More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton

[TheSanityAnnex]

while she was secretary of state gave money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_CLINTON_FOUNDATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-08-23-14-35-04

[ducks]

Report: Hillary Slams For-Profit Schools While Bill Earned $17.6M From Them

[Th'Pusher]

The Donald was one of the 85 donors :lol

Edit: unconfirmed he was one of the 85, but he did donate >$100K :lol

[SnakeBoy]

The Donald was one of the 85 donors :lol

Edit: unconfirmed he was one of the 85, but he did donate >$100K

Nobody knows the system better than him...believe it

[Th'Pusher]

Nobody knows the system better than him...believe it

I would have to disagree with Donald on that one. Hillary knows the system better than Donald.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I would have to disagree with Donald on that one. Hillary knows the system better than Donald.
Legally, illegally, or both?

[Th'Pusher]

Legally, illegally, or both?

Both. But pretty much everything is legal of you do it 'right'

[hater]

Crook taking money under the table.while our ambassador was massacred.

Unbeavable

[Th'Pusher]

Crook taking money under the table.while our ambassador was massacred.

Unbeavable

She's better than Donald at it :lol

[Reck]

What a hack job.

The AP omited over 10 thousand meetings Hillary had with world leaders that also donated. Also no special access was granted. They basically published an article without proof of corruption.

“They've took a small sliver of her tenure as secretary of State, less than half the time, less than a fraction of the meetings she was in, Benenson said. “This is a woman who met with over 17,000 world leaders, countless other government officials, public officials in the United States. And they've looked at 185 meetings and tried to draw a conclusion from that.”

“What I know is that people donated to this Foundation because of the work the Foundation was doing around the world. No one is contesting that,” Benenson continued. “So is it wrong for a secretary of State to meet with people who are committed to causes of saving lives around the world? When the Department of State is doing that same work? I don't think so.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/08/24/clinton-campaign-clinton-foundation-reports/89255834/

[CosmicCowboy]

What a hack job.

The AP omited over 10 thousand meetings Hillary had with world leaders that also donated. Also no special access was granted. They basically published an article without proof of corruption.

“They've took a small sliver of her tenure as secretary of State, less than half the time, less than a fraction of the meetings she was in, Benenson said. “This is a woman who met with over 17,000 world leaders, countless other government officials, public officials in the United States. And they've looked at 185 meetings and tried to draw a conclusion from that.”

“What I know is that people donated to this Foundation because of the work the Foundation was doing around the world. No one is contesting that,” Benenson continued. “So is it wrong for a secretary of State to meet with people who are committed to causes of saving lives around the world? When the Department of State is doing that same work? I don't think so.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/08/24/clinton-campaign-clinton-foundation-reports/89255834/

http://www.banklawyersblog.com/.a/6a00d8341c652b53ef01b7c76e0a4a970b-800wi

[Reck]

http://www.banklawyersblog.com/.a/6a00d8341c652b53ef01b7c76e0a4a970b-800wi

I'm just saying. I don't speak conspiracy.

Where is the evidence? Show it to me or stfu.

[CosmicCowboy]

Do you dispute that 85 of the 154 non-government visitors to HRC during her tenure as SOS were Clinton Foundation donors?

The numbers seem pretty specific.

[boutons_deux]

ALL OF DC is pay-to-play, totally corrupt, but the smoke (no fire) from Judicial Watch scumbags' fishing expedition has all of y'all misogynistic bubbas in a tizzy.

What is ACTUAL FIRE?

Trash raising the rent 400%+ on his office space for his campaign staff after donors starting paying that rent.

That rent goes to Trash's pocket, not to his campaign. pure grift artist.

Benghazi! :lol

emails! :lol

Christmas cards! :lol

whitewater! :lol

Benghazi! :lol

Trash! :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

What a hack job.

The AP omited over 10 thousand meetings Hillary had with world leaders that also donated. Also no special access was granted. They basically published an article without proof of corruption.

“They've took a small sliver of her tenure as secretary of State, less than half the time, less than a fraction of the meetings she was in, Benenson said. “This is a woman who met with over 17,000 world leaders, countless other government officials, public officials in the United States. And they've looked at 185 meetings and tried to draw a conclusion from that.”

“What I know is that people donated to this Foundation because of the work the Foundation was doing around the world. No one is contesting that,” Benenson continued. “So is it wrong for a secretary of State to meet with people who are committed to causes of saving lives around the world? When the Department of State is doing that same work? I don't think so.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/08/24/clinton-campaign-clinton-foundation-reports/89255834/

The AP can not omit what they never received. You do realize the AP had to sue and this is all they've been given so far to analyze. Also they didn't include meetings with foreign governments because those meetings would have presumably been part of her diplomatic duties.

[SnakeBoy]

I'm just saying. I don't speak conspiracy.

Where is the evidence? Show it to me or stfu.

It's in the op.

I guess the AP is now part of the VRWC :rolleyes

[Reck]

The AP can not omit what they never received. You do realize the AP had to sue and this is all they've been given so far to analyze. Also they didn't include meetings with foreign governments because those meetings would have presumably been part of her diplomatic duties.

Precisely why you dont complete an investigation without the full scope.

Even then they cherry picked who she met and whom she didn't meet with. Out of the 185 whatever people whom she met with, they picked 85 for what reason exactly? What about the other 100? I asumed they also met with her, no?

Or what about the unaccounted 1500+?

Bad optics, hell yes. But where is the wrongdoing? What access was given? As it partains to goverment stuff? No evidence so far.

IMO, this was a hit piece. For whatever reason the AP thought it would be cool to release a half done job.

Hillary and Bill are doing themselves a disservice by not calling for a press conference and setting it straight. If it was my foundation and I did humanitarian work, I'd make sure to make that clear.

[Reck]

It's in the op.

I guess the AP is now part of the VRWC :rolleyes

What evidence is there? Point it to me, faggot.

[SnakeBoy]

Hillary and Bill are doing themselves a disservice by not calling for a press conference and setting it straight.

:lol Every time they speak they get caught in another lie. There's a reason she avoids the press like the plague.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Precisely why you dont complete an investigation without the full scope.

Even then they cherry picked who she met and whom she didn't meet with. Out of the 185 whatever people whom she met with, they picked 85 for what reason exactly? What about the other 100? I asumed they also met with her, no?

Or what about the unaccounted 1500+?

Bad optics, hell yes. But where is the wrongdoing? What access was given? As it partains to goverment stuff? No evidence so far.

IMO, this was a hit piece. For whatever reason the AP thought it would be cool to release a half done job.

Hillary and Bill are doing themselves a disservice by not calling for a press conference and setting it straight. If it was my foundation and I did humanitarian work, I'd make sure to make that clear.
The AP has an ongoing investigation no reason to not release what they had to sue to get. Had Clinton released them freely the AP would have done a full investigation.

And :lol of the thought of Bill and Hillary clearing things up with a press conference. They aren't stupid enough to put more lies on top of lies on public record.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Reck what are your thoughts on the Clinton Foundation's work in Haiti after the earthquake?

[boutons_deux]

no PROOF, not fire, only "optics" and smoke.

People "shocked" the Wash DC is pay for play?

btw, look up what the Clinton Foundation and how other charities rate its work and results.

[TheSanityAnnex]

no PROOF, not fire, only "optics" and smoke.

People "shocked" the Wash DC is pay for play?

btw, look up what the Clinton Foundation and how other charities rate its work and results.Clinton's donors rate her very well for the contracts she hands out to them. btw, look up how much her foundation did for Haiti aka her donor's companies. They didn't even rebuild what was damaged in the earthquake and started construction in the least affected parts of Haiti.


"Hillary Clinton once hoped that Haiti would be the shining jewel of her foreign policy. But far from transforming this poorest of countries, many of the Clintons’ grandest plans and promises remain little more than small pilot projects—a new set of basketball hoops and a model elementary school here, a functioning factory there—that have done little to alter radically the trajectory of the country. Visiting some of their projects over the course of an April research trip affirmed as much about their tenuousness as about the limited benefits they’ve provided. Many of the most notable investments the Clintons helped launch, such as the new Marriott in the capital, have primarily benefited wealthy foreigners and island’s ruling elite (shocker :lol) , who needed little help to begin with."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-haiti-117368#ixzz4II5fa1qu
Follow us: @politico on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=politico) | Politico on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=Politico)

[CosmicCowboy]

Clinton's donors rate her very well for the contracts she hands out to them. btw, look up how much her foundation did for Haiti aka her donor's companies. They didn't even rebuild what was damaged in the earthquake and started construction in the least affected parts of Haiti.


