jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (17 posts)

Hillary’s Latest Scandal: She And Bill Siphoned $100 Mil From Mideast

  1. Stacie L profile image89
    Stacie Lposted 6 months ago

    Scandal: A new investigation reveals that Bill and Hillary Clinton took in at least $100 million from Middle East leaders. Can such a financially and ethically compromised candidate truly function as our nation’s leader?

    The investigation by the Daily Caller News Foundation has uncovered a disturbing pattern of the Clintons’ raising money for the Clinton Foundation from regimes that have checkered records on human rights and that aren’t always operating in the best interests of the U.S. By the way, the $100 million we mentioned above doesn’t appear to include another $30 million given to the Clintons by two Mideast-based foundations and four billionaire Saudis.
    http://www.investors.com/politics/edito … f-leaders/
    Donations buy access and influence foreign policy

    1. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      The same old batch of Slingers, a new batch of Mud!
      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13018134.jpg
      First, let’s be clear about who is making the accusation and the exact nature of the “investigation.”

      The Daily Caller News Foundation was co-founded by Neil Patel, an adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney, and by Tucker Carlson, currently an employee of Fox News. {1}

      The “investigation,” according to the Daily Caller’s account, consisted of reading the public disclosures found on the Foundation’s Contributor and Grantor information page and selecting only the Middle East governments from the roster. Neither proof of malfeasance nor evidence of trading favors for donations was uncovered by this “investigation.” {2}

      The William J. Clinton Foundation was created by former President Bill Clinton in 2001. The name was changed to Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2013 after Hillary began promoting its global projects.

      The Clintons have received billions of dollars through the years to fund their nonprofit philanthropy for global development. Their projects have formed partnerships with  governments, non-government organizations and scores of businesses to become a powerful force in the battles against many quality-of-life issues like AIDS, poverty and climate change.

      About 9000 contributors, by my count, are listed on the foundation’s website in various ranges below $10,000 and another 2300 make up the ranges above $10,000. Bill and Melinda Gates,  Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz, businesses like eBay and Pepsi, and an assortment of other nonprofit foundations are among them. Nineteen (19) are foreign governments, six (6) of which contributed to the foundation in 2014 (Germany, Canada, Australia, Oman, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia) and just three (3) of those are in the Middle East. Algeria, according to a spokesman, made only one donation specifically for earthquake relief in Haiti and it has not contributed again. {3}

      Further, the Clinton Foundation’s database indicates 25 donors contributing $5 million or more during its entire existence, only six of which are foreign governments.

      By the way, to make good mud you have to add a little water to the dirt. To be a good political mudslinger you have to add a little fact to the misleading rhetoric. The last sentence in the OP’s statement makes perfect mud for slinging: 

      "Donations buy access..."

      Donations do buy access. That is a fact, although, foreign governments have ambassadors with 24/7 access to State Department officials, so they do not need to buy access.

      "...and influence foreign policy.”

      Sorry, that is not a fact, just an insinuation. Naturally, if there is no proof, the mudslingers are happy to settle for speculative innuendo that is designed to spread suspicion. But, their mud is really just plain old mud, perfect for pigs and politics.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily … cal_stance
      {2} https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contr … 2410%2C000
      {3} http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter … s-foundat/

      1. Stacie L profile image89
        Stacie Lposted 6 months ago in reply to this

        Sorry, but there are many sources saying the same thing..
        I don't post articles that  I necessarily agree with,I post to start a conversation.All the articles I found are from different sources.

        http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundati … nt-1934187
        http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politic … 82695.html

        http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta … ntries-go/

        http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/expo … 0-million/
        http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-clin … lected-no/

        1. promisem profile image95
          promisemposted 6 months ago in reply to this

          Politifact and McClatchy are the only credible sources on that list. McClatchy shows contributions from four U.S. allies in the Mideast. Politifact quotes the RNC chairman.

          Should the Clintons accept money from U.S. allies or not? Should we believe the RNC chairman?

    2. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 6 months ago in reply to this

      Lundin Group Commits $100 Million to Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative
      https://www.clintonfoundation.org/main/ … le-gr.html

      A little known Swedish-Canadian oil and mining conglomerate human rights groups have repeatedly charged produces “blood minerals” is among the Clinton Foundation’s biggest donors, thanks to a $100 million pledge in 2007, a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation has found.

      “Blood minerals” are related to “blood diamonds,” which are allegedly mined in war zones or sold as commodities to help finance political insurgencies or despotic warlords.

