It doesn’t exactly take a jaded disposition to doubt that donations from some of the world’s most repressive regimes are motived by a desire to aid the foundation’s charitable work.
As the numerous and obvious ethical conflicts surrounding the Clinton Foundation receive more media scrutiny, the tactic of Clinton-loyal journalists is to highlight the charitable work done by the foundation, and then insinuate — or even outright state — that anyone raising these questions is opposed to its charity. James Carville announced that those who criticize the foundation are “going to hell.” Other Clinton loyalists insinuated that Clinton Foundation critics are indifferent to the lives of HIV-positive babies or are anti-gay bigots.
That the Clinton Foundation has done some good work is beyond dispute. But that fact has exactly nothing to do with the profound ethical problems and corruption threats raised by the way its funds have been raised. Hillary Clinton was America’s chief diplomat, and tyrannical regimes such as the Saudis and Qataris jointly donated tens of millions of dollars to an organization run by her family and operated in its name, one whose works has been a prominent feature of her public persona. That extremely valuable opportunity to curry favor with the Clintons, and to secure access to them, continues as she runs for president.
The claim that this is all just about trying to help people in need should not even pass a laugh test, let alone rational scrutiny. To see how true that is, just look at who some of the biggest donors are. Although it did not give while she was secretary of state, the Saudi regime by itself has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with donations coming as late as 2014, as she prepared her presidential run. A group called “Friends of Saudi Arabia,” co-founded “by a Saudi Prince,” gave an additional amount between $1 million and $5 million. The Clinton Foundation says that between $1 million and $5 million was also donated by “the State of Qatar,” the United Arab Emirates, and the government of Brunei. “The State of Kuwait” has donated between $5 million and $10 million.
Theoretically, one could say that these regimes — among the most repressive and regressive in the world — are donating because they deeply believe in the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation and want to help those in need. Is there a single person on the planet who actually believes this? Is Clinton loyalty really so strong that people are going to argue with a straight face that the reason the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Emirates regimes donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation is because those regimes simply want to help the foundation achieve its magnanimous goals?
Here’s one of the Clinton Foundation’s principal objectives; decide for yourself if its tyrannical donors are acting with the motive of advancing that charitable goal:
All those who wish to argue that the Saudis donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation out of a magnanimous desire to aid its charitable causes, please raise your hand. Or take the newfound casting of the Clinton Foundation as a champion of LGBTs, and the smearing of its critics as indifferent to AIDS. Are the Saudis also on board with these benevolent missions? And the Qataris and Kuwaitis?
Which is actually more homophobic: questioning the Clinton Foundation’s lucrative relationship to those intensely anti-gay regimes, or cheering and defending that relationship? All the evidence points to the latter. But whatever else is true, it is a blatant insult to everyone’s intelligence to claim that the motive of these regimes in transferring millions to the Clinton Foundation is a selfless desire to help them in their noble work.
Another primary project of the Clinton Foundation is the elimination of wealth inequality, which “leads to significant economic disparities, both within and among countries, and prevents underserved populations from realizing their potential.” Who could possibly maintain that the reason the Qatari and Emirates regimes donated millions to the Clinton Foundation was their desire to eliminate such economic oppression?
It doesn’t exactly take a jaded disposition to doubt that these donations from some of the world’s most repressive regimes are motivated by a desire to aid the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work. To the contrary, it just requires basic rationality. That’s particularly true given that these regimes “have donated vastly more money to the Clinton Foundation than they have to most other large private charities involved in the kinds of global work championed by the Clinton family.” For some mystifying reason, they seem particularly motivated to transfer millions to the Clinton Foundation but not the other charities around the world doing similar work. Why might that be? What could ever explain it?
Some Clinton partisans, unwilling to claim that Gulf tyrants have charity in their hearts when they make these donations to the Clinton Foundation, have settled on a different tactic: grudgingly acknowledging that the motive of these donations is to obtain access and favors, but insisting that no quid pro quo can be proven. In other words, these regimes were tricked: They thought they would get all sorts of favors through these millions in donations, but Hillary Clinton was simply too honest and upstanding of a public servant to fulfill their expectations.
The reality is that there is ample evidence uncovered by journalists suggesting that regimes donating money to the Clinton Foundation received special access to and even highly favorable treatment from the Clinton State Department. But it’s also true that nobody can dispositively prove the quid pro quo. Put another way, one cannot prove what was going on inside Hillary Clinton’s head at the time that she gave access to or otherwise acted in the interests of these donor regimes: Was she doing it as a favor in return for those donations, or simply because she has a proven affinity for Gulf State and Arab dictators, or because she was merely continuing decades of U.S. policy of propping up pro-U.S. tyrants in the region?
While this “no quid pro quo proof” may be true as far as it goes, it’s extremely ironic that Democrats have embraced it as a defense of Hillary Clinton. After all, this has long been the primary argument of Republicans who oppose campaign finance reform, and indeed, it was the primary argument of the Citizens United majority, once depicted by Democrats as the root of all evil. But now, Democrats have to line up behind a politician who, along with her husband, specializes in uniting political power with vast private wealth, in constantly exploiting the latter to gain the former, and vice versa. So Democrats are forced to jettison all the good-government principles they previously claimed to believe and instead are now advocating the crux of the right-wing case against campaign finance reform: that large donations from vested factions are not inherently corrupting of politics or politicians.
Indeed, as I documented in April, Clinton-defending Democrats have now become the most vocal champions of the primary argument used by the Citizens United majority. “We now conclude,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the Citizens United majority, “that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” That is now exactly the argument Clinton loyalists are spouting to defend the millions in donations from tyrannical regimes (as well as Wall Street banks and hedge funds): Oh, there’s no proof there’s any corruption going on with all of this money.
The elusive nature of quid pro quo proof — now the primary Democratic defense of Clinton — has also long been the principal argument wielded by the most effective enemy of campaign finance reform, GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell. This is how USA Today, in 1999, described the arguments of McConnell and his GOP allies when objecting to accusations from campaign finance reform advocates that large financial donations are corrupting:
Senate opponents of limiting money in politics injected a bitter personal note into the debate as reformers began an uphill quest to change a system they say has corrupted American government. …
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the legislation’s chief opponent, challenged reform advocate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to name Senate colleagues who have been corrupted by high-dollar political contributions.
”How can there be corruption if no one is corrupt?” McConnell asked, zeroing in on McCain’s frequent speeches about the issue in his presidential campaign. ”That’s like saying the gang is corrupt but none of the gangsters are.”
When McCain refused to name names, Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, confronted him. Standing just eight feet from him on the Republican side of the chamber, Bennett charged that McCain had accused him of corruption in seeking pork-barrel spending for his home state.
”I am unaware of any money given that influenced my action here,” Bennett said. ”I have been accused of being corrupt. … I take personal offense.”
The inability to prove that politicians acted as quid pro quo when taking actions that benefited donors has long been the primary weapon of those opposing campaign finance reform. It is now the primary argument of Democratic partisans to defend Hillary Clinton. In Citizens United, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a scathing dissent on exactly this point, one that Democrats once cheered:
So if you want to defend the millions of dollars that went from tyrannical regimes to the Clinton Foundation as some sort of wily, pragmatic means of doing good work, go right ahead. But stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by pretending that these donations were motivated by noble ends. Beyond that, don’t dare exploit LGBT rights, AIDS, and other causes to smear those who question the propriety of receiving millions of dollars from the world’s most repressive, misogynistic, gay-hating regimes. Most important, accept that your argument in defense of all these tawdry relationships — that big-money donations do not necessarily corrupt the political process or the politicians who are their beneficiaries — has been and continues to be the primary argument used to sabotage campaign finance reform.
Given who their candidate is, Democrats really have no choice but to insist that these sorts of financial relationships are entirely proper (needless to say, Goldman Sachs has also donated millions to the Clinton Foundation, but Democrats proved long ago they don’t mind any of that when they even insisted that it was perfectly fine that Goldman Sachs enriched both Clintons personally with numerous huge speaking fees — though Democrats have no trouble understanding why Trump’s large debts to Chinese banks and Goldman Sachs pose obvious problems). But — just as is true of their resurrecting a Cold War template and its smear tactics against their critics — the benefits derived from this tactic should not obscure how toxic it is and how enduring its consequences will likely be.
Top photo: A meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative on in 2011 in New York.
Glenn,
I am grateful for the truth that you doggedly pursue everyday.
Now if we could just get people to recognize truth as it is being uncovered….
