In 2009, when St. Louis-based coal company Peabody Energy was aiming for rapid expansion into Mongolia, China, and other international markets, it sought an audience with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss its global vision.
In April of that year, an official with Peabody reached out to the State Department to request a formal meeting. The request was denied, so Peabody leaned on its lobbying team to intervene on the issue. In June, two months after Peabody’s formal request, Joyce Aboussie, a political consultant working for Peabody, wrote to Clinton aide Huma Abedin to ask that Clinton meet with Peabody executives as a personal favor.
“Huma, I need your help now to intervene please. We need this meeting with Secretary Clinton, who has been there now for nearly six months,” Aboussie wrote. “It should go without saying that the Peabody folks came to Dick and I because of our relationship with the Clinton’s [sic],” she added.
Aboussie was referring to Dick Gephardt, the former House Democratic leader who became a lobbyist after leaving public office, taking on Peabody as a client. Aboussie, a former Democratic staffer, has served as a fundraiser for Clinton’s campaigns, raising at least $100,000 for Clinton’s 2008 campaign and at least $100,000 for Clinton’s current bid for the White House. Aboussie also donated between $100,000 – $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
“We are working on it and I hope we can make something work,” Abedin replied, noting “we have to work through the beauracracy [sic] here.”
The emails were released by Judicial Watch, which published 725 pages of new State Department documents from email accounts associated with Clinton’s private server. The emails provide a window into several exchanges that appear to show Clinton donors seeking meetings and other forms of favorable treatment. For instance, one newly disclosed email chain reveals that Doug Band, a Bill Clinton adviser who played a major role in establishing the Clinton Foundation, worked to set up a meeting between then Secretary Clinton and the Crown Prince Salman al-Khalifa of Bahrain after a formal request was denied.
Band, the Washington Examiner notes, wrote to Abedin to stress that Salman was a “good friend of ours.” The Clinton Foundation notably received a donation worth up to $100,000 from the Bahrain government.
Previously released emails suggest that Gephardt also lobbied the State Department to set up meetings with business associates. Gephardt, a superdelegate, endorsed Clinton early during the 2016 Democratic primary.
Peabody, the largest coal company in the world, declared bankruptcy in April of this year. The bankruptcy documents from the firm revealed that the company, in addition to funding a number of lobbyists and political consultants, financed a network of groups working to spread doubt about the dangers of global warming.
Top photo: The Peabody Energy Corp. Somerville Central coal mine, Oakland City, Indiana, April 5, 2016.
And the point is?? Is it that Clinton had positioned herself to be the next president? If you had enough money, YOU could be president.
Thank you!!! Sick of these Crooks
“Coal: The Intercept reported this week that in an email exchange, a Clinton Foundation donor hired as a political consultant for Peabody Energy made an effort to secure a meeting between Hillary Clinton and executives at the coal company. The correspondence was initiated by Joyce Aboussie — who gave the Clinton Foundation between $100,000 and $250,000 and worked for the lobbying firm of former House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt. In the email, Aboussie said “It should go without saying that the Peabody folks came to Dick and I because of our relationship with the Clinton’s.”
Morocco: In May of 2015, Politico, ABC News and Yahoo reported that Morocco’s state-owned phosphate company OCP donated $1 million to the Clinton Foundation for a conference in Marrakech. The Politico story said “Hillary Clinton’s relationship with Morocco’s government was pivotal” in brokering the meeting and noted that “not long after stepping down in 2013, Clinton joined her family foundation’s board, and that same year OCP donated between $1 million and $5 million to the philanthropy.” Politico also noted that prior to the donations, “as protests raged on Moroccan streets, Hillary Clinton in a joint 2011 appearance with Morocco’s foreign minister praised the king for introducing constitutional reforms and said his country was ‘well-positioned to lead in this area because it is on the road to achieving democratic change.’” Additionally, Politico reported, in 2012 “even as the State Department continued to include Morocco in human rights reports and to flag concerns about government corruption, Clinton launched an ongoing U.S.-Morocco strategic dialogue, praising the country as “a leader and a model.”
Algeria: A 2015 Washington Post investigation found that the Clinton Foundation accepted $500,000 from the Algerian government at a time when that country “was spending heavily to lobby the State Department on human rights issues.” The Post reported that Clinton Foundation “officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting” the money, which was earmarked for Haiti earthquake relief.”
from http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/clinton-foundation-investigation-update-key-details-about-financial-political
“Uranium: In a 2015 investigative report, the New York Times reported that as Russia’s atomic energy agency assumed control of a multinational uranium mining conglomerate, “a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation” from investors with a stake in the deal. The sale of the company “gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.” The paper noted that the Clinton-led State Department was one of the U.S. agencies that signed off on the transaction.
Oil: A 2016 IBT report found that the State Department approved a permit for a major U.S.-Canadian oil pipeline that environmental groups have criticized. In the lead up to the approval, federal records showed that Chevron and ConocoPhilips lobbied the State Department on the issue of “oil sands,” as did a trade association linked to ExxonMobil. That trio of oil conglomerates have delivered between between $2.5 million and $3 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Lobbying: A 2015 analysis by Vox found that “at least 181 companies, individuals, and foreign governments that have given to the Clinton Foundation also lobbied the State Department when Hillary Clinton ran the place.” IBT reported that Bill Clinton was paid more than $2.5 million by firms that were lobbying Hillary Clinton’s department.
