What is wrong with donations? How are foreign donations any worse than Koch brother’s donations? It is also entirely possible the foundation is ethical and Hillary is not influenced by the donations to support the foundation. They have and are trying to pin anything they can find on her but so far have spent millions and come up dry.
Another book full of allegations. The article points even points out that some of the evil non-disclosure was not required by law. Of course the author’s motivations are pure as the driven snow! It’s not like he expects to make any money off the book or has any kind of political agenda or maybe even gets some payoff from a campaign fund somewhere.
“Giustra took specific aim at a report this week in the New York Times that suggested his contributions to the Clinton Foundation were aimed at gaining the blessing of the State Department — then about to be headed by Hillary Clinton — for a lucrative uranium deal involving Russian and Kazakh interests.
“There is not one shred of evidence to back up the Times’ conclusions,” Giustra wrote. “This is not about me, but rather an attempt to tear down Secretary Clinton and her presidential campaign. If this is what passes for investigative journalism in the United States, it is very sad.”“I sold all of my stakes in the uranium company — Uranium One — in the fall of 2007, after it merged with another company,” Giustra said. “I would note that those were sold at least 18 months before Hillary Clinton became the Secretary of State. No one was speculating at that time that she would become the Secretary of State.” He called the Times report “a wildly speculative, innuendo-laced article.”“I sold all of my stakes in the uranium company — Uranium One — in the fall of 2007, after it merged with another company,” Giustra said. “I would note that those were sold at least 18 months before Hillary Clinton became the Secretary of State. No one was speculating at that time that she would become the Secretary of State.” He called the Times report “a wildly speculative, innuendo-laced article.”http://www.ibtimes.com/top-clinton-foundation-donor-says-his-money-had-nothing-do-support-colombian-trade-1895948
There are lots of dots in this supposed “scandal” but they are not logical connected. NY Times takes “facts” from a Republican opperative, who is out to sell books, and supposedly investigates them but fails to get the other side of the story or interview the donor supposed “briber” and it does pass the small test.Like all politicians in the current enviornment of campaign contributions legalities, none of them are going to come out smelling good especially to the other side, but there has been a Conservative war machine on the Clintons from the beginning looking for anything and everything, making things up, and taking things out of context so it is hard to take it seriously. It is how US politics is done. Who care about the truth when the mud is so much fun.
Reuters write up on the situation is interesting. I haven’t seen the tax forms, so I can’t say for sure. It may be that it is all just an error on the part of the Foundation. Here’s the thing though: how is incompetence better than deceitfulness? If the Foundation, which is overseen at least on paper by the Clintons, is so poorly run, how could we expect Hillary to run the government effectively. Sadly, she seems to be the strongest candidate either side can field. And that pretty much sums up why 2016 will be a horrible year for this country in a nutshell.
You said the NY Times failed to get the other side of the story or failed to interview the donor supposed “briber”, what YOU fail to mention is that they, NYTimes and FOX, tried to interview them but they refused to talk to them or just ignored the request. Jeffrey Immelt (GE CEO) says he would not turn over emails sent to or from the state department. He is actively thwarting any type fairness (as you allege).
Defending the Clintons by calling what they do “charitable” is laughable.
The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
Theodore E. Lind Premium Member about 9 years ago
What is wrong with donations? How are foreign donations any worse than Koch brother’s donations? It is also entirely possible the foundation is ethical and Hillary is not influenced by the donations to support the foundation. They have and are trying to pin anything they can find on her but so far have spent millions and come up dry.
King_Shark about 9 years ago
Ted Lind ought to read this: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/04/23/the-clintons-crony-capitalism-and-american-foreign-policy/
Theodore E. Lind Premium Member about 9 years ago
Another book full of allegations. The article points even points out that some of the evil non-disclosure was not required by law. Of course the author’s motivations are pure as the driven snow! It’s not like he expects to make any money off the book or has any kind of political agenda or maybe even gets some payoff from a campaign fund somewhere.
PainterArt Premium Member about 9 years ago
“Giustra took specific aim at a report this week in the New York Times that suggested his contributions to the Clinton Foundation were aimed at gaining the blessing of the State Department — then about to be headed by Hillary Clinton — for a lucrative uranium deal involving Russian and Kazakh interests.
“There is not one shred of evidence to back up the Times’ conclusions,” Giustra wrote. “This is not about me, but rather an attempt to tear down Secretary Clinton and her presidential campaign. If this is what passes for investigative journalism in the United States, it is very sad.”“I sold all of my stakes in the uranium company — Uranium One — in the fall of 2007, after it merged with another company,” Giustra said. “I would note that those were sold at least 18 months before Hillary Clinton became the Secretary of State. No one was speculating at that time that she would become the Secretary of State.” He called the Times report “a wildly speculative, innuendo-laced article.”“I sold all of my stakes in the uranium company — Uranium One — in the fall of 2007, after it merged with another company,” Giustra said. “I would note that those were sold at least 18 months before Hillary Clinton became the Secretary of State. No one was speculating at that time that she would become the Secretary of State.” He called the Times report “a wildly speculative, innuendo-laced article.”http://www.ibtimes.com/top-clinton-foundation-donor-says-his-money-had-nothing-do-support-colombian-trade-1895948
PainterArt Premium Member about 9 years ago
There are lots of dots in this supposed “scandal” but they are not logical connected. NY Times takes “facts” from a Republican opperative, who is out to sell books, and supposedly investigates them but fails to get the other side of the story or interview the donor supposed “briber” and it does pass the small test.Like all politicians in the current enviornment of campaign contributions legalities, none of them are going to come out smelling good especially to the other side, but there has been a Conservative war machine on the Clintons from the beginning looking for anything and everything, making things up, and taking things out of context so it is hard to take it seriously. It is how US politics is done. Who care about the truth when the mud is so much fun.
warjoski Premium Member about 9 years ago
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/23/us-usa-election-clinton-taxes-exclusive-idUSKBN0NE0CA20150423
Reuters write up on the situation is interesting. I haven’t seen the tax forms, so I can’t say for sure. It may be that it is all just an error on the part of the Foundation. Here’s the thing though: how is incompetence better than deceitfulness? If the Foundation, which is overseen at least on paper by the Clintons, is so poorly run, how could we expect Hillary to run the government effectively. Sadly, she seems to be the strongest candidate either side can field. And that pretty much sums up why 2016 will be a horrible year for this country in a nutshell.
Gerald Henley about 9 years ago
@ PainterArt
You said the NY Times failed to get the other side of the story or failed to interview the donor supposed “briber”, what YOU fail to mention is that they, NYTimes and FOX, tried to interview them but they refused to talk to them or just ignored the request. Jeffrey Immelt (GE CEO) says he would not turn over emails sent to or from the state department. He is actively thwarting any type fairness (as you allege).
JoeRaisin about 9 years ago
Defending the Clintons by calling what they do “charitable” is laughable.
The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.