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

[SrWoodchuck]

 

Via FaceBook

[Valin]

Rep. Jeb Hensarling Hints At More Subpoenas And Hearings To Come For Secretary Clinton On Uranium One Deal.

Duane Patterson

Thursday, April 30, 2015

 

Jeb Hensarling is the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, succeeding Hughs guest host today, John Campbell. Part of the oversight of this committee includes CFIUS review the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. Here is that that interview, and why Hillary Clinton may have to spend a little more time on the Hill under oath than previously thought.

 

Audio

 

(Snip)

 

JH: Well, you yourself, John, know more about this than most others since it was within your subcommittee jurisdiction. But there is this agency that has to essentially approve the acquisition by foreign entities of U.S. strategic interest that could have national security concerns. And it just so happens again that the Department of State is a key member of this group called CFIUS, the Committee of Foreign Investment in the U.S. As you know, were famous for acronyms in the Capitol. At the time, as you well put it, Barney Frank, a Democrat, was chairman of the committee. But the House Republicans protested at the time. We urged CFIUS not to approve the transaction that has led to Russia to control the lions share of uranium product, and as you well know, to control a fifth of the United States, our own American uranium production. So we protested at the time. Now all of a sudden, we have this information from the New York Times. We have this information from the Boston Globe, as you well put it, not exactly part of the vast right wing conspiracy that the Clintons like to complain about. So on the surface, it does not pass the smell test. And so CFIUS comes within the jurisdiction of the House Financial Services Committee. Just today, in fact, an hour ago, we have sent to CFIUS a letter demanding a relevant documents as part of an official discovery process.

 

JC: Now who do you, if I can interrupt you, when you say the CFIUS, who do actually send that to, since CFIUS

 

JH: The chair of CFIUS is Treasury, so this letter goes to Secretary Jack Lew, secretary of Treasury.

 

JC: Okay.

 

JH: So Treasury is the lead agency. But State is also a key member. And again, I am leaping to no conclusions, but frankly, we would be negligent if we didnt demand the documents. Now as you know, Congress does not have a direct approval or disapproval. This is power that has been granted to the executive branch. It is one that we have oversight, which as you well know, we get to review documents, sometimes, before the facts, frequently after the fact, ask the right questions in front of the klieg lights. But outside of that, it is a decision of the administration. And so we dont know what took place at this Committee for Foreign Investment in the U.S., and so we have demanded the relevant documents from the Secretary of Treasury. He heads up a number of different agencies, not just Treasury, CFIUS being one of them. And Im anxiously awaiting the receipt of those documents. And then the House Financial Services Committee will begin to analyze and inspect those documents, and see where an investigation may or may not lead. Again, I dont know whats there. At this point, John, we are simply demanding the documents relevant to the decision that allowed Uranium One to be, well, essentially, to allow Russia and Putin to acquire one-fifth of uranium assets in the United States of America.

 

(Snip)

[Geee]

Clinton Charities Raked in Millions of Taxpayer Dollars

 

The Clinton Foundation and its major health charity have raked in more than $7 million from the U.S. government in recent years, according to an analysis of public records conducted by the Washington Free Beacon.

 

The Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), chaired by Bill Clinton and run by the former president’s long-time associate Ira Magaziner, has received $6,010,898 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) since 2010. CHAI, the biggest arm of the Clinton family’s charitable efforts, accounting for 60 percent of all spending, received $3,193,500 in fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012, according to federal contracts, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. The organization received an additional $2,817,398 from the CDC in FYs 2013, 2014, and 2015.

 

The grants, including $200,000 awarded as recently as January, have gone to CHAI’s Global AIDS program, and are filed under “Global Health and Child Survival.” The CDC is listed as a $1 to $10 million contributor to CHAI, according to its donor list released earlier this month.

 

The Boston-based health arm of the Clinton Foundation has come under scrutiny for failing to disclose donations from foreign governments—in violation of a pledge Clinton made to the Obama administration before she assumed office as secretary of state.

 

A Reuters report found that the health initiative stopped making its annual disclosure in 2010 and that “no complete list of donors to the Clintons’ charities has been published” since. The group only recently published a partial donor list, which its spokesperson Maura Daley told Reuters “made up for” CHAI’s “oversight” of failing to meet the disclosure agreement.

 

http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-charities-raked-in-millions-of-taxpayer-dollars/

[Geee]

Is the Clinton Cash Gravy Train Ride Over?

After what is now becoming a steady drip, drip, drip of revelations from the Clinton Cash story, the wealthy donors to the former first family’s foundation may be having second thoughts. As Politico reports, some of those who have already handed over huge amounts to the Clinton Foundation are now worried about whether doing so again would be more trouble than it is worth. They have good reason to think so. After years of raking in hundreds of millions of dollars from the rich, big businesses, as well as foreign entities and governments, the price of a donation to the Clintons just went up. Instead of getting positive press attention for being philanthropic and the added bonus of access to the former president and the ex-secretary of state who hopes to be the next president, foundation donors are now getting the kind of intense scrutiny from the press they could live without. The foundation’s resources are so enormous that it could withstand a downturn in giving even beyond the planned slowdown of activity as Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign started up. But it’s worth asking how an institution whose existence is predicated on donors’ expectations of burnishing their images as do-gooders and possible influence on the world’s ultimate power couple can survive if the Clintons are forced to end the pay-for-play aspect of their charity.

