Many donors to clinton foundation met with her at state

Yet you can't figure out the conflict of interest part.....Imagine that.

 

Explain the "conflict of interest" part to me.

 

As plainly as I can explain it. The Clinton Foundation is a tax shelter used to pass capital to and from taxable entities that are either the Clinton Family or those which they offer this service to. Disagree at will, but this is one of the biggest tax scams used by the wealthy. Regardless of tax rates, more and more donations will be made to foundations that give to "charity".

The AP explicitly outlines several instances which point out a clear conflict of interest.

 

Here.....this should help with the processing.



We’ve known this for some time, but there’s more information being unearthed that shows how Hillary Clinton’s State Department became just another arm of the Clinton Foundation. First, Clinton said at her confirmation hearing that no special treatment would be granted to Clinton Foundations donors. She said this under oath. Yet, more than half of the people she met outside of government gave money to the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of state, according to the Associated Press. These funds were delivered either personally, through their companies, or other groups associated with these individuals. The publication added that 85 donors doled out nearly $160 million:

ABC News cited the emails Judicial Watch released, noting that they appear to go against the pledge Clinton took regarding how donors would be treated should the Senate confirm her to be President Obama’s top diplomat.

Katie wrote about the contents of these emails, where top aide Huma Abedin was seen as the middle person between the donor, the Clinton Foundation, and the former first lady:

ABC News’ Brian Ross reported on this development for Good Morning America this week, where he rehashed the controversial appointment of Rajiv K. Fernando to the International Security Advisory Board in 2011, despite having zero experience in such matters. One member of the board told the news organization that they had no idea “who he [Mr. Fernando] was.” Yet, Fernando donated generously to the Clinton Foundation. He later resigned the same year of his appointment when the press started asking questions about his credentials concerning such a high-level appointment to such a sensitive national security board within the State Department. Fernando has continued to donate money to the Clintons, their foundation, and served as a superdelegate at the 2016 Democratic Convention.

Given the sticky dynamics of Clinton and the foundation, it should give some pause about whether the interests of the United States would be best served under Clinton. She helped sign off on the Russians taking control of uranium mining sites in the country with the approval of the sale of Uranium One to Rosatom State Atomic Energy Corporation. Keep in mind that at the time, the chairman of Uranium One gave $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation in for separate transactions while this deal was being hashed out. Bill got $500,000 for a paid speech from a Kremlin-tied Russian bank selling Uranium One stock. Hillary’s State Department was part of the Committee on Foreign Investment that reviewed the deal since it was a national security matter as well. It was approved......snip~

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...ton-while-she-was-secretary-of-state-n2209347



Flashback: Hillary Says Absolutely Nothing She Did At State Was Related to The Clinton Foundation.....

Earlier this week new emails unearthed through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by government watchdog Judicial Watch show longtime confidant and top Clinton aide Huma Abedin granting special access desired by foreign leaders and activists to Secretary of State Hillary after they donated to the Clinton Foundation. Meetings with Secretary Clinton were requested, they were denied and rerouted through the Clinton Foundation. After hefty donations to the Foundation were made by individuals wanting a meeting with Clinton and meetings were granted.

Other people who worked through Abedin and her referral to the Clinton Foundation to get a meeting with Secretary Clinton include Slimfast tycoon S. Daniel Abraham, Hollywood sports executive and Wasserman Foundation President Casey Wasserman, St. Louis political power broker Joyce Aboussie, political activist Jill Iscol and others.

We also learned this week that half of the individuals who met with Secretary Clinton between 2009 and 2013 donated to the Clinton Foundation.


Liz Kreutz
✔ ‎@ABCLiz
Hillary Clinton in July: "There is absolutely no connection between anything that I did as Secretary of State and the Clinton Foundation."
1:15 PM - 22 Aug 2016


When she left the State Department, Clinton deleted 30,000 "personal" emails from her private server. Could those "personal" emails have been about Clinton Foundation business and donations for access to her official office at the State Department? Based on the evidence we already have, there is little doubt that was the case......snip~

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...is-related-to-the-clinton-foundation-n2209130

 

I am trying to remember the name of the man involved in the uranium sale... He was no long with Uranium One.

