AP Discovers a Lot of Clinton Foundation Donars Got Special Favors

[NYcarbineer]

Well, it's what you do in a Banana Republic.

News from The Associated Press

Where are the special favors?

Advanced Weapons to the Saudis, Uranium to Russia, multiple policy changes to corporations. All after they donated. Many more.

The bigger question is why are you unaware.

Nine times Clinton Foundation donors got special access at State

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

He is unaware because he gets his information from left wing sources. This as we know, is a problem many lefties face.

.

I get back a Washington Examiner link while someone is bitching about leftwing sources?

That is retarded even for you, and that's one high bar to clear.

When you ask dumb uninformed questions, I concluded you get your news for biased sources so as to be nice. I guess I should have concluded you are just dumb.

You're the one who couldn't answer my question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I truly think all the Clinton Foundation recriminations exist and are even possible to make for the following reasons:

• Most people are not senior executives and have no clue of what a senior executive does, what their work days are like or anything else about how they live, other than that outwardly senior execs and principals appear to live "the live of Riley."
• Senior executives and principals are not about to publicly discuss what their work days and lives are like, other than perhaps to talk about interesting places, interesting people/conversations, hobbies, vacations or their kids or some other "polite" topic that somehow intersects with their work lives.

For all the Clinton Foundation hoopla, people are forgetting (or don't know) one thing:

People don't set up 501(c) foundations, which is what the Clinton Foundation is, to collect/make money; they set them up to give it away!!! ​

Can the creator of a 501(c) earn something from the Foundation? Yes, they can if the foundation pays them a salary. They can if the foundation buys their founder's goods and services. The Clinton's don't have any goods, and their only service offerings are honoraria and government service. Do you really think the Clinton Foundation is going to engage the Clintons to give a speech to the Clinton Foundation?

There's plenty of sensationalism about the Clinton Foundation and the people who met with Mrs. Clinton.

• Meetings:
  Out of curiosity, what the heck do you think a Secretary of State or any other senior executive mostly does? Well, I'll tell you: mostly, they go from one meeting to the next. In between "big" meetings, they read stuff to get prepared for the next meeting, they sign documents that lower level staff prepared as a consequence of prior meetings, they talk to folks on the phone to get details about a meeting that already took place or that will take place.
• Money:
  What money? Who gets rich saying, "Give money to this charity that does nothing for and buys nothing from me or my friends, and maybe I'll talk to you."?

In alleged the Clinton Foundation "pay to play" scheme, what personal financial gain did Hillary or Bill Clinton get?

• 2010 Clinton Foundation Tax Return
  • Page 7: Compensation of Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, Highest Compensated Employees, and Independent Contractors
    • No Clinton received compensation of any sort.
• 2012 Clinton Foundation Tax Return
  • Page 7: Compensation of Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, Highest Compensated Employees, and Independent Contractors
    • Chelsea Clinton and Terry McAuliffe are both listed. How much did they receive? $0.00.

Looking at the (as known) process of donations to the Clinton Foundation (CF) and meeting requests with HRC, the process would look as follows:

1. Donor gives "big money" to CF
2. CF spends money on needy people and various good/service providers
   • Was HRC one of those recipients of money? No.
   • The donor clearly wasn't.
3. Donor requests meeting with Hillary Clinton (HRC)
   • Meeting does not occur --> End.
   • Meeting occurs --> Go to #4.
4. Donor and HRC meet.
5. Donor ask for "something" from HRC/SecState, which by inference means U.S.
   • Donor receives what was requested --> Go to #6
   • Donor does not receive what was requested.--> Go to #6
6. Increase in HRC personal fortune?
   • Yes --> deposit is recorded and investigated
   • No --> nothing happens
7. End

So, somebody please show me some tangible proof that Hillary Clinton personally benefitted from anything having to do with the Clinton Foundation's fundraising. In other words, just what did the Clintons receive in exchange for all these donations and meetings? The CF is not like Trump Organization, which is a business. It's a charity, just like the Shawn Carter Foundation.

Seeing as Mrs. Clinton wasn't paid anything by the CF, that's not where she'd have gotten a personal financial gain. The next place to look is to see what outcomes took place subsequent to the meeting. I looked into one such donor, the first one noted in the AP's article.

What does the AP article say? (I have time right now to address only the first person noted.)

