quantities even though they have an egregious human rights record?

Qatar is also known to funnel weapons to extremists, in Libya of all places, at odd with U.S. interests. That might bother some people.

Apparently you see no potential conflict of interest in the SoS taking donations from country and then approving those sales. (Please note claiming the appearance of a conflict of interest is not the same as claiming bribery occurred. There is a difference.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. If it's question of character as a small (d) Democrat I will let my fellow Democrats hash it out...

If it's question of character as a small (d) Democrat I will let my fellow Democrats hash it out in the primaries. I trust you don't want to usurp them of that right.

[think]

80. So you prefer not to give your opinion correct? That is understandable given the circumstances....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. My opinion is she did nothing wrong. You hold a different opinion. That's how we roll in America.

[think]

82. Thank you for stating your opinion. /nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. You are welcome, sir or madame, and I would be remiss if I didn't wish you a happy week./nt

[think]

85. I hope you have a great week also. For what it's worth Hillary did extremely well in the hearing.

I mean that sincerely.

The hearing was a complete sham and Hillary made them look like the partisan buffoons they are. Their actions were completely out of malice and had no factual basis of any misconduct what so ever.

[senz]

98. Thank you for this exchange.

I admire you for getting to the heart of the matter and forcing a Hillary supporter to cover and obfuscate over and over again to the point of absurdity.

It is clear that her hardcore supporters hold her to no ethical standard whatsoever.

A frustrating, even horrifying, read -- but you were wonderful.

Kudos and thanks again, think.

[Garrett78]

129. Bribery and corruption has been legalized.

At the federal level, that is. That's why I use quotation marks around "donations." They're bribes. When they come from multiple members of a large bank or Big Pharma or a weapons manufacturer, they come with strings attached. As I mention in this thread, it's absurd to suggest the donations from 100 John and Jane Does carries the same weight as the donations from 100 Goldman Sachs employees.

All perfectly legal. But that doesn't make it right.

Likewise, people from Food Not Bombs were arrested for feeding homeless individuals in a public park in Orlando, Florida. Against the law, yes. But wrong?

I recommend reading Howard Zinn's piece, The Problem is Civil Obedience.

[Bread and Circus]

56. Is inevitibility your argument for everything? It seems so.

Academically and morally lazy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. My support is a function of the fact...

My support is a function of the fact that she is uniquely qualified to be president by dint of experience, strength of character, and temperament.

Thank you, sir or madame, for asking.

[Bread and Circus]

71. That was not an answer to the question I posed. I didn't ask you why you supported Clinton.

But whatever if you wanna play it like you are ignorant of what I asked, then be that way if it makes you happy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. My initial post in this thread...

My initial post in this thread spoke to the reason for the animus toward her and why I expect it to intensify:

[Hepburn]

87. Wow...

...if it does not support HRC, it's gotta be wrong. So, in your book, HRC is perfect?

[JRLeft]

43. According to her supporters she's not beholden.

[senz]

101. One obfuscates. The other spins. They all deny.

This is what it's like to support a person like that for the presidency.

I'm sure their GOP counterparts can sympathize.

[Fred Sanders]

55. I am convinced far too many Bernie fans know too little about statistics and co-relations

but seem to be experts in connecting conspiracy dots with GOP-supplied gossamer strands.

Which is strange because Sanders fans are polled as being higher educated than Clinton fans...not sure about Mark fans.

How about that Wall Street stock market soaring on Clinton's debate win!? More dots!!

Dots everywhere, so many dots to connect!

Get to work, you expert dot connectors!

[think]

58. Do you want to actually discuss what occurred or just drop accusations?

[Fred Sanders]

61. There is no subject to discuss...that was my point, as others have tried to tell you!

How about discussing GOP warmongering?

[think]

64. Did you read the article?

[Fred Sanders]

67. I read Clinton Cash excerpts.. the GOP propaganda rag that alleges the same nothing...did you?

[think]

69. I read THIS article. This is what is being discussed. I have no clue what you are referencing

[Fred Sanders]

72. You have no clue!? Google it! Get informed! Then you will understand.

We do not like GOP propaganda much at DU.

[think]

78. This article is not your right wing source so either discuss facts in THIS article or keep spinning

[arcane1]

96. The intention is to distract from facts, and discredit their source.

And it's failing miserably.

[senz]

99. This isn't "Clinton Cash."

Doesn't the constant spinning make you feel just a little bit dizzy?

[Fred Sanders]

100. Consider it counter-spin....just keeping things in balance for the thinking folks at DU.

[senz]

103. Facts and deflection are two different things, Fred.

I don't envy you having to do what you do. But that's what you get for backing someone like that for the presidency.