Wake up folks…the Clintons are benefactors to no one but their own interests…
how can we blame teh hillary
she is using all the tools in the toolbox to control known unknowns
The Syria pipeline that will now NOT go through Saudi Arabia, but east through Turkey to Russia.
Great essay Glenn especially this:
That’s particularly true given that these regimes “have donated vastly more money to the Clinton Foundation than they have to most other large private charities involved in the kinds of global work championed by the Clinton family.”
Not only do the Saudi’s not give money to Doctors without Borders THEY BOMB THEIR HOSPITALS IN YEMEN.
Because like every other negative thing in our world, the Saudis are secret zionists?
Lol, just lol.
When I searched for Clinton Foundation articles here on The Intercept’s website, the titles alone of your article and that of another by your colleague Lee Fang in February struck me as very interesting when you put them together.
Could the reason for millions donated by the Saudi regime to the Clinton Foundation have anything to do with the fact that emails show that Clinton aides celebrated F-15 sales to Saudi Arabia?
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/saudi-christmas-present/
Isolating the Clinton Foundation distorts the reality of donations to international aid and advocacy organizations. For example, donations from Saudi nationals and organizations have also gone to Human Rights Watch. HRW has not toned down its criticism of Saudi rights violations (particularly against migrant workers), but these donations have been controversial (Israel has accused HRW of bias in reporting on rights violations against Palestinians and pointed to donations from Saudi Arabia as a reason to discredit HRW) . A more nuanced and less politicized analysis of aid and donations would be helpful. International NGOs such as CARE, Plan and Save the Children also receive corporate sponsorship, with Care for example receiving funding from Heineken while it is working in Cambodia and other SE Asian nations to advocate for better working conditions for “beer promotion girls” hired by the brewer’s local partner. International NGOs also receive funding from global apparel brands for advocacy work for garment workers. And who is exploiting the LGBT community for the Clinton foundation’s success in lowering the prices of ARVs for people living with HIV/Aids in developing and least developed countries. The LGBT community in the West has largely ignored the plight people with HIV/Aids in poor countries who have had little access to ARVs. What makes this more of a scandal is that in the late 90s and early 2000s ARVs were widely tested in Thailand …. where (at that time) the only access people with HIV/Aids had to the medications was by signing up for the trials. Mr. Greenwald’s argument is too simplistic because it focuses entirely on the Clinton Foundation without comparing its fundraising practices to other foundations and charities. A wider analysis might lead to more complex conclusions … but complexity is apparently unappealing to chest thumping journalists lost in an ideological haze.
I disagree completely.
While it is important to bring up the stories you mentioned and a wider analysis should follow up, Greenwald is focused on a very specific charity because it is linked to the person who may potentially become the president. That deserves tighter, more focused scrutiny, yet it is constantly dodged and obfuscated by lesser evil comparisons or incredulity that a charity is being Criticized. Your comment accomplished about as much.
The Clintons, a former and future president, run a charity in which foreign governments and wealthy individuals can make large donations. This is a clear conflict of interest, designed to favor wealthy power players in the world, and it should be taken apart bit by bit.
It wouldn’t hurt to go after the entanglement of wealth and power in the pockets of other charities, but this could be a linchpin considering this takes that sort of bribery to the top level.
Your assessment of Donald Trump seems to be a matter of putting words to hysteria and would be more suitable to a character in a cartoon–in short it does not seem like the product of a seasoned intellect. I doubt if he were the man you portray him as his family would want anything to do with him. Nor would he have any friends–he would in that respect be more like Obama. There is in my mind no doubt that Hilary is guilty of many serious crimes stretching back to her earliest adult action and was first given public notice by Jerry Zeifman! When you start off with an immature assessment of Trump as you did at Democracy Now you lose my respect; and I began looking for motives hidden away in the darker recesses of your mind. Who are you communicating with in those moments? You might actually have something worthwhile to say but you discourage me from continuing to listen by as I mentioned assuming the role of a character in a cartoon. In short you seem insincere and emotional. I know Pulitzer Prizes are largely political but still you might help elevate them by assuming a more dignifies stance.
sounds reasonable…stop listening than. It seemingly is an arduous endeavor to trigger, anyhow.
Then I suggest you read the just-released book by David Cay Johnston, “The Making of Donald Trump.” I had heard or read some of the stories, but these will make you think. This book is a far deeper (and scarier) telling of the stories Mr Trump would prefer you didn’t know. (I must warn you that Mr Johnston is also a Pulitzer Prize winning author.)
With the Trumps, I can’t begin to understand the familial tolerance of his behavior, language, and entire endeavor, but what we see in public is rarely the true story. I wouldn’t presume much except for somebody running for the presidency, he’s a brazen liar (as were many – Romney + Ryan/Palin), he’s unmatched in intimidation – especially of the media, narcissism, childishness, petulance, and vengeance.
I watched Democracy Now! I don’t see how you came to your conclusion, but ffffh.
Reading this article, I am disgusted at the lack of any honest coverage almost anywhere on television towards either candidate. I can barely watch msnbc anymore and I’m glad I read about the two segments FAIR referenced. (Thanks for the link, GG.) At least I am informed, so I know when I hear spin/bullshit. The position I am left with is better than defending either of the candidates, neither of whom should occupy the WH in January.
French laws against appearing Muslim in school, against going to the beaches…now no Muslim women allowed in a restaurant, it all leads to one inescapable question… When are French Muslims going to stop provoking the French???? Muslims, born in France need to assimilate into French culture, and French culture is anti-Muslim, it’s that simple!!! More broadly, when are all the different cultural groups in France going to understand, France is not multicultural!!!
It’s funny, but some in France are actually proud of their conception of France as non-multicultural. “assimilationist” sounds a lot better than “racist” doesn’t it? Americans should try it:
“I’m not against blacks…I’m only against “ostentatious” blackness. America is racially “neutral”, so blackness should not be visible in the classroom, at the beach…oh and no going into white owned restaurants….but don’t call us racist!!!!!”
All good points…why can’t black leaders talk to their people and get them to at least try to be more white???
…But unlike being black, being Muslim is a choice they say….uh, one minute they are banning the veil because they say, women don’t have a choice, they are forced to wear it “Hurrah we’re free!!! Thank you mr policeman on the beach!!!”, but now it is ok to ban, because it IS a choice..”I can’t find burkini in the Quran anywhere!!!!”.
Keep in mind also being culturally Muslim is not a choice, it is also an accident of birth, More Americans are Christian, than Muslim, not by choice but by inertia.
And is discrimination against women ok, because women can now CHOOSE to get sex change operations? “I’m not sexist..If you merely assimilated into the dominant culture as a male, I’d stop harrasing you!!!”
So, back to France, we are at a juncture where a traditionally white male dominated Christian former empire, has a minority Muslim population. They were born in France. They were born Muslim. And the state is asking them to “please stop being so visibly what you are…it’s threatening the majority’s conception of itself as non-racist.”
Ah, if life were only that simple. I am afraid that France has created a serious problem for itself and it can not be solved by evoking the past and condemning dead men. There are three incompatible communities in France: Jewish, Islamic and a faded Christian. Essentially France is the product of centuries of Christianity. Both Talmudic and Sharia law are antagonistic to France. Since the majority of French people have a ways to go before sainthood the obvious solutions will tend to be violent. We can expect an increasing amount of violence not only in France but also in most of Europe. And if many Muslims immigrate to the USA the same will happen here. What should be the case does not stand a chance against what is the case!
Terrific conversation with Amy this morning, Glenn, I’m planning to watch it again this afternoon. I can never say thank you enough for all you both do.
How much longer can the USA afford the corrupt criminal elites as the US National Debt continues to rise at over $45,486.00 dollars a second, and now having reached $21, 808,504,000,000 dollars, that’s $120,485.00 dollars per tax payer. How long can America afford to fund the wars of profit for the elite?
http://www.theusdebtclock.com/
CLINTON CASH OFFICIAL DOCUMENTARY MOVIE ( FULL )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM
Charity begins at home for the Clintons. Clinton Cash The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich by Peter Schweizer :
http://www.clintoncashbook.com/
I have no desire to become involved in the rants below, and I also have no desire to defend Hillary Clinton’s altruism, which, I concur, is probably non-existent. However, there’s one interesting thing about Greenwald’s article above that I think deserves attention: he seems to have little or no idea of what’s in the minds of the Saudi princes, industrialists and financiers who contribute huge donations to the Clinton Foundation. Based on what I know of Middle Eastern politics (I live here), I can suggest something, however:
It’s FEAR; it may easily be assumed that it’s tribute money paid to a very powerful Foundation and the family running it, who espouse “liberal” values, so they STAY OUT OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS!
