New Book, ‘Clinton Cash,’ Questions Foreign Donations to Foundation

[nickydog]

How could one single voter possibly think Hillary Clinton "understands their lives and cares about them?" She doesn't radiate a single ounce of caring or understanding. Shame on the ignorant people who might vote for her, but I can't believe we will ever see her in the White House. Not after all this.

 

The book comes out on May 5, so if some of this talk dies down in the next 10 days, it will rise up again once people get their hands on the book.

[Valin]

How could one single voter possibly think Hillary Clinton "understands their lives and cares about them?" She doesn't radiate a single ounce of caring or understanding.

 

 

A Caller on Bill Bennett's Show just made the same point.

[Geee]

11 EXPLOSIVE CLINTON CASH FACTS MAINSTREAM MEDIA CONFIRM ARE ACCURATE

 

Perhaps the most surprising thing about the forthcoming book rocking Washington right now is the number of stunning facts liberal media outlets have already confirmed and verified are accurate.

 

Here, then, are 11 facts that mainstream media say are true, verified, and facts from the upcoming blockbuster, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.

 

CONFIRMED: Hillary’s Foundation Hid a $2.35 Million Foreign Donation from the Head of the Russian Govt’s Uranium Company that Had Business Before Hillary Clinton’s State Dept.—a Clear Violation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the Obama Administration

 

The New York Times has confirmed that Hillary Clinton violated the Memorandum of Understanding she signed with the Obama administration promising to disclose all foreign donations during her tenure as Sec. of State.

 

As Clinton Cash reveals, Ian Telfer, the foreign head of the Russian-owned uranium company, Uranium One, which Hillary Clinton approved to acquire U.S. uranium, made four individual hidden donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling $2.35 million, none of which appear in Clinton Foundation disclosures.

 

CONFIRMED: Bill Clinton Bagged $500,000 for a Speech in Moscow Paid for by a Kremlin-linked Bank

 

The New Yorker confirms that, as Clinton Cash claims, Bill Clinton made $500,000 for a Moscow speech that was paid for by “a Russian investment bank that had ties to the Kremlin” at the time of the Uranium One deal.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/26/11-explosive-clinton-cash-facts-mainstream-media-confirm-are-accurate/

[Geee]

STEPHANOPOULOS FLOORED AS GINGRICH, BLOOMBERG EDITORS DETAIL SERIOUSNESS OF ‘CLINTON CASH’

 

The former public face of Bill Clinton’s White House—and current host of ABC News’ This Week—George Stephanopoulos was floored as two prominent journalists and the Republican Speaker of the House from his Clinton days, Newt Gingrich, laid out for him just how bad the “Clinton Cash” book is for his old bosses.

During the show’s roundtable panel after Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer appeared on the show for a lengthy interview, Stephanopoulos teamed with Democratic strategist Donna Brazile in an attempt to discredit Schweizer. But it started with Stephanopoulos making a shocking admission: Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign wouldn’t send out any official surrogates or spokespeople to defend her on this scandal.

“Donna, I got to talk to you first—I know you’re close to the Clinton team—they did not want to put anybody out to talk about this book today even though we asked, and you just saw Peter Schweizer there,” Stephanopoulos said to Brazile. “What do you make of his allegations generally but also his specific allegation that he makes that there are undisclosed donations to the Clinton Foundation from foreign charities?”

Brazile admitted she doesn’t know what’s in the book. Yet, without having read it, she proceeded to drop a series of rhetorical attacks on Schweizer. She also offered the Clinton campaign advice on how to attempt to get past Clinton Cash.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/04/26/stephanopoulos-floored-as-gingrich-bloomberg-editors-detail-seriousness-of-clinton-cash/

[Geee]

Clinton Foundation Put On Charity ‘Watch List’ Along With Al Sharpton’s Shady Nonprofit

 

 

The Clinton Foundation has joined Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network on a list of naughty nonprofits maintained by Charity Navigator, a prominent charity monitor.

 

The Clinton Foundation was put on Charity Navigator’s “watch list” last month, The New York Post reported on Sunday.

 

The foundation has come under intense scrutiny of late amid revelations it received millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state. Money also flowed to the foundation from companies and businessmen who benefited from their relationship to the Clintons.