Donors who were granted time with Clinton included:An internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran.

• Bangladesh's GDP is $150B. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet could together buy and sell the whole damn country. I realize that to most Americans, the idea that a private individual can have meaningful enough influence in a country like Bangladesh is absurd. Well, it's not, not by a longshot. In countries that have only very wealthy and very poor citizens, the wealthy folks there, be they part of the government or not, have tremendous say in the governance of the place. If they have a role in government or an arm of it, they have even more.
  
  The man who for some reason went unnamed in the AP's article is Muhammad Yunus. What help did he get from Mrs. Clinton? Apparently not enough...He was forced to step down from his position on the board at the Bangladeshi nonprofit organization involved.
  
  What organization? Grameen Bank, which is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning microfinance organization and community development bank founded in Bangladesh. It makes small loans (known as microcredit or "grameencredit") to the impoverished without requiring collateral. The name Grameen is derived from the word gram which means "rural" or "village" in the Bengali Language.
  
  Now what do "Mr. and Mrs. Typical American" know about Bangladesh or the Grameen Bank? I suspect nothing for I doubt that most Americans even know where Bangladesh is, much less the name of its domestic development bank (it's essentially their version of the Small Business Administration); however, there's quite a lot to know about the bank and its role in Bangladesh governance.
  
  The first thing to know is that in countries as small and poor as Bangladesh, a single very wealthy (for that country) individual usually has a huge influence on the functioning and stability of the country. Here you'll find why Mr. Yunus and Mrs. Clinton had a U.S. government related reason to interact.
  
  There's more to Mr. Yunus and the bank than just that, however. I'll leave it to you to peruse the following and lean a bit on your own.

• Grameen Bank: Taking Capitalism to the Poor
• Yunus seeks people’s support for smooth transition of leadership in Grameen Bank
• Will the Government of Bangladesh Ruin Grameen Bank? | Grameen Foundation | Connecting the World's Poor to Their Potential

What is the value of the Grameen Bank? In addition to what you'll have found if you read the content at the links I provided, it, under Mr. Yunus, has pioneered a new approach to making the benefits of capitalism available to poor folks and has played a central role in bringing more wealth to the poorest people there.. Do you suppose there's a reason for Mrs. Clinton to want to understand?

More directly related to her role at State, are you aware of how ISIS preys on poor nations and inserts itself? Do you know where Bangladesh may fit in ISIS' designs? If ISIS were to have its way, Bangladesh could easily become a place where ISIS inserts itself. What about Myanmar right next door to Bangladesh?​

So, while it may massage one's feelings of disdain toward Mrs. Clinton for what her relationships looked like superficially, exercise just a little bit of intellectual integrity and at least look further than just what you see published in a newspaper article. Mrs. Clinton is quite like many senior execs in that she acts to do the right thing first and worries about optics later. That's hurting her right now given the acrimony over the CF. But if you read the content I've linked in this post, you'll find that at least one of the associations noted in the AP article the thread OP references is not one whereof there existed some untoward goings on.

Name one other US charity that foreign governments give tens of millions of dollars to. Just one.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck......

Bush Foundations Accepted Unlimited Secret Donations from Foreign Countries

I win.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State

 

[Snouter]

 

[bripat9643]

We've been operating like this in america forever. Perhaps it should be considered outrageous for all. Justa thought.

Can't agree. When the federal gov was small, as was intended, pols did not have this opportunity for corruption open to them.

..the federal government imposes an infinite number of rules and regulations purposely to make it difficult to do things, so that pols can get big money people to give them money to navigate through the maze. Its great for pols like Cankles and Bubba.

And when would you say that started exactly?

The Civil War.

Damn feds, what the hell is wrong with owning people.

Like a typical scumbag lib, you always have to bring slavery into every discussion.

 

[paulitician]

Clintons corrupt? No way? What took AP so long to figure that out? Everyone's known that for years.

 

[bripat9643]

AP:
"There's a lot of potential conflicts and a lot of potential problems," said Douglas White, an expert on nonprofits who previously directed Columbia University's graduate fundraising management program. "The point is, she can't just walk away from these 6,000 donors."

Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State


SURE she can. She's been screwing people for years....she walked away from 4 Americans in Benghazi, leaving them to die while she concocted her lie about a video to save her own ass.