If Greenwald thinks that the people who control Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait actually like or feel any affinity with people like the Clintons, or any other American or European “liberals,” he must have no personal knowledge of these people. They DESPISE “Western values,” but they understand how powerful the rich “liberals” of America and Europe are, and they are well aware that the values and aspirations of “liberals” and “secularists” and “progressives” in the West are catching on with the youth of their own countries. In short, they know their days are numbered in their own societies. So these donations are, in fact, tribute money from a gerontocracy who wish to prolong their rule for just a little longer.
Meanwhile, the Clintons are able to take this money and quietly work to undermine the systems that keep these tyrants in power. It’s a kind of “quid pro quo” that Greenwald doesn’t seem to recognize: “here’s our money, you take it, rather than attempt to inspire outright, armed rebellion in our backyard, and we’ll allow you to go on propagating your ‘progressive,’ ‘liberal’ beliefs in our vicinity, but not actually in our kingdoms–at least not until we die off.” It BENEFITS American foreign policy in the Middle East, even though it DOES look quite corrupt, because it allows for a GRADUAL shift toward free markets, egalitarian democracy and greater openness, although I would concede the point to Greenwald that it looks quite corrupt. In fact, it’s “realpolitik” being conducted, yes, by an amoral MASTER of the technique in statecraft. But what Greenwald doesn’t seem to understand is that, rather than being private family business, it actually IS an extension of a more or less astute American foreign policy. For economic reasons, America simply cannot endure the violent overthrow of the Middle Eastern tyrannies, but the worldwide propagation of American values, particularly as they relate to economics and finance, is ALSO something in the national interest. This may make the Clintons look like hypocrites, but, as amoral as they may be, they have genuine goals in mind, which actually ARE in the long term geopolitical interests of the United States, and the money they are accepting from the Arab kleptocrats actually works–again in the long term–to ensure the eventual destruction of those tyrants. The Clintons ARE Machiavellian, albeit “liberal,” politicians, and what they are doing with all that money is actually furthering the international interests of the American people.
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R42678.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiyu7WP1uXOAhVQ3GMKHcvYBVgQFggkMAg&usg=AFQjCNGQA7uADxO087RvuUQ2RZKMC5h1xQ
This is an arms report for arms sold to developing nations from 2004-2011. Unsurprisingly, it named the Saudis as the largest purchasers of arms with the year 2011 as being the largest year.
At the same time the Saudis were purchasing all these weapons from the US, they were also giving the Clinton Foundation $15M-$25M in charitable contributions.
HRC sat on the subcommittee that approves these arms sales from 2003-2009, and was secretary of state from 2009-2013.
What an amazing coincidence! Not.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R42678.pdf
Here is the correct link to the report
Meh. You always pluck the fattest chickens.
It is ridiculous to claim that the good deeds done by the Clinton Foundation offset the obvious corporatism, warmongering and shady dealings of Hillary Clinton and her institutional positioning (maximizing undemocratic power and influence to her supporters and of course the Clintons themselves).
Despite this, defenders are claiming that yes it does make a difference that the charity is to a large extent genuine – even here in the “aren’t we all clever intellectuals” Intercept comments this argument is implied.
And it’s ridiculous. Fucking ridiculous.
Obama being a murdering, Gitmo force-feeding, dirty-war pursuing, torturer-excusing bastard and moral degenerate is not offset by his signing the Lily Ledbetter Act nor by his beautiful speeches.
Charles Manson being a cruel mesmerist responsible for several horrible murders is not offset by the fact that he is a talented musician promoted into the Laurel Canyon counter-culture by Neil Young.
Ted Bundy’s unfathomably vicious domination, rape and torture of scores of women is not offset by the fact that he saved many lives as a suicide hotline worker.
G.W. Bush’s good work in Africa does not offset his horrendous war crimes.
Just so, Hillary Clinton’s corrupt history of supporting stupid wars, shady dealings (within and without the Foundation), friendship with tyrants and highly dubious actions as State Secretary (including spearheading the brutal assaults on Libya which butchered countless civilians) – none of this is offset by her charitable work or any other good deeds.
When the wickedness is great, it just can not reasonably be mitigated or diminished by other more virtuous actions (certainly not without massive repentance, apologetic humility and a promise to do no more harm – none of which she has evidenced in the slightest degree). Clinton is utterly undeserving of public trust and should not be given any more power, even if she announced the needed personality shift away from evil.
Vote Jill Stein to make things fine.
Clinton in the Senate
HRC sat on the US arms subcommittee on Emerging Threats from 2003-2009. Thus subcommittee is responsible for overseeing the US military technology and sales to foreign countries.
In her capacity in that role, she could use her influence as a former first lady to help influence and get approved arms sales to the Saudis.
There seems to be a long history between HRC in connection to US arms sales in the middle east and the CF receiving cash payments.
At the same time, the Daily Kos also noted that the Saudis gave very little to other humanitarian agencies such as the Red Cross.
Today, Sunday on Meet The Press…Chuck Todd went farther than any other Mainstreamer asking questions of Clinton affilate Plouffe about Clinton’s “pay to play” role she played for the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State Plouffe bluffed and diverted
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press
Charles Ortel makes several points that I consider very important: First, that the Foundation was not set up as a charitable institution; it was for the creation of a presidential library. As such, it has violated laws in many states where it operates. Second, that despite all the claims of its humanitarian work, there is no actual proof backed up by hard evidence to support those claims. Third, that when comparing what governments say they contributed and what the Foundation reports, the numbers don’t add up — and always to the Foundation’s advantage. Also, that many reports that should have been made to state governments in which the Foundation operates have not been made. Finally, some of those state reports, such as the one for New York, contain many contradictions when compared to the Foundation’s annual reports.
The reason they donated is obvious: for access and influence. Hillary Clinton is terribly corrupt. She will look out for her donors (i.e., Saudi Arabia) before her non-donors (the average American).
The Clinton defenders in the comments threads have a serious flaw in their argument.
It’s where they try to convince readers of the worthiness of the Clinton Foundation activities.
Here’s the flaw:
It’s the cash INFLOWS that are of consequence, NOT the cash outflows!
It’s the cash coming into the foundation and the favors coming out from the Clinton that is the heart of the issue. Not the expenditures.
However, I do have some doubts about some of those expenditures as well. Ex: the CIA funded company Palantir has also donated to the Foundation. I think that should be looked at closely.
Fact:
Clinton Foundation CASH INFLOW from Saudi or Kuwaiti Royals.
Greenwald suggestion:
CASH INFLOW from Saudi or Kuwaiti royals unethical. Why? Saudi and Kuwaiti Royals are just looking for special favors. Their governments pass laws that contradict Clinton Foundation objectives.
Mani suggestion:
We are not really sure that CASH INFLOW from Saudi or Kuwaiti Royals are just for special favors. Why? There are for instance Saudi royals who have supported Clinton Foundation objectives before the creation of that foundation. Those royals even openly clash with their government while defending those objectives. Moreover, those royals already had special treatments from US government officials.
Galactus to Mani
You are a troll and a Clinton defender. Your facts are irrelevant. The royals are criminals or possible criminals
It’s the CASH INFLOW that are of consequence not the cash outflow
Conclusion:
Galactus is one of the smartest political analysts online.
Again, the flaw sticks out like a sore thumb. The goals and objectives of the CF aren’t being questioned, it’s the favors coming from the cash being paid.
Bill Clinton received $3.5 M just before election of ’92 & $20M just weeks after the election from the Saudis. A fact Mani cannot refute even with all of her intellectual deficiencies and child-like analysis.
Nor can she deny the $15-$25M of funds received as the state department approved $165B worth of arms shipments which was 143% increase over the Bush administration.
Conclusion: Mani’s incessant need for social acceptance, her inadequate analytical and argument skills and general pig-headedness, will not allow her to see facts clearly put on front of her.
Instead, she prefers to double-down on a failing strategy and go with calling people names instead of providing evidence.
Galactus
“The goals and objectives of the CF aren’t being questioned, it’s the favors coming from the cash being paid”
Mani:
We cannot know for sure that a Saudi royal is just looking for special favor whenever he gives money to the foundation. Why? They already had special favors BEFORE the creation of that foundation. That foundation was receiving money even when Georges Bush was president. Georges W Bush had nothing to do with that foundation while he always gave Saudi Royals special treatments and INCREASED the sale of sophisticated weaponry to Saudi Arabia. There was absolutely NO indication that the US Senate, the US Congress, the US executive intended to reduce special treatments Saudi royals have been receiving for decades when Bush left in 2009.
