Number One Clinton Foundation Donor Traded With Iran While Hilary Was SOS

[Siete]

heres the clincher .... Hillary was not associated with the foundation when she was SOS. She didn't join the foundation until 2013 after she left the office.

keep trying rubes, maybe you'll eventually hang her.

 

[Skylar]

heres the clincher .... Hillary was not associated with the foundation when she was SOS. She didn't join the foundation until 2013 after she left the office.

keep trying rubes, maybe you'll eventually hang her.

So donations for a foundation she's not associated with that don't personally benefit her or any member of her family are 'bribery'?

Yeah, that dog won't hunt.

 

[bripat9643]

heres the clincher .... Hillary was not associated with the foundation when she was SOS. She didn't join the foundation until 2013 after she left the office.

keep trying rubes, maybe you'll eventually hang her.

So donations for a foundation she's not associated with that don't personally benefit her or any member of her family are 'bribery'?

Yeah, that dog won't hunt.

She's not associated with the Clinton Foundation? Man, that takes an intentional kind of blindness and gullibility that I just can't fathom.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Is selling secrets to a foreign government friendly or not treason?

Selling weapons to someone who has no intention to destroy the US government does not constitute treason.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I guess this disqualifies her in the race for POTUS. Who are the dumbs going to run now??
I guess Martin O'Malley come on down.

Enemies of Hillary Clinton waiting to discredit her bid for the White House are likely to seize on news that one of the biggest benefactors to the Clinton Foundation has been trading with Iran and may be in breach of US sanctions imposed on the country.

Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, 54, has courted the Clintons for at least nine years – in the United States, the Alps and Ukraine.

Earlier this year, he was confirmed as the largest individual contributor to the Clinton Foundation, whose aims include the creation of “economic opportunity and growth”. He also has links to the Tony Blair Foundation and represented its biggest single donor in 2013.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/24/...-over-ukrainian-benefactors-trade-322253.html

she is a leftist so all is good

 

[Siete]

heres the clincher .... Hillary was not associated with the foundation when she was SOS. She didn't join the foundation until 2013 after she left the office.

keep trying rubes, maybe you'll eventually hang her.

So donations for a foundation she's not associated with that don't personally benefit her or any member of her family are 'bribery'?

Yeah, that dog won't hunt.

to be guilty of something you have to do something other than have dogs that hunt Clintons.

 

[jon_berzerk]

heres the clincher .... Hillary was not associated with the foundation when she was SOS. She didn't join the foundation until 2013 after she left the office.

keep trying rubes, maybe you'll eventually hang her.

So donations for a foundation she's not associated with that don't personally benefit her or any member of her family are 'bribery'?

Yeah, that dog won't hunt.

She's not associated with the Clinton Foundation? Man, that takes an intentional kind of blindness and gullibility that I just can't fathom.

or as hillary would say " it requires a willing suspension of disbelief"

--LOL

leftards will say anything

--LOL

 

[TemplarKormac]

Take the size of the contract for the steel pipe (1.8 million) and subtract the maximum allowable contract with Iran (1 million). About 800k is the difference.

The math is actually pretty straight forward.

Does it negate the fact that the sale of these pipes exceeded $1 million, and thus violated US trade sanctions with Iran? You just love downplaying the significance of this, don't you?

I rightly acknowledged the fact that the State Department didn't get involved in any violation that was less than half a billion dollars. For any company. In any country. In any industry. Regardless of donations.

The State Department used the same threshold for Interpipe that it did for every other non-US company. Absolutely destroying your claims of 'bribery'. You can't even establish preferential treatment.

Whether it be $500 million with Zhuhai Zhenrong (the oil company), or $800k with Viktor Pinchuk, a violation's a violation.

But the threshold of State Department involvment isn't the same. As you well know, the State department didn't get involved for any violation under $500 million. Your argument only works if you can demonstrate a payment for preferred treatment.

