• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,493
Reaction score
39,817
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Clinton's "Charity" is going to continue to provide problems for her.

Hillary Clinton’s presidential run is prompting new scrutiny of the Clintons’ financial and charitable affairs—something that’s already proved problematic for the Democratic frontrunner, given how closely these two worlds overlap. Last week, the New York Times examined Bill Clinton’s relationship with a Canadian mining financier, Frank Giustra, who has donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and sits on its board. Clinton, the story suggests, helped Giustra’s company secure a lucrative uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan and in return received “a flow of cash” to the Clinton Foundation, including previously undisclosed donations from the company’s chairman totaling $2.35 million.

Giustra strenuously objects to how he was portrayed.... “We’re not trying to hide anything,” he says. There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents who donated to CGEP...

The reason this is a politically explosive revelation is because the Clinton Foundation promised to disclose its donors as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state. Shortly after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the Clinton Foundation signed a “memorandum of understanding” with the Obama White House agreeing to reveal its contributors every year. The agreement stipulates that the “Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative” (as the charity was then known) is part of the Clinton Foundation and must follow “the same protocols.”

It hasn’t. Giustra says that’s because Canada’s federal privacy law forbids CGEP, a Canadian-registered charity, from revealing its donors.... [but] Canadian tax and privacy law experts were dubious of this claim. Len Farber, former director of tax policy at Canada's Department of Finance, said he wasn't aware of any tax laws that would prevent the charity from releasing its donors' names. "There's nothing that would preclude them from releasing the names of donors," he said. "It's entirely up to them."

Mark Blumberg, a charity lawyer at Blumberg Segal in Toronto, added that the legislation "does not generally apply to a registered charity unless a charity is conducting commercial activities...
 
Oh, hey, look, except that apparently this organization was willing to release individual donors back in 2009.


Partners and Donors


Corporate Partners:

B2Gold Corp. B2Gold Corp - Precious Metals Exploration Company -

Canaccord Adams Inc. Canaccord Genuity - Canaccord

Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP Business & Corporate Law Firms in Toronto | Cassels Brock

Compañía Minera Antamina S.A. Antamina

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/home/...

Endeavour Financial Ltd. http://www.endeavourfinancial.com/s/Home.asp

Ernst & Young LLP. Building a better working world - EY - United States

GMP Securities L.P. GMP Securities L.P.

Goldfields Ltd. http://www.goldfields.co.za/

Lumina Copper Corp. http://www.luminacopper.com/

Minera Yanacocha Yanacocha: Minería en Cajamarca que respeta el medio ambiente

New Gold Inc. New Gold - New Gold: Intermediate Growth Mining Producer, Company Mines in United States Mexico Australia, TSX NYSE AMEX Stocks Miner, Operations in Chile Canada

Newmont Mining Corp. Newmont Mining - Newmont Mining Corporation | Sustainable Gold Mining

Pacific Rubiales Energy Corp. Pacific Rubiales Corporation

PDAC (Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada) Home

Pinetree Capital Ltd. Pinetree Capital

Rusoro Mining Ltd. Gold Mining Company | Rusoro Mining | Junior Gold Producer - Wed Apr 29, 2015

Teck Cominco Ltd. Teck: Mining Company - Home

The Dragon Group Ltd. http://www.mint-security.com/dragon/contact.htm

TSX – Toronto Stock Exchange TMX TSX | TSXV - Toronto Stock Exchange and TSX Venture Exchange

US Global Investors Inc. http://www.usfunds.com/main_intro.asp



Project Partners:

COTELCO - Asociación Hotelera de Colombia Asociación Hotelera y Turística de Colombia | Cotelco

Fundación Carlos Slim . Carlos Slim Helú.

Fundación Pies Descalzos http://www.fundacionpiesdescalzos.com/index_es.php

PADF – Pan American Development Foundation PADF



Donors:

Robert Cross

Arthur Dalfen

Steve Dattels

Fernwood Foundation

Danny Guy

Dr. Sergey Kurzin

Paul Reynolds

Martin Walter

Neil Woodyer
 
Oh, hey, look, except that apparently this organization was willing to release individual donors back in 2009.

Come on, where's the Chinese Communist Party? They must be in there for $100M or so.
/sarcasm off

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised, Clintons are totally corrupted.
 
But where's the " smoking gun " ?? Lol !
 