Colombia: A 2015 IBT investigative report found that as a Clinton Foundation-linked project accepted contributions from a Colombian oil firm and its founder, Hillary Clinton did not respond to calls for her State Department to use its power to combat alleged labor abuses at the company. Clinton also switched her position to support the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, actively pushing Congress to ratify a pact she had previously pledged to oppose.
Banking: In 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that in “an unusual intervention” by a top U.S. diplomat, Secretary of State Clinton announced a legal settlement that allowed the Swiss financial behemoth UBS to turn over far fewer tax documents than were sought by the IRS in its probe of the bank. “From that point on, UBS’s engagement with the Clinton family’s charitable organization increased,” reported the Journal. “Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014… The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million. And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million.”
Related Stories
Did Clinton Foundation Sway Arms Policy?
A Closer Look Into Clinton Email Scandal Timeline
During the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has said that “when Wall Street executives commit criminal wrongdoing, they deserve to face criminal prosecution.” An IBT analysis found that the Clinton Foundation has accepted $5 million worth of donations from at least nine financial institutions that reached settlement agreements with the Justice Department that required them to pay big fines but let them avoid prosecution.”
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/clinton-foundation-investigation-update-key-details-about-financial-political
“As the rhetoric about the Clintons’ public and private financial dealings intensifies, here is a brief review of the major investigative reporting that has been done about the Clinton Foundation.
Arms exports: Last year, an International Business Times series documented the ways in which many major foreign governments that had donated to the Clinton Foundation ended up receiving a boost in arms export authorizations from the Clinton-led State Department. Federal law explicitly designates the secretary of state as “responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales” of arms, and the State Department itself says it “is responsible for managing all government-to-government transfers of military equipment to other countries.” Early in her term, the State Department called one arms deal for a Clinton Foundation donor, Saudi Arabia, a “top priority” for Clinton.
Many of the donor countries that benefited were those that the State Department criticized on human rights grounds, including Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Some of the same countries received boosts in arms classified as “toxicological agents” as they worked to crush pro-democracy protests during the Arab Spring uprisings.
Donor access: The Associated Press on Tuesday reported that a review of calendar items shows “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.” Those 85 donors — which did not include foreign government contributors — gave up to $156 million, according to the news service. The AP story followed the release of emails this week that appeared to show Clinton Foundation officials working with State Department officials to broker meetings between foundation donors and Hillary Clinton. It also followed an ABC News report on a Clinton Foundation donor being appointed by the State Department to an intelligence advisory panel “even though he had no obvious experience in the field.”
Business dealings: In May, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Clinton Foundation “set up a financial commitment that benefited a for-profit company part-owned by people with ties to the Clintons.” The newspaper noted that former President Bill Clinton “personally endorsed the company, Energy Pioneer Solutions Inc., to then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu for a federal grant that year” — and that the company ultimately received an $812,000 grant. While the Clinton Foundation openly works with corporations and governments on its philanthropic projects, the Journal notes that “under federal law, tax-exempt charitable organizations aren’t supposed to act in anyone’s private interest but instead in the public interest.”
Promoting corporate donors: In 2015, IBT reported that while Clinton Foundation donor Cisco faced criticism over its work with China’s autocratic government, Clinton’s State Department honored the company for “outstanding corporate citizenship, innovation and democratic principles.” Her department also delivered government contracts to the company. The Washington Post in 2014 reported that in 2010, Clinton pushed Russia to approve a $3.7 billion purchase from Boeing. Two months after the deal was solidified, reported the newspaper, Boeing announced a $900,000 contribution to the Clinton Foundation.”
From http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/clinton-foundation-investigation-update-key-details-about-financial-political
Failed to connect the dots and led with bias and misleading headline. I expected something different from this publication.
Donating money and getting a request filled for a meeting? That sounds like what recently got the former Virginia governor convicted of bribery? But the supreme court overruled the conviction and wrote that it wasn’t a crime just to give special access (a meeting). The supreme court said you actually had to agree to do something inside of that meeting in exchange for money for it to be considered bribery.
An investigation into the Clinton Foundation and Hillary as Secretary of State will show what Hillary agreed to do in exchange for the money.
Is this a CIA slush fund? Another reason why the CIA favors Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump?
“Clinton Foundation Running Private Equity Fund in Colombia
Watchdogs criticize lack of transparency in Clinton Foundation backed effort”
“The Clinton Foundation is operating a $20 million private equity firm in Colombia, raising concerns from government and consumer watchdog groups who say the practice is unusual and could pose a significant conflict of interest.
The Bogota-based company, Fondo Acceso, could also lead to uncomfortable questions for Hillary Clinton as she criticizes the private equity industry on the campaign trail.
Fondo Acceso was founded by Bill Clinton, Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, and mining magnate Frank Giustra in 2010, financed with a $20 million joint contribution from the Clinton Foundation’s Clinton-Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative and the SLIM Foundation.