Galactus
Mani is looking for social acceptance. She needs to provide evidence.
Conclusion:
Galactus is not only the most intelligent and well informed commentator online, he is also a mind reader. He also has compelling evidence that when a Saudi, Kuwaiti or Qatari royal gives money to the Clinton foundation between 2001-and 2009, that individual is just looking for special favors that he ALREADY has from the Bush administration.
Galactus
“It’s the cash coming into the foundation and the favors coming out …that is the heat of the issue. NOT THE EXPENDITURES ” . That is a SERIOUS FLAW of the Clinton defenders argument.
Pedinska suggestion:
Clinton did not really care about helping Haiti after the earthquake. If they did the foundation EXPENDITURES would have gone to Les Centres Gheskio not the industrial park.
Galactus
GREAT POST Pedinska
Mani correction
The Clinton Foundation did provide assistance to Les Centres Gheskio and is still providing assistance to Les Centres Gheskio.
Galactus to Mani
You are a troll with an inferiority complex.
Conclusion
Galactus is the most informed and the most intelligent political commentator online.
I revert to my former comment in this thread as response to this writing.
This comment if Mani’s provides nothing and is consistent with the rest of her statements. Useless, inaccurate & not relevant.
You are an embittered hasbara troll who does not comment here in good faith. There’s a reason you do not link or quote sources for your claims: They are not true.
You are fundamentally dishonest. Pedinska wrote, my emphasis:
At no time did she state the CF never gave a dime to Les Centres Gheskio.
All of your comments contain that level of dishonesty, and are virtually never sourced. You are a troll posting, constantly, in utter bad faith.
“If the Clinton Foundation wanted to help in post earthquake Haiti, they’d have funded the reconstruction of Les Centres Gheskio”
Translation: 1) The Clinton Foundation did not want to help in post earthquake Haiti. 2) The Clinton Foundation did not fund the reconstruction of Les Centres Gheskio
Mani: correction
Les Centres Gheskio did receive assistance from the Clinton Foundation after the earthquake.
Mona (lapdog)
You are a dishonest troll.
Fact:
Haiti earthquake: 12 January 2010
Clinton visit to Gheskio: February 2010
From that point on the Clinton Foundation not only assisted in the reconstruction of the Gheskio center, but supported expansionary programs. Moreover, even after Dr. Pape announced that most of the center had been rebuilt in 2012 the Clinton Foundation continued to assist the center having directors going onsite to evaluate new programs almost on a yearly basis.
Conclusion
Mona is the smartest and the most well informed lapdog on the Internet.
The Clinton Foundation did not rebuild Les Centres Gheski, which is why you cannot and do not provide any evidence that it did. What Pedinska wrote is the truth, and you have done nothing but assert that she erred, by misstating (rather than directly quoting) what she actually said.
You are a lying, embittered troll. Nearly everything you post is an undocumented assertion. Pedinska, by contrast, is a retired research scientist who spent decades in an HIV research lab. She knows whereof she speaks and not one thing you’ve demonstrated shows otherwise.
This is from Jonathan M. Katz, who spent three-and-a-half years covering Haiti for The Associated Press, and is the author of The Big Truck That Went By: How the World Came to Save Haiti and Left Behind a Disaster:
You a lying troll.
well, pedinska has my “black oil” via the omnipotent cult of the state, and that’s no lie
Katz again:
You are a lying troll. Pedinska was correct when she said:
I’m bookmarking this discussion so I can link to it every time you make an undocumented assertion about what “errors” a writer or commenter here ostensibly made, so that I can demonstrate your lying MO rather than waste any more time debunking each discrete bullshit assertion.
Bookmark this:
My name is Manuel Esperanza. Working for the Red Cross in Switzerland. I have been to Haiti many times including in 2010 . Call Dr Pape at +509 222 -0031. Tell him I gave you the number (official number) and ask him what does he think about the help of Clinton Foundation with regards to its assistance after the earthquake. Forget about press releases. Forget about opinions. Go straight to the man. Many non for profit organizations help rebuilt the center INCLUDING the Clinton Foundation. Both Bush and Clinton made it a priority to help the center immediately after the earthquake because both of them were already familiar with that center and the work it had done.
If you were not a lapdog you would check how much that center has received from the Clinton Bush Fund, the Global Fund, the Clinton Foundation immediately after the earthquake for relief and later on for reconstruction and new projects.Hint: Available on their sites, UN sites and it was not a few hundred dollars. This is the same thing for the industrial park. Many organizations helped build it INCLUDING the Clinton Foundation. I am very familiar with non profit projects in third world countries.
NOT A SINGLE TIME THAT I HAVE STATED THAT THE CLINTON FOUNDATION REBUILT LES CENTRES GHESKIO. I stated they have assisted in the reconstruction, which is 100% correct. Like the industrial park, the cholera treatment center, the vocational schools, the peanut project..it is different organizations INCLUDING the Clinton Foundation that get together to build them.
I do not know what is in the Clintons’ head, but I met the Haitians who received help from them. Those in the slums and those in the hospitals. Not a single one believed the Clintons did not want to help Haiti.
” If the Clinton Foundation wanted to help in post-earthquake Haiti , they’d have funded the reconstruction of Les Centres Gheskio”
That statement is not only false, but it is shameful. It is an anti Clinton rant from an individual who I seriously doubt has been to Haiti and seen the situation for herself. But who cares! Fighting with her here will not change anything in Haiti. And you are obviously not interested in the truth. You just want to find any opinions to prove yourself that the foundation did not help Haiti or that I am a Zionist troll. Have you even checked those organizations official reports?
You really need to evaluate yourself lady. I am not sure whether you have a life besides sitting behind a computer, but you really need to understand for some people sites like this are just entertainment. You have been here calling me a Zionist, troll… over and over. Not only you are confusing me with somebody else, but if I did not have self control I would tell you this is very offensive coming from somebody who sits on her ass all day writing BS telling me who have spent months in Gaza and the West Bank helping Palestinians that I am Zionist. Who are you to question my religious faith? But hey this is the Internet!
I disagree with most TI writers, but at least they will go down in history as writers. What about you? My goodness! Since 2005!!
This is entertainment for me. You believe I am a lying Zionist or a Nazi, then big deal. I believe you are lapdog. At least my name calling is based on how you support the article. The same way Galactus thinks I am stupid based on how I comment about the article.
If it bothers you that much, then ask Greenwald to reserve the comment section just for you and for those you like. I am sure he will listen to you as you are the best lapdog even though most of your comments are a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with the article. Either you are fighting with Seema or following me like a puppy.
Again I am not interested. I am already taken! Lol
Yes please bookmark this.
Jesus on a cracker, but you are a hoot.
That’s hilarious. You think anyone is going to believe that? And this is at least the second time you inscrutably claimed I have “questioned your religious faith.” I, in fact, have not said or implied one thing about your religion, and have no idea what it is or isn’t.
Your whole comment is an angry, incoherent rant. Yes, this entire sub-thread will be useful in the future for demonstrating what a wacked out and dishonest troll you are.
You lied about Pedinska’s statement — she was accurate, as I demonstrated with that thing you do not do called documentation — and cannot recover from that so now have gone totally berserk. Chill, dude.
I do find this difficult to believe also.
While Mr. Esperanza does write compellingly about his time in Haiti, I doubt he’s just a do gooder traveling the world helping the helpless. He sure doesn’t sound like it, calling everyone lapdogs and names and generally screaming in all directions. It doesn’t sound like the temperament of your average missionary to me.
It is the Internet after all Mani, and you could be The Joker for all I know.
And I really don’t get this thing he has about my supposedly “questioning his religion.” I’ve never remotely said a thing pertaining to whatever his religion is — he could be an atheist for all I know. But that’s the second time I’ve seen him say something like that and I have no idea what he’s on about with that.
Then there’s his constant spewing about me “sitting on my ass in front of a computer all day.” From a guy who spends all kinds of time posting endless: “LOL LOL, lapdogs, [undocumented assertion], LOL, I’m entertained, LOL, entertainment, you are all lapdogs, [mischaracterize what someone wrote and more undocumented assertions],LOL, lapdog, LOL LOL.” Constantly, for article after article here. But *I am the one with no life. pffft
OMG!!
Is it the effect of being a lapdog for such a long time that completely damages an individual ‘s brain?
1) Is Pedinka a research scientist? I do not care.