"Hillary Clinton once hoped that Haiti would be the shining jewel of her foreign policy. But far from transforming this poorest of countries, many of the Clintons’ grandest plans and promises remain little more than small pilot projects—a new set of basketball hoops and a model elementary school here, a functioning factory there—that have done little to alter radically the trajectory of the country. Visiting some of their projects over the course of an April research trip affirmed as much about their tenuousness as about the limited benefits they’ve provided. Many of the most notable investments the Clintons helped launch, such as the new Marriott in the capital, have primarily benefited wealthy foreigners and island’s ruling elite (shocker :lol) , who needed little help to begin with."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-haiti-117368#ixzz4II5fa1qu
Follow us: @politico on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=politico) | Politico on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bKDyiUp9mr3OhNab7jrHcU&u=Politico)

That is actually sugar coating the shit that went on with the Clintons and Haiti.

[TheSanityAnnex]

That is actually sugar coating the shit that went on with the Clintons and Haiti.

Yeah there is much worse...but I thought I'd just ease the tip in with a Politico article.

[boutons_deux]

That is actually sugar coating the shit that went on with the Clintons and Haiti.

... but much better than the Red Cross in Haiti post-earthquake. And of course, BigAg/BigChem was in there trying to enslave Haiti to GMO seeds and chemicals.

[Reck]

Reck what are your thoughts on the Clinton Foundation's work in Haiti after the earthquake?

Educate me. I know little about their foundation.

[CosmicCowboy]

Educate me. I know little about their foundation.

You really should use google on that one. There are too many to list. It was typical Clinton Foundation "issue" fund raising and then distributing the spoils among cronies.

[boutons_deux]

You really should use google on that one. There are too many to list. It was typical Clinton Foundation "issue" fund raising and then distributing the spoils among cronies.

so no CF money went anywhere but to cronies? shit, I didn't know.

So I bet the reputation of Clinton Foundation in the non-profit/charitable-causes industry must be real shit. Maybe you could look it up.

[CosmicCowboy]

so no CF money went anywhere but to cronies? shit, I didn't know.

So I bet the reputation of Clinton Foundation in the non-profit/charitable-causes industry must be real shit. Maybe you could look it up.

Suit yourself. Ignorance is obviously bliss.

[Warlord23]

She's an abnormally corrupt outcome of a corrupt system that allows politicians to be bought by the wealthy for a cheap price compared to what they get in return. You want to avoid another Clinton - get behind campaign finance reform.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Educate me. I know little about their foundation.

Educate yourself before you blindly cast your vote.

[Reck]

Educate yourself before you blindly cast your vote.

So you asked me for my input into something I have no idea of and you reply with this nonsense? :lol

I will never vote for a person like Trump. Period.

[boutons_deux]

campaign finance reform.

ain't gonna happen.

Big$$$ owns Congress, and Big$$$ will pay Congress to block all bills to get money out of politics, like defeating the Repug SCOTUS' C-U corruption.

[TheSanityAnnex]

So you asked me for my input into something I have no idea of and you reply with this nonsense? :lol

I will never vote for a person like Trump. Period.
Telling you to educate yourself on the matter is nonsense? If I told you about you'd just say I'm biased against, do some research on your own.

I'm not voting for Trump either, I'm in CA my vote doesn't mean shit for President so I can vote for neither and have a clear conscience. You on the other hand lol.

[Reck]

Telling you to educate yourself on the matter is nonsense? If I told you about you'd just say I'm biased against, do some research on your own.

I'm not voting for Trump either, I'm in CA my vote doesn't mean shit for President so I can vote for neither and have a clear conscience. You on the other hand lol.

No, I would read it and then give you my opinion.

I'm not obsessed with everything Clinton so I'm not really in the know about every little thing they do.

If you want my opinion on whether she's done some shady shit with her foundation I would tell you that I dont care.

If you're cheating and haven't been caught yet, then congrats for being scummy enough to know what you're doing.

Also, I live in New York so my vote here wouldn't change the outcome of who wins here either.

That is why I didn't bother to vote in the primaries here. I knew the outcome months in advance.

[velik_m]

What a hack job.

The AP omited over 10 thousand meetings Hillary had with world leaders that also donated. Also no special access was granted. They basically published an article without proof of corruption.

“They've took a small sliver of her tenure as secretary of State, less than half the time, less than a fraction of the meetings she was in, Benenson said. “This is a woman who met with over 17,000 world leaders, countless other government officials, public officials in the United States. And they've looked at 185 meetings and tried to draw a conclusion from that.”

“What I know is that people donated to this Foundation because of the work the Foundation was doing around the world. No one is contesting that,” Benenson continued. “So is it wrong for a secretary of State to meet with people who are committed to causes of saving lives around the world? When the Department of State is doing that same work? I don't think so.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/08/24/clinton-campaign-clinton-foundation-reports/89255834/

17,000 world leaders? That's a lot of leaders, considering there are just 200 countries.

[Reck]

17,000 world leaders? That's a lot of leaders, considering there are just 200 countries.

Maybe the dude meant top elected officials.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Educate me. I know little about their foundation.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Winehole23 (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8712848#post8712848)
http://www.ninaillingworth.com/2016/...h-documentary/ (http://www.ninaillingworth.com/2016/08/14/c-r-e-a-m-part-one-a-study-review-of-clinton-cash-documentary/)
http://www.ninaillingworth.com/2016/...h-documentary/ (http://www.ninaillingworth.com/2016/08/25/c-r-e-a-m-part-two-a-study-review-of-clinton-cash-documentary/)

[Reck]

Condense it bro. I ain't reading a book.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Condense it bro. I ain't reading a book.

The Foundation, the IHRC & the Tragedy of HaitiShifting away from Africa, the documentary then turns its investigative eye towards the tragic 2010 earthquake (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Haiti_earthquake) that utterly destroyed portions of the island of Haiti; a nation already among the poorest in the world prior to the catastrophe.
Schweizer begins by (rightfully) noting that the Haitian earthquake represented “the most devastating humanitarian crisis that Hillary Clinton faced during her tenure at the State Department” before spending a somewhat curious two whole minutes pointing out that Clinton’s first visit to Haiti after the tragedy required blocking off the Port-au-Prince airport and thus temporarily disrupted aid distribution (http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Caricom-Haiti-blocked) in affected areas. While this claim (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/7020908/US-accused-of-occupying-Haiti-as-troops-flood-in.html) is probably true (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Anger_at_US_builds_at_Port-au-Prince_airport_999.html) and is in fact supported by a clip from an interview Clinton herself gave at the time, it really pales in comparison to the massive boondoggle (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/hillary-clinton-haiti.html) the rest of the Clinton’s involvement in rebuilding Haiti (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c2oBh1yDhc) represents.
As the film details, through both Hillary’s role as US Secretary of State and Bill’s position as co-chair of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/fs/2011/154141.htm), the Clintons exerted a tremendous amount of control (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-haiti-117368) over how relief money would be spent on the island (https://twitter.com/NinaDontPlayMtG/status/768200325035618305) – in particular, American taxpayer funded relief money, which amounted to billions of dollars (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/united-states-governments-haiti-earthquake-response).
This relationship immediately caused friction (https://twitter.com/NinaDontPlayMtG/status/768221820638076929) with the locals (https://twitter.com/NinaDontPlayMtG/status/768208074393939968) attempting to rebuild Haiti because the Clinton’s largely perused their own pro-US, pro-Clinton Foundation donor agenda (https://twitter.com/NinaDontPlayMtG/status/768203585305870336) at the expense of the poorest people in the devastated nation. As Schweizer notes, this produced a series of decisions that were not only monumentally bad for the people of Haiti as a whole, but also conveniently aided major Clinton donors and US corporations at virtually every turn – decisions like:


[*=left]Building the $300 million Caracol industrial park in northeast Haiti (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/world/americas/earthquake-relief-where-haiti-wasnt-broken.html) (far from the disaster zone) that primarily benefited American corporations like the Gap, Target and Walmart. The factory complex was built with the promise of 60,000 jobs and required evicting 366 Hatian farmers from their lands but ultimately only delivered just over 5,000, low-paying jobs and immense profits (https://twitter.com/NinaDontPlayMtG/status/768226337786040320) for US corporations.



[*=left]Although the documentary doesn’t mention it, this is not the only time Clinton has intervened on behalf of US garment corporations against the wishes and greater well-being of the Haitian people; documents released by Wikileaks and a 2011 story in The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/wikileaks-haiti-let-them-live-3-day/) revealed that under Clinton the US State department intervened on behalf of companies like Fruit of the Loom, Hanes and Levi’s to block an overwhelmingly popular measure (https://twitter.com/NinaDontPlayMtG/status/768234690029518848) that would raise the minimum wage in Haiti to 62 cents an hour or $5 a day.