Trump said Hillary Clinton’s State Department "approved the transfer of 20 percent of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation."

First, the State Department did approve of Russia’s gradual takeover of a company with significant U.S. uranium assets, but it didn’t act unilaterally. State was one of nine government agencies, not to mention independent federal and state nuclear regulators, that had to sign off on the deal.

Second, while nine people related to the company did donate to the Clinton Foundation, it’s unclear whether they were still involved in the company by the time of the Russian deal and stood to benefit from it.

Third, most of their Clinton Foundation donations occurred before and during Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, before she could have known she would become secretary of state.

The bottom line: While the connections between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian deal may appear fishy, there’s s
imply no proof of any quid pro quo.

continued

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/

 

Its clearly a conflict of interest with Foreign Donors. Even the MS Media is calling it out as such.

 

Then break it down. Look at the foreign donors to the Global Initiative and NOTE the year they donated.

Bahrain didn't get any favors, we've had a defense agreement with them since 1991.

Just pick out a half dozen and look into the dates and prior relationships.

 

Bahrain didn't, huh?


Included among the Abedin-Band emails is an exchange revealing that when Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain requested a meeting with Secretary of State Clinton, he was forced to go through the Clinton Foundation for an appointment. Abedin advised Band that when she went through 'normal channels' at State, Clinton declined to meet. After Band intervened, however, the meeting was set up within forty-eight hours.".....snip~

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...ton-while-she-was-secretary-of-state-n2209347


Liberal Writer: Hillary Could Sink Her Presidency If She Can't Get A Grip On Her Ethics Issues.....

The analysis, which examined donor lists posted on the foundation’s website, found that 53 percent of the donors who have given $1 million or more to the charity are corporations or foreign citizens, groups or governments. The list includes the governments of Saudi Arabia and Australia, the British bank Barclay’s, and major U.S. companies such as Coca-Cola and ExxonMobil.

Yet, the donations carry the most weight in terms of intrigue, as good things tend to happen to donors of the Clinton Foundation once that big check is written. In some cases, these interests were paying Bill millions while also having simultaneous matters before Mrs. Clinton’s State Department at the time. The most recent reported in The Wall Street Journal last year, where Bill was paid $1 million by the United Arab Emirates, who were also trying to get a pre-clearance facility built to make traveling to the U.S. easier. In the end, the arrangement was agreed upon.

But some liberals, like Jonathan Chait, noted that it could sink her presidency—and that the power couple isn’t taking these ethics questions as seriously as they should.

Her inadequate response to the conflicts of interest inherent in the Clinton Foundation show that she is not meeting that standard, and has not fully grasped the severity of her reputational problem.

He also added that the Clinton Foundation couldn’t be simply passed off to be managed by a third party since the Clinton name is what draws the money. He suggests that the Foundation should be shut down to avoid these ethical landmines.....snip~

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...pecially-with-the-clinton-foundation-n2207842

 

Congrats on being part of the majority of dumbed down Americans.

 

The Clinton Foundation is public not private like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation..

It functions as a pass thru charity.

Take a look.. This is one of my favorite Charities.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8056

 

As opposed to the minority critical thinkers on the right? LOL!

 

This was Hillary Clinton helping people who help HER alleged charity and pay her husband and her daughter and her staff millions. You know those minor details you tend to leave out in your statement.

- - - Updated - - -

If you have relevant facts then copy and paste them. What facts mitigate their pay for play scheme?

 

The money goes for scholarships and healthcare.

 

Judicial Watch is simply too, too stupid.

They are claiming Prince Salman donated 32 million to Clinton to get an audience.

 

So they are public. You do know Haiti ha written the UN over the Clinton Foundation and what they think it is corruption there in Haiti.

Also, there is the matter of Bilbos friend and fellow Board member and partner.


Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations .....