And you don't even have preferred treatment. As Interpipe was treated the same as everyone else. Leaving you with nothing but your personal opinion. Which you're more than welcome to. But I really don't care about.

Says the article. When a non US corporation has a subsidiary in the US, it is subject to all trade laws and sanctions imposed by the US against other countries like Iran.

That's not what the article says:

However, US sanctions laws are complex and, in certain areas, ill-defined. Interpipe may qualify for penalties due to the mere presence on American soil of North American Interpipe Inc, its United States subsidiary.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/24/...-over-ukrainian-benefactors-trade-322253.html

Exactly as I said, the article said that the laws were complex. And it may qualify based on a US subsidiary. You citing you are the one saying that such sanction do apply, along with random babble about 'bribery'. And you're nobody.

Ahh, when you can't acknowledge the severity of the violation, you parse words.

When the severity you posit is merely your assumption, why would I care? You citing yourself may have some value to you. But its meaningless to me.

There's no evidence of preferential treatment. The violation was utterly below what the State Department took action on for *anyone*. By orders and orders of magnitude. You can ignore this too. But again, why should I care? Your assumptions and willful ignorance are again, meaningless. We don't base any law on them. Or prosecute anyone based on either.

Executive Order 13590, Issued by President Barack H. Obama on November 20, 2011:


Section 1. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, and with the President of the Export-Import Bank, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and other agencies and officials as appropriate, is hereby authorized to impose on a person any of the sanctions described in section 2 or 3 of this order upon determining that the person:

(a) knowingly, on or after the effective date of this order, sells, leases, or provides to Iran goods, services, technology, or support that has a fair market value of $1,000,000 or more or that, during a 12-month period, has an aggregate fair market value of $5,000,000 or more, and that could directly and significantly contribute to the maintenance or enhancement of Iran's ability to develop petroleum resources located in Iran;

(b) knowingly, on or after the effective date of this order, sells, leases, or provides to Iran goods, services, technology, or support that has a fair market value of $250,000 or more or that, during a 12-month period, has an aggregate fair market value of $1,000,000 or more, and that could directly and significantly contribute to the maintenance or expansion of Iran's domestic production of petrochemical products;

(c) is a successor entity to a person referred to in subsection (a) or (b) of this section;

(d) owns or controls a person referred to in subsection (a) or (b) of this section, and had actual knowledge or should have known that the person engaged in the activities referred to in that subsection; or

(e) is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership or control with, a person referred to in subsection (a) or (b) of this section, and knowingly participated in the activities referred to in that subsection.

This EO doesn't seem complex to me. Perhaps before lecturing me on math and logic, you should check yours first. You seem to be orders of magnitude off on this one.

Executive Order 13590 -- Iran Sanctions The White House

 

[bripat9643]

Betrayal is treason.

And? How did Reagan commit treason? Did he overthrow the US government?

See, you have to understand the language of the law.

Is selling secrets to a foreign government friendly or not treason?

According to the Constitution, no it's not.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Take the size of the contract for the steel pipe (1.8 million) and subtract the maximum allowable contract with Iran (1 million). About 800k is the difference.

The math is actually pretty straight forward.

Does it negate the fact that the sale of these pipes exceeded $1 million, and thus violated US trade sanctions with Iran? You just love downplaying the significance of this, don't you?

I rightly acknowledged the fact that the State Department didn't get involved in any violation that was less than half a billion dollars. For any company. In any country. In any industry. Regardless of donations.

The State Department used the same threshold for Interpipe that it did for every other non-US company. Absolutely destroying your claims of 'bribery'. You can't even establish preferential treatment.

Whether it be $500 million with Zhuhai Zhenrong (the oil company), or $800k with Viktor Pinchuk, a violation's a violation.

But the threshold of State Department involvment isn't the same. As you well know, the State department didn't get involved for any violation under $500 million. Your argument only works if you can demonstrate a payment for preferred treatment.

And you don't even have preferred treatment. As Interpipe was treated the same as everyone else. Leaving you with nothing but your personal opinion. Which you're more than welcome to. But I really don't care about.