[*=left]Awarding contracts to rebuild more than 100,000 homes destroyed by the earthquake to laughably inexperienced and inefficient contractors (https://twitter.com/NinaDontPlayMtG/status/768247756347543552) based on their donations to the Clinton foundation; while ignoring more experienced contractors (https://twitter.com/NinaDontPlayMtG/status/768246549705031682) who’d donated less – resulting in only 9,000 (roughly) such homes being built instead of the promised (and needed) 100,000 originally planned for.



[*=left]Awarding a $1.5M State Department contract to assess possible habitable sites for thousands of Haitian refugees near the Corail displacement camp to a NY-based consulting firm (with ties to Clinton charities (https://twitter.com/NinaDontPlayMtG/status/768257643832107008)) named Dalberg Global Development Advisors. To say that Dalberg lacked expertise in the field would be something of a massive understatement and the company’s poor performance prompted one expert to suggest they may not have even left their cars (https://twitter.com/NinaDontPlayMtG/status/768259403598426112); only one of the six sites DGDA recommended turned out to be a viable relocation site – they even recommended moving refugees to the side of a small mountain with an open mining pit on one side; in an area with numerous hundred foot vertical drops and ravines!


At this point the documentary shifts to examine how billionaire Clinton foundation mega-donor Denis O’Brien (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/denis-o-brien-and-digicel-biggest-irish-donors-to-clinton-foundation-1.2764987) almost certainly profited from his existing and ongoing relationship with the Clintons (https://www.clintonfoundation.org/file/114) to reap massive profits from the Haitian rebuild; through his telecommunications company, Digicel.
In the film, Schweizer focuses on a massive, digital money transfer systems grant (https://blog.usaid.gov/2011/01/embracing-innovation-in-haiti-usaids-haiti-mobile-money-initiative/) in Haiti awarded by the US State department to Digicel a mere two months after the company sponsored a $225,000 speech by Bill Clinton (https://twitter.com/NinaDontPlayMtG/status/768282397314023424) in Jamaica. Not discussed in Clinton Cash however is O’Brien/Digicel’s involvement (https://twitter.com/NinaDontPlayMtG/status/768292284894941184) in building an obscene (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/haiti/article11107349.html), largely unnecessary Marriott luxury hotel in Haiti (https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work/clinton-foundation-haiti/programs/marriott-hotel-project) that has produced little if any benefit for the people of the island (https://twitter.com/NinaDontPlayMtG/status/768290580413681664) as a whole – although there is some dispute about exactly which paid or unpaid Bill Clinton speeches sponsored by Digicel (https://twitter.com/NinaDontPlayMtG/status/768293358792040448) might have been involved in securing US aid money this deal.
Even as presented however, the Digicel case in Clinton Cash strongly implies that O’Brien’s financial contributions to the Clintons and their Foundation may have influenced the US government in awarding Digicel taxpayer-funded grants; but for once Schweizer has the sense to let the data speak for itself and leave the implication hanging – rather than directly claiming the evidence proves quid pro quo (as opposed to strongly suggesting it.)
Finally, Clinton Cash closes it’s heartbreaking examination of the failed relief efforts in Haiti with one last, blatant example of the stunning power the Clintons had over the country (http://www.haitian-truth.org/the-clinton-foundation-and-haiti-contracts/) – the awarding of one of the country’s first two gold mine concessions (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2983112/Hillary-Clinton-s-brother-landed-lucrative-gold-mining-permit-Haiti-Bill-Clinton-helped-country-recover-earthquake-devastation.html) in fifty years to VCS Mining; a company with little experience mining gold who would shortly thereafter appoint Tony Rodham (Hillary’s brother) to it’s advisory board (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/role-of-hillary-clintons-brother-in-haiti-gold-mine-raises-eyebrows/2015/03/20/c8b6e3bc-cc05-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html).

[TheSanityAnnex]

Condense it bro. I ain't reading a book.
Don't be lazy. Read it tomorrow. You should be sleeping anyways.

[TheSanityAnnex]

[*=left]Wow.
[*=left]
[*=left]
[*=left]
[*=left]
[*=left]
[*=left]Although the documentary doesn’t mention it, this is not the only time Clinton has intervened on behalf of US garment corporations against the wishes and greater well-being of the Haitian people; documents released by Wikileaks and a 2011 story in The Nation (https://www.thenation.com/article/wikileaks-haiti-let-them-live-3-day/) revealed that under Clinton the US State department intervened on behalf of companies like Fruit of the Loom, Hanes and Levi’s to block an overwhelmingly popular measure (https://twitter.com/NinaDontPlayMtG/status/768234690029518848) that would raise the minimum wage in Haiti to 62 cents an hour or $5 a day.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Looks like Hillary has her own ties to the Kremlin...doubt the MSM will be reporting this as heavily as they did with Trump.

Hillary’s Secret Kremlin Connection Is Quickly Unraveling

Recent headlines have brought attention to the seedier side of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state during President Obama’s first term. This scheme, which gives every appearance of being about pay-for-play, solicited donations from foreign big-shots in exchange for access to the boss of American foreign policy.



I’ll leave to others to assess the legality of this shady business—for now it’s the national security implications we need to discuss. It’s a big deal when the person who’s possibly our next president—and if polls are accurate, she probably will be—has sold access to foreign bidders before taking the oath of office. It’s especially worrisome when some of those foreigners are in Moscow.
I’ve previously explained how Donald Trump possesses unsavory Russian ties. He parrots Kremlin propaganda (http://observer.com/2016/08/the-desire-to-please-dictators-why-trumps-crimea-gaffe-matters/), his inner circle includes people on Moscow’s payroll (http://observer.com/2016/08/the-desire-to-please-dictators-why-trumps-crimea-gaffe-matters/), and top American intelligence officials have called him an “unwitting agent” (http://observer.com/2016/08/yes-american-spies-really-think-trump-is-putins-guy/) of Vladimir Putin. This is a serious matter deserving close scrutiny.





Just as serious is how the Kremlin has forged links with nearly all the presidential candidates this year, not just Trump—so much so that, no matter who wins on November 8, Putin will (http://observer.com/2016/08/vladimir-putin-has-already-won-our-election/), too. Hillary Clinton also possesses Moscow links that merit investigation. I’ve previously explained (http://observer.com/2016/04/panama-papers-reveal-clintons-kremlin-connection/) how Kremlin money found its way to the Podesta Group, the prominent Democratic lobbying firm that just happens to be headed by the brother of her campaign chairman, John Podesta (who co-founded the firm).

However, recent revelations indicate that Hillary’s dubious Kremlin ties go far deeper. A new report (https://t.co/wmqbZCKiqN) by Peter Schweizer, who’s spent years investigating the dubious and convoluted finances of Clinton, Inc., raises troubling questions about just how deep Hillary’s Moscow’s ties are—and whom exactly they’re with.



Schweizer shows that John Podesta sat on the board of a Dutch-registered company that took $35 million from the Kremlin. The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated—and for what—is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law.


Even worse is how Clinton, Inc. profited from the Russian “reset” that was one of the big achievements of Hillary’s tenure at Foggy Bottom. Never mind that the reset was a disaster, culminating in Kremlin aggression against Ukraine. Hillary’s signature program at the State Department ended in unambiguous failure. Yet Clinton, Inc. did very well out of the temporary warming of relations with Moscow.



As part of the reset, Hillary encouraged and enabled American and European investment in Russia, particularly in high-tech firms. A key role was played by the Skolkovo Innovation Center, a sprawling complex in Moscow’s western suburbs that was established in 2009 as Russia’s answer to Silicon Valley. With encouragement from the State Department, American companies jumped aboard. Cisco pledged $1 billion of investment in Skolkovo in 2010, and Google and Intel quickly joined the bandwagon. All three “just happened” to be major investors in the Clinton Foundation too.



This was the consistent pattern. As Schweizer explained (http://nypost.com/2016/07/31/report-raises-questions-about-clinton-cash-from-russians-during-reset/), “Of the 28 U.S., European and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo, 17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors” or had hired former President Clinton to give speeches. How much money these Skolkovo benefactors gave to Clinton, Inc. cannot yet be determined, but Schweizer concluded that it’s somewhere between $6.5 million and $23.5 million, with the proviso that since the Clinton Foundation has yet to reveal all its donors, the true figure could be much higher.