According to the firm’s Spanish-language website, Fondo Acceso is “a Private Equity Fund that seeks investment opportunities in the small and medium Colombian compan[ies] with the purpose of obtaining economic and social returns.”
However, the line between the firm and the Clinton’s nonprofit world is hazy. Fondo Acceso is run out of the Clinton Foundation’s Bogota office and staffed by foundation employees, a representative at the office told the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday.
The firm is managed by Carolina Botero, who is also chief financial officer at the Clinton-Giustra Enterprise Partnership. It lists various Clinton Foundation and CGEP officials as directors in its corporate filings. The Clinton Foundation’s tax returns list Fondo Acceso as a related corporation in which the foundation holds a 50 percent stake.
Colombian companies that want to apply for venture funding from the Fondo Acceso must also sign a contract turning over financial and internal information to both the private equity firm and the Clinton Foundation.
“The Company acknowledges that this letter of authorization or consent is given for the benefit of the FUND and of the CLINTON FOUNDATION and, therefore, cannot be repealed, or the authorization contained herein altered or modified, without the prior and written consent of the FUND and/or the CLINTON FOUNDATION,” says the contract on the Acceso website.
Fondo Acceso’s financial entanglements are also unclear. Vanessa Jimenez, chief administrator at the Clinton Foundation’s Bogota office, answered the phone number listed for the private equity fund on Tuesday. She said she was not allowed to talk about Fondo Acceso’s investments.
Jimenez said Fondo Acceso was based out of the office, but employees there technically worked for the Clinton Foundation.
“[Fondo Acceso] does not have any employees,” she said. “Nobody is hired by Acceso. … In Colombia, we work for the company, but only the Clinton Foundation is our employer.”
Jimenez directed questions to Fondo Acceso’s legal representative Monica Varela, who is also a Clinton Foundation official. Varela did not respond to request for comment.
Fondo Acceso director Christy Louth, who is also an official at the Clinton-Giustra Enterprise Partnership, declined to comment and directed questions to the partnership’s press office. A spokesperson for the Clinton Foundation also directed questions to the CGEP.
CGEP is a Canadian organization founded by Clinton and Giustra. The group contracts its economic development projects to the Clinton Foundation and does not disclose its donors.
The CGEP press office declined to provide the Free Beacon with a full list of companies that Fondo Acceso has invested in.
The group has been more willing to discuss some of Fondo Acceso’s projects privately and in the Colombian media.
Fondo Acceso managerBotero laid out the company’s strategy in July 2012 and disclosed some of its investments in a presentation to the Cartagena Chamber of Commerce.
The presentation said Fondo Acceso was looking to invest in local companies in the agriculture, production, and labor industries with “high growth potential” that had annual sales between $500,000 and $10 million. In exchange for financing, the firm would become a shareholder in the companies.
According to the presentation, Fondo Acceso’s portfolio included at least two companies at the time. It gave $1.5 million to a Barranquilla-based fruit pulping company Alimentos SAS in 2011 and $250,000 to the Bogota-based telecom company Fontel in 2012, in exchange for shareholding agreements.
These investments are a small fraction of the $20 million that Clinton, Giustra, and Slim committed to Fondo Acceso in 2010, and it is unclear where the rest of the money has gone.
The Clinton-Giustra Enterprise Partnership press office said Fondo Acceso has invested in various CGEP “enterprises” in Latin America, which are companies founded and co-owned by CGEP and the Clinton Foundation.
The lack of clear disclosure raises questions about Fondo Acceso’s transparency, according to watchdog groups.
A charitable foundation running a private equity fund is “not something one hears about commonly” and is “very concerning,” according to Craig Holman, the government affairs lobbyist at the watchdog group Public Citizen.
“Private equity firms invest and take over various companies as social services for a period of time and its intent and its purpose is to provide a reasonable return for shareholders,” said Holman. “If you’ve got a tax-free foundation getting involved in running a private equity firm, I just find that very troubling.”
Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group, said the lack of transparency was a troubling. He said the public has a right to know whether any of Fondo Acceso’s companies received U.S. government support while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.
“At the minimum, the Clinton Foundation should disclose every company that received investment funds from them, because the public is entitled to know whether those companies benefited from any State Department foreign aid programs,” said Boehm.
The Clinton campaign did not respond to a request for comment.”
http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-foundation-running-private-equity-fund-in-colombia/
clinton global initiative?
clinton crime syndicate?
clinton cartel?
“Be ware of the golden fang doc, … the golden fang.”
A bit off-topic but can only t/i make a t/i short url or can anyone? (Trying to figure out short-link stuff is getting to me.)
@Non’Importante
http://gd.ly
Try this. I’ve used it in the past. works nicely.
http://tinyurl.com/
To repliers, thanks. One reason I wanted one for here specifically is because short url services can too easily obfuscate source locations/content one might not otherwise visit. It is a web of trust thing.
“The editorial mentions that the Clinton Foundation is officially a “charity.” But suppose that the foundation were indeed an efficient and effective charity, it isn’t “The Muscular Dystrophy Foundation” or “The Alzheimer’s Disease Foundation,” it is the Clinton Foundation. Effectiveness as a charity notwithstanding, whatever good the foundation has done, it is called the Clinton Foundation.