Says the article. When a non US corporation has a subsidiary in the US, it is subject to all trade laws and sanctions imposed by the US against other countries like Iran.

That's not what the article says:

However, US sanctions laws are complex and, in certain areas, ill-defined. Interpipe may qualify for penalties due to the mere presence on American soil of North American Interpipe Inc, its United States subsidiary.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/24/...-over-ukrainian-benefactors-trade-322253.html

Exactly as I said, the article said that the laws were complex. And it may qualify based on a US subsidiary. You citing you are the one saying that such sanction do apply, along with random babble about 'bribery'. And you're nobody.

Ahh, when you can't acknowledge the severity of the violation, you parse words.

When the severity you posit is merely your assumption, why would I care? You citing yourself may have some value to you. But its meaningless to me.

There's no evidence of preferential treatment. The violation was utterly below what the State Department took action on for *anyone*. By orders and orders of magnitude. You can ignore this too. But again, why should I care? Your assumptions and willful ignorance are again, meaningless. We don't base any law on them. Or prosecute anyone based on either.

Executive Order 13590, Issued by President Barack H. Obama on November 20, 2011:


Section 1. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, and with the President of the Export-Import Bank, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and other agencies and officials as appropriate, is hereby authorized to impose on a person any of the sanctions described in section 2 or 3 of this order upon determining that the person:

(a) knowingly, on or after the effective date of this order, sells, leases, or provides to Iran goods, services, technology, or support that has a fair market value of $1,000,000 or more or that, during a 12-month period, has an aggregate fair market value of $5,000,000 or more, and that could directly and significantly contribute to the maintenance or enhancement of Iran's ability to develop petroleum resources located in Iran;

(b) knowingly, on or after the effective date of this order, sells, leases, or provides to Iran goods, services, technology, or support that has a fair market value of $250,000 or more or that, during a 12-month period, has an aggregate fair market value of $1,000,000 or more, and that could directly and significantly contribute to the maintenance or expansion of Iran's domestic production of petrochemical products;

(c) is a successor entity to a person referred to in subsection (a) or (b) of this section;

(d) owns or controls a person referred to in subsection (a) or (b) of this section, and had actual knowledge or should have known that the person engaged in the activities referred to in that subsection; or

(e) is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership or control with, a person referred to in subsection (a) or (b) of this section, and knowingly participated in the activities referred to in that subsection.

im sure somewhere in the fine print

team hillary has been excluded from any of those rules

 

[Siete]

Board of Directors Clinton Foundation

 

[Skylar]

Take the size of the contract for the steel pipe (1.8 million) and subtract the maximum allowable contract with Iran (1 million). About 800k is the difference.

The math is actually pretty straight forward.

Does it negate the fact that the sale of these pipes exceeded $1 million, and thus violated US trade sanctions with Iran? You just love downplaying the significance of this, don't you?

I rightly acknowledged the fact that the State Department didn't get involved in any violation that was less than half a billion dollars. For any company. In any country. In any industry. Regardless of donations.

The State Department used the same threshold for Interpipe that it did for every other non-US company. Absolutely destroying your claims of 'bribery'. You can't even establish preferential treatment.

Whether it be $500 million with Zhuhai Zhenrong (the oil company), or $800k with Viktor Pinchuk, a violation's a violation.

But the threshold of State Department involvment isn't the same. As you well know, the State department didn't get involved for any violation under $500 million. Your argument only works if you can demonstrate a payment for preferred treatment.

And you don't even have preferred treatment. As Interpipe was treated the same as everyone else. Leaving you with nothing but your personal opinion. Which you're more than welcome to. But I really don't care about.

Says the article. When a non US corporation has a subsidiary in the US, it is subject to all trade laws and sanctions imposed by the US against other countries like Iran.

