AP Discovers a Lot of Clinton Foundation Donars Got Special Favors

[320 Years of History]

Excersize a bit of intellectual integrity.
In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

And what SecStates might Mrs. Clinton have provided in 2013? To Eric Braverman no less?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, it's what you do in a Banana Republic.

News from The Associated Press

Where are the special favors?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Crook Crook!!!! that woman is a crook and Bill Clinton is a other crook.... SHAME ON YOU BOTH! YOU CAN NOT TAKE IT WITH YOU WHEN YOU FINALLY LEAVE THIS EARTH!

“There has to be a full accounting of where this money came from,” Priebus said. Adding that there should be an “accounting” of the funds that came from foreign governments in order to “be able to track this money and what it was used for. And whether or not anyone profited from these arraignments.”

Read more: Priebus: ‘The Only Work That The Clinton Foundation Is Doing Is Lining The Pockets Of Bill And Hillary Clinton’

The Democrats are trying to put the biggest crook, swindler, cheat and bribe taking manslaughtering fraud this country has ever seen in the Executive branch to be the POTUS of the USA.

And they could not care less as long as they get their free shit.

I totally agree with you!

It doesn't bother you that Trump is now scamming his base? Just like we said. He can't help himself.

Once the donations started pouring in from Trump supporters who probably worked hard to scrape together a few bucks just to send to Donald, Trump raises the rent on every campaign office that's in a building owned by Trump. A clever way to scam those people sending him money. Completely legal. I suspect that no one running before actually owned the buildings that housed their campaign offices. So no laws exist protecting the donors from being scammed.

This is happening. If fact, it's already happened.

Trump raising own rent to profit from presidential run: Kaine

Donald Trump Raised the Rent on His Own Campaign

Donald Trump Jacked Up His Campaign’s Trump Tower Rent Once Somebody Else Was Paying It

Come on. You gotta admit it's really, really clever and completely legal. But totally immoral.

Talk to us if he gets into office...

Hillary used her power as SOS...

Just like bravobitch your former governor did...and you know who he is sharing a prision cell with.

 

[Fenton Lum]

We've been operating like this in america forever. Perhaps it should be considered outrageous for all. Justa thought.

Can't agree. When the federal gov was small, as was intended, pols did not have this opportunity for corruption open to them.

..the federal government imposes an infinite number of rules and regulations purposely to make it difficult to do things, so that pols can get big money people to give them money to navigate through the maze. Its great for pols like Cankles and Bubba.

And when would you say that started exactly?

Are you aware of the history of government regulations? If so, you would know that the central government had very few regulations in place for roughly the first hundreds of the republic. Today we have a regulatory state gone mad, in part because it allows pols to make lots of money.

I did not state only Ds do it. Both stinking corrupt lying parties do it, but one of them has the major media in it's pocket, so they tend to get away with a lot more corruption.

Sure, we're back to the "well yeah they're 'all' corrupt" but 'my side' ain't as bad as the 'other side'" argument. Sorry, don't buy it, the entire systen is the problem - all of it, the entire thing. As for your media? Yeah, well, that's what happens when you over deregulate, thank you Bill Clinton for deregulating the FCC. The 50 some odd companies involved in the american media machine back in the 1980s have now been concentrated into the hands if 6 major multinational corporations. Sounds to me like you have an issue with concentrated corporate power and wealth redistribution. So I don't buy the "liberal MSM media" bit either.

What kind of moron thinks the US government ever regulated the press?
You're a special kind of stupid.

You can call folks names, or ya can go look into things for yourself. We all see your choices.

Telecommunications Act of 1996 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Care4all]

Was there a financial gain for her? Or did the money go to the charity and she and Bill took none of it for themselves?

I dont know that this was in the article or not, but Bill has received millions in 'speaking fees' while Hillary was Sec of State, and the people that bought him, err, I mean paid for his speeches had cases coming up for Hillary to decide on.

It is obvious that Hillary has been engaging in Pay-to-Play bribery schemes from the time she was appoint Secretary of State.

Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State
More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton 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.

No Jim, there was no "pay for Play", there was no quid pro quo....and accusations of such is simply partisan political posturing.

ALSO the Clintons receive ZERO DOLLARS from the foundation donations, but children around the world get needed vaccinations, the needy get Malaria treatments, Aides medicines, young girls get educations etc etc etc.