 

One anonymous donor that spoke to Politico admitted that they had already had questions about how the vast sums donated to the foundation were being spent. As we noted yesterday, the foundation’s tax filings show that it spends as little as ten percent of their resources on actual charity work as opposed to the enormous amounts spent on the Clintons comings and goings, travel, staff, and boosting the Clinton Presidential Library and the annual Clinton Global Initiative paparazzi-fest.

 

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/05/01/is-the-clintoncash-gravy-train-ride-over-foundation/

 

[Valin]

Clinton defenders advance an unpersuasive argument

Michael Barone

April 30, 2015

 

Some of Hillary Clinton's defenders have taken to saying that voters shouldn't pay attention to the latest Clinton scandals the gushing of often undisclosed millions to the Clintons and their organizations by characters seeking official favors because the charges are just one more in a long series: Whitewater, the Rose law firm billing records, the Buddhist temple fundraising, the Lippo Group.

 

(Snip)

 

Common sense might tend to make you more suspicious of those who attract many accusations. But the Clintons' defenders expect and hope in their case that you will instead be suspicious of those who make so many accusations. After all, they're always saying nasty things! In this view, even charges advanced and amplified by the New York Times may be summarily dismissed as the products of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

 

(Snip)

 

Today's Democrats fear they are not in this comfortable position. They've been losing most elections lately in constituencies beyond those where their core constituencies blacks, some Hispanics, gentry liberals are clustered. They don't have many prominent plausible alternative candidates.

 

Absent Hillary Clinton, they would be faced with a choice of tax-raiser Martin O'Malley, socialist Bernie Sanders, Reagan appointee Jim Webb, former Republican scion Lincoln Chafee, or the gaffe-prone Joe Biden. None run as well as Clinton in general election polls.

 

But how strong is Clinton? Her numbers have been declining and she runs under 50 percent against lesser-known Republicans in most national and target-state polls. All voters know her and most don't favor her. She runs stronger in polls of all adults, not just registered voters. That gap suggests she could have a hard time inspiring maximizing turnout.

 

The argument that the Clintons have always faced scandal charges is intended to shore up her support. But it may have the opposite effect.

[Geee]

INDIAN CONGRESS WANTS INQUIRY INTO ‘CLINTON CASH’ DONATIONS OF PARTY LEADER

 

The repercussions from Peter Schweizer’s bombshell book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich are reaching far beyond the shores of the United States.

 

The congress of India has called for investigation of the book’s allegations that a former Indian party leader made huge donations to the Clinton Foundation in 2008, at a time when then-Senator Hillary Clinton just happened to support a nuclear deal between the U.S. and India.

 

One of the lingering questions surrounding former Samajwadi Party head Amar Singh’s alleged donations to the Clinton Foundation is precisely where he got the money. As the New York Post observed this week, the contribution was between $1 million and $5 million dollars, “which would have amounted to nearly his entire net worth,” as reported in the financial disclosure he filed with the Indian government.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/05/01/indian-congress-wants-inquiry-into-clinton-cash-donations-of-party-leader/

[Geee]

CLINTON GURU PODESTA’S BROTHER LOBBIED FOR SCANDAL-RIDDEN URANIUM ONE

 

If you love the team that put together the Clinton Foundation and all of its various corrupt dealings with foreign nations, you’ll love the Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign. It now turns out that John Podesta, chair of Hillary’s presidential campaign – and the same man who called the allegations of Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash “conspiracy theories” – has a brother who runs a company, The Podesta Group, that lobbied the State Department on behalf of Uranium One while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and beyond.

 

Uranium One is, of course, the uranium firm that sent a “flow of cash” to the Clinton Foundation as the Russian government gained increasing ownership of the company; the State Department had to sign off on the Russians’ encroachment into the American uranium market. The Clinton Foundation did disclose its relationship with Uranium One in Hillary’s State Department disclosures. According to the Daily Caller, Uranium One “paid the Podesta Group $40,000 to lobby the State Department, the Senate, the National Park Service and the National Security Council for ‘international mining projects,’ according to a July 20, 2012 filing.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/01/clinton-guru-podesta-lobbied-for-scandal-ridden-uranium-one/

[Geee]

Spanish-Language News Network Failed to Disclose Clinton Donation, Lobbying Expenditures

 

A U.S. Spanish-language news network that lobbied Hillary Clinton’s State Department on U.S. policies toward Mexico reported on those policies without disclosing its lobbying expenditures and is covering the U.S. presidential election without informing viewers of its company’s donations to the Clinton Foundation.

 

The network, Azteca America, has employed two Clinton confidantes since late 2008 to lobby the State Department on various initiatives affecting U.S. relations with Mexico, where its parent company is based, during and after Clinton’s tenure at the head of the agency.

 

Mexican parent TV Azteca, a foundation associated with the company, and that foundation’s U.S. counterpart have together donated as much as $375,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to its website.

 

The lack of disclosure comes amidst controversy surrounding ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos, who recently came under fire for failing to disclose $75,000 in donations to the foundation, whose donors, recent reports have shown, also include dozens of other media organizations.

 

Azteca is a prominent broadcaster in Latino communities. It operates 16 stations around the country, including stations in nine of the country’s top ten Hispanic media markets, and has an additional 70 affiliate broadcasters.

 

http://freebeacon.com/issues/spanish-language-news-network-failed-to-disclose-clinton-donation-lobbying-expenditures/

[Valin]

VIDEO: How the Clinton Foundation Got Rich Off Poor Haitians
By NR Staff — October 21, 2016