That's not what the article says:

However, US sanctions laws are complex and, in certain areas, ill-defined. Interpipe may qualify for penalties due to the mere presence on American soil of North American Interpipe Inc, its United States subsidiary.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/24/...-over-ukrainian-benefactors-trade-322253.html

Exactly as I said, the article said that the laws were complex. And it may qualify based on a US subsidiary. You citing you are the one saying that such sanction do apply, along with random babble about 'bribery'. And you're nobody.

Ahh, when you can't acknowledge the severity of the violation, you parse words.

When the severity you posit is merely your assumption, why would I care? You citing yourself may have some value to you. But its meaningless to me.

There's no evidence of preferential treatment. The violation was utterly below what the State Department took action on for *anyone*. By orders and orders of magnitude. You can ignore this too. But again, why should I care? Your assumptions and willful ignorance are again, meaningless. We don't base any law on them. Or prosecute anyone based on either.

Executive Order 13590, Issued by President Barack H. Obama on November 20, 2011:


Section 1. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, and with the President of the Export-Import Bank, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and other agencies and officials as appropriate, is hereby authorized to impose on a person any of the sanctions described in section 2 or 3 of this order upon determining that the person:

(a) knowingly, on or after the effective date of this order, sells, leases, or provides to Iran goods, services, technology, or support that has a fair market value of $1,000,000 or more or that, during a 12-month period, has an aggregate fair market value of $5,000,000 or more, and that could directly and significantly contribute to the maintenance or enhancement of Iran's ability to develop petroleum resources located in Iran;

(b) knowingly, on or after the effective date of this order, sells, leases, or provides to Iran goods, services, technology, or support that has a fair market value of $250,000 or more or that, during a 12-month period, has an aggregate fair market value of $1,000,000 or more, and that could directly and significantly contribute to the maintenance or expansion of Iran's domestic production of petrochemical products;

(c) is a successor entity to a person referred to in subsection (a) or (b) of this section;

(d) owns or controls a person referred to in subsection (a) or (b) of this section, and had actual knowledge or should have known that the person engaged in the activities referred to in that subsection; or

(e) is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership or control with, a person referred to in subsection (a) or (b) of this section, and knowingly participated in the activities referred to in that subsection.

And as you well know, but intentionally didn't tell us.....the State Department didn't sanction ANY company with less than a $500,000,000 violation of this order. Not one. Or any industry. In any country. Regardless of donations to the Clinton Foundation.

While the Interpipe violation was only 800k. Simply destroying your argument. As you can't factually establish preferential treatment when the State Department held Interpipe to the same threshold of sanction as they held every other company.

Sorry, Temp.....you've got nothing. And you know it, as demonstrated by the arguments you avoid. Specifically, your stark avoidance of your utter inability to factually establish any preferential treatment for any Clinton donor. The State Department's focus on large violators and not the small simply eliminates your entire basis of argument.

 

[Skylar]

heres the clincher .... Hillary was not associated with the foundation when she was SOS. She didn't join the foundation until 2013 after she left the office.

keep trying rubes, maybe you'll eventually hang her.

So donations for a foundation she's not associated with that don't personally benefit her or any member of her family are 'bribery'?

Yeah, that dog won't hunt.

She's not associated with the Clinton Foundation? Man, that takes an intentional kind of blindness and gullibility that I just can't fathom.

She didn't join the Clinton Foundation until after she left office as SOS. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by months and years.

 

[bripat9643]

heres the clincher .... Hillary was not associated with the foundation when she was SOS. She didn't join the foundation until 2013 after she left the office.

keep trying rubes, maybe you'll eventually hang her.

So donations for a foundation she's not associated with that don't personally benefit her or any member of her family are 'bribery'?

Yeah, that dog won't hunt.

She's not associated with the Clinton Foundation? Man, that takes an intentional kind of blindness and gullibility that I just can't fathom.

She didn't join the Clinton Foundation until after she left office as SOS. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by months and years.

She's married to the man who created it. How can she possibly be "not associated with it?" It's common property. Everything he owns she also owns.