 

[Fenton Lum]

When you come to the realization that this is how your entire political class operates we may be able to have a rational conversation, the entire system needs to be challenged, not just "one" side. But to you that sounds like making excuses, so here we are, stuck.

I have no false sense of realism and know this is how the criminal political system now operates due to people like Hillary, but none have done it more, bigger, badder, more brazenly, more openly than the Clintons. They are the political Mafia family and have been for decades. 'Everyone does it' is not justification for her actions. The amount of slime and crime coming out now and her not being forced out of this race is amazing.

No one justified her actions, but if you can't see the difference no one can help you.

 

[BluesLegend]

AP Discovers a Lot of Clinton Foundation Donars Got Special Favors

So trying to hide her emails and the $2 billion that flowed into the foundation wasn't just a coincidence I'm shocked, shocked I tell you. /sarcasm

 

[Care4all]

Man oh man those Clintons are such evil people to dedicate their time and own money to the Clinton foundation's programs of getting malaria treatments to the needy and Aids drugs to those in need and vaccinations to the children in need and provide schooling for girls who have been left out etc...

THE HORROR that they could even think of helping people in need!

Lock em up!

 

[Fenton Lum]

And when would you say that started exactly?

Are you aware of the history of government regulations? If so, you would know that the central government had very few regulations in place for roughly the first hundreds of the republic. Today we have a regulatory state gone mad, in part because it allows pols to make lots of money.

I did not state only Ds do it. Both stinking corrupt lying parties do it, but one of them has the major media in it's pocket, so they tend to get away with a lot more corruption.

Sure, we're back to the "well yeah they're 'all' corrupt" but 'my side' ain't as bad as the 'other side'" argument. Sorry, don't buy it, the entire systen is the problem - all of it, the entire thing. As for your media? Yeah, well, that's what happens when you over deregulate, thank you Bill Clinton for deregulating the FCC. The 50 some odd companies involved in the american media machine back in the 1980s have now been concentrated into the hands if 6 major multinational corporations. Sounds to me like you have an issue with concentrated corporate power and wealth redistribution. So I don't buy the "liberal MSM media" bit either.

You have trouble comprehending the written word.

My post clearly and concisely stated both parties are corrupt, but one of them has the media in their pocket so that party gets away with more. You need to read those words slowly and then compare them to what you concluded they mean.

Someone has difficulty with the written word, yeah. " ... but one of them has the media in their pocket so that party gets away with more." was disagreed with, have a nice day.

Both parties are corrupt, but one has the media protecting it. This does not mean, as you stupidly concluded, that the Ds are worse than the Rs. It means the media will not go after the Ds nearly as hard as the Rs.

For example, if Hillary or Obama were Rs, they never would have attained the positions and power they have. This is because the media would have destroyed them.

I suspect you still miss the point. Sorry that you are semi literate.

I told you I don't buy into the "liberal MSM" meme, I'm sorry you're upset about that. The media machine also supported bogus wars, Wall Street corruption and Bush administration corruption. It's america son, that's just what we are here and I don't agree that one side is worse than the other or gets more passes than the other. The entire system runs on illusion and false moral hair splitting. The “good guys” and the “bad guys” are merely riding in different cars of the same train.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Well, it's what you do in a Banana Republic.

News from The Associated Press

Where are the special favors?

Advanced Weapons to the Saudis, Uranium to Russia, multiple policy changes to corporations. All after they donated. Many more.

The bigger question is why are you unaware.

Nine times Clinton Foundation donors got special access at State

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

 

[gipper]

Are you aware of the history of government regulations? If so, you would know that the central government had very few regulations in place for roughly the first hundreds of the republic. Today we have a regulatory state gone mad, in part because it allows pols to make lots of money.

I did not state only Ds do it. Both stinking corrupt lying parties do it, but one of them has the major media in it's pocket, so they tend to get away with a lot more corruption.

Sure, we're back to the "well yeah they're 'all' corrupt" but 'my side' ain't as bad as the 'other side'" argument. Sorry, don't buy it, the entire systen is the problem - all of it, the entire thing. As for your media? Yeah, well, that's what happens when you over deregulate, thank you Bill Clinton for deregulating the FCC. The 50 some odd companies involved in the american media machine back in the 1980s have now been concentrated into the hands if 6 major multinational corporations. Sounds to me like you have an issue with concentrated corporate power and wealth redistribution. So I don't buy the "liberal MSM media" bit either.

