Clinton Cash/Foundation

[Lil' Red]

 

 

Yes, god forbid I defend a 501c3 that helps third-world countries procure malaria and HIV/AIDS medication or helps with earthquake relief. I feel horrible.

Haha....yep. Definitely didn't watch the movie.

 

 

Why the hell would I watch something that's the brainchild of the head of Breitbart?

 

Yep, seems like some stanky corruption.

 

 

• More than 11.5 million people in over 70 countries have access to lifesaving HIV/AIDS drugs at 90 percent lower cost through our affiliated Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), including more than 800,000 children. That’s more than half the adults and three quarters of the children on treatment today.

• CHAI has also organized the training of thousands of health care workers as part of an effort to address critical shortages in poor countries and help others build strong, self-sufficient health systems, and expanded access to high-quality, low-cost treatment and diagnostics for many other diseases and conditions.

• Through our work with the affiliated Alliance for a Healthier Generation, more than 18 million students in over 31,000 American schools, in every state, now have healthier food and more physical activity options, and our agreements with the beverage industry have reduced the caloric intake from drinks by 90 percent in the vast majority of U.S. schools.

• Our Health Matters Initiative is working in six communities to improve health and has worked with innovative drug companies to help reverse opioid overdoses and combat prescription painkiller misuse by lowering the cost of autoinjection naloxone and making naloxone nasal spray available to every high school in the U.S. at no cost.

• The Foundation’s Haiti initiative has promoted sustainable investment resulting in the planting of more than 5 million trees, the development of 5 new agricultural supply chains benefiting more than 4,000 smallholder farmers, and support for more than 20 entrepreneurial businesses. And members of CGI’s Haiti Action Network have made more than 100 Commitments to Action to strengthen the health, education, agriculture, and infrastructure sectors.

• Our climate change projects have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by more than 33,500 tons annually across the U.S. We’ve also partnered on reforestation and land restoration efforts in South America and East Africa, and are working with island nations to develop renewable energy projects and reduce dependence on expensive imported diesel and petroleum.

• More than 500,000 people in Latin America are benefiting from social enterprises that connect people to job training, supply chains, and entrepreneurship opportunities.

• More than 105,000 farmers in East Africa have dramatically increased their yields and their incomes.

• And, through Too Small to Fail (TSTF), we are working with the faith-based community, pediatricians, community and business leaders, and Head Start educators to provide parents with resources in everyday settings to support their young children’s early brain and language development, and have reached 155,000 parents with tips through direct text messages.

I have found great joy in simple moments shared with people who are benefiting from our work: holding a baby who is alive and healthy because he now has access to AIDS medication; planting rows of seeds with smallholder farmers in Malawi and hearing about how our programs have lifted their incomes, enabling them to send their children to school and electrify their homes; meeting with female entrepreneurs in Peru who are earning a good living for the first time in their lives by providing essential goods to their remote communities. This work has been my life for the last 15 years, and I couldn’t be more grateful.

 

 

Everything I have read indicates that the money the foundation received was put to good use. However, I find the recent evidence that individuals used donations as a means to get access to Hillary a little unsettling:

 

When Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain wanted face time with Hillary Clinton in the first months of her time at the State Department, top aide Huma Abedin worked as a go-between for the Clinton Foundation and the secretary of state to facilitate the appointment, working official channels while coordinating with top Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band. In that instance and several others, 725 pages of emails released Monday by the conservative legal group Judicial Watch showed other previously undisclosed email exchanges from Abedin as well as Clinton, of which it said there are 20 of the latter.

Link

[BigRedBuster]

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

 

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife,Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

 

[TGHusker]

 

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

 

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife,Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

 

 

corruption - why the press isn't all over this like flies on spam - I don't know and yet I do. Their favorite gal next to Elizabeth Warren.

[HuskerNation1]

 

Yes, god forbid I defend a 501c3 that helps third-world countries procure malaria and HIV/AIDS medication or helps with earthquake relief. I feel horrible.

Haha....yep. Definitely didn't watch the movie.

 

 

Lol...once again it shows many on here are unwilling to open their minds to the facts laid out as they only want to believe what suits their own political ideology.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Yes, god forbid I defend a 501c3 that helps third-world countries procure malaria and HIV/AIDS medication or helps with earthquake relief. I feel horrible.

Haha....yep. Definitely didn't watch the movie.

 

 

Lol...once again it shows many on here are unwilling to open their minds to the facts laid out as they only want to believe what suits their own political ideology.

 

Are you including yourself in that?

[Lil' Red]

 

 

Yes, god forbid I defend a 501c3 that helps third-world countries procure malaria and HIV/AIDS medication or helps with earthquake relief. I feel horrible.

Haha....yep. Definitely didn't watch the movie.