 

[HappyJoy]

heres the clincher .... Hillary was not associated with the foundation when she was SOS. She didn't join the foundation until 2013 after she left the office.

keep trying rubes, maybe you'll eventually hang her.

So donations for a foundation she's not associated with that don't personally benefit her or any member of her family are 'bribery'?

Yeah, that dog won't hunt.

She's not associated with the Clinton Foundation? Man, that takes an intentional kind of blindness and gullibility that I just can't fathom.

She didn't join the Clinton Foundation until after she left office as SOS. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by months and years.

She's married to the man who created it. How can she possibly be "not associated with it?" It's common property. Everything he owns she also owns.

psst. It's not his money.

 

[Skylar]

heres the clincher .... Hillary was not associated with the foundation when she was SOS. She didn't join the foundation until 2013 after she left the office.

keep trying rubes, maybe you'll eventually hang her.

So donations for a foundation she's not associated with that don't personally benefit her or any member of her family are 'bribery'?

Yeah, that dog won't hunt.

She's not associated with the Clinton Foundation? Man, that takes an intentional kind of blindness and gullibility that I just can't fathom.

She didn't join the Clinton Foundation until after she left office as SOS. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by months and years.

She's married to the man who created it. How can she possibly be "not associated with it?" It's common property. Everything he owns she also owns.

A man who doesn't receive a penny in compensation from the Foundation. Nor does she. And she didn't join the foundation until AFTER she left office as SOS. Eliminating claims of 'payment'.

Worse, the SOS held Interpipe to the same threshold of sanction as it did every other company. Eliminating preferrential treatment.

There's no way this silly little conspiracy works.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Take the size of the contract for the steel pipe (1.8 million) and subtract the maximum allowable contract with Iran (1 million). About 800k is the difference.

The math is actually pretty straight forward.

Does it negate the fact that the sale of these pipes exceeded $1 million, and thus violated US trade sanctions with Iran? You just love downplaying the significance of this, don't you?

I rightly acknowledged the fact that the State Department didn't get involved in any violation that was less than half a billion dollars. For any company. In any country. In any industry. Regardless of donations.

The State Department used the same threshold for Interpipe that it did for every other non-US company. Absolutely destroying your claims of 'bribery'. You can't even establish preferential treatment.

Whether it be $500 million with Zhuhai Zhenrong (the oil company), or $800k with Viktor Pinchuk, a violation's a violation.

But the threshold of State Department involvment isn't the same. As you well know, the State department didn't get involved for any violation under $500 million. Your argument only works if you can demonstrate a payment for preferred treatment.

And you don't even have preferred treatment. As Interpipe was treated the same as everyone else. Leaving you with nothing but your personal opinion. Which you're more than welcome to. But I really don't care about.

Says the article. When a non US corporation has a subsidiary in the US, it is subject to all trade laws and sanctions imposed by the US against other countries like Iran.

That's not what the article says:

However, US sanctions laws are complex and, in certain areas, ill-defined. Interpipe may qualify for penalties due to the mere presence on American soil of North American Interpipe Inc, its United States subsidiary.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/24/...-over-ukrainian-benefactors-trade-322253.html

Exactly as I said, the article said that the laws were complex. And it may qualify based on a US subsidiary. You citing you are the one saying that such sanction do apply, along with random babble about 'bribery'. And you're nobody.

Ahh, when you can't acknowledge the severity of the violation, you parse words.

When the severity you posit is merely your assumption, why would I care? You citing yourself may have some value to you. But its meaningless to me.

There's no evidence of preferential treatment. The violation was utterly below what the State Department took action on for *anyone*. By orders and orders of magnitude. You can ignore this too. But again, why should I care? Your assumptions and willful ignorance are again, meaningless. We don't base any law on them. Or prosecute anyone based on either.

