streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Read this... yeah, it's IBD... but, they've done research.
>snipped for brevity<
Even if this is 10% accurate, it's troubling no?

Yes or no: Did Clinton have one single thing to do with the Russian uranium mining deal?

The answer as facts show is: No, she did not have a single thing to do with it.

So explain again: for the Russian uranium mining deal, why should she be held to task for a deal she had not one single hand in?

 Jihadin wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Read this... yeah, it's IBD... but, they've done research.
>snipped for brevity<
Even if this is 10% accurate, it's troubling no?

Yes or no: Did Clinton have one single thing to do with the Russian uranium mining deal?

The answer as facts show is: No, she did not have a single thing to do with it.

So explain again: for the Russian uranium mining deal, why should she be held to task for a deal she had not one single hand in?

Believe she had to sign off on the deal being it concern American Strategic Resource or something to that effect. Russia/Putin in effect can manipulate the prices on Uranium or deny selling to the US

the facts showed that the State Department is just one of nine votes on the committee that had to approve that deal, that Clinton wasn't personally involved in the review, and that other independent agencies also had to approve it.

All the money that allegedly flowed to the Clintons to smooth the way for this deal to go through was so that Clinton would not attempt, as the head of one of nine agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, to veto it? When the State Department's review of the deal didn't rise to the level where the secretary would get personally involved? Oh, and by the way, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Canadian government also signed off on the deal, and if the cabinet secretaries on the CFIUS can't agree on whether to approve a deal, it's not a one-secretary veto situation: the president then decides.

So not only is there literally no way for Hilary to make the final call on this, she was never personally involved one bit. And yet we're supposed to be upset that nothing stuck to her?

I ask again, why?

Jihadin wrote:

So not only is there literally no way for Hilary to make the final call on this, she was never personally involved one bit. And yet we're supposed to be upset that nothing stuck to her?

I ask again, why?

Why was she not involve if a outside entity (Putin) was purchasing a company that provides something like 0ne-fifth of the Uranium production to the US of A?

whembly wrote:Why steam?

Because it's the timing and linkages of donors, donations, speaking fees, and DoS' own publich activites that reflects a highly questionable pattern of malfeasance.

If it were anyone else, the FBI/DoJ was come down hard on this.

Instead, people make excuses for the Clinton’s... ie, "where's the hard evidence?".

While blindly ignoring that we prosecute insider trading (don't you work for the SEC???) and even convict murderers on circumstatial evidence.

'Tis why the Clinton's need to rebrand Teflon™ to non-stick Clinton™.

 streamdragon wrote:

Jihadin wrote:

So not only is there literally no way for Hilary to make the final call on this, she was never personally involved one bit. And yet we're supposed to be upset that nothing stuck to her?

I ask again, why?

Why was she not involve if a outside entity (Putin) was purchasing a company that provides something like 0ne-fifth of the Uranium production to the US of A?

I don't know, you'll have to ask the State Department who made that decision.

Not going to really going to go into this being you have one going (debate) with Whembly

 Jihadin wrote:
Not going to really going to go into this being you have one going (debate) with Whembly

 whembly wrote:

How 'bout this chart?

 whembly wrote:

Essentially, at best, it's a mixed bag.

 whembly wrote:

If it were anyone else, the FBI/DoJ was come down hard on this.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If it were anyone else, the FBI/DoJ was come down hard on this.

Yeah, anyone else. Karl Rove sure got his.

 whembly wrote:

John Corzine straight up stole a billion dollars and didn't get so much as a slap on the wrist. (D)

 whembly wrote:

Scooter Libbey did 18 months in federal pound me in the ass prison for misremembering what he said to a reporter. (R)

 whembly wrote:

And yet, not only will nothing happen to HRC, she has a better than 50% chance of being elected POTUS.

 dogma wrote:

What do you propose as a solution?

 whembly wrote:

You know what they say about smoke...eh?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Personally, were it up to me, I would alter taxes, severely overhaul the education system, especially in the realm of college tuition (we'd probably look more like Europe).

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I would also put some kind of incentives to get people back into Trades...

 whembly wrote:
Instead, people make excuses for the Clinton’s... ie, "where's the hard evidence?".

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Instead, people make excuses for the Clinton’s... ie, "where's the hard evidence?".

How in feth is a Clinton thing to ask for hard evidence? How is that not a thing we ask of every single supposed scandal?

The actual 'Clinton thing' is the constant invention of supposed scandals that never amount to anything more than whisper campaigns and storytelling. For some reason this non-stories get reported and repeated as if they were real for a week or two, and when the facts become clear and it's obvious there is no story at all the issue is just quietly dropped, and a new piece of nonsense discovered.

 skyth wrote:
Whembly, you're starting to sound like the people that try to claim that Obama was born in Kenya or isn't a Christian.

The co-founder of the Clinton Foundation's Canadian affiliate is revealing new details about the charity's donors in an effort to counter allegations in the New York Times and the new book “Clinton Cash.”

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. “It’s frustrating,” he says. And because the donations came in through the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP)—a Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation he established with the former president—he feels doubly implicated by the insinuation of a dark alliance.

“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. “All of the money that was raised by CGEP flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,” he says.

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. A memo he provided explaining the legal rationale cites CGEP’s “fiduciary obligations” to its contributors and Canada’s Personal Information Privacy and Electronic Disclosure Act. “We are not allowed to disclose even to the Clinton Foundation the names of our donors,” he says.