 

Furthermore, analysis of the foundation’s tax forms showed it spends a relatively small percentage of its income on charitable activity.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/26/clinton-foundation-put-on-charity-watch-list-along-with-al-sharptons-shady-nonprofit/

[Valin]

STEPHANOPOULOS FLOORED AS GINGRICH, BLOOMBERG EDITORS DETAIL SERIOUSNESS OF ‘CLINTON CASH’

 

The former public face of Bill Clinton’s White House—and current host of ABC News’ This Week—George Stephanopoulos was floored as two prominent journalists and the Republican Speaker of the House from his Clinton days, Newt Gingrich, laid out for him just how bad the “Clinton Cash” book is for his old bosses.

During the show’s roundtable panel after Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer appeared on the show for a lengthy interview, Stephanopoulos teamed with Democratic strategist Donna Brazile in an attempt to discredit Schweizer. But it started with Stephanopoulos making a shocking admission: Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign wouldn’t send out any official surrogates or spokespeople to defend her on this scandal.

 

 

[clearvision]

http://touch.baltimoresun.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83378799/

 

 

Clinton Restoration could be in jeopardy

 

 

Good read.

[Geee]

In watching all the news people talking about this I was wondering what people in other countries are thinking. It's embarrassing. It makes us look so third world corrupt.

[Valin]

John Arthur Heilemann is an American journalist for New York magazine, where he mainly covers US politics. He is the co-author of Double Down and Game Change, books about Presidential campaigns.

 

No Right Winger He.

[Valin]

http://touch.baltimoresun.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83378799/

 

 

Clinton Restoration could be in jeopardy

 

 

Good read.

 

There's also the long and storied Clinton fondness for lying.

 

 

 

That's A Bit Harsh! I think we should instead call it a creative alternative to the truth.

[Valin]

In watching all the news people talking about this I was wondering what people in other countries are thinking. It's embarrassing. It makes us look so third world corrupt.

 

 

Well With the Clintons what's the difference?

[Geee]

 

In watching all the news people talking about this I was wondering what people in other countries are thinking. It's embarrassing. It makes us look so third world corrupt.

 

 

Well With the Clintons what's the difference?

 

You mean "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"

[Geee]

The Other Clinton Foundation Scandal

 

Corruption: If the Clintons haven't used their foundation as a favor bank for foreign governments and business interests, what was it for? It couldn't have been about helping people.

 

In the wake of revelations about the curious timing between donations to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation and favorable policies during Hillary's tenure as secretary of state, the foundation has admitted to making a couple bookkeeping "mistakes" involving foreign donations.

 

But the foundation, the Clintons and their phalanx of defenders all insist there's absolutely no evidence of any quid pro quo. If that's the case, just what were these foreigners donating money for?

 

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/042715-749839-clinton-foundation-spent-just-10-percent-on-direct-aid.htm

[Valin]

The Other Clinton Foundation Scandal

 

Corruption: If the Clintons haven't used their foundation as a favor bank for foreign governments and business interests, what was it for? It couldn't have been about helping people.

 

In the wake of revelations about the curious timing between donations to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation and favorable policies during Hillary's tenure as secretary of state, the foundation has admitted to making a couple bookkeeping "mistakes" involving foreign donations.

 

But the foundation, the Clintons and their phalanx of defenders all insist there's absolutely no evidence of any quid pro quo. If that's the case, just what were these foreigners donating money for?

 

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/042715-749839-clinton-foundation-spent-just-10-percent-on-direct-aid.htm

One of the lessons to take from this is Caveat Emptor.

[clearvision]

Not hearing much from Hillary on the campaign trail on anything.

[Valin]

"Richard French Live" is an Emmy Award winning interactive, progressive news talk show.

 

[Geee]

Report: At Least 181 Clinton Foundation Donors Also Lobbied Hillary's State Department

 

According to Vox's Jonathan Allen, formerly of Bloomberg, at least 181 Clinton Foundation donors lobbied the US State Department while Hillary Clinton was in charge, highlighting new questions over whether the Clintons profited from effectively renting out American foreign policy:

 

The size and scope of the symbiotic relationship between the Clintons and their donors is striking. At least 181 companies, individuals, and foreign governments that have given to the Clinton Foundation also lobbied the State Department when Hillary Clinton ran the place, according to a Vox analysis of foundation records and federal lobbying disclosures...This list of donors to the Clinton foundation who lobbied State matters because it gives a sense of just how common it was for influence-seekers to give to the Clinton Foundation, and exactly which ones did.