Executive Order 13590, Issued by President Barack H. Obama on November 20, 2011:


Section 1. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, and with the President of the Export-Import Bank, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and other agencies and officials as appropriate, is hereby authorized to impose on a person any of the sanctions described in section 2 or 3 of this order upon determining that the person:

(a) knowingly, on or after the effective date of this order, sells, leases, or provides to Iran goods, services, technology, or support that has a fair market value of $1,000,000 or more or that, during a 12-month period, has an aggregate fair market value of $5,000,000 or more, and that could directly and significantly contribute to the maintenance or enhancement of Iran's ability to develop petroleum resources located in Iran;

(b) knowingly, on or after the effective date of this order, sells, leases, or provides to Iran goods, services, technology, or support that has a fair market value of $250,000 or more or that, during a 12-month period, has an aggregate fair market value of $1,000,000 or more, and that could directly and significantly contribute to the maintenance or expansion of Iran's domestic production of petrochemical products;

(c) is a successor entity to a person referred to in subsection (a) or (b) of this section;

(d) owns or controls a person referred to in subsection (a) or (b) of this section, and had actual knowledge or should have known that the person engaged in the activities referred to in that subsection; or

(e) is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership or control with, a person referred to in subsection (a) or (b) of this section, and knowingly participated in the activities referred to in that subsection.

And as you well know, but intentionally didn't tell us.....the State Department didn't sanction ANY company with less than a $500,000,000 violation of this order. Not one. Or any industry. In any country. Regardless of donations to the Clinton Foundation.

While the Interpipe violation was only 800k. Simply destroying your argument. As you can't factually establish preferential treatment when the State Department held Interpipe to the same threshold of sanction as they held every other company.

Sorry, Temp.....you've got nothing. And you know it, as demonstrated by the arguments you avoid. Specifically, your stark avoidance of your utter inability to factually establish any preferential treatment for any Clinton donor. The State Department's focus on large violators and not the small simply eliminates your entire basis of argument.

Sure, but the infraction happened in 2012. Under Executive Order 13590, the State Department, along with the Treasury, were directed to sanction or enforce sanctions on those who's sales to the Iranian Petrochemical agency exceeded $1 million, meaning they were to pay attention to the smallest violations as well as the biggest ones described in that executive order.

The order was meant to broaden the focus. My argument stands on the fact you make an assumption that just because the State Department enforces sanctions on any company with "less than $500,000,000" means it won't go after the smaller ones. There was a reason for the $1 million figure being added there.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There's no way this silly little conspiracy works.

Interestingly, this story broke yesterday. And before calling it a conspiracy, you should wait for all the facts to come out, shouldn't you?

You have a bad habit of self reassurance.

"Theres no way this is true! It's a conspiracy!!"

 

[OnePercenter]

And the reason is:

Jeb Bush s Administration Steered Florida Pension Money to George W. Bush s Fundraisers

 

[Skylar]

Take the size of the contract for the steel pipe (1.8 million) and subtract the maximum allowable contract with Iran (1 million). About 800k is the difference.

The math is actually pretty straight forward.

Does it negate the fact that the sale of these pipes exceeded $1 million, and thus violated US trade sanctions with Iran? You just love downplaying the significance of this, don't you?

I rightly acknowledged the fact that the State Department didn't get involved in any violation that was less than half a billion dollars. For any company. In any country. In any industry. Regardless of donations.

The State Department used the same threshold for Interpipe that it did for every other non-US company. Absolutely destroying your claims of 'bribery'. You can't even establish preferential treatment.

Whether it be $500 million with Zhuhai Zhenrong (the oil company), or $800k with Viktor Pinchuk, a violation's a violation.

But the threshold of State Department involvment isn't the same. As you well know, the State department didn't get involved for any violation under $500 million. Your argument only works if you can demonstrate a payment for preferred treatment.

And you don't even have preferred treatment. As Interpipe was treated the same as everyone else. Leaving you with nothing but your personal opinion. Which you're more than welcome to. But I really don't care about.

Says the article. When a non US corporation has a subsidiary in the US, it is subject to all trade laws and sanctions imposed by the US against other countries like Iran.