Article I Section 9 of the Constitution is explicit about such matters: “And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign state.” It is difficult to understand how this leaves wiggle room for Hillary Clinton. Even if you stretch the point and claim that the Senate confirmation of Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state represented ratification of the foundation’s dealings by the Senate, no action was ever taken by the House to consent to it. And a promise to get approval for any foreign donations implies recognition that a blanket approval wouldn’t be invalid. Logically, each foreign donation would require congressional approval. The Clintons should divest themselves and their foundation of all monies they accepted from foreign governments without congressional approval.”
from http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-was-the-clinton-foundations-purpose-1471985881
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/23/from-wolverhampton-footballers-to-bahrain-princes-how-the-clinto/
There’s a word for someone who does what Hillary did at the State Department.
She was a “fixer”.
I thought all secretaries of state are?
There is a difference between legal and illegal fixing. The latter amounts to breaking the law or obstructing justice. So all Secretaries of State do both?
My guess is yes, just to varying degrees depending on who is in charge?
“There has been a lot of talk this month about The Clinton Foundation, but did you know that the organization has a private equity fund? Or at least that it did? Or that it still does? Again, it’s pretty confusing and the Foundation isn’t exactly being responsive to Fortune‘s inquiries.
The platform is called Fondo Acceso, and is focused on small and mid-sized enterprises in Colombia. For example, it invested in a Bogota-based fruit byproduct company that provides juices and pulp to supermarkets.
Fondo Acceso was formed in 2010 as a joint venture between the Clinton Foundation, Carlos Slim’s charitable foundation and Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra. This comes two years after then-candidate Hillary Clinton publicly opposed the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, but before she lobbied for it as Secretary of State.
Per tax filings, it appears that Fondo Acceso only has made a few investments ? totaling around $2.6 million of Foundation money ? with a net loss as of last check. Per those same filings, the Clinton Foundation staffers working on Fondo Acceso are not personally eligible for a piece of investment profits.
Last November, the Washington Free Beacon wrote about Fondo Acceso, with a blaring headline about how it was not registered to operate in Colombia. Buried inside that same story, however, was an acknowledgement that the lack of registration was irrelevant so long as Fondo Acceso wasn’t seeking to raise capital from Colombian investors (which it does not appear to have done).
A subsequent NY Post editorial referred to Fundo Acceso as a “secret investment fund,” even though its existence was publicly recorded in both the aforementioned U.S. tax documents and press releases like this one (hopefully the NY Post editorial board will soon learn about Google).
Following those stories, however, the Fondo Acceso website disappeared. Completely. Even though its portfolio companies still appear to exist.
To be clear, the actual deals don’t seem controversial (nor terribly large or lucrative ? more focused on economic development, in keeping with The Clinton Foundation’s stated mission). Nor is it unheard of for charitable organizations to make investments in private enterprises.
But, again, my calls and emails to the Clinton Foundation have gone unanswered. That means we have no idea why the website disappeared, if Clinton Foundation staffers continue to make investments and what would happen to the uncommitted capital were Hillary Clinton to be elected president.
So either it’s just the Clinton Foundation’s media office under siege, or there is a less generous reason for its lack of communication.”
From http://fortune.com/2016/08/23/the-clinton-foundations-private-equity-puzzle/
“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.
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton’s help with a visa problem; and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm’s corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa.
The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors.”
from https://apnews.com/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f625/Many-donors-to-Clinton-Foundation-met-with-her-at-State
“Even if Hillary were able to separate past foundation donations and the promise of future ones from her official actions, the donors cutting those checks would still be getting the appearance of access to a former president and a likely future one. And the mere perception of access matters, both in the financial marketplace and the political one.”
From http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/23/the_clinton_foundation_controversy_explained.html
I’m not really on board with this story either. I mean, isn’t a Secretary of State *supposed* to advance American corporate interests abroad? Given that the company was ground all the way into bankruptcy from being on the S&P 500 in 2008, I think it got not very exceptional treatment from Clinton or the Obama Administration. Yeah, we can be shocked at the influence peddling, but Washington and even local government is full of it and we know it. This back-door attempt to get a meeting seems like a small thing.
I have a question.
Say an American corporation is interested in getting a business opportunity in a foreign country. The laws of the foreign country prohibit the American corporation from doing certain things like influencing public officials of that country, lobbying, paying bribes etc. These laws prescribe serious consequences for such activities including blacklisting and disqualification, etc.
So is it the hypothetical case, that the American corporation could have just donated to the Clinton Foundation, and then used Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State to do for and on behalf of the American corporation what the American corporation was prohibited from doing itself. And of course, Mrs Clinton and her State Department lackeys would have had diplomatic immunity.
“Say an American corporation is interested in getting a business opportunity in a foreign country.”
Where?
.
I don’t think a hypothetical really works without specifics. Geopolitics don’t really work quite so simply. All business influences politics even if it isn’t as flagrant as all that (obviously sometimes it is more flagrant than other times but that is one reason I ask; countries all behave differently. You cannot remove the culture of its people (or its financial situation) from the hypothetical).
My question was – can the State Department or the Secretary of State help a US corporation break the laws and rules of another country to help the corporation obtain say a business tender in the foreign country.