2) Do I do humanitarian work around the world? YES. Do you believe it ? NO
It does not matter whether you believe it or not. This is the Internet. This is entertainment. You should not take it seriously to the point that your life is all about sitting behind a computer and writing BS. My point is that you have been calling somebody who has done way more for the Palestinians than you a Zionist. This is how stupid the Internet is. Does your behavior matter to me? NO.
You are a lapdog. Your concern is to support Greenwald. That’s set. There is absolutely no point in debating with lapdogs. Facts will not work. There are videos online from Dr. Pape in 2010 thanking Bill Clinton for the immediate assistance he provided to the center. The Clinton Foundation secured funds to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund. One of the first organizations to receive assistance from that Fund was the Center. Months, years after the quake the Clinton Foundation continued its assistance. About the Cholera Center, about the Woman vocational training? To suggest that the Clinton Foundation did not want to help post earthquake Haiti is complete madness. But again, this is the Internet and you guys are lapdogs. Facts do not work with lapdogs or deranged individuals.
Your article is not about whether the Clinton Foundation wanted to help that center or Haiti. It is a review of the foundation’s projects. There are many factors that explain a country poverty and lack of economic growth. There is no way a reasonable individual would expect that the Clinton Foundation will save Haiti. But again you guys are irrational lapdogs.
“And this is at least the second time you inscrutably claimed I have “questioned your religious faith.” I, in fact, have not said or implied one thing about your religion, and have no idea what it is or isn’t.”
Is that why you keep calling me a liar?
From the article: “Donald Trump Makes It Very Hard to Figure Out What He Really Thinks ”
Mani ? -Mona-
Aug. 16 2016, 12:26 a.m.
“Mani is a vicious hasbara troll who despises Muslims”
Lol lol lol lol I am Muslim. Lol lol lol lol
-Mona- ? Mani
Aug. 16 2016, 12:31 a.m.
No you’re not.
This is a fact. You can go back and read it yourself. But I do understand you are a lapdog. You cannot even accept your own words. Nevertheless, I would be stupid to get offended. You need to chill out and get some fresh air. That shit is not that serious.
And what the yell does that mean?
“I know exactly who you are. Multiple of your accounts showed up at the same time. You’ve been banned many times. Should you continue, I will explain to readers the viciousness, real world-based attempt to harm, in which you have engaged and which has gotten you banned at more than one site.”
“Real world based attempt to harm”? Are you serious? Really?
That’s you. Nearly every comment. But your last two are even worse for being literally incoherent.
And there are videos of Donald Rumsfeld with Saddam Hussein. So what? The foundation spent some money in Haiti. So what?
I’ve met UN officials who spend their time attending meetings and crossing off boxes of all the local organizations they’ve met. They earn European diplomatic level paychecks for their time and give not a shit about the locals. I don’t know what you’re selling but it stinks.
And what kind of Muslim are you exactly? You got a visa to go to do humanitarian work in Gaza? How does that work? I’m not saying you’re not. I’m just curious how that visa process worked. There are American Muslims who can’t get in.
Apparently he thinks claiming that demonstrates he cannot be an Israel apologist or Zionist. This is, of course, false. There are, shall we say, “lapdog” Muslims who curry favor with the political elites by spouting the Zionist line, e.g., the Quilliam jerks in the UK and that freak who writes for the Toronto Sun.
He claims a Hispanic name, which would make him the very rare Muslim indeed, but whatever. I don’t care what religion he is and never wrote a hint of a word questioning, maligning or even alluding to it. He’s wacky in multiple ways, and that bizarre accusation that I’ve somehow impugned his religion is just one.
As for Dr. Pape, ditto to what you said. Of course he says nice things about one of his powerful funding sources, that’s just sensible. Pape also stated what I quote above. The bottom line being that what Pedinska wrote was true, the CF did *not devote its resources to reconstruction of Les Centres Gheskio. It instead built a Marriott and lots of other for-profit things.
Spewing dishonest bile is all he does.
I watched Glenn on Democracy Now this morning. What a breath of fresh air that guy. I’m a proud Glenn Greenwald lapdog. Even when I disagree with him, to me Glenn can do no wrong.
– Proud Lapdog
And in all fairness, he very well might be Muslim. Who the hell would claim to be a Muslim in the anonymity of the Internet (unless they’re paid to do so of course. I think I might have been fooled by one such person pretending to be a gay Muslim from Iran). But if he is a Muslim, I bet he’s the type that likes to bomb poor Yemeni children.
That is one of the best comments I have ever read. Somebody thinks you are lapdog, so what?
This lapdog writes more about me than about the article. As Greenwald’s lapdog, your primary job is to defend his articles. Not to worry about my name or my religion.
“I don’t care what religion he is and never wrote a hint of a word questioning, maligning or even alluding to it. ”
Your comments are still available under Mackey’s article: “Trump Makes it hard to figure out what he really thinks”
You clearly stated that I was not a Muslim, but a viscious troll who despises Muslim. Again, this is the Internet. Who cares whether you believe what my religion is. The point is that lapdogs like you are deranged because they live in a box where facts are irrelevant. Only a deranged individual would read her own writing (“you are not” a Muslim) and keeps saying she never questions his religion. And only an insane person would suggest that I want to harm her in the real world just because I call her a lapdog. WTF?
The CF uses it resources to assist in the construction of the cholera center, and the woman school at the Ghiesko center. Help against the Cholera epidemic was urgently needed and requested after the earthquake. If you are a lapdog who must follow the author’s disdain for Clinton, then of course you will completely disregard those facts. You are subtly questioning the integrity of Dr Pape!
Wow!! It is so bad for Haiti to have a Marriot Hotel, so bad for Haiti to have an industrial park with 5000 workers, so bad for Haiti to process and sell its peanuts….
I did not know economic growth was the responsibility of non for profit foundations. Is it a new economic theory that you created? I am sure you will get a Nobel for it.
I am not here to talk about my religion. Believe it. Do not believe it. Don’t care. I am here to laugh at you. Call you lapdogs, expose your irrational arguments and move on.
However, if you are REALLY SERIOUS about joining the International Red Cross / Red Crescent then I will give you my phone and private email. Again, if you are really SERIOUS.
Yeah.. you’re a real expose’er… you’re here looking for the truth.
And in what of my posting did you find any indication that I wanted to join The Red Cross..was it in my disparagement of the UN officials I said I met, whose only job it seems is to collect pamphlets of the local organizations they meet with, as evidence of their tireless “humanitarian work?”
You seem to have too much time on your hands to be a humanitarian worker who’s been to Gaza. What did you see there that made you want to “expose” Greenwald?
“you’re here looking for the truth.”
Lol lol lol
The article is about the Clinton Foundation not about me.
“The article is about the Clinton Foundation not about me”
But you’d rather it be about you. A sign of ‘wanting’. You’re very ‘needy’.
Mona, she doesn’t understand when users call her ‘zionist’. She doesn’t understand the political meaning…and is misinterpreting it as a religious meaning.
She’s just stoopid.
Ohh Great Galactus!
The Most Intelligent of All!
Please continue to present your compelling evidence that associates the CF with sales of weapons to SA.
“He” not “she” great Galactus.
I’d be glad to continue finding evidence to dismiss your child-like assertions and fictional conclusions. Just present some more bogus stuff and I’m happy to make you look foolish again.
Or perhaps, you might try actually learning about the stuff that you read about instead of drawing an instant conclusion when you feel that an idea contradicts you’re already long-held belief.
Try it, if you have the guts.
FYI, when someone calls you a ‘zionist’, they aren’t referring to your religion. They are saying you make excuses for Israel and it’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and all the pain and suffering they inflict on a population.
No need to thank me.
Ohh Great Galactus The Most Intelligent of All:
When you tell somebody you are Christian, but she answers no, you are not Christian, but a Kenyan Muslim conspiring against Christians. Then we can all agree that person is an ignorant who is questioning your faith.
When your fellow lapdog (Mona) tells me “I am not” a Muslim but a “troll who despises Muslims” , then we can all agree she has the authority to question anybody’s faith.
Ohh Great Galactus! The most intelligent of all. We would be complety lost without your logical arguments.
I insist in thanking you specially after you obviously intend to share at least one statement I have made to support Israel occupation of Palestine.
Honestly, you’re religion and even your conversation with Mona doesn’t interest me.
And your statement here is just too stoopid to bother with as it relates to absolutely to nothing whatsoever.
Have fun patting yourself on the back for being an ignoramus. Good luck with the inferiority complex too. I’m sure it’s fun for you to turn everyone conversation into a debate about you.
According to Karen Bierman of Pennsylvania State University, most children who are rejected by their peers display one or more of the following behavior patterns:
Low rates of prosocial behavior, e.g. taking turns, sharing.