That's not what the article says:

However, US sanctions laws are complex and, in certain areas, ill-defined. Interpipe may qualify for penalties due to the mere presence on American soil of North American Interpipe Inc, its United States subsidiary.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/24/...-over-ukrainian-benefactors-trade-322253.html

Exactly as I said, the article said that the laws were complex. And it may qualify based on a US subsidiary. You citing you are the one saying that such sanction do apply, along with random babble about 'bribery'. And you're nobody.

Ahh, when you can't acknowledge the severity of the violation, you parse words.

When the severity you posit is merely your assumption, why would I care? You citing yourself may have some value to you. But its meaningless to me.

There's no evidence of preferential treatment. The violation was utterly below what the State Department took action on for *anyone*. By orders and orders of magnitude. You can ignore this too. But again, why should I care? Your assumptions and willful ignorance are again, meaningless. We don't base any law on them. Or prosecute anyone based on either.

Executive Order 13590, Issued by President Barack H. Obama on November 20, 2011:


Section 1. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, and with the President of the Export-Import Bank, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and other agencies and officials as appropriate, is hereby authorized to impose on a person any of the sanctions described in section 2 or 3 of this order upon determining that the person:

(a) knowingly, on or after the effective date of this order, sells, leases, or provides to Iran goods, services, technology, or support that has a fair market value of $1,000,000 or more or that, during a 12-month period, has an aggregate fair market value of $5,000,000 or more, and that could directly and significantly contribute to the maintenance or enhancement of Iran's ability to develop petroleum resources located in Iran;

(b) knowingly, on or after the effective date of this order, sells, leases, or provides to Iran goods, services, technology, or support that has a fair market value of $250,000 or more or that, during a 12-month period, has an aggregate fair market value of $1,000,000 or more, and that could directly and significantly contribute to the maintenance or expansion of Iran's domestic production of petrochemical products;

(c) is a successor entity to a person referred to in subsection (a) or (b) of this section;

(d) owns or controls a person referred to in subsection (a) or (b) of this section, and had actual knowledge or should have known that the person engaged in the activities referred to in that subsection; or

(e) is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership or control with, a person referred to in subsection (a) or (b) of this section, and knowingly participated in the activities referred to in that subsection.

And as you well know, but intentionally didn't tell us.....the State Department didn't sanction ANY company with less than a $500,000,000 violation of this order. Not one. Or any industry. In any country. Regardless of donations to the Clinton Foundation.

While the Interpipe violation was only 800k. Simply destroying your argument. As you can't factually establish preferential treatment when the State Department held Interpipe to the same threshold of sanction as they held every other company.

Sorry, Temp.....you've got nothing. And you know it, as demonstrated by the arguments you avoid. Specifically, your stark avoidance of your utter inability to factually establish any preferential treatment for any Clinton donor. The State Department's focus on large violators and not the small simply eliminates your entire basis of argument.

Sure, but the infraction happened in 2012. Under Executive Order 13590, the State Department, along with the Treasury, were directed to sanction or enforce sanctions on those who's sales to the Iranian Petrochemical agency exceeded $1 million, meaning they were to pay attention to the smallest violations as well as the biggest ones described in that executive order.

Your claim is bribery and special treatment. Nothing you've presented of cited demonstrates or even suggests that.

The order was meant to broaden the focus. My argument stands on the fact you make an assumption that just because the State Department enforces sanctions on any company with "less than $500,000,000" means it won't go after the smaller ones. There was a reason for the $1 million figure being added there.

Your argument is that Interpipe received special treatment by the State Department for donations its owner gave the Clinton Foundation. You can't demonstrate any such special treatment when the State Department didn't pursue sanctions against ANY company for violations less than $500,000,000. From any country. In any industry. Regardless of of donation. As it demonstrates that it was the size of the violation that determined the pursuit of sanction. Not donations.

You can't establish preferential treatment. And you know it. Your argument is dead. And we both know it. You've even created a chalk outline for us with your stark refusal to discuss this theory killing hole in your claims.