Then there’s the matter of what Skolkovo actually is. In truth, it’s nothing like Silicon Valley except in outward appearance. It’s a fully state-driven enterprise—funded largely by the Kremlin and acting on its orders. It does the bidding of the Russian government, and President Putin has taken intense interest in his high-tech complex, understanding its value to the country’s defense and security sector.


Therefore, it’s no surprise that Western intelligence considers Skolkovo to be an extension of Russia’s military-industrial complex—and its intelligence services. A July 2013 unclassified study (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjts-jb-dzOAhVHWh4KHXFdD58QFggqMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffmso.leavenworth.army.mil%2FColla boration%2FCOCOM%2FEUCOM%2FSkolkovo.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGam9xay0144uykFWMqB8ux0165Vg&sig2=0ce0NXxCWEdWYZEhACuesQ) by U.S. European Command that surveyed Skolkovo activities suggested, in delicate language, that Russia’s Silicon Valley is “an overt alternative to clandestine industrial espionage.” Stealing the West’s hi-tech secrets has long been a Kremlin forte, and Skolkovo is merely the newest effort to purloin our advanced technology.


The FBI was less guarded. In April 2014, in a rare public statement (http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/startups/2014/04/fbis-boston-office-warns-businesses-of-venture.html?page=all), the Bureau’s Boston field office warned American firms about dealings with Russian entities, naming the Skolkovo Foundation as a particular source of concern. Terming it “a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research, development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial applications,” the FBI added that Skolkovo had commercial contracts with Kamaz, a Russian defense firm that builds armored vehicles. “The FBI fears that Kamaz will provide Russia’s military with innovative research obtained from the Foundation’s U.S. partners,” warned the Bureau.



Then there’s the matter of Skolkovo’s links to Russian intelligence, particularly the powerful Federal Security Service or FSB. Schweizer dryly notes, “Skolkovo happens to be the site of the FSB’s security centers 16 and 18, which are in charge of information warfare for the Russian government.” This is the polite way of saying that some of Russia’s state-linked hackers are at Skolokovo. It’s more than a little ironic that the hackers who have pillaged the Democratic National Committee and stolen Hillary’s emails (http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-dismantling-of-dnc-is-clear-attack-by-putin-on-clinton/) may be sitting in the very hi-tech compound that Clinton, Inc. helped Russia develop.


These assessments by the Pentagon, the FBI and Schweizer are unclassified. In private, Western security experts are less guarded. “It’s an obvious Kremlin front,” explained a Pentagon intelligence official about Skolkovo. “In the old days, the KGB had to recruit spies to steal Western technology, now they do deals with you. The theft is the same.”


One European intelligence official added that his country’s security service concluded, after close observation, that several top Skolkovo officials are actually FSB officers: “We’ve seen guys from Skolkovo acting like intelligence collectors, not tech entrepreneurs,” he elaborated.


In the heady days of the reset, back in Obama’s first term when America’s foreign policy establishment hoped to get on Vladimir Putin’s good side, perhaps helping Moscow develop its own Silicon Valley seemed like a good idea. However, Hillary Clinton should have been more careful about partnering with the Kremlin in a sector that’s so important to our national security.


Above all, Clinton, Inc’s shady pay-for-play scheme should have never made a buck off technology transfers to Russia’s military and intelligence services. Exactly how Hillary profited off deals with Skolkovo—and how much—is something the American public has a right to know before November 8.

http://observer.com/2016/08/hillarys-secret-kremlin-connection-is-quickly-unraveling/

[Winehole23]

“[Clinton] seems not to recognize that while a good lawyer focuses on what the law allows, a good politician focuses on what the people want. Her dismal trustworthiness ratings strongly suggest the people want to see stricter ethical standards from her. She ignores that at her own peril.”

[Winehole23]

On numerous occasions we have recognized Congress’ legitimate interest in preventing the money that is spent on elections from exerting an “ ‘undue influence on an officeholder’s judgment’ ” and from creating “ ‘the appearance of such influence,’ ” beyond the sphere of quid pro quo relationships. Id., at 150; see also, e.g., id., at 143–144, 152–154; Colorado II , 533 U. S., at 441; Shrink Missouri , 528 U. S., at 389. Corruption can take many forms. Bribery may be the paradigm case. But the difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind. And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf. Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority’s apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences does not accord with the theory or reality of politics.

[Winehole23]

There's an old Mexican saying: In the absence of an obvious quid pro quo, all payola is charity.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You really should use google on that one. There are too many to list. It was typical Clinton Foundation "issue" fund raising and then distributing the spoils among cronies.

You are once again asking someone else to articulate and prove your argument for you.

[CosmicCowboy]

You are once again asking someone else to articulate and prove your argument for you.

Part of being an educated person is taking the effort to educate yourself. I'm not going to waste time writing a 20 page treatise on Clinton graft in Haiti if the person I'm writing it to won't even take three seconds to google 'Clintons-Haiti". It's all out there.

[Winehole23]

Jesus, CC, how hard is posting a link?

[Winehole23]

Lazy!

[TheSanityAnnex]

Jesus, CC, how hard is posting a link?
There was no need for CC to post a link. I posted links and Reck said he was too lazy to read them.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Yet another lie from Hillary. Obviously was not just "personal" emails she deleted. What was she hiding?



"In a court filing this week, the State Department admitted it had found Benghazi-related documents among the 14,900 Clinton emails and attachments uncovered by the FBI that Mrs. Clinton deleted and withheld from the State Department."

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/court-orders-new-clinton-email-production-september-13/

At what point does our current President speak up?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Hillary State Dept. Helped Jailed Clinton Foundation Donor Get $10 Mil from U.S. for Failed Haiti Project (http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/08/hillary-state-dept-helped-jailed-clinton-foundation-donor-get-10-mil-u-s-failed-haiti-project/)AUGUST 23, 2016
The new batch of emails (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/new-abedin-emails-reveal-hillary-clinton-state-department-gave-special-access-top-clinton-foundation-donors/) showing that the State Department gave special access to top Clinton Foundation donors while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state brings to mind the case of a shady Miami businessman serving a 12-year prison sentence after scamming the government out of millions. His name is Claudio Osorio, a Clinton Foundation donor who got $10 million from the government after the Clinton State Department reportedly pulled some strings.
Osorio got the money from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), a federal agency that operates under the guidance of the State Department, to build houses in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake. The OPIC supposedly promotes U.S. government investments abroad to foster the development and growth of free markets. Osorio’s “Haiti project” was supposed to build 500 homes for displaced families in the aftermath of the earthquake. The project never broke ground and Osorio used the money to finance his lavish lifestyle and fund his illicit business ventures. He also ran a fraudulent international company with facilities in the U.S., United Arab Emirates, Germany, Angola and Tanzania that stole millions from investors. Some of the OPIC Haiti money was used to repay investors of his fraudulent company (Innovida), according to federal prosecutors. In September 2013, Osorio was sentenced to 150 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
Not surprisingly, the Department of Justice (DOJ) never mentioned Osorio’s Clinton connections and seemed to downplay the $10 million scam of taxpayer funds by focusing on the “victims” that invested in his bogus company. Among them was a beloved professional basketball star. “Osorio offered and sold shareholder interests and joint-venture partnerships in Innovida to select individuals and groups, raising more than $40,000,000 from approximately ten (10) investors and investment groups in the United States and abroad,” a DOJ statement (https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdfl/pr/former-fortune-500-top-executive-miami-beach-manufacturing-company-sentenced-multi) says. “Osorio solicited and recruited investors by making materially false representations and concealing and omitting material facts regarding, among other things, the profitability of the company, the rates of return on investment funds, the use of investors’ funds and the existence of a pending lucrative contract with a third-party entity. Osorio received moneys from investors based on these misrepresentations. Osorio used investor monies for his and his co-conspirators’ personal benefit and to maintain and further the fraud scheme.”
The bigger story is that, despite Osorio’s shady history, it appears that the Clinton State Department helped him get $10 million—which will never be repaid—because he was a Clinton Foundation donor. This connection was not made until years after Osorio got sentenced. After his 2013 sentencing in Miami, the area’s largest newspaper (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article1955164.html)tied him to the Clintons and President Obama as a campaign donor who held fundraisers at his waterfront home, but the foundation was not mentioned. A Washington D.C. newspaper eventually connected the dots (http://freebeacon.com/issues/govt-memo-said-clinton-would-steer-state-department-resources-to-donors-haiti-project/)after obtaining a document (http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/InnoVida-credit-paper.pdf) that shows an OPIC official recommending funding for Osorio’s Haiti project. In the document, the OPIC official writes that Osorio’s company had “U.S. persons of political influence that are able to assist in advancing the company’s plans.” It continues: “For instance, former President Bill Clinton is personally in contact with the Company to organize its logistical and support needs,” the document states. “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made available State Department resources to assist with logistical arrangements.” Additionally, the Clinton Global Initiative had “indicated that it would be willing to contract to purchase 6,500 homes in Haiti from InnoVida within the next year.”
Less than 24 hours after the OPIC official submitted the recommendation, the news report says, OPIC approved Osorio’s $10 million loan to build homes in earthquake-ravaged Haiti. Not one was ever built and no one has been held accountable for giving the crooked businessman millions of taxpayer dollars

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/08/hillary-state-dept-helped-jailed-clinton-foundation-donor-get-10-mil-u-s-failed-haiti-project/

[Winehole23]

There was no need for CC to post a link. I posted links and Reck said he was too lazy to read them.CC won't cite his own sources? That's the definition of arrogant and lazy.