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/04/28/report-at-least-181-clinton-foundation-donors-also-lobbied-hillarys-state-department-n1991551

[clearvision]

Report: At Least 181 Clinton Foundation Donors Also Lobbied Hillary's State Department

 

According to Vox's Jonathan Allen, formerly of Bloomberg, at least 181 Clinton Foundation donors lobbied the US State Department while Hillary Clinton was in charge, highlighting new questions over whether the Clintons profited from effectively renting out American foreign policy:

 

The size and scope of the symbiotic relationship between the Clintons and their donors is striking. At least 181 companies, individuals, and foreign governments that have given to the Clinton Foundation also lobbied the State Department when Hillary Clinton ran the place, according to a Vox analysis of foundation records and federal lobbying disclosures...This list of donors to the Clinton foundation who lobbied State matters because it gives a sense of just how common it was for influence-seekers to give to the Clinton Foundation, and exactly which ones did.

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/04/28/report-at-least-181-clinton-foundation-donors-also-lobbied-hillarys-state-department-n1991551

I'm sure just coincidence. This is so full of $@&t. You set up a family foundation to give your own money away. You don't set up one to take in other people's/country's money unless you want to skim or pay yourself. Why not just give right to the sources or international relief agencies. Makes no sense to give to a middle man unless the middle man is helping you in someway.

[Geee]

 

Report: At Least 181 Clinton Foundation Donors Also Lobbied Hillary's State Department

 

According to Vox's Jonathan Allen, formerly of Bloomberg, at least 181 Clinton Foundation donors lobbied the US State Department while Hillary Clinton was in charge, highlighting new questions over whether the Clintons profited from effectively renting out American foreign policy:

 

The size and scope of the symbiotic relationship between the Clintons and their donors is striking. At least 181 companies, individuals, and foreign governments that have given to the Clinton Foundation also lobbied the State Department when Hillary Clinton ran the place, according to a Vox analysis of foundation records and federal lobbying disclosures...This list of donors to the Clinton foundation who lobbied State matters because it gives a sense of just how common it was for influence-seekers to give to the Clinton Foundation, and exactly which ones did.

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/04/28/report-at-least-181-clinton-foundation-donors-also-lobbied-hillarys-state-department-n1991551

I'm sure just coincidence. This is so full of $@&t. You set up a family foundation to give your own money away. You don't set up one to take in other people's/county's money unless you want to skim or pay yourself. Why not just give right to the sources or international relief agencies. Makes no sense to give to a middle man unless the middle man is helping you in someway.

 

 

 

Well, they are used to government and that's kind of how government works. You give them your taxes(or really they TAKE your taxes)and put it through a ton of 'middle men' and use it for political bribes and send about a nickel on the dollar back to your state.

[Valin]

FOOD FIGHT! Let's You And Him Fight

 

If This Is the Best Defense of the Clinton Foundation, She’s in Trouble
Jonathan Chait

April 28 2015

 

The Clintons’ post-presidential career has turned out to be a serious problem, especially for people like me, who will almost certainly vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. The Clintons’ foundation work and Bill Clinton’s speech-for-hire business put the couple in the position of asking for money from people or businesses who had or have reason to curry favor from Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of State or as potential future president. Rather than treat these conflicts as a serious problem of public ethics and a campaign liability, the Clintons handled it haphazardly, creating significant problems for her 2016 campaign and legitimate reasons for undecided voters to doubt her and her husband’s commitment to good government.

 

That’s the argument I made in a column last Thursday. It has come under scathing attack by Joe Conason, author of The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton, and also the forthcoming The Hunting of Hillary: The Campaign to Destroy Hillary Clinton,” and possible future author of a book about efforts to hunt and/or destroy Chelsea Clinton. Conason has written a piece assailing my column as the latest installment in the effort to destroy the Clintons for containing, he claims, “stunning errors” and “misinformation.”

 

In fact, Conason identifies no errors or misinformation of any kind. His technique is to divert his audience’s attention away from the specific claims at issue, on which he has no ground to stand, and onto the amorphous question of the general virtues of the Clintons and the untrustworthiness of their enemies. Since my goal is to clarify the specifics of the matter at hand, I’ll go through his argument point by point.

 

(Snip)

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

Cold Beer! Get Your Cold Beer!

[Valin]

[clearvision]

FOOD FIGHT! Let's You And Him Fight

 

If This Is the Best Defense of the Clinton Foundation, She’s in Trouble

Jonathan Chait

April 28 2015

 

The Clintons’ post-presidential career has turned out to be a serious problem, especially for people like me, who will almost certainly vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. The Clintons’ foundation work and Bill Clinton’s speech-for-hire business put the couple in the position of asking for money from people or businesses who had or have reason to curry favor from Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of State or as potential future president. Rather than treat these conflicts as a serious problem of public ethics and a campaign liability, the Clintons handled it haphazardly, creating significant problems for her 2016 campaign and legitimate reasons for undecided voters to doubt her and her husband’s commitment to good government.