This is not geopolitics or culture. My question was crystal clear with no variables involved.
This is about a corporation having to follow the law in obtaining business and about a corporation circumventing such law by using the State department to lobby when the corporation itself is prohibited from doing this.
I can give you a specific situation. Say a US company bidding for a high-value Government of India tender. The US company and all other bidders would be prohibited from lobbying or in any way trying to influence the tender. Such lobbying or attempt to influence would be defined as a corrupt practice with the consequences being disqualification and black-listing.
So can the US corporation get the Secretary of State or the US Ambassador to do such lobbying on its behalf?
Will reply to this in a bit. It is a very complex question.
After watching “Clinton Cash” on U-tube, which a co-worker told me to view I am petrified of the Democratic Party? The federal State Dept, a government agency complicit in money being funneled to the Clinton Foundation. I never realized how corrupt the Clintons are. She downright liar and should spend time in prison. Don’t know how healthy Hillary is, but she sure is healthy with money suddenly. Most of my family has been Democrats since as long as I can remember. My mother in Law a hard core Democrat, but I was stunned to find out that she is voting for the right this time. Me I voted for Obama but he has turned out to be weak, President and spent of his time on the golf course. Madam Clinton is nothing but a corrupt politician that obeys the orders of wretched people as George Soros; a billionaire communist who aided the Nazis in World War 2.
Soros has been instrumental in bring chaos and division to our sovereign nation. I knew none of what’s happening in America, until I watched the unbiased news reporting on “One American News Network” My usual time is spent in front of the TV, watching CNN news. To me, it looks as if the newspapers are in the Clinton’s pocket; certainly deceiving ordinary, working people. NOT any more after being deceived by the Clinton Campaign. I also learned if Hillary is President, they are going to open the borders for anybody to come in? Hell! We cannot even feed our own people, without have to cater to millions of foreigners. Millions of citizens of every race live in poverty. It’s unreal. Yet the Clinton’s enriched there lives on the backs of poor people in other countries. Very broke when leaving the White House and now worth $ 100 million. I guess its part of the Globalist plot? The Democrats have lost about 33 votes from my family arrangement and probably millions of others. All that honest Americans have to be vigilant about now is Voter Fraud.
but remember folks… all 68 thousand of those deleted emails were “personal”.
how many of us here have or had security clearances that see this for the blatant corruption that it is?
The meeting didn’t happen – funny how that part is left out of the story.
Donor tried to get meeting – and failed.
OMG – Are you telling me the media is biased against Hillary???
For shame!!!
I work with lawyers and when actual sensitive stuff is broached, it is not in e-mail format. An analog phone call is used – or a personal meeting. So anything left on e-mail is careless or not very revealing.
Your “analog” call has been successfully digitised by the NSA. Thank you for your contribution to American Security.
OT a bit… but I’d like to see some polling on how most Americans would define “neoliberal”.
I’m guessing 2 out of 10 would think it’s positive, and 7 out of 10 would just give you a blank stare of ignorance.
I’m not so sure the “more people are waking up” depictions are true to reality.
These revolving door congresscritters facilitating bribery and demanding bribes while selling out Americans and destroying other countries and the planet for profit may require some new terminology for public consumption.
Some journalists only perform at story telling based on what others found or briefs from AP.
Others go further and mine the raw sources of information such as the leaked data. Thanks Lee.
i wish someone could give me a reason they supported her over Sanders in the Primary.
XX chromosomes.
LOL did Hillary give Peabody advice on how to go broke? She got paid and they got screwed. That’s terrible lobbying
Yeah, but, but, but….SHE”S GONNA BE THE FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT!!!
Wooo-Hooo!!!!
“…Raised cash..,Used access to seek meeting for coal giant…”
Even if this meeting was on the up and up which is unlikely the situation involved destroys the citizenry’s faith in the democratic process, and that in itself is a major problem only getting worse.
The problem is not the peoples perception of the current system (there is no democratic process). The problem is the corrupt system.
Do not lament that people are finally seeing the light.
What people are seeing the light? The ones that already know? The hillbots are dug in as hard as ever. I see no evidence whatsoever the hillbot is changing its mind.
Obviously not all but more light is being shone on the corrupt system. Even Donald in his bumbling way is revealing the corrupt system that he wishes to control.
Baby steps. Hopefully it will not be too late before the majority of people wake up.
The majority of people are stupid and easily manipulated. This is a fundamental problem of democracy.
Trump is a plant.
Conifer or deciduous? :)
There was no meeting!!! It was asked for but it never happened. There is a lot about HRC I don’t care for, but for the love of God can’t you people actually take the time to look past headlines and actually put some thought into things.
To: WillJames
Good point – I caught it after I read through my comment again once it was posted. You cannot edit here as what I meant to say was this “type” of meeting. (actual or proposed)
Even proposing the meeting and not having it does not mean the campaign contributor’s request does not get through. My point is the ever increasing money makes us lose even what little faith we may have left in a system already hanging by a thin frayed thread.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Yup.
Or you could just say:
REVOLUTION NOW!!!!
…said the people of the spirit of blm movement. All they need to do is co-opt or adopt the language used by the founders in a modern format.