[mhatrw]

148. Correlation <> causation, but in this case, it does equal a GLARINGLY HUGE conflict of interest! nt

[WillyT]

65. K & R !!!

[JudyM]

66. Ugh. A punch to the gut. Bernie should head-on spotlight conflict of interest "realities" as a core

threat to democracy that must be addressed.

[Snotcicles]

91. There are other conflicts of interest like Walton family members and Walmart foundation donations.nt

[Zorra]

73. How truly awful. The hits just keep on comin'. nt

[mmonk]

74. This is the issue to me expecially with regards to the server.

Not the crazy conspiracy theories like Benghazi.

[KoKo]

86. +! The "Howdy Gowdy Show" was just a distraction from the real issue....

Repubs and Dems often work together for the common profit. So many are owned on both sides by powerful special interests these days. And, "Citizens United" decision has made it worse but its been going on for a few decades now.

[senz]

107. And that is the Big Picture, simply put.

Please forgive an old Boomer lady's emotionality at times like this, but I truly believe Dylan and Hendrix saw it coming ...

“There must be some way out of here,” said the joker to the thief
“There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief
Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth”

“No reason to get excited,” the thief, he kindly spoke
“There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
But you and I, we’ve been through that, and this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late”

All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too

Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl

The youtube Hendrix recording is now too scratchy to do it justice.

[KoKo]

135. Yes....very much fits our times.

I often think of Simon and Garfunkle's "Sounds of Silence" for these times...and there are so many more from the late 60's through the 70's in that other time of great stress, war and division in our country.

Sounds Of Silence Lyrics
http://www.metrolyrics.com/sounds-of-silence-lyrics-simon-and-garfunkel.html

Hello darkness, my old friend
I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted
In my brain still remains
Within the sound of silence

In restless dreams I walked alone
Narrow streets of cobblestone
'Neath the halo of a street lamp
I turned my collar to the cold and damp
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of
A neon light that split the night
And touched the sound of silence

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share and no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence

Fools said I, you do not know
Silence like a cancer grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you
But my words like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the wells of silence

And the people bowed and prayed
To the neon God they made
And the sign flashed out its warning
In the words that it was forming
And the signs said, 'The words of the prophets
Are written on the subway walls and tenement halls'
And whispered in the sound of silence

Songwriters
SIMON, PAUL

[senz]

138. Thanks, KoKo.

Oh what a blubbery morning.

[Octafish]

115. The Howdy Gowdy Show.

Thank you, KoKo.

“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.” -- from David Sirota's article in OP: http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Buy Partisanship explained: the wars go on and the profits keep comin'.

[KoKo]

130. Yep....The Clinton Foundation is a Conflict of Interest

That Foundation is a conflict of interest. Bill will be back in the WH and he's on the Campaign Trail now with Hillary.

Lots of people have a stake in keeping their jobs with transition from Obama to Hillary/Bill III. It's something unheard of before in our History and we should be very wary of it. But, after all that's gone on Crony Capitalism is no longer a dirty work for many....it's only the Left that worries about this Conflict of Interest and we are marginalized.

We have fewer Progressive Sites and Blogs than during the Bush years because there isn't money there to support them. And, when Progressives and Whistle Blowers break news there's little traction because after the massive Power Grab after the "Financial Meltdown" where Wall Street was Bailed Out. The job was finished as to who is in control and our endless Wars/Interventions have strengthened the "MIC" and the Surveillance State.

Lack of prosecution, accountability, reform of the system and breakdown in our Legal Structure means it is near to impossible for anyone being held accountable unless we can find a "New Crowd" who can come in and begin to Restructure. But, the Cupboard is Pretty Bare..as to where we can get this New Crowd with enough honest people left with experience, vigor and power to begin the Restructure. I think Bernie is trying....but, he's up against tough odds.

[Octafish]

140. Money. Money. Money.

Did you see this from Jeff St. Clair, re Mr. McAuliffe?

...When Gore lost, the party fell back into the control of the Clintons and their chief emissary, Terry McAuliffe. The fundraiser swiftly took his revenge out on Gore. In late January, as the moving vans where pulling away from the White House, McAuliffe planned a major send off for the Clintons at Andrews Air Base. All the top Democrats were there; many were invited to give tributes to the first couple in front of the national TV cameras. Al Gore, naturally, expected to give the keynote farewell address. But McAuliffe refused to allow Gore even near a microphone. Gore wasn’t permitted to speak a single word. “McAuliffe didn’t want Gore to speak”, a top aide at the DNC told the Washington Post. “McAuliffe didn’t even want Gore there. The send off was about good memories, success stories. And the VP wasn’t either.”...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/23/the-man-who-bought-the-clintons-the-political-business-of-terry-mcauliffe/

Democracy -- We the People -- are in the deep doo-doo Poppy talked about. The reason? Most of us can't afford to participate in Democracy.