 

That’s the argument I made in a column last Thursday. It has come under scathing attack by Joe Conason, author of The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton, and also the forthcoming The Hunting of Hillary: The Campaign to Destroy Hillary Clinton,” and possible future author of a book about efforts to hunt and/or destroy Chelsea Clinton. Conason has written a piece assailing my column as the latest installment in the effort to destroy the Clintons for containing, he claims, “stunning errors” and “misinformation.”

 

In fact, Conason identifies no errors or misinformation of any kind. His technique is to divert his audience’s attention away from the specific claims at issue, on which he has no ground to stand, and onto the amorphous question of the general virtues of the Clintons and the untrustworthiness of their enemies. Since my goal is to clarify the specifics of the matter at hand, I’ll go through his argument point by point.

 

(Snip)

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

Cold Beer! Get Your Cold Beer!

Cool food fight.

[Valin]

181 Clinton Foundation donors who lobbied Hillary's State Department

Jonathan Allen

April 28, 2015

 

The size and scope of the symbiotic relationship between the Clintons and their donors is striking. At least 181 companies, individuals, and foreign governments that have given to the Clinton Foundation also lobbied the State Department when Hillary Clinton ran the place, according to a Vox analysis of foundation records and federal lobbying disclosures.

 

The following chart shows entities that donated to the foundation and lobbied the State Department during Hillary Clinton's tenure. The totals include funding from both the corporate and charitable arms of listed companies (the Gates and Walton foundations are named to illustrate that point). The chart does not account for contributions made by executives, and it may omit some companies who made contributions or lobbied through subsidiaries.

 

(Snip)

 

That's not illegal, but it is scandalous.

 

(Snip)

 

Author Peter Schweizer, whose book Clinton Cash is due out May 5, took his best shot but couldn't prove — or even assert — that Hillary Clinton took any official action because of contributions to the Clinton Foundation. I haven't read the book, but even Schweizer concedes that what he's identified is a "pattern of behavior," not hard evidence of corruption.

 

Still, the Clintons have shown they can't police themselves.

 

(Snip)

[Geee]

The Clinton Foundation spends a paltry 10 percent on charitable grants: report

 

A quiet but telling revelation about the Clinton Foundation: Though the organization claims to devote 88 percent of its expenditures on “life changing work,” it really spent a mere 10 percent on charitable grants that support such works.

 

So says Sean Davis, the co-founder of The Federalist and a former adviser to Sen. Tom Coburn and Gov. Rick Perry.

 

“Hillary Clinton’s non-profit spent more on office supplies and rent than it did on charitable grants,” says Mr. Davis, who reached this conclusion after examining the foundation’s 2013 tax filings and doing all the math. He found that 10 percent of all expenditures — that’s $8.5 million — went to travel costs. Employee fringe benefits amounted to $3.7 million, computer and tech costs were $2.1 million, rent $4 million and the final bill for all those foundation conferences was $9.2 million.

 

Yes, well. The tax-exempt organization has claimed that no more than 12 percent of its expenditures went to these “overhead expenses,” Mr. Davis observes.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/28/inside-the-beltway-807384353/

[Valin]

Clintons failed to disclose contribution from major donor that received favorable treatment from Hillary

Paul Mirengoff

April 29, 2015

 

I wrote here about Pacific Rubiales, an oil company founded by Bill Clinton’s pal Frank Giustra. During Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State, Pacific Rubiales was the subject of substantial charges of violations of the rights of its workers.

 

(Snip)

 

As Secretary of State, Clinton abandoned her opposition and a trade pact was signed. To assuage concerns about the intimidation of workers and unionists, a special labor agreement prohibiting such practices accompanied the trade agreement.

 

Subsequently, however, repeated complaints by labor groups about worker mistreatment by Pacific Rubiales went unaddressed by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Indeed, the Department publicly praised Colombia’s progress on human rights, notwithstanding these complaints.

 

What accounts for Hillary Clinton’s benign response to allegations of wrongdoing by Pacific Rubiales? One possible explanation resides in the fact, reported by the Washington Post, that the company poured $3.5 million into the Clinton Giustra Enterprise partnership, a charity affiliated with the Clinton Foundation.

 

(Snip)