But where's the " smoking gun " ?? Lol !
This is the same trick that 0bama has been using from day one.
Fill the room full of gun smoke and the gun disapears.


Only total liberal fools can look at this and think that Hillary is fit to be president.

We know that if things get bad and she has to step back she can donate all of her millions of dollars in campaign funds to her own foundation. 15% going to good causes like abortion services for Black women and 85% going to pay salaries and travel expenses for her and her staff. The foundation or the campaign can buy a nice jet so cut down on travel expenses - if they don't already have a plane.
 
And the **** continues to pile up for sHrillary
 
Clinton's "Charity" is going to continue to provide problems for her.

Not looking good here, but it's the Clintons.

First off, I think we should have a "No Legacy" rule for president. There are enough Americans that we can find a fit person without resorting to the same couple of families

Second, I wish we would be so thorough with the rest of our politicians. The Clintons are corrupt, I don't think there's really any getting around that, but so are many many more, and I think it's high time we find them and vote them out.

Corporate, status quo shills.
 
First off, I think we should have a "No Legacy" rule for president. There are enough Americans that we can find a fit person without resorting to the same couple of families
Exactly!

The term I recently heard bandied about (which I now use) is: 'The Bush-Clinton Monarchy'!

Corporate, status quo shills.
You got that right!

(and the GOP will give us the same)
 
Clinton's "Charity" is going to continue to provide problems for her.

Raw meat seems to follow the Clinton's whatever they do or go. Can you imagine Hillery as president and Bill running around the world gathering up money while Hillery is pulling strings. What a **** ing nightmare.
 
(and the GOP will give us the same)

Unfortunately. Corporate sell outs are the favorite type of sell outs in the Republocrats.
 
Unfortunately. Corporate sell outs are the favorite type of sell outs in the Republocrats.

You have to love what Obama has done for the rich. Just look at the market vs the middle class making less than when he took office. And now it is reported the national growth rate under obama has averaged less than 2% and in the last quarter is was .02% And Hillery is for the middle class are you kidding me. She and Bill have been sucking up to the supper rich for decades and are now one.
 
Hmm. No liberal excuses yet. MSNBC must be too busy covering Baltimore to come up with a spin for the Hillary faithful. Might have to wait until Maddow comes on at 9:00
 
You have to love what Obama has done for the rich. Just look at the market vs the middle class making less than when he took office. And now it is reported the national growth rate under obama has averaged less than 2% and in the last quarter is was .02% And Hillery is for the middle class are you kidding me. She and Bill have been sucking up to the supper rich for decades and are now one.

The middle class is what stands between the rich elite and their aristocracy.
 
A Hillary presidency would only be a laundering front for Bill's background worldwide donations tour.

Anybody want to vote for that?
 
And that would be who? Democrats.

???

The Republocrats in general have worked towards the destruction of the middle class, it's hard to establish aristocracy with it.
 
Hmm. No liberal excuses yet. MSNBC must be too busy covering Baltimore to come up with a spin for the Hillary faithful. Might have to wait until Maddow comes on at 9:00

I'm not going to defend Hillary on this - it's at least tone deaf and arguably corrupt. Bill left office and started collecting (from what I've heard) around $100 million or more in 'speaking' fees plus the millions for his foundation. I'm sure there is some genuine charitable intent in some of those donations, but only idiots believe that many/most/nearly all those donors don't also know that Hillary was SOS, and a candidate for POTUS and so no harm in making an investment in a 'relationship' with the Clinton family.

But I will say the double standard on this is pretty staggering. So, a bunch of rich people with interests in front of government gave $10s of millions to a foundation. What distinguishes that from a big donor or donors contributing $100 million or a group of them $500 million to a 501(c)(4), in secret, that will spend all that money trying to elect Scott Walker or Jeb Bush? No one skips a beat when nearly the entire GOP field appears at a fundraiser hosted by the Koch brothers. Surely no one thinks those big donors are just interested in good government. They're buying influence. It's no different in any meaningful way than the what the donors to the Clinton Foundation are doing, in the most skeptical interpretation. It's just a different side of the same coin.

Both the GOP and Democratic nominee will their own gigantic c4s out there as a vehicle for anonymous wealthy donors to buy influence, and those donations are explicitly targeted to get the candidate in office. If you're OK with all that, the disclosures about the Clinton Foundation shouldn't be any concern at all. Same song, different verse. If money = speech, and speech is good, then these donors are just going about Constitutionally protected and virtuous speech.