You have trouble comprehending the written word.

My post clearly and concisely stated both parties are corrupt, but one of them has the media in their pocket so that party gets away with more. You need to read those words slowly and then compare them to what you concluded they mean.

Someone has difficulty with the written word, yeah. " ... but one of them has the media in their pocket so that party gets away with more." was disagreed with, have a nice day.

Both parties are corrupt, but one has the media protecting it. This does not mean, as you stupidly concluded, that the Ds are worse than the Rs. It means the media will not go after the Ds nearly as hard as the Rs.

For example, if Hillary or Obama were Rs, they never would have attained the positions and power they have. This is because the media would have destroyed them.

I suspect you still miss the point. Sorry that you are semi literate.

I told you I don't buy into the "liberal MSM" meme, I'm sorry you're upset about that. The media machine also supported bogus wars, Wall Street corruption and Bush administration corruption. It's america son, that's just what we are here and I don't agree that one side is worse than the other or gets more passes than the other. The entire system runs on illusion and false moral hair splitting. The “good guys” and the “bad guys” are merely riding in different cars of the same train.

Which only proves you are not only semi literate, but also uninformed. The MSM has been clearly biased for decades and in this current campaign, they are not even bothering to pretend to be unbiased.

Read Michael Goodwin's column...and he is lib but unlike you, he is honest and literate.
http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

 

[320 Years of History]

Excersize a bit of intellectual integrity.
In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

And now he's gone, point?

The point I'd make is that for all the grousing about Mrs. Clinton, the folks doing the bitching ignore the fact that no comparable level of disclosure has been made by her competitor. Nobody is "on about" Trump's dealings because we don't know what they are and yet the man attested to having purchased influence.

I'm sorry but one side of that equation smacks of giving a "bribe" and the other smacks of receiving a "bribe." Neither is a laudable behavior, but one thing's for sure: few folks ask for "bribes," deal sweeteners, favors, whatever one cares to call them, somewhat more folks accept them, but lots of folks offer them.

The thing is we know Trump has admitted to essentially "bribing" for influence. What we know about the Clintons is that certain events look like they may have been "bribes," but we lack evidence that they were "bribes."

CF Tax Returns:

• 2012 -- No mention of E. Braverman
• 2013 -- E. Braverman -- $261K
• 2014 -- E. Braverman $498K

February 2013 -- Hillary Clinton resigns as SecState...So where's the government connection that has someting to do with Mr. Braverman? Is someone going to show that some major thing took place in Jan. 2016 that had to do with State, CF, Mrs. Clinton as SecState and Mr. Braverman?

 

[easyt65]

Was there a financial gain for her? Or did the money go to the charity and she and Bill took none of it for themselves?

I dont know that this was in the article or not, but Bill has received millions in 'speaking fees' while Hillary was Sec of State, and the people that bought him, err, I mean paid for his speeches had cases coming up for Hillary to decide on.

It is obvious that Hillary has been engaging in Pay-to-Play bribery schemes from the time she was appoint Secretary of State.

Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State
More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton 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.

No Jim, there was no "pay for Play", there was no quid pro quo....and accusations of such is simply partisan political posturing.

ALSO the Clintons receive ZERO DOLLARS from the foundation donations, but children around the world get needed vaccinations, the needy get Malaria treatments, Aides medicines, young girls get educations etc etc etc.

Cause C4A says so....despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary

 

[gipper]

Well, it's what you do in a Banana Republic.

News from The Associated Press

Where are the special favors?

Advanced Weapons to the Saudis, Uranium to Russia, multiple policy changes to corporations. All after they donated. Many more.

The bigger question is why are you unaware.

Nine times Clinton Foundation donors got special access at State

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

He is unaware because he gets his information from left wing sources. This as we know, is a problem many lefties face.

The NY Times and Wapo ignored the AP story in their first editions today. Too funny....CNN did a bit on the AP story but only discussed what Trump had to say about it. They purposely misinform their viewers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, it's what you do in a Banana Republic.