High rates of aggressive or disruptive behavior.
High rates of inattentive, immature, or impulsive behavior.
High rates of social anxiety.
Although this person talk about children, I think it fully applies to you.
Aggressive, disruptive, immature and impulsive behavior……sound familiar Mani?
It’s like looking in a mirror, isn’t it?
Ohh Great Galactus The Most Intelligent of All!
The article is about the Clinton Foundation not about me.
No doubt about it, Glenn. Most recently, around 10% of CF expenditures are detailed on their IRS (tax exempt) filings as ‘charitable grants’.
*To describe the remaining 90% of CF expenditures as good works or ‘charitable’ … I would dispute.
You made me happy once again that I never joined and don’t visit Facebook, and also further convinced I must soon join Twitter. Creepy targeting indeed.
Excellent article. Hopefully this will be disseminated far and wide. As a life-long Democrat, I am very disappointed and very puzzled that the Democratic party would go to such lengths to support a candidate who is so blatantly corrupt to the point that the party and the media and even the President have taken part in the rigging of the election, and have overlooked the massive election fraud. Clinton has no platform to run on except “I’m not Donald Trump & I will continue the things President Obama has done, and I’ll even do some of the things Bernie Sanders promised.” I am voting for Jill Stein and I pray that other Americans will see how dangerous a Clinton presidency will be to democracy, to the country and to the world.
The notion that kingdoms would not understand how political tribute funds works is on the face of it a joke. It was however openly confessed to by a Clinton surrogate. In a debate with investigative journalist David Sirota, Paul Glastris, a former Clinton speechwriter, argued that “there’s no indication that Bahrain was—by putting money into the Clinton Foundation, it was influencing the Defense Department, that wanted to sell these weapons.”
It’s arguable whether they influenced the State Department (which, to no avail, is exactly the point Sirota was trying to make) but it’s very likely the State Department itself along with the Foundation are understood as a way to make their reputations better. In fact, Glastris himself tacitly admits that aid is not always for strict humanitarian purposes. “One, the reason the Clinton State Department and the entire Obama administration was willing to give a lot of arms to the Saudis and the Bahrainis was that they were tubing the Saudis and the Bahrainis by trying to open negotiations with Iran. Everybody knows this. It’s not—we don’t need to kind of find some nefarious payoff in order to understand the policy.”
According to a study by the Red Cross “Saudi Arabia and neighbouring Gulf states use their humanitarian engagement to appease expatriate worker populations from disaster-prone countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, or the Philippines who often face miserable working conditions.” They affirm that “as in any other area of foreign policy, interests such as national security or regional stability also influence the humanitarian behavior of traditional donors.”
Ana Carolina Garriga published in the online left-wing journal Truth-out went even further and correlated human rights atrocities to what the Red Cross more benignly calls “multilateral funding.” Cashflow to humanitarian causes that are suspect are usually when investors are reacting “to countries’ human rights violations because they worry about their own reputation. Mechanisms that potentially shield investors’ reputation from doing business in countries that do not respect human rights will attract investment.”
The fact that the State Department and the Clinton Foundation are being defended so fiercely demonstrates their role as helping these kingdoms through tribute. One of the most coveted prizes might not be the guns themselves but the valuable speeches the State Department can give in defense Saudi allies in Iraq, Egypt, and so forth.
Rather than see these regimes “Fall into the sand” they are run by military generals that are ready to do business with the IMF, who had “no fixed schedule” to meet with democratic organizers. Indeed, one of the sticking points with the leading international investors was the ability to accrue intrest on humanitarian loans and whether the work should be supervised locally or with an investor agenda. Putting aside their false humanitarian concerns, the demands of the IMF was simply “generating foreign investor confidence” which could not be met by Egyptian democracy. Indeed, three weeks ago the IMF signed a package with the sitting coup government that even Lindsey Graham, one of if not the leading recipient of arms donations, criticized as a failed state.
Charities are sometimes shuttered and later found to be doing no wrong. But no bells of McCarthyism are being rung for Cure violence, a small but successful program preventing murder in Chicago. Nobody helped by the Sudanese charity Bush canceled were given this rancor. What we have here is a professional image-consultant for the international war rackets doubling down on itself. To portray themselves as innocent there is only one solution: to portray the accuser as stupid. Today’s McCarthyism is in the form of journalists expressing jealousy, preferring to call people exaggerators than admit they were scooped, or worse, betrayed by a mafia-like caste system.
Despite many prompts, Gastris could not bring himself to admit that Saudis might be applying the same realpolitik that he so eagerly promotes at home. In fact, in extreme contrast to the policy that facilitated the Bahrain weapons, someone reading these leading researchers will undoubtedly conclude that the Obama admin/ Clinton state dept policy is a risky idea at best, and in fact puts more pressure on international relations to appease each other only after atrocities are being committed. The authors note that “national Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations become increasingly active when disasters strike in neighbouring countries.” This model was openly confessed to in a debate between David Sirota on Democracy Now! by a Clinton surrogate.
If you care for the poor, don’t harass a poor journalist with “But I love you baby” tactics. Demand citizen control of our military and police, a viscious, corpse-stomping terror squad inflicting unspoken misery on the poorest people in the country.
David Sirota is a watchdog that consistently applies the same method to Democrats and Republicans, openly giving people information to influence policy — exactly what the press is supposed to do.
Sources
Red Cross, December 31, 2011
Opportunity knocks: why non-Western donors enter humanitarianism and how to make the best of it 31-12-2011 Article, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 884, by Andrea Binder, Claudia Meier
Democracy Now, August 25, 2016
Weapons, Pipelines & Wall St: Did Clinton Foundation Donations Impact Clinton State Dept. Decisions?
Truthout August 13 , 2016
Ana Carolina Garriga; Are Human Rights Treaties a “Reputational Umbrella” for Foreign Investment?
IMF May 17, 2012
Transcript of a Press Briefing by David Hawley, Deputy Director, External Relations Department, International Monetary Fund
Associated Press Aug 26
Business Highlights
It’s always good to understand how much good journalists see and understand the events of relationships that affect so many lives. With all the intracacies mechanisms and viewpoints for what is and is not visible, it really is basically impossible for the common person who does not regularly follow developments to make a call, being so far removed and left to instead suffer with a decision they need to support with their fingers crossed.
All these political events do have an effect upon the populations and most are not noticeable until things have changed so much that the citizens find themselves so victimised, they cannot possibly act most effectively in sufficient time – especially if those events have robbed them of resources and power.
It would be a huge benefit to all if all good and accurate publications would be able to “move the pointer” on a visible scale like a thermometer or similar so the public can zero in to act.
@Lewis It would be pretty cool to see at a glance what aspect of my life is affected, by how much, etc.
Really. The US needed the Saudis to open up negotiations with Iran??? The Saudis, who hate Iran’s guts, who would like nothing more than to see Iran turn to glass???? those fuckers are the ones the US needed to negotiate with Iran? Not the Chinese? or the Russians, who actually have a robust economic relationship with Iran???
This is The Intercept. People here are well informed. Take your Clinton foundation paycheck and your bullshit to some other site.
You do realize he was quoting a Clinton surrogate and criticizing his statement right ? If you think that was him directly defending Clinton or something, then you lack any sort of reading comprehension or critical thinking skills. And then you have the balls to call yourself informed ? You can’t even understand a simple point, you’re nowhere near informed or intelligent
Oh yeah? What’s the point of his post other than “yeah, the Clinton surrogates themselves said that they take the donations for non nefarious purposes, so it’s all good.” What does your great “reading comprehension” suggest the thrust of his post was.
And please, try to refrain from starting your arguments with “you do realize.” Makes you sound like someone with an Internet education.
Furthermore – AthiestInChief – if it is US foreign policy to give Arms in exchange for geo-political favors – THEN NO PRIVATE FOUNDATION should be involved in this. The Clinton Foundation is NOT a governmental entity, and should not be involved in the political affairs of our nation.
Alright Lewis (and apologies to Boulinger as well),
So I finally read your whole post, and I still don’t get it. What’s the point of your post? So you’re saying that some of the charities are there for public relations purposes, and so they’re not as bad? But public relations for what other evil?
I don’t understand the point of the post. While I do read Sirota and find that I almost always agree with him, I haven’t followed his coverage of charities.
Can you clarify the point of your post please?
And my sincere apologies for my ill-manners to all.
Excellent post Mr Greenwald
I suppose we always knew this was going on and what were the reasons behind it, but its good to have the information that supports ones Ideas.