      When the Vancouver, Canada-based Lundin Group gave its $100 million commitment to the “Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative,” the company had long been cutting deals with warlords, Marxist rebels, military strongmen and dictatorships in the war-torn African countries of Congo, Sudan and Ethiopia.

      http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/24/exclu … rals-firm/

    3. rhamson profile image75
      rhamsonposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Choosing one of these candidates over the other is as usual a pinch your nose and vote endeavor. They are both as reprehensible as they come and I find no benefit to the country. One won't tell you how they will accomplish the outlandish promises made while the other is a chameleon adopting anything the people may like as their platform. Nothing will change and by the mere effort that invokes things will only get worse.

  2. paradigmsearch profile image89
    paradigmsearchposted 6 months ago

    Dear Clinton Foundation,

    Could you toss a 100K my way?

    Sincerely,

    Paradigmsearch

  3. brimancandy profile image83
    brimancandyposted 6 months ago

    I don't think there is any president that has not profited from middle east countries. The Bush family not only had business ties to rich Arab countries. They were also in contact with taliban leaders, and their umbrella corporation made billions of dollars off the war in Iraq when gas went up to $4.00 a gallon after 911. Haliburton also made billions of dollars off the reconstruction in Iraq, and is probably still making billions while work is being done there.

    The bush family also had ties to the Bin Ladden family, and received money from them on both the bush campaigns. It was president Bush Senior and President Reagan that helped Sadam come to power in Iraq, so that they could keep an eye on Iran.

    Sadam had stockpiles of American currency, and nobody knows where is came from or what happened to it after it was found. Some 800 billion dollars. Rumor is that is somehow ended up in the hands of haliburton. And, I wonder who was in charge of that company. Not the Clintons.

  4. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 6 months ago

    Operative word here is "latest".  Someone somewhere has a pipeline full of accusations that has been spewing them out, one after the other, for 30 years.   I'm sure they will keep coming long after she's won this election because she's never been convicted of any of them.  But they do what they are intended to to: keep the American people suspicious of her.  Isn't it about time we start being suspicious of the source of them?

  5. colorfulone profile image88
    colorfuloneposted 6 months ago

    LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT PAID HILLARY CLINTON FROM 2013-2015
    The total comes to $21.7 million (Its a long list)
    How corporate America bought Hillary Clinton for $21M
    * http://nypost.com/2016/05/22/how-corpor … n-for-21m/

    Dirty Politics?

    1. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      Oh stop that now , Its just the Clinton Mafia doin' a deal !

    2. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Susie, don't you just LUV scandal? 

      I am not for one moment saying any or all of it is true or untrue.  Just that to spread scandal is a cheap, nasty, unintelligent, corrosive practice that's designed to stir up BS and leave people with doubts, regardless of authenticity.

      Keep going.  You will earn a great reputation.

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        Perhaps you don't understand the American legal system; but I doubt it is much different from the legal system of many democratic nations. Our laws began with English law. English common law does still take precedent in many cases.

        The law is arguable, at every point. Some may never be convicted of a crime although their actions are less than moral. That is why we are over run with lawyers. To allow the rich to do as they please and claim it is OK because it is legal. Legal and ethical or right are not synonymous.

        1. jonnycomelately profile image86
          jonnycomelatelyposted 4 months ago in reply to this

          I don't have sufficient knowledge to answer those suggestions, but if you look into this Hub, https://toughnickel.com/personal-financ … ollectors,  which has gone into the thousands of postings, you will see the evil disregard for fair play among those debt collectors... all supported by dodgy lawyers.  I don't think this can be laid at the feet of laws derived from the English system; it seems to have taken on a different flavour.   Also, from my perspective, there does seem to be some over-riding Federal protection, but each State has its own specific jurisdiction. 

          Anyway, my point is that corruption abounds and many of them apparently get away with it.

          Have a read and let me know your impressions.

  6. Oztinato profile image82
    Oztinatoposted 4 months ago

    More smear from tea party media.
    Still no follow up on the news that Trump is accused of raping an underage girl.
    Maybe a lot of hush money was paid by Trump.

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 4 months ago in reply to this

      Wow. Interesting. I just looked up information on that. She filed a lawsuit with no lawyer. And there is no indication that there is a police investigation into the allegations. That seems incredibly odd to me. Wouldn't the police be concerned if a 13 year old girl had been raped? Is there some statue of limitations involved?

      It seems highly unlikely that a high profile person such as Donald Trump could be accused of such without lawyers salivating at the chance to get in on that. He is rich. If true, the payout could be enormous. But, she files a lawsuit with no lawyer.

      Very, very odd. Since no lawyers are involved I would think she has no evidence to back up this claim. If it is true, I hope the guilty parties pay the price for the act. If she is lying and simply attempting to make a quick buck; I hope she gets back 10 fold the misery she is willing to cause.

      1. Oztinato profile image82
        Oztinatoposted 4 months ago in reply to this

        The thing is it's been buried by the media while something about democrat emails is hammered. Emails vs rape??
        My hunch is that more will happen as the campaign heats up.

 
working