Presto-chango: would bring those folks to the political table for corruption or if they resisted before, well before, they took up arms.
People need to learn how to write certified letters to politicians. .. and being selfaware here, should get off of news site blogs and facebook and the like.
See we’ve had a coal lives matter movement and apparently it works if youre willing to pony up the cash.
This is a great article. I only wish that in myspace-page-fashion the song “paradise” by John Prine could be playing in the background. Even more distracting if there was a video loop of Clinton coal bites, flip flopping on outta biz vs whatever the other position was to make it seem more tasteful.
I’m picturing Clinton as an evil witch or a demon who devours bite after bite of a lump of coal – like a black apple… teeth stained black.
Apparently though, coal is here to stay for some time. Even GE has dropped the “ecomagination” bullshit and returned to bring “good things [back] to life” bullshit by re-thinking coal powered plants.
Markets don’t lie; marketing and political campaigns do.
2009 very close to 2008, and that reminds me: GE should have went out of business, well all of the big banks or financiers should have failed, but GE especially. They are a taxpayer burden.
And re taxpayer burdens lets do away with all energy subsidies:
2013 U.S. Gov Energy Subsidy (aprx USD) Totals
• Coal: 1.0 Billion
• Nuclear: 1.5 Billion
• NG: 2.0 Billion
• Solar: 5.0 Billion
• Wind: 6.0 Billion
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/
Vote Cthulu 2016
Even with the facts something makes me doubt you…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOZ-_wynBTw
will this do?
Shouldn’t have redacted the cell, poor form. This individual is helping bring the earth to it’s tipping point, resulting in countless deaths and suffering. The least punishment she can receive is a few harassing phone calls and having to change her precious business cards so she can continue on perpetuating the problem.
“In early April 2010 it was reported by Reuters that Partha Bhattacharyya, the Chairman and Managing Director of Coal India, stated that Peabody “are very keen to get into a partnership with us”.[102] Subsequently, Peabody issued a media release in which it confirmed that “preliminary discussions to explore long-term coal supplies and other possible cooperative ventures” were underway. The dsiscussions, the company stated, “are at very early stages and there have been no final agreements or decisions made regarding timing or structure.”[103]
It was announced in November 2010 that Coal India was in talks with Peabody Energy and Massey Energy about acquiring two of the companies’ mines. Coal India has budgeted $1.2 billion to buy assets in the U.S., Indonesia and Australia during the year ending March 2011 as it battles a widening gap between domestic coal supply and demand.[104] The Economic Times reported that Coal India hopes to reach agreement on Peabody Energy Australia spinning the Wilkie Creek Mine off into an unlisted stand alone company in which it would be a 15% stake. Coal India also states that other discussions, including with Peabody Energy, are underway about acquiring other coal assets.[105]”
Source http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Peabody_Energy#Coal_India_in_Discussions_with_Peabody
So who did Hillary Clinton talk to in India about this on behalf of Peabody?
The entire South Asia can teach Hillary Clinton a thing or two on corruption and deception. But first she needs to learn effective booth-capturing techniques. Who is the renowned expert there?
In India, a guy named Prashant Kishor (and his entourage) who turned up from nowhere in 2014 seems to be the renowned expert.
correction – who turned up from nowhere in 2012 – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prashant_Kishor
But maybe you refer to the Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton team.
And Hillary Clinton’s reply to this –
“Jimmy, my emails are so boring,” she said. “And I’m embarrassed about that. They’re so boring. So we’ve already released, I don’t know, 30,000 plus, so what’s a few more?”
This woman really thinks American voters are fools.
Fact check – Has Hillary released 30,000 emails?
Did she even hand over 30,000 emails to the State Dept or later to the FBI?
Didn’t the FBI have to work really hard to recover some of those 30,000 emails?
And didn’t she wipe clean her servers of another set of 30,000 more emails, and no, not with a cloth. And no the FBI couldn’t recover these. But some hackers might have them.
And how many Hillary emails have been publicly released?
And how many lawsuits has it taken to get these released?
And these new emails are so ‘boring” that they ought to result in the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate the Clinton Foundation and how it sold the State Department.
Really, Hillary does not understand what it is to speak the truth. She thinks people are fools and this alone would make her a dangerous President.
Hillary and Bill Clinton, the exceptional people who think they are above the law.
Hellary doesn’t think we are fools, but she does think we are all abused wives after the beating that wallstreet gave to US by robbing the country, and the beating we got by allowing war fraud and massive deaths, and the beating we got by allowing our children to be slaughtered here and there, and the beating we got by allowing the country to be invaded from mexico, and the beating we got by allowing our infrastructure to crumble and kill, by the beating we got from permitting mass unemployment, and the beating we got from allowing a crooked guy sign the NDAA to allow Americans to be disappeared, and the beating we got by presenting our selves as sadists of the planet who torture people and support genocide of Palestinians, etcetera.
And as we all know, people who are beat regularly are captive of beaters and develop that Helsinki thing as if we deserve it somehow and look forward to more like a bunch of masochistic cows ready for slaughter.
@barabbas-get out of my head! It’s strange to see my thoughts and feelings in text by someone else? I guess I agree with you?………
“As in Helsinki, Sweden.”