Nice of you to white knight him, though.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Enjoy your banana republic

Hillary Clinton's calendars won't be released until after election, State Dept. saysSeven months after a federal judge ordered the State Department to begin releasing monthly batches of the detailed daily schedules showing meetings by Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, the government told The Associated Press it won't finish the job before Election Day.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/27/hillary-clintons-calendars-wont-be-released-until-after-election-state-dept-says.html

[TheSanityAnnex]

CC won't cite his own sources? That's the definition of arrogant and lazy.

Nice of you to white knight him, though.
Would you bother posting links if the poster openly said they would not read them?

[Winehole23]

YOu mean Reck?

CC was talking to Fuzzy, who asked him for his sources.

[Winehole23]

CC, as usual, assumed himself correct and refused to back up his own claims.

it's understandable: CC's serial exaggerations tend to disintegrate when he reveals what they're based on.

[TheSanityAnnex]

YOu mean Reck?

CC was talking to Fuzzy, who asked him for his sources.
No. Read it again. This is about Reck, Fuzzy just jumped in. Reck already stated he didn't want to read the provided links.

[Winehole23]

you're stuck on Reck for some reason. CC and Fuzzy did have an exchange.

[Winehole23]

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/26/clinton-foundation-spin/

[Winehole23]

In one telling argument in defense of the Clinton Foundation, Media Matters, another group run by David Brock, argued (https://mediamatters.org/research/2016/08/24/media-hype-optics-ap-report-clinton-foundation-while-admitting-there-no-evidence-ethics-breaches/212634) this week that there was “no evidence of ethics breaches” because there was no explicit quid pro quo cited by the AP. The Media Matters piece mocked press figures for focusing on the “optics” of corruption surrounding the foundation.

Such a standard is quite a reversal for the group. In a piece published by Media Matters only two years ago (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/03/wsj-celebrates-conservative-justices-rejection/198740), the organization criticized conservatives for focusing only on quid pro quo corruption — the legal standard used to decide the Citizens United and McCutcheon Supreme Court decisions — calling such a narrow focus a “new perspective of campaign finance” that dismisses “concerns about institutional corruption in politics.” The piece notes that ethics laws concerning the role of money in politics follow a standard, set forth since the Watergate scandal, in which even the appearance, or in other words, the “optics” of corruption, is cause for concern.

[TheSanityAnnex]

you're stuck on Reck for some reason. CC and Fuzzy did have an exchange.
CC and Fuzzy's exchange was about CC telling Reck to google it. Anyways...

[TheSanityAnnex]

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/26/clinton-foundation-spin/

:lol boutons





Vox writer Matthew Yglesias argued (http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12618446/ap-clinton-foundation-meeting) that “however many times they take a run” at the Clinton Foundation, journalists “don’t come up with anything more scandalous than the revelation that maybe billionaire philanthropists have an easier time getting the State Department to look into their visa problems than an ordinary person would.” The Vox piece was circulated widely (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/associated-press-clinton-foundation_us_57bdf2a8e4b04193420cf6c6) by the Clinton campaign.
ThinkProgress editor Adam Peck wrote (https://thinkprogress.org/clinton-campaign-says-ap-refused-to-delete-factually-inaccurate-tweet-about-clinton-foundation-ca7789518e3d#.m22ics7ko) that “aside from an occasional assist with acquiring a visa, or meeting with executives from a cosmetics company to talk about ways to curb gender-based violence in South Africa,” there were no “shady dealings” conducted by the Clinton Foundation. He added, “If Hillary Clinton was abusing the power of her office by running an international multi-million dollar pay-for-play scheme, she did a lousy job of it.”
DailyKos writer (https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/8/24/1563375/-What-the-Clinton-Foundations-does-and-why-Hillary-Clinton-should-point-to-it-with-pride) Mark Sumner, in a piece shared (http://bluenationreview.com/ap-under-fire-for-shoddy-clinton-foundation-story/) by Blue Nation Review, a website owned by Clinton campaign operative David Brock, claimed that “extensive reviews haven’t found any evidence — any evidence — that [the Clinton Foundation] affected a single action at the State Department.”

[Reck]

Would you bother posting links if the poster openly said they would not read them?

You posted two links that were too long to read. I said condense it. You didn't.

How hard is it to say The Clintons did this or that in Haiti and this is what I mean by that without having a crutch?

You asked for my opinion and didn't articulate what you were even talking about. You just asked me for an opinion of something I have no clue of.

[Winehole23]

TSA doesn't like giving takes in his own words because he's too lazy to master the material. Same goes for CC.

Motivated reasoning par excellence.

[Winehole23]

ask them for their own takes, they get all huffy and handwavy.

sock puppets can't speak for themselves.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You posted two links that were too long to read. I said condense it. You didn't.

How hard is it to say The Clintons did this or that in Haiti and this is what I mean by that without having a crutch?

You asked for my opinion and didn't articulate what you were even talking about. You just asked me for an opinion of something I have no clue of.
I literally condensed it immediately following your request :lol stop making shit up

[TheSanityAnnex]

TSA doesn't like giving takes in his own words because he's too lazy to master the material. Same goes for CC.

Motivated reasoning par excellence.
Here's how this site plays out

TSA: the Clinton Foundation is corrupt and helped facilitate pay for play while Clinton was SOS

Libs: Lies! Conspiracy! Show me proof! Show me links!

TSA: here are the links


Its the same bullshit day in day out. Might as well just open up with the links to start.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I literally condensed it immediately following your request :lol stop making shit up
Reck Post #40: condense it bro
TSA Post #41: condensed
Reck Post #66: you never condensed it bro

:lol

[Reck]

Reck Post #40: condense it bro
TSA Post #41: condensed
Reck Post #66: you never condensed it bro

:lol

You did that much later. It took you half the day to do it.

And while it is much shorter, its still a copy and paste. lol

[Winehole23]

not everyone who disagrees with you is a lib, TSA.

to be fair, it usually doesn't occur to so-called conservatives and libertarians that they're susceptible to criticism from any other direction -- or that their philosophical underpinnings are classically liberal.

[pgardn]

The below describes exactly how Hillary thinks. What can I get away with instead of what is the right thing to do while governing in a democratic society.

And the Republicans send us Trump.
Jesus...





“[Clinton] seems not to recognize that while a good lawyer focuses on what the law allows, a good politician focuses on what the people want. Her dismal trustworthiness ratings strongly suggest the people want to see stricter ethical standards from her. She ignores that at her own peril.”

[ducks]

can making sure on home page ap report is wrong by media

CNN CLINTON NETWORK!

[boutons_deux]

The Associated Press Gets Busted Tweeting Fake Trump vs. Clinton Electoral Map


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cq4PguFWIAAQKUO.png

http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-associated-press-gets-busted-tweeting-fake-trump-vs-clinton-electoral-map/

[boutons_deux]

CNN: “Near Unanimous Agreement” Among Journalists That AP Botched Its Report On Clinton Meetings

CNN’s senior media reporter Dylan Byers reported that media outlets criticized an “arguably misleading” story by the Associated Press, where an “inaccurate tweet” promoting the story falsely claimed that “more than half” of the people who met Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state had also donated to the Clinton Foundation.

According to the AP’s original review (http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/08/24/media-hype-optics-ap-report-clinton-foundation-while-admitting-there-no-evidence-ethics-breaches/212634) (the story has since been changed) of State Department calendars released to the organization so far, covering roughly half of Clinton’s tenure at State, “[a]t least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs.” The APpromoted (https://twitter.com/AP/status/768166957728358400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) this story on Twitter by proclaiming “[m]ore than half those who met Clinton as Cabinet secretary gave money to Clinton Foundation.”