When you come to the realization that this is how your entire political class operates we may be able to have a rational conversation, the entire system needs to be challenged, not just "one" side. But to you that sounds like making excuses, so here we are, stuck.

It's how crooked Hillary and the Democrat party operate.` That a douche bag like you refuses to admit it doesn't surprise anyone.

 

[bripat9643]

The other guy did it excuse?

Hardly hon, go get all of 'em, please.

All I have to do is look at your posts to find the other guy did it excuses.

Sure, or perhaps you are what you decry.

Or perhaps you're exactly what I said you are and won't admit it.

Clinton's crooked as hell hon, what do you want, I've never argued otherwise. You just can't accept it. Your prollem pud.

Your "everybody does it" routing isn't fooling anyone.

 

[toxicmedia]

I could see this morning that Fox News was thrilled about this story today.

Scarborough seemed worried, and the MSNBC folks were treating it like it was a noteworthy development.

So I'm jumping into this thread without having read any of it...but as always, I want to check my understanding.

Are we supposed to be outraged because the Clintons invited Foundation donors to State Department functions?

Is that not allowed? by something? or some State Department rule about who you invite to functions?

I guess I'm trying to figure out if righties are just once again....mad, but not really sure why, other than someone described the situation in a way where it sounds like we should be mad.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Hardly hon, go get all of 'em, please.

All I have to do is look at your posts to find the other guy did it excuses.

Sure, or perhaps you are what you decry.

Or perhaps you're exactly what I said you are and won't admit it.

Clinton's crooked as hell hon, what do you want, I've never argued otherwise. You just can't accept it. Your prollem pud.

Your "everybody does it" routing isn't fooling anyone.

But your falsely assigning positions to others does?

 

[bripat9643]

I could see this morning that Fox News was thrilled about this story today.

Scarborough seemed worried, and the MSNBC folks were treating it like it was a noteworthy development.

So I'm jumping into this thread without having read any of it...but as always, I want to check my understanding.

Are we supposed to be outraged because the Clintons invited Foundation donors to State Department functions?

Is that not allowed? by something? or some State Department rule about who you invite to functions?

I guess I'm trying to figure out if righties are just once again....mad, but not really sure why, other than someone described the situation in a way where it sounds like we should be mad.

No one is surprised that you're too fucking stupid to understand the significance of what Hillary has been caught doing.

 

[Fenton Lum]

I could see this morning that Fox News was thrilled about this story today.

Scarborough seemed worried, and the MSNBC folks were treating it like it was a noteworthy development.

So I'm jumping into this thread without having read any of it...but as always, I want to check my understanding.

Are we supposed to be outraged because the Clintons invited Foundation donors to State Department functions?

Is that not allowed? by something? or some State Department rule about who you invite to functions?

I guess I'm trying to figure out if righties are just once again....mad, but not really sure why, other than someone described the situation in a way where it sounds like we should be mad.

No one is surprised that you're too fucking stupid to understand the significance of what Hillary has been caught doing.

Sure we do. Charge her, convict her, incarcerate her. I support that, carry on. Please.

 

[toxicmedia]

I could see this morning that Fox News was thrilled about this story today.

Scarborough seemed worried, and the MSNBC folks were treating it like it was a noteworthy development.

So I'm jumping into this thread without having read any of it...but as always, I want to check my understanding.

Are we supposed to be outraged because the Clintons invited Foundation donors to State Department functions?

Is that not allowed? by something? or some State Department rule about who you invite to functions?

I guess I'm trying to figure out if righties are just once again....mad, but not really sure why, other than someone described the situation in a way where it sounds like we should be mad.

No one is surprised that you're too fucking stupid to understand the significance of what Hillary has been caught doing.

I don't care about the significance.

And I know you're mad

I want to know what rule or law was broken

 

[toxicmedia]

I could see this morning that Fox News was thrilled about this story today.

Scarborough seemed worried, and the MSNBC folks were treating it like it was a noteworthy development.

So I'm jumping into this thread without having read any of it...but as always, I want to check my understanding.

Are we supposed to be outraged because the Clintons invited Foundation donors to State Department functions?

Is that not allowed? by something? or some State Department rule about who you invite to functions?

I guess I'm trying to figure out if righties are just once again....mad, but not really sure why, other than someone described the situation in a way where it sounds like we should be mad.