[KoKo]

141. Terry McAuliffe..Al Gore & "Stolen Election 2000"....and Who Profited? It Goes On...

Tie in "Gore 2000" and who was "Gored" in that Stolen Election and what BECAME of them in POLITICS AFTER is a very interesting story if you follow the Clintons vs. Gore since Terry McAuliffe LIVES as Gov. of VA...Rewarded and What Comes Next:



From the Link:

More than anyone, Coelho laid the foundations for the Democratic Party’s open courting of big business. And Terry McAuliffe, working from the master’s Rolodex, served as Coelho’s chief apprentice, sprinting from one Beltway lobby shop to the next offering prime access to Democratic powerbrokers for political cash, hard and soft money, the new coin of the realm.

The young fundraiser learned an early lesson. No enterprise was off-limits, no matter how tarnished the reputation of the company: weapons-makers, oil companies, chemical manufacturers, banks, sweatshop tycoons. Indeed, McAuliffe made his mark by targeting corporations with festering problems, ranging from liability suits to environmental and worker safety restraints to bothersome federal regulators. The more desperate these enterprises were for political intervention, the more money McAuliffe knew he could seduce into DNC coffers. What about environmental groups? Big labor? The traditional core of the Democratic Party? Not only didn’t their objections (assuming they voiced any) matter, they actually made McAuliffe’s pitch more appealing to the corporadoes. After all, the Republicans didn’t have any sway over these organizations. Triangulation, the backstabbing political playbook of Clintontime, originated as a fundraising gimmick. A very lucrative one.

In the early 90s, really big money began to pour into the DNC. McAuliffe recruited robust donations from Arco and Chevron, Entergy and Enron, Phillip Morris and Monsanto, Boeing and Lockheed, Citibank and Weyerhaeuser. Many of these corporations had all but abandoned the Democrats during the Reagan era. McAuliffe lured them back with promises of favorable treatment by a new generation of anti-regulatory Democrats attuned to the special needs of multinational corporations. This was the mulch bed from which the Clinton presidency took root.

By 1994, Clinton himself had aligned himself to McAuliffe’s magic touch. He tapped him as the chief fundraiser for the 1996 reelection campaign. In this capacity, McAuliffe masterminded some of the more risqué political fundraising operations since the Kennedy era. There were the fundraisers at Buddhist temples in California. There were the notorious coffee klatches, where for a six-figure contribution to the DNC, corporate executives were brought to the White House for some face-time with Bill and Hillary, Al and Tipper, and a retinue of cabinet secretaries, with pen in hand ready to address any nagging problem. McAuliffe also devised the plan to rent out the Lincoln Bedroom to top contributors for slumber parties with the president.

Over the course of the next six years, McAuliffe was personally responsible for raising, largely from corporate sources, more than $300 million for the DNC.

The scene: the MCI Center in Washington, D.C. The date: May 14, 2000. The Event: “BBQ and Blue Jeans Gala.” It’s Terry McAuliffe’s biggest party yet. A star-studded gathering of DC lobbyists, corporate executives and Hollywood liberals, all in dressed in blue jeans, eating BBQ and listening to the blues and country music. It was also the single biggest fundraiser in history. More than $25 million was raised for the DNC in a single night.

Toward the end of the evening, Al Gore lumbered his way onto the stage and seized the microphone. He directed the spotlight turned on McAuliffe, the real star of the evening. “Terry”, Gore said, “You are the greatest fundraiser in the history of the universe.” The crowd thundered with applause for the man who had just lightened their wallets of several thousands of dollars.

Gore would soon come to rue those fervent words. While most Democrats blamed Katherine Harris or the Supreme Court for the loss of the White House to George W. Bush, McAuliffe pointed the finger at Gore. The fundraiser believed that Gore ran an inept campaign, misspending the precious millions he had worked so diligently to raise. McAuliffe detested the way that Gore distanced himself from the Clintons and refused to allow the president to campaign for him even in key southern states. Even worse from McAuliffe’s perspective, Gore had subtly dissed Clinton on the campaign trail, suggesting that he himself was a man of firmer moral sinew than the embattled president.

When Gore lost, the party fell back into the control of the Clintons and their chief emissary, Terry McAuliffe. The fundraiser swiftly took his revenge out on Gore. In late January, as the moving vans where pulling away from the White House, McAuliffe planned a major send off for the Clintons at Andrews Air Base. All the top Democrats were there; many were invited to give tributes to the first couple in front of the national TV cameras. Al Gore, naturally, expected to give the keynote farewell address. But McAuliffe refused to allow Gore even near a microphone. Gore wasn’t permitted to speak a single word. “McAuliffe didn’t want Gore to speak”, a top aide at the DNC told the Washington Post. “McAuliffe didn’t even want Gore there. The send off was about good memories, success stories. And the VP wasn’t either.”

