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

[HappyJoy]

Ronald Reagan is guilty.

Of what?

Either selling arms to Iran or incompetence where members of his administration did so without his knowing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

At some point – soon – republicans will need to come up with their own plans, agenda, and proposals for 2016, where just attacking Clinton with ridiculous, unfounded nonsense such as that in the OP will get zero traction.

Of course, republicans have no plans or proposals for 2016, hence the ridiculous, unfounded attacks.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hey, why not, lets have two threads on the topic. This issue deserves as much publicity as it can get.

It really doesn't. The 'violation' in question was tiny. $800k. There's no example of the State Department going after any company in any industry for such a minute violation. In fact the only sanctions that the US levied against a non-US company for violations of Iran sanctions was a Chinese oil firm that sold $500,000,000 in processed oil products like gasoline. And bought 240,000 barrels of oil from Iran, amounting to $20 million a day.

Compared to one 800k violation, once.

You're off by orders and orders and orders of magnitude. And can't demonstrate any preference, as no company anywhere was sanctioned for such tiny violations. Regardless of their association with the Clintons.

That's one giant strawman, Skylar.

By the way, Interpipe has a subsidiary here in the US, meaning those sanctions apply across the entire organization; the sale of those steel pipes exceeded $1 million. That is by far not "minute." Just where did you get the 800k figure from anyway?

 

[HappyJoy]

How about if someone can't prove a point, they do it twice!

So, this place is loosely moderated then?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So, this place is loosely moderated then?

You are free to leave if you wish.

 

[HappyJoy]

So, this place is loosely moderated then?

You are free to leave if you wish.

Nah, just measuring the drapes.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ronald Reagan is guilty.

Of what?

Either selling arms to Iran or incompetence where members of his administration did so without his knowing.

And how does this relate to what we're talking about? Reagan (or his subordinates without his approval) circumvented an act of congress. There was no bribery involved, nothing of the sort Hillary was involved in.

 

[Skylar]

Hey, why not, lets have two threads on the topic. This issue deserves as much publicity as it can get.

It really doesn't. The 'violation' in question was tiny. $800k. There's no example of the State Department going after any company in any industry for such a minute violation. In fact the only sanctions that the US levied against a non-US company for violations of Iran sanctions was a Chinese oil firm that sold $500,000,000 in processed oil products like gasoline. And bought 240,000 barrels of oil from Iran, amounting to $20 million a day.

Compared to one 800k violation, once.

You're off by orders and orders and orders of magnitude. And can't demonstrate any preference, as no company anywhere was sanctioned for such tiny violations. Regardless of their association with the Clintons.

That's one giant strawman, Skylar.

Nope. Its a vastly deeper knowledge on the topic. Or a vastly greater willingness to discuss the specific details. Or both.

The State Department didn't go after tiny violations. They went after big ones. The smallest violation the State Department every applied sanctions over was half a BILLION dollars. No non-US company was ever sanctioned for anything less. And Interpipe's violation was orders and orders and orders of magnitude smaller.

You can't claim preferential treatment when Interpipe was treated the same as all the other non-US corps. Which, of course, it was.

By the way, Interpipe has a subsidiary here in the US, meaning those sanctions apply across the entire organization, the sale of those steel pipes exceeded $1 million.

Says you. Even your own source said that the law was complex and it 'may' apply. There's no example of a US company being subject these sanctions for such a tiny violation of the Iranian sanctions either. So either way, your argument doesn't work.

That is by far not "minute."

Given that the smallest violation that the State Department ever persued was $500,000,000, yeah, $800k is tiny. Order of magnitude smaller.

Just where did you get the 800k figure from anyway?

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.

 

[HappyJoy]

Ronald Reagan is guilty.

Of what?

Either selling arms to Iran or incompetence where members of his administration did so without his knowing.

And how does this relate to what we're talking about? Reagan (or his subordinates without his approval) circumvented an act of congress. There was no bribery involved, nothing of the sort Hillary was involved in.

Not bribary per se, just working with Iran, technically treason. Way worse than anything being accused here with Clinton. I'm demonstrating that you would easily vote for (or have) a former President that did way more than anything you are accusing the Clintons of. This isn't just anybody, this is St. Ronnie, memorialized by today's conservatives. It's kind of self evident.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Geez I thought the RWnuts loved the Ukraine. They were ready to go to war with Russia over it not that long ago.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not bribary per se, just working with Iran, technically treason.

Er, this is getting more preposterous by the hour. In order for it to be treason, Reagan would have had to provide aid and comfort to an enemy who sought to overthrow the United States government. The Contras had no such goals. Iran was at war with Iraq. The Ayatollah sought rapprochement with the US. For that Iran was seen as a moderate nation with no intent of wanting to destroy America at that point in time.

Reagan didn't commit treason of any kind.

 

[Gracie]

It depends on how many she sees shells she sells down by the seashore I guess.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How many churches do background checks on every person who wants to put money in the collection plate?

 

[HappyJoy]

Not bribary per se, just working with Iran, technically treason.

Er, this is getting more preposterous by the hour. In order for it to be treason, Reagan would have had to provide aid and comfort to an enemy who sought to overthrow the United States government. The Contras had no such goals. Iran was at war with Iraq. The Ayatollah sought rapprochement with the US. For that Iran was seen as a moderate nation with no intent of wanting to destroy America at that point in time.

Reagan didn't commit treason of any kind.

Betrayal is treason. Acting behind Congress to sell arms to the enemy to fund right wing death squads that Congress specifically forbade is treason. I'm pretty sure that Reagan and/or members of his administration didn't see it that way, just the same against the law, way worse than whatever accusations are coming out about the Clintions here.

 

[Skylar]

Geez I thought the RWnuts loved the Ukraine. They were ready to go to war with Russia over it not that long ago.

That was before Putin took his shirt off. Apparently that much raw masculinity overwhelmed many of our conservative posters and instantly turned them into Russian supporters. Or it could have been Putin's take on gays.

6 one, half dozen the other?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

I think this is going to be another 'beltway scandal' that the public in general really doesn't give a fiddler's fuck about. Like the email server. And the reason? Neither Hillary nor Bill benefit financially from donations to the Clinton Foundation. Its a philanthopic non-profit. And neither draws a salary or makes money through the organization.

Stripping the narrative of most of its teeth. As its reduced to 'Ukrainian Oligarch gives money to charity".

Did you happen to see the items of the expenses the Clintons listed on their tax papers? Someone posted it in another thread about only 15% of the donations going to the charity itself. Of course they didn't benefit. What a joke.

Bullshit. According to the foundation's 2013 annual report

88% went to programs, 12% went to management and fund raising expenses.

 

[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?

The State Department didn't go after tiny violations. They went after big ones. The smallest violation the State Department every applied sanctions over was half a BILLION dollars. No non-US company was ever sanctioned for anything less. And Interpipe's violation was orders and orders and orders of magnitude smaller.

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

Says you.

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.

Why are you defending it?

Even your own source said that the law was complex and it 'may' apply.

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

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

 

[HappyJoy]

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?

 

[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.