News from The Associated Press

Where are the special favors?

Advanced Weapons to the Saudis, Uranium to Russia, multiple policy changes to corporations. All after they donated. Many more.

The bigger question is why are you unaware.

Nine times Clinton Foundation donors got special access at State

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

Nothing you named is a quid pro quo.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, it's what you do in a Banana Republic.

News from The Associated Press

Where are the special favors?

Advanced Weapons to the Saudis, Uranium to Russia, multiple policy changes to corporations. All after they donated. Many more.

The bigger question is why are you unaware.

Nine times Clinton Foundation donors got special access at State

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

He is unaware because he gets his information from left wing sources. This as we know, is a problem many lefties face.

.

I get back a Washington Examiner link while someone is bitching about leftwing sources?

That is retarded even for you, and that's one high bar to clear.

 

[gipper]

Well, it's what you do in a Banana Republic.

News from The Associated Press

Where are the special favors?

Advanced Weapons to the Saudis, Uranium to Russia, multiple policy changes to corporations. All after they donated. Many more.

The bigger question is why are you unaware.

Nine times Clinton Foundation donors got special access at State

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

He is unaware because he gets his information from left wing sources. This as we know, is a problem many lefties face.

.

I get back a Washington Examiner link while someone is bitching about leftwing sources?

That is retarded even for you, and that's one high bar to clear.

When you ask dumb uninformed questions, I concluded you get your news for biased sources so as to be nice. I guess I should have concluded you are just dumb.

 

[320 Years of History]

Name one other US charity that foreign governments give tens of millions of dollars to. Just one.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck......

• UNICEF
• Red Cross
• Bush–Clinton Katrina Fund -- $250M from Saudi Arabia -- donated while George Bush was a sitting President.
• Bush Center/Foundation (501(c)) -- Kuwait and the UAE.
• George H.W. Library

The Red cross was founded in Switzerland

Okay....I was asked for one 503(c). I provided five, and in a matter of minutes after having been asked, which tells me the person who asked made no effort to find out for him-/herself. You tell me...what kind of person doesn't know enough about topic that they make a challenge using the tone he did? "Name one other...Just one....If it looks like a duck..." You and both know....so does everyone else.

You want to take off the Red Cross, I can live with that. You are correct, the Red Cross is Swiss and the American Red Cross is the U.S. arm of a Swiss charity.

I know the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund was founded in the U.S. and I trust the Heritage Foundation's accuracy and veracity in citing the $250M figure. The other two Bush Foundations were also founded in the U.S. by U.S citizens.

 

[rdean]

Well, it's what you do in a Banana Republic.

News from The Associated Press

Where are the special favors?

They paid someone to do a job. Trump usually stiffs his workers. Getting a salary for work is what Republicans call a "special favor".

 

[JimBowie1958]

No Jim, there was no "pay for Play", there was no quid pro quo....and accusations of such is simply partisan political posturing.

ALSO the Clintons receive ZERO DOLLARS from the foundation donations, but children around the world get needed vaccinations, the needy get Malaria treatments, Aides medicines, young girls get educations etc etc etc.

You are kidding right? Have you heard of the 'fungible nature' of money?

Bill and Hillary want to go to Tahiti, so they call up the government in Tahiti and say they want to meet to talk about humanitarian work and fly down there on the Foundations budget. 85% of the Clinton Foundations budget goes into paying for travel, administrative costs, donations to various other 'charities' with similar high over head and tied to a political candidate or PAC, and countless other 'expenses' that with most charities would be counted as part of overhead instead of charitable efforts. Some charity monitorying sites wont even give a rating on the Clinton Foundation because they dont want to piss of the Clintons but they dont want to lie either, so they say that the CF works on a nontraditional charity model or some other such ambiguous term.

And what about the APPEARANCE OF CORRUPTION? No matter how you squirm and twist to deny the obvious, there is an undeniable appearance of corruption here and you have to simply take the Clintistas word for it that there is no corruption involved because they are not being transparent.

And then on top of all that are the 'speaking fees' Bill charged while Hillary was Sec of State and he often got those fees right before State made some big decision affecting the donors, so dont say that this whole thing is squeaky clean and just part of a vast right wing conspiracy.

That is just gullible to the point of brain removal.