The Stockholm Syndrome.
But Harvey wasnt Finnished with his twist on dry humour ;)
In a perfect world, Mrs. Clinton would have leaned on some foreign governments to give lucrative coal deals to Peabody, and the firm would have been saved from bankruptcy. In reality, these lobbyists vastly oversell their influence to firms in financial difficulties, who are so desperate they will place their faith for salvation in the hands of the US political system.
Many people are rightly outraged about the lobbyists preying on vulnerable corporations. But Peabody was not the first firm who placed false hope in Mrs. Clinton, and it will not be the last. The law of the jungle may seem cruel, but it firms like Peabody without a viable business model, are assisted more quickly towards their inevitable demise by the vultures and various forms of lobbyists who inhabit Washington. They help extract the last drops of value from the corporation, before sending it on its inevitable journey to Chapter Nine. As scavengers, they play a valuable role in the business ecosystem, helping to suck out the last traces of life from the Peabodys of the world, so that more healthy firms can thrive and profit.
gee. That sounds a whole lot like when Mitt Romney drooled at the thought of getting his hands on working persons retirement funds that he had them pledge for what some consider to be poison loans.
say, do you suppose Mitt might have had some special lobbyist knowledge about TPP secret style trade deals that were industry killers and knowing that, he swooped in pretending to be a benefactor with a white board?
Kinda hard to say who learned from whom, but “what difference does it make”? As president, Hellary could run the Mitty game on whole countries and, and, and…… wait a minute, is this a sneaky way to put the entire world’s population under one giant I…R…S… who would be charged with collecting the revenues from the citizens whose tax bills would have all them “CORPORAT LOST PROFITS + INTEREST” charges on them?
What a spin by Benito Mussolini.
Hillary probably did lean on foreign Governments including that of India. Peabody was hoping to benefit from Indian corruption in coal mine allotments and from a proposed privatization of the coal market in India. But then the Indian coal scam broke.
And even Hillary Clinton can’t affect global demand for coal.
Peabody was a lost cause but not because Hillary didn’t try to help it.
see http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120821/jsp/business/story_15876904.jsp#.V7wKBvl97IU
The real truth would emerge if we could see how many deals did Hillary help a company like GE get.
And Peabody’s institutional and elite shareholders and its corporate executives and the lobbyists and the Clinton Foundation and some public officials in India must all have made a lot of or at least some money, so who care if the Company declares bankruptcy.
Isn’t it the job of the Secretary of State to promote American businesses in foreign lands?
Not by getting money for doing it.
There is certainly an appearance of quid pro quo on the money, however, it seems to me that this is in lieu of paying taxes, a deficiency of the morans in congress who have no idea what taxes are about.
Also the Clinton Foundation donation receipts and Bill Clinton’s speaking fees etc. created a massive conflict of interest when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Look at the OECD conflict of interest guidelines.
And it was far from innocent. They were influence peddling.
Do you think the Clinton Foundation would have got all this money if she was not Secretary of State and a potential POTUS? And neither would Bill Clinton have earned as much as he has.
One more real-life example underlining how money-infested our so-called Democracy is.
It’s only by luck that we get an insight in how elections are undermined [ rigged ], in the backroom, by lobbyists and the companies they represent.
We don’t need people like Donald who is totally obscure about policy or Hillary who back stabs Bernie or Jeb Bush who keeps
advocating that George kept us safe from harm by instigating one war after another killing hundreds of thousands on the go.
To make – Democracy Great Again – we have to press for change. In the current election environment people are not more the voting-cattle as long as the elections last. Thereafter it’s business as usual and all promises are neglected.
Voters want to know what they are really voting for. We don’t need nice advertorials during elections. We want to know what a candidate stands for and what he or she is going to bring to the table for us in the coming period.
Without good language skills, politics goes awry – let’s not forget that JFK called himself a donut once in a Berlin speech, initiating the terrible ‘Cuban cigar crisis’ (or something).
The Clinton’s what, exactly?
Their succubi? Their bathtowels? Inquiring minds want to know.
It’s enough that the US is swamped in corruption, but a populace succumbing to the coercion and propaganda of a ruling elite who can’t be bothered to ensure good grammar from their lackeys is an intolerable indignity.
We should all vote Green. Not only do they abhor the sort of corporatist corruption exposed here, they also know how to use apostrophes appropriately.
Ha! You’re fighting a losing battle Masie.
Spelin and gramr are lost arts thanks to texting.
btw how do you spell colour?
Please…don’t be one of those from another of the English speaking language countries who believe that “Americans” spell these words (color, humor etc) incorrectly…that’s just silly. Go check an American language dictionary..
Ha! Sorry, I don’t have an American language dictionary.
I speak English.
If you want to complain about the degradation of the language you can start with your misguided Mr. Webster who started spelling words phonetically because he didn’t know the proper spelling. With the adoption of incorrectly spelled words from so far back it is no wonder that spelling continues to deteriorate in this culture.