On Saturday, responding to the Times story, Maura Pally, the acting CEO of the Clinton Foundation, issued a statement echoing this assertion: “This is hardly an effort on our part to avoid transparency–unlike in the U.S., under Canadian law, all charities are prohibited from disclosing individual donors without prior permission from each donor.”

Also on Bloomberg Politics: The Definitive Hillary Clinton Scouting Report, by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann

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... such as selling the list to third parties."

CGEP might have a stronger claim if it promised anonymity to donors, says David Fraser, a partner at McInnes Cooper in Halifax, Nova Scotia, who runs a blog on Canadian privacy law. He’s more skeptical of the argument that a charity has a fiduciary duty to donors. "They might have a fiduciary duty to the people they're collecting money to help," he said, "but for the donors that doesn't seem to have the ring of truth."

While Giustra says he can’t reveal any names, he is willing to disclose that CGEP money comes from “mostly Canadian donors.” The charity is registered in Canada, he says, not to hide the identity of its donors but to enable them to receive Canadian tax breaks that can reimburse them for nearly half of what they give.

However, not all CGEP’s big donors are Canadian. The Canada Revenue Agency—Canada’s IRS—requires charities to reveal whether they receive donations of more than $10,000 (Canadian) from people who are not Canadians, employed in the country, or carrying on business there. In both 2009 and 2010, CGEP filings show that it reported receiving such donations to Canadian authorities.

With millions of dollars and 1,100 donors shrouded in mystery, CGEP has caught the attention of journalist and authors, including Peter Schweizer, whose forthcoming book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, details Giustra’s financial relationship with Bill Clinton and posits nefarious intentions. The fact that the Clinton Foundation promised something that Giustra feels he can’t supply—the identity of his donors—has put him in an even worse spot.

Giustra is fed up, and he’s vowing to do something to ease his disclosure constraints and clear his name. “There is a way around it—but you need each individual donor’s written permission to allow us to disclose their names,” he says. “We’re going through a process now where we’re trying to get the permission.” He adds, “We’re not going to go to 1,100 people. But we’re certainly going to go to the big ones—a couple hundred grand and up—and just see what they say. Now, they can say no. But we’re going to try.”

 Ouze wrote:
It's going to be a long 19 months.

 dogma wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Personally, were it up to me, I would alter taxes, severely overhaul the education system, especially in the realm of college tuition (we'd probably look more like Europe).

What do you mean by "alter taxes"?

As to education: in what ways would you like the US to look like Europe?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I would also put some kind of incentives to get people back into Trades...

Unfortunately that costs quite a bit of money, unless the relevant high school is near a community college with a good shop.

 whembly wrote:
Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations

The co-founder of the Clinton Foundation's Canadian affiliate is revealing new details about the charity's donors in an effort to counter allegations in the New York Times and the new book “Clinton Cash.”

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. “It’s frustrating,” he says. And because the donations came in through the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (CGEP)—a Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation he established with the former president—he feels doubly implicated by the insinuation of a dark alliance.

“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. “All of the money that was raised by CGEP flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,” he says.

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. A memo he provided explaining the legal rationale cites CGEP’s “fiduciary obligations” to its contributors and Canada’s Personal Information Privacy and Electronic Disclosure Act. “We are not allowed to disclose even to the Clinton Foundation the names of our donors,” he says.

On Saturday, responding to the Times story, Maura Pally, the acting CEO of the Clinton Foundation, issued a statement echoing this assertion: “This is hardly an effort on our part to avoid transparency–unlike in the U.S., under Canadian law, all charities are prohibited from disclosing individual donors without prior permission from each donor.”

Also on Bloomberg Politics: The Definitive Hillary Clinton Scouting Report, by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann

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... such as selling the list to third parties."

CGEP might have a stronger claim if it promised anonymity to donors, says David Fraser, a partner at McInnes Cooper in Halifax, Nova Scotia, who runs a blog on Canadian privacy law. He’s more skeptical of the argument that a charity has a fiduciary duty to donors. "They might have a fiduciary duty to the people they're collecting money to help," he said, "but for the donors that doesn't seem to have the ring of truth."

While Giustra says he can’t reveal any names, he is willing to disclose that CGEP money comes from “mostly Canadian donors.” The charity is registered in Canada, he says, not to hide the identity of its donors but to enable them to receive Canadian tax breaks that can reimburse them for nearly half of what they give.

However, not all CGEP’s big donors are Canadian. The Canada Revenue Agency—Canada’s IRS—requires charities to reveal whether they receive donations of more than $10,000 (Canadian) from people who are not Canadians, employed in the country, or carrying on business there. In both 2009 and 2010, CGEP filings show that it reported receiving such donations to Canadian authorities.

With millions of dollars and 1,100 donors shrouded in mystery, CGEP has caught the attention of journalist and authors, including Peter Schweizer, whose forthcoming book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, details Giustra’s financial relationship with Bill Clinton and posits nefarious intentions. The fact that the Clinton Foundation promised something that Giustra feels he can’t supply—the identity of his donors—has put him in an even worse spot.

Giustra is fed up, and he’s vowing to do something to ease his disclosure constraints and clear his name. “There is a way around it—but you need each individual donor’s written permission to allow us to disclose their names,” he says. “We’re going through a process now where we’re trying to get the permission.” He adds, “We’re not going to go to 1,100 people. But we’re certainly going to go to the big ones—a couple hundred grand and up—and just see what they say. Now, they can say no. But we’re going to try.”

Hooo boy...

 whembly wrote:

Chuck F'n Todd!

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Chuck F'n Todd!

Is the US now so xenophobic that donations made by foreign nationals, to a charitable organization, are questioned on the basis of nationality?