Thank you.
@TI readers, a classic silencing tactic, similar to what Mona is using against me, a corporate GE whistleblower, is to bombard with disinformation and lies about me when I am exposing GE. If I respond to her, trying to set the record straight, she wins because I get caught up in unraveling the twisted false narrative being spun about me by the GE propaganda machine. And in a forum like this, where the ability to get readers attention is limited, the focus shifts to me having to defend myself from smears than on exposing what GE did and is guilty of.
Therefore, instead of reacting to Mona’s rants against me, I invite you to read my detailed comments on what I have exposed about GE which I posted in the comments at the 11 August 2016 Intercept article titled “VINDICATION FOR BALTIMORE POLICE CRITICS — BUT NO ACTION”
Also, instead of reacting to what Mona says that anonymous others are saying about me and about what I am saying, I invite you to read an appeal filed by me in the Supreme Court of India.
This appeal describes who I am , a corporate whistleblower, what I have exposed about GE corruption and fraud in India, how my Delhi High Court litigation was subverted and corrupted, how I was and am being targeted, and how in a classic case of whistleblower retaliation, I am now being targeted with a conviction for contempt of court by the same two Judges whose ruling resulted in a cover-up of my corruption and fraud complaints against GE.
My opening statement in this appeal is extracted below:
“1. This is a Criminal Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 from the judgment dated 17.12.2015 of the Delhi High Court in CONT. CAS(CRL) 2/2014, hereinafter referred to as the impugned judgment. This appeal is filed with a delay of 32 days beyond the 60-day period prescribed in Section 19. An application for condonation of delay is also filed. The impugned judgment dated 17.12.2015 of the Delhi High Court in CONT. CAS(CRL) 2/2014 (Court on its own motion vs. Seema Sapra) is annexed hereto as Annexure A-1.
2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been found guilty of contempt of court. The impugned judgment has imposed a punishment of imprisonment for a period of one month; and in addition a fine of Rs. 2,000/- to be deposited within a period of three months with the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court failing which the appellant will undergo a further term of imprisonment of one month. The impugned judgment has further directed that the appellant, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi will not be allowed to argue, whether as an Advocate or in person, except in her defence, before any Bench of this High Court or any court or tribunal subordinate to this High Court for a period of two years. The impugned judgment has directed that a copy of that judgment be sent to the Registry of the Delhi High Court and to all subordinate courts and tribunals, and further that a copy of that judgment be also sent to the Delhi Bar Council for information. The impugned judgment itself directed that the operative part pertaining to imposition of punishment would not operate for a period of three months from 17.12.2015 to enable the “contemnor” to take appropriate steps to exercise her legal remedy.
3. This appeal being filed in person by the appellant begins with a prayer, because the only reason that the appellant-whistleblower-advocate has survived almost six complete years of on-going attempts to eliminate her is because of her prayers.
“Sada durga dahine, sanmukh rahe ganesh, panch dev raksha kare, brahma vishnu mahesh.”
4. At the outset, the appellant/petitioner states that being a woman lawyer, she has the greatest respect for both the judiciary and the rule of law. As a whistleblower who complied with her ethical duty of upholding the rule of law even under grave life threats, it is evident that the appellant takes the law seriously. The appellant holds the judiciary and the judicial function in great respect. She has never sought and will never seek a confrontation with the judiciary. She has never intended to scandalize or to disrespect the judiciary or the Court or to bring it into disrepute.
5. This appeal challenging a judgment of the Delhi High Court in a criminal contempt proceeding has its genesis in a whistleblower right to life petition that the appellant had filed in the Delhi High Court i.e., Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 in the matter of Seema Sapra v. General Electric Company and Others (hereinafter referred to as the “Writ Petition”).
6. This appeal will establish that the appellant is a whistleblower, a lawyer who worked in 2010 for General Electric Company in India and who was compelled to make whistleblower complaints when her legal services were sought to be used for corrupt practices including fraud, forgery, bribery, illegal lobbying etc. in connection with Indian Railway tenders for rail locomotive factories at Marhowra and Madhepura. This appeal will establish that attempts were made to eliminate the appellant with State authorities including the Police and intelligence agencies being used to target and silence the appellant. The appellant managed to file an Article 226 petition in the Delhi High Court. This appeal will establish that this petition languished unheard in the Delhi High Court for 3 years while the appellant continued to be destroyed, physically harmed, attacked, intimidated, harassed, targeted and threatened. This Appeal will establish that a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court wrongfully dismissed that Petitionby a judgment dated 2.3.2015 without hearing the appellant who was the petitioner in that matter in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. This appeal will establish that the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court wrongfully dismissed the whistleblower corruption case against General Electric Company in complete disregard of the material on record before it, in complete disregard of the law and in complete disregard of the appellant’s right to life. This appeal will establish that this unsustainable and wrongful dismissal of the writ petition resulted in a cover-up of very serious complaints and evidence of corruption by and favouring General Electric Company facilitated by then Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and his close aide and then Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia. This appeal will establish that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition and the denial of a hearing to the appellant in that matter resulted in gross injustice, and a cover up of attempts to murder the appellant, a cover-up of the fact that the appellant was poisoned, a cover-up of State and police participation in the conspiracy and attempts to silence and eliminate the appellant, a cover-up of the severe targeting that the appellant was subjected to and a cover up of the gross violation of the appellant’s right to life. This appeal will establish that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition has resulted in the appellant continuing to be poisoned for the last one year since 2.3.2015, and continuing to be targeted, harassed, intimidated, threatened, defamed and destroyed. This appeal will further establish that a mind-boggling fraud was perpetrated on the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil 1280/ 2012 where an unauthorized person effectively impersonated as the authorised signatory of General Electric Company and two of its subsidiaries and filed patently false and unauthorized affidavits and that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition results in a cover up of this massive fraud on the Court. This appeal will further establish that affidavits filed for the Railway Ministry in the Writ Petition contained multiple instances of perjury and included documents fabricated expressly for the purpose of covering up the corruption by General Electric. Further this appeal will establish that affidavits and status reports filed for the Delhi Police in the Writ petition also contained multiple instances of perjury, and that these affidavits and status reports themselves establish that the police was targeting the appellantand besides actively facilitating her being physically harmed, the police covered up her complaints and fabricated and procured false complaints against her.
7. The same Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which dismissed the Writ Petition ( Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P.S. Teji) then proceeded to hear two criminal contempt proceedings which were instituted against the appellant while the Writ Petition was pending and which arose out of facts connected to the hearing of the Writ Petition. This same Division Bench has now after rejecting the appellant’s request for recusal, ruled against the appellant in one of the contempt cases and again without permitting the appellant to file a written reply, without hearing the appellant or affording her an opportunity to defend herself has issued the impugned judgment holding the appellant guilty of contempt of court and imposing an extraordinarily harsh punishment on the appellant which includes sentencing her to imprisonment.
8. The appellant states that she has managed to survive for 6 years fighting alone but it is certain that she will be drugged and poisoned in prison and will come out from prison both mentally and physically damaged and incapacitated. It is also certain that this incarceration will be used to falsify medical records for the appellant and to cover up the fact that she has been chronically poisoned, and that this poisoning has caused organ damage and to cover up the fact that the appellant’s left ankle was deliberately dislocated in June 2014. The impugned judgment will result in facilitation of the elimination of the whistleblower appellant and in silencing her.
9. This appeal will establish that the impugned judgment in the contempt case is wrong in law and on facts, that it has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and without hearing the appellant and without providing her even the most limited opportunity to defend herself. This appeal will establish that the impugned contempt judgment misrecords not only the facts but also the appellant’s submissions and defence. This appeal will establish that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and to the relevant material before the court.
10. The appellant does not want to comment on the conduct of the specific Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, but this appeal will establish that the judgments of this particular Division Bench both in the Writ Petition and in the contempt case are wrong, contrary to law and to the material on record, and are unsustainable and perverse.
11. The record of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 is relevant to this appeal but is very voluminous. The appellant will place the record of the writ petition before this Hon’ble Court in electronic format on a DVD.
A copy of the judgment in the Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 is being filed in a separate volume.
12. A copy of the appellant’s cv showing her educational and professional achievements as in 2010 when the appellant ended up as a whistleblower is reproduced below.