 

 

Lol...once again it shows many on here are unwilling to open their minds to the facts laid out as they only want to believe what suits their own political ideology.

 

 

I try to keep an open mind but I prefer to get my information from quality sources and not from a movie with several proven inaccuracies and that was funded and produced by Trump's current campaign CEO.

[zoogs]

Thank you, Lil' Red.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

Yes, god forbid I defend a 501c3 that helps third-world countries procure malaria and HIV/AIDS medication or helps with earthquake relief. I feel horrible.

Haha....yep. Definitely didn't watch the movie.

 

 

Lol...once again it shows many on here are unwilling to open their minds to the facts laid out as they only want to believe what suits their own political ideology.

 

 

I try to keep an open mind but I prefer to get my information from quality sources and not from a movie with several proven inaccuracies and that was funded and produced by Trump's current campaign CEO.

 

 

Umm, it's not just the "right" claiming there is wrongdoing with the Clinton Foundation. We are now seeing far left outfits like Huffington Post and Slate call out the foundation for both perceived AND real conflicts of interest and the selling of access that was conducted under the foundation.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/19/clinton_foundation_won_t_accept_foreign_donations_if_hillary_wins_that_s.html

 

After a donation from a military leader in Bahrain, the US magically altered its policy and began increasing its exports of arms to Bahrain. Now I'm sure some on the left will claim this is a coincidence just as the $400 million in cash was a coincidence.

 

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/emails-show-clinton-foundation-donor-reached-out-hillary-clinton-arms-export-boost

[Danny Bateman]

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

[HuskerNation1]

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

 

Only in the mind of someone that chooses not to see it...

[Danny Bateman]

Let me be clear. If there is legitimate corruption or quid pro quo there, let it be known. More transparency is good.

But until I see it spelled out before me, it's a bunch of people scrutinizing a charity. It has literally no effect on me whatsoever. The Clintons have always had a problem with bad optics. Even if the Clinton's played by a different set of rules, it wouldn't affect me at all. I care about what the candidates will do in office to make my life better.

 

The only other choice with a legitimate shot to win is incompetent and horrifyingly bigoted. It's an easy call.

[HuskerNation1]

Let me be clear. If there is legitimate corruption or quid pro quo there, let it be known. More transparency is good.

 

But until I see it spelled out before me, it's a bunch of people scrutinizing a charity. It has literally no effect on me whatsoever. The Clintons have always had a problem with bad optics. Even if the Clinton's played by a different set of rules, it wouldn't affect me at all. I care about what the candidates will do in office to make my life better.

 

The only other choice with a legitimate shot to win is incompetent and horrifyingly bigoted. It's an easy call.

 

Wow, enough said there. You know others can say the same about Trump that they don't care what he may have said (compared to what the Clintons have actually done), as long as he can make their lives better.

[Danny Bateman]

I'd argue Trump isn't interested in making anyone's life better than his own. I'm sure others would say the same about Clinton. This is why we have elections.

Plus, Bill Clinton actually ran a really damn nice economy. I care about that.

[HuskerNation1]

I'd argue Trump isn't interested in making anyone's life better than his own. I'm sure others would say the same about Clinton. This is why we have elections.

 

Plus, Bill Clinton actually ran a really damn nice economy. I care about that.

 

I've stated on here before many times that Bill Clinton was 1000 times the leader that Obama has been. After the GOP revolution in 1994, he listened to voters and declared the era of big government was over and moved to the center and sought to work with Congress. In my mind the President must take the lead in working with the opposition. Obama could have done the same after the 2010 midterms and found issues where he could find consensus with the GOP. He should have never rammed Obamacare down the throats of the American people so early in his Presidency as he never recovered from that. Anyway, back to Bill, his actions were far worse than any words Trump has spewed out, so if you are willing to overlook his negatives for the sake of a good economy, would you be willing to do the same should Trump get elected and make improvements in our economy or the fight against terrorism?

[Danny Bateman]

If Trump actually accomplished anything positive, I'd try my best to objectively take a step back and see the good he's done. I'm extremely skeptical, and have an extremely strong negative impression of him going in. But if he did some things right, well, I'd hope to give him credit for them.

 

I have 0 confidence in Trump to do anything good. But I value politicians who do their job well. I don't really care about the political mudslinging or their personal lives too much. It's just that he himself has gone out of his way to be such a miserable douchecanoe that I've been personally offended and find myself completely ethically, morally opposed to the platform he's created.

 

Obama's faced wuthering obstructionism for 6 years now. He accomplished what he ran on, which was pushing for universal healthcare. I've heard that the ACA was actually very close to what the GOP used to recommend for healthcare. Here's an interesting article on that. I guess I just don't understand the Republican outlook on health insurance. I know that they want as little government involvement as possible. But it sure seems to me that they are awful about offering useful alternatives to Dem plans.

 

Any insight?