Last week, the New York Times examined Bill Clinton’s relationship with a Canadian mining financier, Frank Giustra, who has donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and sits on its board. Clinton, the story suggests, helped Giustra’s company secure a lucrative uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan and in return received “a flow of cash” to the Clinton Foundation, including previously undisclosed donations from the company’s chairman totaling $2.35 million.

Giustra strenuously objects to how he was portrayed. “It’s frustrating,” he says. And because the donations came in through the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP)—a Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation he established with the former president—he feels doubly implicated by the insinuation of a dark alliance.

“We’re not trying to hide anything,” he says. There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents who donated to CGEP. “All of the money that was raised by CGEP flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,” he says.

Canadian tax and privacy law experts were dubious of this claim. Len Farber, former director of tax policy at Canada's Department of Finance, said he wasn't aware of any tax laws that would prevent the charity from releasing its donors' names. "There's nothing that would preclude them from releasing the names of donors," he said. "It's entirely up to them."

Mark Blumberg, a charity lawyer at Blumberg Segal in Toronto, added that the legislation "does not generally apply to a registered charity unless a charity is conducting commercial activities... such as selling the list to third parties."

CGEP might have a stronger claim if it promised anonymity to donors, says David Fraser, a partner at McInnes Cooper in Halifax, Nova Scotia, who runs a blog on Canadian privacy law. He’s more skeptical of the argument that a charity has a fiduciary duty to donors. "They might have a fiduciary duty to the people they're collecting money to help," he said, "but for the donors that doesn't seem to have the ring of truth.".....snip~

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...on-failed-to-disclose-1-100-foreign-donations

 

You're on the right track.. Keep looking for more on Guistra.

 

Look up Haiti and then Look up those Canadian laws that don't prevent a Canadian Charity from revealing its Donors. Then get back to me.

Which still changes nothing over the conflicts of Interest and ethics problems Hillary is caught up in with her Foundation. Despite your tangent.

 

They make what off the foundation? How does it benefit them in any way?

 

the right has no place to speak with Trump as their pick - LOL

 

Desperate times call for desperate measures. To unwind and undo all the damage done by Obama and the complicit Democrats, Trump is what is needed at this point in time.

Simple, really.

 

Exactly.

Can you say with a straight face that the reason the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Emirates (some of the most repressive, regressive regimes on our planet) donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation because those regimes simply want to help the foundation achieve its worthy, magnanimous goals?

 

Amazing organization with extremely important goals. While Hillary may not be my 1st choice as POTUS, I will donate to their charity this year.

Regarding "pay for play" assertions based on HRC meeting with donors while in office ... I don't understand how this is any different than an elected official meeting with a donor or lobbyist. In fact, inasmuch as HRC does not personally benefit from such a meeting, it seems even more "innocent."

When I think about it, people asking that the Foundation, in total, to be shut down should in fact be donating as we will do.

Thanks for posting the organization's Mission and Organization outline.

 

I already posted a link to charity in Haiti.

Here's what you missed:

Canadian tax and privacy law experts were dubious of this claim. Len Farber, former director of tax policy at Canada's Department of Finance, said he wasn't aware of any tax laws that would prevent the charity from releasing its donors' names. "There's nothing that would preclude them from releasing the names of donors," he said. "It's entirely up to them."

Mark Blumberg, a charity lawyer at Blumberg Segal in Toronto, added that the legislation "does not generally apply to a registered charity unless a charity is conducting commercial activities... such as selling the list to third parties."

 

The Clinton's are no dirtier than the average politician. The only difference is that they have been analy examined for three decades. In a system where it takes millions of dollars to win a Congressional seat that pays $150,000 a year or tens of millions to win a US Senate seat that pays $225,000 a year, what the hell do you expect? Pay for play is the rule rather than the exception champ. Do the math. Any time a statesman like Bernie Sanders suggests public funding of elections the so called conservatives have a hissy fit and scream about their God given right to buy access to politicians. If every politician had to turn over all of their emails and appointment schedules to a blue ribbon panel of political adversaries the same dirt would surface on all of them. Cheers

 

like what exactly, can you list the top five Obama changes other then the ACA you are displeased with

.