McAuliffe’s implacable loyalty to Clinton was soon rewarded. Later in 2001, Bill Clinton engineered the ouster of Joe Andrew as head of the DNC and installed McAuliffe, who only months earlier had offered to purchase the Clintons a house in Chappaqua, New York for $1.3 million, as the chief of the party. As the head of the DNC, McAuliffe was now in a position to protect the Clintons’ legacy, reward loyalists, punish party dissidents and select the next presidential nominee.

When Gore began to flirt with the notion of challenging Bush in 2004, McAuliffe went to work to kill off his campaign before it even started. He went straight to Gore’s top political sponsors and advised them to withhold funds from the Gore campaign chest. He was tremendously persuasive, convincing even some of Gore’s most loyal backers, such as financier James Tisch, to deny money to their old friend.

The sabotage of the nascent Gore 2004 campaign was just a run-up for demolition job McAuliffe directed against the unauthorized campaign of Vermont governor Howard Dean. The Dean threat had almost nothing to do with any perceived ideological heresy from the Vermonter. After all Dean was a run-of-the-mill neoliberal who pretty much aped the centrist economic policies of Clinton. The real threat posed by Dean came from his determination to raise millions in campaign contributions outside of the precincts of the DNC. McAuliffe’s control over the party stemmed from his role as the prime dispenser of campaign cash, the elixir necessary to keep political recipients loyal to the party leadership and its policies. Dean showed another way was possible and he had to be put down.

But after the Dean juggernaut was scuttled, McAuliffe reached out a helping hand to the defeated candidate. As usual, the hand proffered money. The Dean campaign was in debt, the legions of Deaniacs seething with rage over the demolition of their hero. McAuliffe offered to help pay off Dean’s debts and set up his new institute, Democracy for America. In return, Dean worked to calm his troops, imploring them not to abandon the party for the independent campaign of Ralph Nader.

Terry McAuliffe didn’t just use his business contacts to fatten the accounts of the Democratic National Committee; he also deftly exploited them to inflate his own fortune, which now nudges toward nine figures. A similar fruitful intimacy with corporate cronies led to Tony Coelho’s stunning fall from grace, but McAuliffe never looked back. His trajectory has been decidedly prosperous and, to this point, utterly immune to the slumping fortunes of the economy outside the confines of the Beltway. These days McAuliffe says he wants to resurrect the Misery Index, but he’s not acquainted with any of the numbers.

In 1996, McAuliffe met a young corporate tycoon named Gary Winnick, who had once referred to himself as the richest man in Los Angeles. Winnick ran Global Crossing, a fiber-optics company chartered in the tax-friendly haven of Bermuda. At the time McAuliffe met Winnick, Global Crossing was a privately held company, poised to cash in on the deregulation of the telecom industry and the new opportunities in China. In 1997, Winnick offered McAuliffe the opportunity to purchase $100,000 worth of Global Crossing stock.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/23/the-man-who-bought-the-clintons-the-political-business-of-terry-mcauliffe/

[grasswire]

151. wow

That article deserves its own OP.

Please.

[Faux pas]

76. K N R

[portlander23]

105. Seems Legit

[senz]

127. Wonderful, portlander.

[BlueCheese]

118. Okay, so we're basically accusing Clinton taking bribes now. On a Democratic forum?

Geez.

[SunSeeker]

124. Desperate times call for desperate measures, I guess.

I think some Bernie supporters and/or Hillary haters are really spooked by her post-debate bounce. Wait until they see the polls done after she wiped the floor with Gowdy. It will get worse here before it gets better.

[senz]

131. lol -- uh huh that's got to be it.

The article was written in May and I never saw it until late, late last night.

I did not know about huge questionable payments to the Clinton Foundation (and to the Clinton family) directly corresponding with arms sales to foreign governments during Hillary's tenure as SoS.

But apparently that does not bother you.

[SunSeeker]

133. LOL indeed. Spend your evenings catching up on 5 months worth of the International Business Times?

There were no "questionable payments." Nor were they "directly related" to arms sales.

Nonetheless, as one poster has done in this thread, if you believe Hillary Clinton has violated the law, I too will extend to you the courtesy of providing the address of the Attorney General where you can file a complaint: 

Loretta Lynch 
Attorney General Of The United States 
U.S. Department of Justice 
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20530-0001 

[Duppers]

125. Wow!

Another reason. It seems to be a pattern with the Clintons.


K&R

[Uncle Joe]

136. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, grasswire.

[KoKo]

144. Yes...legs....down the road.

[mhatrw]

145. Foundation = found money nt

[jfern]

147. She also forced countries to frack

and supported the coup against the democratically elected President of Honduras. Her foreign policy is terrible even if you ignore her warmongering.

[grasswire]

149. what countries were forced to frack, do you remember?

This is getting worse and worse.

[jfern]

150. Well, maybe not force, but she did push

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron?page=2

[grasswire]

152. thanks much. nt