Reply With Quote
Educate me. I know little about their foundation.
... 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.
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.
so no CF money went anywhere but to cronies? , I didn't know.
So I bet the reputation of Clinton Foundation in the non-profit/charitable-causes industry must be real . Maybe you could look it up.
Suit yourself. Ignorance is obviously bliss.
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.
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?
I will never vote for a person like Trump. Period.
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.
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.So you asked me for my input into something I have no idea of and you reply with this nonsense?
I will never vote for a person like Trump. Period.
I'm not voting for Trump either, I'm in CA my vote doesn't mean 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 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 s my 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.
17,000 world leaders? That's a lot of leaders, considering there are just 200 countries.
Maybe the dude meant top elected officials.
Condense it bro. I ain't reading a book.
The Foundation, the IHRC & the Tragedy of HaitiShifting away from Africa, the do entary then turns its investigative eye towards the tragic 2010 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 in affected areas. While this claim is probably true 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 the rest of the Clinton’s involvement in rebuilding Haiti 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, the Clintons exerted a tremendous amount of control over how relief money would be spent on the island – in particular, American taxpayer funded relief money, which amounted to billions of dollars.
This relationship immediately caused friction with the locals attempting to rebuild Haiti because the Clinton’s largely perused their own pro-US, pro-Clinton Foundation donor agenda 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:
- Building the $300 million Caracol industrial park in northeast Haiti (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 for US corporations.
- Although the do entary 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; do ents released by Wikileaks and a 2011 story in The Nation 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 that would raise the minimum wage in Haiti to 62 cents an hour or $5 a day.
- Awarding contracts to rebuild more than 100,000 homes destroyed by the earthquake to laughably inexperienced and inefficient contractors based on their donations to the Clinton foundation; while ignoring more experienced contractors 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.
- 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) 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; 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 do entary shifts to examine how billionaire Clinton foundation mega-donor Denis O’Brien almost certainly profited from his existing and ongoing relationship with the Clintons 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 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 in Jamaica. Not discussed in Clinton Cash however is O’Brien/Digicel’s involvement in building an obscene, largely unnecessary Marriott luxury hotel in Haiti that has produced little if any benefit for the people of the island as a whole – although there is some dispute about exactly which paid or unpaid Bill Clinton speeches sponsored by Digicel 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 – the awarding of one of the country’s first two gold mine concessions 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.
Don't be lazy. Read it tomorrow. You should be sleeping anyways.
- Wow.
- Although the do entary 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; do ents released by Wikileaks and a 2011 story in The Nation 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 that would raise the minimum wage in Haiti to 62 cents an hour or $5 a day.
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, his inner circle includes people on Moscow’s payroll, and top American intelligence officials have called him an “unwitting agent” 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, too. Hillary Clinton also possesses Moscow links that merit investigation. I’ve previously explained 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 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, “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 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, the Bureau’s Boston field office warned American firms about dealings with Russian en ies, 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 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...ly-unraveling/
“[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.”
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.
There's an old Mexican saying: In the absence of an obvious quid pro quo, all payola is charity.
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.
Jesus, CC, how hard is posting a link?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