No one is surprised that you're too fucking stupid to understand the significance of what Hillary has been caught doing.

Sure we do. Charge her, convict her, incarcerate her. I support that, carry on. Please.

What rule or law was broken

 

[bripat9643]

I could see this morning that Fox News was thrilled about this story today.

Scarborough seemed worried, and the MSNBC folks were treating it like it was a noteworthy development.

So I'm jumping into this thread without having read any of it...but as always, I want to check my understanding.

Are we supposed to be outraged because the Clintons invited Foundation donors to State Department functions?

Is that not allowed? by something? or some State Department rule about who you invite to functions?

I guess I'm trying to figure out if righties are just once again....mad, but not really sure why, other than someone described the situation in a way where it sounds like we should be mad.

No one is surprised that you're too fucking stupid to understand the significance of what Hillary has been caught doing.

Sure we do. Charge her, convict her, incarcerate her. I support that, carry on. Please.

Then why are you claiming everyone does it?

 

[bripat9643]

I could see this morning that Fox News was thrilled about this story today.

Scarborough seemed worried, and the MSNBC folks were treating it like it was a noteworthy development.

So I'm jumping into this thread without having read any of it...but as always, I want to check my understanding.

Are we supposed to be outraged because the Clintons invited Foundation donors to State Department functions?

Is that not allowed? by something? or some State Department rule about who you invite to functions?

I guess I'm trying to figure out if righties are just once again....mad, but not really sure why, other than someone described the situation in a way where it sounds like we should be mad.

No one is surprised that you're too fucking stupid to understand the significance of what Hillary has been caught doing.

I don't care about the significance.

And I know you're mad

I want to know what rule or law was broken

She broke the laws on handling classified information, moron. Haven't you watched the news in the last year?

 

[BlindBoo]

Better start those impeachment hearings right away.........

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I could see this morning that Fox News was thrilled about this story today.

Scarborough seemed worried, and the MSNBC folks were treating it like it was a noteworthy development.

So I'm jumping into this thread without having read any of it...but as always, I want to check my understanding.

Are we supposed to be outraged because the Clintons invited Foundation donors to State Department functions?

Is that not allowed? by something? or some State Department rule about who you invite to functions?

I guess I'm trying to figure out if righties are just once again....mad, but not really sure why, other than someone described the situation in a way where it sounds like we should be mad.

No one is surprised that you're too fucking stupid to understand the significance of what Hillary has been caught doing.

I don't care about the significance.

And I know you're mad

I want to know what rule or law was broken

If, and I say "if", access to the U.S. Government was being sold via donations to the Clinton Foundations, that is a violation of the law.

Would you be OK with that, if that indeed happened?

 

[AmericanFirst1]

We've been operating like this in america forever. Perhaps it should be considered outrageous for all. Justa thought.

Can't agree. When the federal gov was small, as was intended, pols did not have this opportunity for corruption open to them.

..the federal government imposes an infinite number of rules and regulations purposely to make it difficult to do things, so that pols can get big money people to give them money to navigate through the maze. Its great for pols like Cankles and Bubba.

And when would you say that started exactly?

When the clinton crime family formed in Arkansas.

 

[toxicmedia]

I could see this morning that Fox News was thrilled about this story today.

Scarborough seemed worried, and the MSNBC folks were treating it like it was a noteworthy development.

So I'm jumping into this thread without having read any of it...but as always, I want to check my understanding.

Are we supposed to be outraged because the Clintons invited Foundation donors to State Department functions?

Is that not allowed? by something? or some State Department rule about who you invite to functions?

I guess I'm trying to figure out if righties are just once again....mad, but not really sure why, other than someone described the situation in a way where it sounds like we should be mad.

No one is surprised that you're too fucking stupid to understand the significance of what Hillary has been caught doing.

I don't care about the significance.

And I know you're mad

I want to know what rule or law was broken

If, and I say "if", access to the U.S. Government was being sold via donations to the Clinton Foundations, that is a violation of the law.

Would you be OK with that, if that indeed happened?

"access" to the U.S. Government.

Why yes...if what happened at these events, was indeed the "access to the US Government" that has a law, which says it's a crime to sell that access.

I would say charges should be filed.

Okay!.......cite the law.

And!

Tell me how what the Clinton's did was a violation of it.