OK…re. a dictionary, I’m sure there are many online for your browsing pleasure…cheers : )
More dirt on Abedin here:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/new-abedin-emails-reveal-hillary-clinton-state-department-gave-special-access-top-clinton-foundation-donors/
There’s also a story within the story here re. Huma Abedin:
“The top campaign aide to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was listed as an editor for a Saudi-sponsored magazine that advocates radical Islam ideas, many of which contradict the campaign pledges made by the Democratic nominee, it has been reported.
Huma Abedin, 40, has for years been one of Clinton’s closest confidantes…”
https://www.rt.com/usa/356720-clinton-aide-radical-muslim/
“Putin doesn’t say Hillary is thin-skinned — he says she’s Satan incarnate.”
http://www.inquisitr.com/3225440/hillary-clinton-means-war-says-vladimir-putin-to-frightened-russian-people-american-militarism-has-a-female-face/
Crooked Hellary, she’s the monster’s mother.
Spelling is an art of peasants.
What I remain unclear about: do the people in charge send important messages to one another that are of lower quality than most forum posts on the Intercept because they are truly hurried for time, or truly incompetent at spelling, or … has the art of misspelling actually become a way by which people signify that they are in a superior position over others? One need merely look at a set of job listings, for example, to see that human resources workers delight in including errors in every posting, even as they notoriously scrutinize the applications they receive for even a single slip-up. Does the number of misspellings in a post actually give a sense of the rank of an office-holder?
The funny part is that with a wide range of well-known database leaks, this could actually be tested with real data sets. One might even work out the perceived social rankings of Sony executives relative to State Department personnel and DNC officials on a single objective scale this way.
I suppose the NSA must have a tool for this already — either that or, incredibly, I have beaten them at their own game, at least for the design phase.
Finally, Lee Fang of the Intercept zeroes in on how Hillary and Bill Clinton put up the State Department for sale.
and for their next trick…
they will put of the entire United States of America for sale with the TPP
for a donation….
wallstreet’s finest whore for war and more.
“they will put of the entire United States of America for sale”
Not necessary. The corps already own it. Who do you think drafts these agreements and tells their politico flunkies to pass it?
Now that Julian Assange has declared that his Wikileaky is going to leak the emails that will indict Hillary Clinton, the person who is feeling most threatened is the CEO of ISIS, Ali Bakr Al Baghdadi.
First and foremost, the Turkeys are no longer protecting him. Second, his whereabouts are pretty well known, at least correct to a half-mile radius. Finally, killing him will allow Hillary Clinton to declare victory and dance her we-came-we-saw jig, while we forget about insignificant leaky emails.
Just loving it that Baghdadi is urinating in his burqua while waiting for the inevitable bomb.
won’t happen
hellary needs as many enemas as she can musturd
puns intended
It is called bribe laundering. Hellary knew enough to say no officially but to have aides steer the “client” to the Foundation.
Bill was/is the bagman. He goes and makes a 20min speech for umpteen zillion dollars. RICO charges should be brought, but by who? The cowardly FBI only cares about their pensions.
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2097.htm
THE FIX IS IN for the monster’s mother, Hellary
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/22/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-release-election-day
US. RIGGED. ROBBED BY WALLSTREET. WARRED BY HELLARY. RUINED BY THE BELTWAY.
I don’t quite know what’s going on, but I am left appalled that all kinds of moderate jihadists like Abedin and Aboussie are addressing each other without once invoking their regular allahuakbars and salamalekums. Something is really fishy. I can discern that there is definitely a conscious effort to avoid getting snared by NSA that would otherwise happen on using trigger words. This indicates that they were aware of all the mischief that NSA performed even though almost all our elected representatives knew nothing. No wonder all the terrorists stopped using cell phones long before Snowden told us all about what we all suspected but were dismissed as conspiracy theorists.
This is a more dangerous development than the quid pro quo arrangement that is generally present everywhere and not just in this sordid case. Here it was only much better organized than what most others do.
Queen Hellary has criminal contacts within the NSA; they would be Mr. Hearno, Mr. Seeno, and Mr. Speakno.
she’s a one woman criminal enterprise and, she’s the monster’s mother.
Amazing how f**king corrupt these corporate / war profiteering whores are… Green party all the way.
The Clintons are criminals… looking forward to the film Mena (2017).
LeeFang is tops! bet the Secof State Office purposefully denied many requests JUST SO THEY COULD BEG THRU THE CROOKDCLINTONFOUNDATION to pay-play!!
Nothing new here generally, but it’s great to have the details exposed. This is exactly how the system works now and why we badly need to completely eliminate all forms of private campaign financing.
And BTW, Peabody Coal has always been evil, from the John Prine song (destroying the Earth for profit) to forcing the Dine (Navajo) off their land in northern Arizona, these types are as bad as it gets.
I Looked around for a well recorded version of John Prine’s Paradise (aka Mulhenberg County). I didn’t find one on youtube doing it justice.
I did find this sweetly delivered live version of Hello in There
Hello in There
The segues in the commentary section here are quite often jewels. In the spirit of that, then, and regarding Hillary and presidential/political candidates in general these days, another John Prine tune: “Some Humans Ain’t Human.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEy6EuZp9IY
I used to have the album, but I haven’t hear this song for decades. This version sounds just like I remember it.
Mr. Fang,
More great reporting from you. Appreciate it. Keep up the good work.