Byers explained that other journalists “noted that Clinton had held thousands of meetings with government employees, foreign representatives, civil leaders, journalists and others while Secretary of State that were not accounted for in the AP's report,” but the AP “is still standing by its story and has yet to correct its tweet, despite near unanimous agreement among other journalists that the tweet, at least, was false.” The AP’s story was alsocriticized (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/23/muhammad-yunus-decades-long-clinton-friend-and-nobel-prize-winner-donations-arent-why-she-met-him/212611) for characterizing Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, who has been a friend of the Clintons for decades, as little more than a donor asking for help. From Byers’ August 26 report (http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/26/media/associated-press-hillary-clinton-investigation/index.html):

Hillary Clinton is surrounded by suggestions of controversy. Terms like "Clinton Foundation," "email server," and "Benghazi" hover around her like a faint smoke that hints at the existence of fire.

But finding the fire -- the lie, the misdeed, the unethical act -- is proving to be rather difficult, as evidenced this week by an inaccurate tweet and arguably misleading story from the Associated Press that were quickly rebutted by the Clinton campaign and dismissed by many media outlets.

Three days later, the Associated Press is still standing by its story and has yet to correct its tweet, despite near unanimous agreement among other journalists that the tweet, at least, was false.

"The AP's social-media take on the story was seriously flawed," David Boardman, the Dean of the School of Media and Communication at Temple University and former editor of the Seattle Times, told CNNMoney. "It's sloppy, click-grabbing shorthand that is a disservice to the reporting to which it refers."
[...]
This "extraordinary" finding, as the AP put it, was deemed less extraordinary by other journalists and pundits who noted that Clinton had held thousands of meetings with government employees, foreign representatives, civil leaders, journalists and others while Secretary of State that were not accounted for in the AP's report.
[...]
Meanwhile, other news organizations pilloried the AP's report.

The Washington Post Fact-Checker wrote that there were "many more nuanced and important details in the story that are being misrepresented — by the AP's own promotional tweet, and by Trump."
Vox's Matthew Yglesias was more direct: "The AP's big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess," his headline read.


http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/28/cnn-near-unanimous-agreement-among-journalists-ap-botched-its-report-clinton-meetings/212705?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MediaMattersForAmerica-CountyFair+%28Media+Matters+for+America+-+Blog%29

and you rightwingnut dumbfucks fall for this shit EVERY TIME. :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

CNN: “Near Unanimous Agreement” Among Journalists That AP Botched Its Report On Clinton Meetings

CNN’s senior media reporter Dylan Byers reported that media outlets criticized an “arguably misleading” story by the Associated Press, where an “inaccurate tweet” promoting the story falsely claimed that “more than half” of the people who met Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state had also donated to the Clinton Foundation.

According to the AP’s original review (http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/08/24/media-hype-optics-ap-report-clinton-foundation-while-admitting-there-no-evidence-ethics-breaches/212634) (the story has since been changed) of State Department calendars released to the organization so far, covering roughly half of Clinton’s tenure at State, “[a]t least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs.” The APpromoted (https://twitter.com/AP/status/768166957728358400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) this story on Twitter by proclaiming “[m]ore than half those who met Clinton as Cabinet secretary gave money to Clinton Foundation.”

Byers explained that other journalists “noted that Clinton had held thousands of meetings with government employees, foreign representatives, civil leaders, journalists and others while Secretary of State that were not accounted for in the AP's report,” but the AP “is still standing by its story and has yet to correct its tweet, despite near unanimous agreement among other journalists that the tweet, at least, was false.” The AP’s story was alsocriticized (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/23/muhammad-yunus-decades-long-clinton-friend-and-nobel-prize-winner-donations-arent-why-she-met-him/212611) for characterizing Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, who has been a friend of the Clintons for decades, as little more than a donor asking for help. From Byers’ August 26 report (http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/26/media/associated-press-hillary-clinton-investigation/index.html):

Hillary Clinton is surrounded by suggestions of controversy. Terms like "Clinton Foundation," "email server," and "Benghazi" hover around her like a faint smoke that hints at the existence of fire.

But finding the fire -- the lie, the misdeed, the unethical act -- is proving to be rather difficult, as evidenced this week by an inaccurate tweet and arguably misleading story from the Associated Press that were quickly rebutted by the Clinton campaign and dismissed by many media outlets.

Three days later, the Associated Press is still standing by its story and has yet to correct its tweet, despite near unanimous agreement among other journalists that the tweet, at least, was false.

"The AP's social-media take on the story was seriously flawed," David Boardman, the Dean of the School of Media and Communication at Temple University and former editor of the Seattle Times, told CNNMoney. "It's sloppy, click-grabbing shorthand that is a disservice to the reporting to which it refers."
[...]
This "extraordinary" finding, as the AP put it, was deemed less extraordinary by other journalists and pundits who noted that Clinton had held thousands of meetings with government employees, foreign representatives, civil leaders, journalists and others while Secretary of State that were not accounted for in the AP's report.
[...]
Meanwhile, other news organizations pilloried the AP's report.

The Washington Post Fact-Checker wrote that there were "many more nuanced and important details in the story that are being misrepresented — by the AP's own promotional tweet, and by Trump."
Vox's Matthew Yglesias was more direct: "The AP's big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess," his headline read.


http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/28/cnn-near-unanimous-agreement-among-journalists-ap-botched-its-report-clinton-meetings/212705?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MediaMattersForAmerica-CountyFair+%28Media+Matters+for+America+-+Blog%29

and you rightwingnut dumbfucks fall for this shit EVERY TIME. :lol



Glorious days when you have the MSM attacking the AP.

[Winehole23]

boutons fell for the Citizen's United defense: no quid pro quo, therefore, no corruption.

[Winehole23]

Glorious days when you have the MSM attacking the AP.you've got it upside down.

AP is the MSM. Media Matters is a partisan tabloid.

[TheSanityAnnex]

you've got it upside down.

AP is the MSM. Media Matters is a partisan tabloid.
I've never considered the AP that way. Was referring to CNN going after the AP.

[boutons_deux]

Media Matters is a partisan tabloid.

bull fucking shit. Partisan sure, anti-rightwing, but not tabloid, like Breitbart, redstate, etc.

[TheSanityAnnex]

bull fucking shit. Partisan sure, anti-rightwing, but not tabloid, like Breitbart, redstate, etc.
Lol

[TeyshaBlue]

bull fucking shit. Partisan sure, anti-rightwing, but not tabloid, like Breitbart, redstate, etc.

Arguably, worse.

[Winehole23]

I've never considered the AP that way. Was referring to CNN going after the AP.We're not mind readers -- you linked Media Matters.

Also, if the AP isn't MSM, nothing is. A lot of what you see on TV and in the newspapers is ripped straight from the AP wire

[Reck]

I called that AP report a hachet job from the beginning.

A senior writer even had to apologize on CNN for this piece of shit report. :lol

[Winehole23]

what did he apologize for?

[Reck]

what did he apologize for?

She didn't really apologize but admitted they fucked up on breaking the story by omitting key information and it being misleading.

It's an apology without fessing up about it.

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh.

An apology that wasn't an apology.

We get it.

talking point *check*

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Part of being an educated person is taking the effort to educate yourself. I'm not going to waste time writing a 20 page treatise on Clinton graft in Haiti if the person I'm writing it to won't even take three seconds to google 'Clintons-Haiti". It's all out there.

Sure and another part of being an educated person is learning the ability to articulate your own arguments. No one asked you to write 20 pages. Another part of being educated is being able to write ideas with brevity.

[Chucho]

bull fucking shit. Partisan sure, anti-rightwing, but not tabloid, like Breitbart, redstate, etc.
:lol

Lombasts Chucho for sourcing an ethical publication with objetive findings. Goes and posts something from a pro-left outlet.

LOLeft tatics down pat. Hypocrisy and back pedaling all day.

[boutons_deux]

AP Deletes Tweet About Clinton’s State Dept Meetings With Foundation Donors

The Associated Press on Thursday deleted a more than two-week-old tweet about Hillary Clinton's meetings with Clinton Foundation donors as secretary of state after from her presidential campaign said it was false.

In a blog post (https://blog.ap.org/announcements/statement-on-why-ap-deletes-clinton-tweet?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP), the AP explained explained that the tweet was misleading and "not backed up" by its own reporting.

:lol Eat shit, rightwingnut MOFOs :lol

The tweet, which had read "BREAKING: AP analysis: More than half those who met Clinton as Cabinet secretary gave money to Clinton Foundation," would be replaced with one reading "AP review:

Many of the discretionary meetings Clinton had at State were with people who gave to Clinton Foundation."