My own view is it's all corrupt, from top to bottom. If we let $billionaires donate unlimited sums in secret, we'll get a plutocracy, more than we already have one. But I'm AS worried about the c4s and superpacs and all the rest of the ways our government is quickly being even more captured by a handful of plutocrats. I'm not sure what the answer is, but the best I know of is public financing. The bare minimum is near instantaneous disclosure of any person or entity that contributes more than a de minimus amount (say, $1,000) to any org that has any relationship with a candidate for office.
 
A Hillary presidency would only be a laundering front for Bill's background worldwide donations tour.

Anybody want to vote for that?

See my post above, but why would you care about that if you aren't fully on board with comprehensive limits on campaign spending and the dismantling of 'non-profits' that bundle anonymous donations (or known donations) like AFP or Club for Growth to the extent they do any advocacy for a single candidate. AFP spent $144 million at least in 2012. Every dime of that was explicitly intended to influence elections. Surely you oppose that, right?
 
???

The Republocrats in general have worked towards the destruction of the middle class, it's hard to establish aristocracy with it.

That I disagrees and Obama is a perfect example of it.
 
I'm not going to defend Hillary on this - it's at least tone deaf and arguably corrupt. Bill left office and started collecting (from what I've heard) around $100 million or more in 'speaking' fees plus the millions for his foundation. I'm sure there is some genuine charitable intent in some of those donations, but only idiots believe that many/most/nearly all those donors don't also know that Hillary was SOS, and a candidate for POTUS and so no harm in making an investment in a 'relationship' with the Clinton family.

But I will say the double standard on this is pretty staggering. So, a bunch of rich people with interests in front of government gave $10s of millions to a foundation. What distinguishes that from a big donor or donors contributing $100 million or a group of them $500 million to a 501(c)(4), in secret, that will spend all that money trying to elect Scott Walker or Jeb Bush? No one skips a beat when nearly the entire GOP field appears at a fundraiser hosted by the Koch brothers. Surely no one thinks those big donors are just interested in good government. They're buying influence. It's no different in any meaningful way than the what the donors to the Clinton Foundation are doing, in the most skeptical interpretation. It's just a different side of the same coin.

Both the GOP and Democratic nominee will their own gigantic c4s out there as a vehicle for anonymous wealthy donors to buy influence, and those donations are explicitly targeted to get the candidate in office. If you're OK with all that, the disclosures about the Clinton Foundation shouldn't be any concern at all. Same song, different verse. If money = speech, and speech is good, then these donors are just going about Constitutionally protected and virtuous speech.

My own view is it's all corrupt, from top to bottom. If we let $billionaires donate unlimited sums in secret, we'll get a plutocracy, more than we already have one. But I'm AS worried about the c4s and superpacs and all the rest of the ways our government is quickly being even more captured by a handful of plutocrats. I'm not sure what the answer is, but the best I know of is public financing. The bare minimum is near instantaneous disclosure of any person or entity that contributes more than a de minimus amount (say, $1,000) to any org that has any relationship with a candidate for office.

Good post. I would counter by saying there are two problems with the Clinton thing that separate it from other fund raising problems you outlined. 1) That much of the money in question here is from foreign sources and there is something far worse to the thought that foreign money would influence American policy 2) That it is being done under the guise of a charity and that many donors and donations were not reported.
 
Good post. I would counter by saying there are two problems with the Clinton thing that separate it from other fund raising problems you outlined. 1) That much of the money in question here is from foreign sources and there is something far worse to the thought that foreign money would influence American policy 2) That it is being done under the guise of a charity and that many donors and donations were not reported.

I agree with those points.

More than anything what kills me about Hillary and Bill is it's been almost a guarantee that she'd run for POTUS in 2016. And she STILL set up a personal email server in her home and turned over only some of the emails, deleted the rest. And she STILL allowed Bill to solicit and accept funds from people with interest at the State Department. I suspect the lawyers signed off on all of it, but it shows a fairly deep contempt for the public and a complete disregard for the spirit of the rules. I'll probably vote in the Democratic primary and it will be for ABH - anyone but Hillary.

And the thought of having to choose between Hillary and Jeb makes me want to puke and move to... Costa Rica or something.
 
Back
Top Bottom