While the wire service had previously defended its tweet (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-ap-calendars) and its reporting on Clinton's State Department meetings with people from "private interests" who'd donated to her family's charitable foundation, the post explained that

the AP has since reviewed and revised its policy for removing misleading information from social media. :lol

In addition to the Clinton tweet, the AP also deleted a tweet about Donald Trump and Dwayne Wade's reactions to the fatal shooting of Wade's cousin.

Read the blog post in full below:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ap-delete-clinton-foundation-tweet?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

[Reck]

TheSanityAnnex, what's up? :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

TheSanityAnnex (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=4389), what's up? :lol

The tweet, which had read "BREAKING: AP analysis: More than half those who met Clinton as Cabinet secretarfy gave money to Clinton Foundation," would be replaced with one reading "AP review:
Many of the discretionary meetings Clinton had at State were with people who gave to Clinton Foundation."

AP was very clear about this in the actual article, which was pointed out to you several times. This was the same time it had to be explained to you the AP could only review what was release to them after having to to sue for the calendars.

[Reck]

The tweet, which had read "BREAKING: AP analysis: More than half those who met Clinton as Cabinet secretarfy gave money to Clinton Foundation," would be replaced with one reading "AP review:
Many of the discretionary meetings Clinton had at State were with people who gave to Clinton Foundation."

AP was very clear about this in the actual article, which was pointed out to you several times. This was the same time it had to be explained to you the AP could only review what was release to them after having to to sue for the calendars.

They also said, they pulled it because it was out of context and not up to snuff.


In a memo explaining the decision, John Daniszewski, vice president for standards for AP, wrote the original tweet "fell short of AP standards by omitting essential context."

However, Daniszewski wrote Thursday, the tweet promoting the article "omitted the important distinction between discretionary meetings and official meetings."


In other words, the now-deleted tweet gave the impression that a far higher percentage of Clinton's total meetings while secretary were with donors than was concluded by the story's analysis, given that the 154 people included in the review did not encompass the many government officials she was interacting with during her tenure, meetings that Daniszewski wrote "made up the bulk of her workday."



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/09/08/associated-press-hillary-clinton-tweet/90089520/

Admit it. Hillary wins this round.

[TheSanityAnnex]

They also said, they pulled it because it was out of context and not up to snuff.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/09/08/associated-press-hillary-clinton-tweet/90089520/

Admit it. Hillary wins this round.

Stop focusing on the tweet that was retracted.

Wins what round a tweet was deleted. The article still stands. Was the AP article retracted yes or no?

AP review:
Many of the discretionary meetings Clinton had at State were with people who gave to Clinton Foundation."

[Reck]

Stop focusing on the tweet that was retracted.

Wins what round a tweet was deleted. The article still stands. Was the AP article retracted yes or no?

AP review:
Many of the discretionary meetings Clinton had at State were with people who gave to Clinton Foundation."




Does it matter? omission of guilt has been established already.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Does it matter? Admission of guilt has been established already.
It's a fucking click bait tweet that was deleted who cares? And yes the actual article it linked to matters. Does the misleading tweet nullify the factual article yes or no?

[Reck]

It's a fucking click bait tweet that was deleted who cares? And yes the actual article it linked to matters. Does the misleading tweet nullify the factual article yes or no?

But if they themselves said it was an out of context article, how can it be factual when key infomartion was left out. Did you even read my link?

They admitted to leaving key infomartion out. So yes, it does nnullify the article because it was half baked.

But, the damage is done. People already think what they think so meh.

[TheSanityAnnex]

But if they themselves said it was an out of context article, how can it be factual when key infomartion was left out. Did you even read my link?

They admitted to leaving key infomartion out. So yes, it does nnullify the article because it was half baked.

But, the damage is done. People already think what they think so meh.
The AP never said that about their article. What you bolded supports me, not you. How do you not understand they are talking about pulling the tweet and not the article? You bolded the word tweet twice.

In a memo explaining the decision, John Daniszewski, vice president for standards for AP, wrote the original tweet "fell short of AP standards by omitting essential context."

However, Daniszewski wrote Thursday, the tweet promoting the article "omitted the important distinction between discretionary meetings and official meetings."

[TheSanityAnnex]

But if they themselves said it was an out of context article, how can it be factual when key infomartion was left out. Did you even read my link?

They admitted to leaving key infomartion out. So yes, it does nnullify the article because it was half baked.

But, the damage is done. People already think what they think so meh.
LOL Speaking of leavings things out and taking things out of context.....next time don't leave out two important paragraphs and present them as the article. You literally just did what the tweet did. Here is what was smack dab in the middle of the quote you edited.





"The story in question (http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f625/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state) detailed how, among the individuals Clinton met with at the State Department who were outside of government, "an extraordinary proportion" had donated to her family's foundation personally or by way of some other entity — a finding, the AP wrote, that indicated "her possible ethics challenges if elected president."Specifically, the AP review found that 85 of the 154 people who'd had in-person or phone meetings scheduled with Clinton and who weren't government officials were also foundation contributors, according to the State Department calendars that were available."



Are you going to apologize like the AP for deliberately presenting misleading information?

[TheSanityAnnex]

They also said, they pulled it because it was out of context and not up to snuff.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/09/08/associated-press-hillary-clinton-tweet/90089520/

Admit it. Hillary wins this round.
Quote in full deceiver.

In a memo explaining the decision, John Daniszewski, vice president for standards for AP, wrote the original tweet "fell short of AP standards by omitting essential context.

The story in question (http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f625/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state) detailed how, among the individuals Clinton met with at the State Department who were outside of government, "an extraordinary proportion" had donated to her family's foundation personally or by way of some other entity — a finding, the AP wrote, that indicated "her possible ethics challenges if elected president."

Specifically, the AP review found that 85 of the 154 people who'd had in-person or phone meetings scheduled with Clinton and who weren't government officials were also foundation contributors, according to the State Department calendars that were available.
However, Daniszewski wrote Thursday, the tweet promoting the article "omitted the important distinction between discretionary meetings and official meetings."
In other words, the now-deleted tweet gave the impression that a far higher percentage of Clinton's total meetings while secretary were with donors than was concluded by the story's analysis, given that the 154 people included in the review did not encompass the many government officials she was interacting with during her tenure, meetings that Daniszewski wrote "made up the bulk of her workday."

[Reck]

Damn why are you melting down over this?

The reason why the tweet was deleted was because the article itself lacked the proper and full scope of the story. The tweet wasn't just deleted and the story stayed the same. They added full context which was lacking the first time around.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Damn why are you melting down over this?

The reason why the tweet was deleted was because the article itself lacked the proper and full scope of the story. The tweet wasn't just deleted and the story stayed the same. They added full context which was lacking the first time around.

Pointing out your deceitfulness is not a meltdown. You purposely took out two paragraphs and edited the quote.

And no the article itself did not lack the proper and full scope of the story...the tweet did, which is why it was deleted. Your own article explains exactly that. From your linked article

"John Daniszewski, vice president for standards for AP, wrote the original tweet "fell short of AP standards by omitting essential context."


"However, Daniszewski wrote Thursday, the tweet promoting the article "omitted the important distinction between discretionary meetings and official meetings."


If you still don't believe me take a look at my first post in this thread which is the actual article which always contained the full context. The article was copied and pasted in the OP.




I posted the article in the OP.

[Reck]

Pointing out your deceitfulness is not a meltdown. You purposely took out two paragraphs and edited the quote.

And no the article itself did not lack the proper and full scope of the story...the tweet did, which is why it was deleted. Your own article explains exactly that. From your linked article

"John Daniszewski, vice president for standards for AP, wrote the original tweet "fell short of AP standards by omitting essential context."


"However, Daniszewski wrote Thursday, the tweet promoting the article "omitted the important distinction between discretionary meetings and official meetings."


If you still don't believe me take a look at my first post in this thread which is the actual article which always contained the full context. The article was copied and pasted in the OP.




I posted the article in the OP.

LOL purporfully? I highlighted the paragraphs that were relevant. And it proved the point I was making.

I get you never want to admit you're wrong. You have this idea you always have to have the last word and be right. What does it say the guy in charge at the AP came out, called for the tweet to be taken down and explained why he did it. Apparently, that's not enough for you. LOL

[TheSanityAnnex]

LOL purporfully? I highlighted the paragraphs that were relevant. And it proved the point I was making.

I get you never want to admit you're wrong. You have this idea you always have to have the last word and be right. What does it say the guy in charge at the AP came out, called for the tweet to be taken down and explained why he did it. Apparently, that's not enough for you. LOLI am not wrong here, that would be you. You even linked an article to prove yourself wrong, and even bolded the paragraphs proving you wrong :lmao

The AP said the tweet lacked the context that the article contained. The tweet was deleted, the article was not.

The tweet didn't mention the distinction the article did. Quote from article in question below.

"Based on the records released so far, the AP found that more than half the people outside the government who met or spoke by telephone with Clinton during her tenure as a Cabinet secretary had given money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation. The AP's analysis focused on people with private interests and excluded her meetings or calls with U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives."


This isn't even debatable. You are just going full retard now.

[Reck]

I am not wrong here, that would be you. You even linked an article to prove yourself wrong, and even bolded the paragraphs proving you wrong :lmao

The AP said the tweet lacked the context that the article contained. The tweet was deleted, the article was not.

The tweet didn't mention the distinction the article did. Quote from article in question below.

"Based on the records released so far, the AP found that more than half the people outside the government who met or spoke by telephone with Clinton during her tenure as a Cabinet secretary had given money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation. The AP's analysis focused on people with private interests and excluded her meetings or calls with U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives."


This isn't even debatable. You are just going full retard now.

Wow you definitely lack common sense.

All my posts highlight where the vice president of the AP himself is saying the "felt short" by omitting essential context and misleading.

It goes to my point which is why it is bolded.

The fact that you're a moron is not my problem. It's ABC stuff.

Wording a tweet that changes the narrative of your article is malpractice which is what happened here and the reason why the tweet was deleted and they had to explain themselves.

What is not debatable is that they left out the other hundreds of people she met with which was part of her job as secretary of state.

Another little nugget:


“Unpacking how we fell short of our own standards is a painful process, but a necessary one. The new guidelines are stronger as a result,” said AP executive director Kathleen Carroll.

Bahahahahahhahahahhahahahhaha

[TheSanityAnnex]

Wow you definitely lack common sense.

All my posts highlight where the vice president of the AP himself is saying the "felt short" by omitting essential context and misleading.

It goes to my point which is why it is bolded.

The fact that you're a moron is not my problem. It's ABC stuff.

Wording a tweet that changes the narrative of your article is malpractice which is what happened here and the reason why the tweet was deleted and they had to explain themselves.You are back tracking from your original argumenr from this very same page just a few posts before. For a refresher here is your claim.


The reason why the tweet was deleted was because the article itself lacked the proper and full scope of the story.The tweet was misleading, not the article.


What is not debatable is that they left out the other hundreds of people she met with which was part of her job as secretary of state.What is up for debate? The AP explained explicitly why these people were left out.

"Based on the records released so far, the AP found that more than half the people outside the government who met or spoke by telephone with Clinton during her tenure as a Cabinet secretary had given money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation. The AP's analysis focused on people with private interests and excluded her meetings or calls with U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives.


This was all shown to you on page fucking 1 and you are still asking the same stupid questions. I'm to the point now that I'm thinking this must be a troll job, no one can really be this dumb.

[Reck]

:lmao breaking down further.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Have a nice weekend Reck, find a way to get smarter maybe read a book or two.

[Reck]

Have a nice weekend Reck, find a way to get smarter maybe read a book or two.

Nooo dont go. Please make another 1000 word break down post. :cry

[boutons_deux]

Newsweek: The Trump Organization...MSM Starting To Do Its Job? (http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/9/14/1569974/-Newsweek-The-Trump-Organization-MSM-Starting-To-Do-Its-Job)

After months and months of MSM and Trump talking about the secret evil things the Clinton family and Clinton Foundation did, today Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html) has a detailed article about dealing of The Trump Organization and its dealings around the world .

Throughout this campaign, the Trump Organization, which pumps potentially hundreds of millions of dollars into the Trump family’s bank accounts each year, has been largely ignored. As a private enterprise, its businesses, partners and investors are hidden from public view, even though they are the very people who could be enriched by—or will further enrich—Trump and his family if he wins the presidency.


Haven't we heard the same “innuendo” regarding Hillary Clinton and the Foundation? But nothing to back it up with facts. Let's see if there is a there there

The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea foundation:



Accused of “pay for play”-debunked as there was no “pay” , as contributions were publicly disclosed ANd went to charities.
International independent auditing company PricewaterhouseCoopers plus the foundation taxes show that around 90% of the contributions goes to Charity
no member of the Clinton family has received money
the foundation did not donate to any campaign
The Clintons and almost the board work for free


Now the Trump Organization

On the other hand, the Trump family rakes in untold millions of dollars from the Trump Organization every year.

Much of that comes from deals with international financiers and developers, many of whom have been tied to controversial and even illegal activities.

None of Trump’s overseas contractual business relationships examined by Newsweek were revealed in his campaign’s financial filings with the Federal Election Commission, nor was the amount paid to him by his foreign partners.

(The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for the names of all foreign entities in partnership or contractually tied to the Trump Organization.)

Trump’s financial filings also indicate he is a shareholder or beneficiary of several overseas entities, including Excel Venture LLC in the French West Indies and Caribusiness Investments SRL, based in the Dominican Republic, one of the world’s tax havens.


Does this affect aTrump presidency? Well the tentacles of the organization spread worldwide and it's more then just the different relationship with governments around the world that even if he released his taxes, would not be revealed

The problem of overseas conflicts emerges from the nature of Trump’s business in recent years.

Much of the public believes Trump is a hugely successful developer, a television personality and a failed casino operator.

But his primary business deals for almost a decade have been a quite different endeavor.

The GOP nominee is essentially a licensor who leverages his celebrity into streams of cash from partners from all over the world.

The business model for Trump’s company started to change around 2007, after he became the star of NBC’s The Apprentice, which boosted his national and international fame.

Rather than constructing Trump’s own hotels, office towers and other buildings, much of his business involved striking deals with overseas developers who pay his company for the right to slap his name on their buildings.

(The last building constructed by Trump with his name on it is the Trump-SoHo hotel and condominium project, completed in 2007.)

Now why would somebody want to put Trump on their building or product… Is beyond me.

in the late 90s he began a licensing venture worth South Korean company Daewoo , that company filed for bankruptcy( with a fraud claim proven right ) , CEO fled to North Korea the returned to be tried and jailed.

Trump has said the South Korea should be more independent on military spending and build nuclear arsenal.

Guess who would benefit if US made a policy change with regards to military spending in South Korea…. Yup Daewoo Engeneering and Construction that has a nuclear energy arm.

India has several ties , one example

Last month, scandal erupted over the development, called Trump Towers Pune, after the state government and local police started looking into discrepancies in the land records suggesting that the land on which the building was constructed may not have been legally obtained by Panchshil.

The Indian company says no rules or laws were broken, but if government officials conclude otherwise, the project’s future will be in jeopardy—and create a problem that Indian politicians eager to please an American president might have to resolve.

Through the Pune deal, the Trump Organization has developed close ties to India’s Nationalist Congress Party—a centrist political organization that stands for democratic secularism and is led by Sharad Pawar, an ally of the Chordia family that owns Panchshil—but that would be of little help in this investigation.

Political power in India rests largely with the Indian National Congress, a nationalist party that has controlled the central government for almost 50 years.

(However, Trump is very popular with the Hindu Sena, a far-right radical nationalist group that sees his anti-Muslim stance as a sign he would take an aggressive stand against Pakistan.

When Trump turned 70 in June, members of that organization threw a birthday party for the man they called “the savior of humanity.”


If you read along we see the web grow to Turkey, UAE, Lybia,Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Russia

The dealings of the Trump Organization reach into so many countries that it is impossible to detail all the conflicts they present in a single issue of this magazine, but

a Newsweek examination of the company has also found deep connections in China, Brazil, Bulgaria, Argentina, Canada, France, Germany and other countries.

Never before has an American candidate for president had so many financial ties with American allies and enemies, and

never before has a business posed such a threat to the United States.

If Donald Trump wins this election and his company is not immediately shut down or forever severed from the Trump family, the foreign policy of the United States of America could well be for sale.

Let's see if this sort of investigations and articles generate questions for mR Trump… Or will Hillary continue to be Gored?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/14/1569974/-Newsweek-The-Trump-Organization-MSM-Starting-To-Do-Its-Job

[Spurtacular]

while she was secretary of state gave money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_CLINTON_FOUNDATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-08-23-14-35-04


#PayForPlay

Everything's for sale. And this is who the ST lemmings mindlessly supported. :lmao