Curriculum Vitae
Seema Sapra
Contact details
xxxx @gmail.com
Work Experience
Legal Counsel for GE Transportation India in Delhi (2010 – 5 months until September 2010)
Consultant to Microsoft India on Innovation & IP law and policy – 2009-2010 in Delhi (approx. six months)
Visiting fellow at Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi, 2008-2009, working on trade policy, climate change and energy policy
Director – Trade & Policy, at Delhi office of law firm Amarchand Mangaldas, Suresh A. Shroff & Co, 2008. Worked on trade policy, competition policy, nuclear policy, investment policy, India’s comprehensive economic cooperation agreements, anti-dumping.
Visiting Fellow at the Institute of International Economic Law, Georgetown University Law Center in Washington DC 2004-2005, worked on trade and investment policy and law
Assisted GE India General Counsel, Ruby Anand as off-counsel from approx. 1999 till 2001
Associate in the office of Soli J Sorabjee, Attorney General of India, 2000-2001
Empanelled lawyer for the Government of India in the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi in 1999-2001
Lawyer with the litigation law firm of M/s Karanjawala & Co. in New Delhi, 1995-2000
Extensive litigation experience in the Supreme Court of India, the High Court of Delhi, and various special tribunals.
Policy expertise
International Trade
Bilateral and regional trade agreements
Investment policy, bilateral investment treaties
Climate change and sustainable development
Energy efficiency and climate change
Innovation policy, technology transfer and intellectual property
Competition policy
Teaching Experience
LLM tutor for the World Trade Law joint course at University College London and the School of Oriental and African Studies (2007)
Contract law tutor for 1st Year LLB at the University of Westminster, School of Law as a part-time visiting lecturer (2007)
Guest lectures for the LLM program at Kings College London and University of Leicester law school
Education
PhD studies at Kings College London 2003-2007 (not completed)
Title of proposed thesis: The Place, Treatment, and Meaning of Development in the WTO
Research supervisor – Professor Piet Eeckhout, Kings College London
3 year research fellowship by the Centre for European Law, Kings College London
LLM in Public International Law with distinction at the University of Leicester, 2001-2003
British Chevening scholar
LLB from the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi – Ist Division. 1995
Diploma in Environmental Law from the Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India -1994-1995
B. A. Honors in English Literature from St Stephen’s College, University of Delhi – 1992
Editorial Assistant for the Journal of International Economic law, 2004-2005 based at Georgetown University Law Center, Washington DC
Internship with the United Nations Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania 2002-2003
Publications
Article titled “Sustainable Development and the role of the Indian Supreme Court”, ASERI (Milan) publication, 2009
Article titled “An Agenda for Teaching International Economic Law in Indian Law Schools”, Indian Journal of International Economic Law, 2009, National Law School, Bangalore
Article titled “The WTO System of Trade Governance: The Stale NGO Debate and the Appropriate Role for Non-state actors” in Oregon Review of International Law Journal, volume 11 issue 1, 2009
Chapter titled ‘Domestic Politics and the Search for a New Social Purpose of Governance for the WTO: A Proposal for a Declaration on Domestic Consultation’ in Debra Steger (ed.) Redesigning the World Trade Organization for the Twenty-first Century, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2009
Chapter titled ‘New Agendas for International Economic Law Teaching in India: Including an Agenda in Support of Reform’ in Colin B. Picker, Isabella Bunn & Douglas Arner, (ed.) INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW – THE STATE & FUTURE OF THE DISCIPLINE, Hart Publishing, 2008
‘Ideas of Embedded Liberalism and Current and Future Challenges for the WTO’, in Ortino and Ripinsky, WTO Law and Process, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2007. pg 330 – 352
Development: Its Place, Treatment, and Meaning at the WTO / Seema Sapra (2006). In: Proceedings of the American Society of International Law Annual Meeting, Vol. 100, pg 223-226
Papers / Conferences
Presented paper titled “An Indian perspective on sustainable development: the role of the Indian higher judiciary” at panel discussion at ASERI, Milan in December 2008
Panelist for EDGE network panel on WTO Institutional Reform at the Inaugural conference of the Society for International Economic Law, Geneva, 15-17 July 2008
Presented paper titled “Developing Countries and Outreach to Non-State Actors in the WTO”, at an EDGE network project workshop on WTO institutional reform in March 2008 at Centre for International Governance Innovation, Waterloo, Ontario.
Presented paper titled “The Case for International Economic Law Teaching in India: Possible Agendas Including an Agenda in Support of Reform” at the Annual Conference of the International Economic Law Interest Group of the American Society of International Law at Bretton Woods in November, 2006
Panelist at the sixth Annual WTO Conference hosted by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law in May 2006, on the topic “Doha Development Round: Current and Future Challenges”
Presented paper titled “Development – Its Place, Treatment and Meaning at the WTO” at the 100th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, Washington D.C. 2006.
Presented paper titled “Special and Differential Treatment in international trade law” at the Institute of International Economic Law (IIEL), Georgetown University Law Center in September 2005
Presented paper titled “Constructivism and Special and Differential Treatment in international trade law” at the 2005 conference of the International Law Association, British Branch held at Edinburgh in May 2005
Memberships
Bar Council of Delhi
Society of International Economic Law
Asian WTO Research Network
13. Questions relevant for this appeal
Is the Appellant a whistleblower? What are the complaints of corruption and what is the evidence?
Has the Appellant been targeted?
Has the Appellant been physically harmed?
Is there a continuing threat to the life of the Appellant?
Has the Indian State, including the Police participated in covering up the corruption complaints and in targeting the appellant-whistleblower?
What were the events of 6.5.2014, the date on which the appellant is stated to have committed contempt of court?
Did the Appellant have an opportunity to defend herself in the Contempt case? Was she given a fair hearing in accordance with law before she was found guilty of contempt?
What is the appellant’s response to the contempt notice against her?
Is the punishment accorded by the impugned judgment fair and reasonable?”
For the rest, TI readers are invited to read the full document of my appeal pleading.
Seema, you are now spamming the board with extremely lengthy repetitions of the same material. That kind of thing gets people banned here, no matter their viewpoint.
As I already told you, virtually no one wants to read through that absurd wall of text. Scanning it the first time I saw it is yet more of your paranoid delusions:
This thread is stale so it’s not that important any longer. But if you spam this crap again in another thread I will ask that you be banned.
Mona – If anyone deserves to be banned on this thread, it is you. You are repeatedly and maliciously smearing a GE corporate whistle-blower as mentally ill.
Seema, the passages from your pleadings that I bolded speak for themselves. So do the materials, including court holdings, that assess you and your delusions that I quote from in a sub-thread in three comments, the first one here.
In any event, Seema I have been commenting in Glenn Greenwald’s space since he began blogging in 2005 and am well familiar with his commenting standards — indeed, he developed them in discussion with me. If you repeat this spamming of absurdly long texts in another thread I will ask to have you banned.
I assure you, your behavior is exactly the kind that Glenn has least tolerated, even when the crapflooder is a supporter of his. And do note, Glenn’s idea of what constitutes crapflooding is all that matters here — I promise you, your are conforming to it and I do not. Further, he usually takes my suggestions about an account being banned — not always, but usually.
So, I strongly suggest you discuss only the topics the articles are about and leave the “GE whistleblowing and so they are poisoning me” material out of your comments.
Mona, please stop smearing a GE corporate whistle-blower.
Thanks – I agree with you!
It’s ridiculous to hijack not only the thread but space for something so un-related to the subject in the article!
So its OK for GE sock puppets like Mona to hijack the thread, defame a GE corporate whistleblower, and then complain when the whistleblower targeted by Mona responds and tries to defend herself by pointing out the correct facts.
If anyone started the hijacking of this thread, it was Mona.
I sense some highly emotional feelings that prevents you from understanding how these kinds of websites work. So, let me give you a quick explanation.
Those comment sections are not designed for the authors to evaluate the quality of their articles. This is for the “activists” whom I call lapdogs to express their ultimate love for the authors. The authors cannot tolerate too much dissent. This is the way it works on most websites similar to this one. If you are a great supporter (lapdog) of the author, then you can write lengthy comments that are completely irrelevant to the articles. You will have to be an extremist promoting violence or having racist language to be banned for the author to finally ban you.
You should have noticed long time ago that Greenwald is not an impartial writer as he admitted many times. Consequently he will not tolerate impartiality on his section. That would bring a balanced section. So, in all fairness both of you should be banned. You both spent a long time writing lengthy comments irrelevant to the article. However, if I was Greenwald I would never ban Mona, one of my best lapdogs.
@Mani thanks for the low-down, but I am neither too emotional nor too dense to figure out how such websites work.
But even with all that, the Mona kind of intimidation and smear tactics must be opposed by all right-minded people.
Dear Mani,
You sound like you’ve got a personal vendetta against Glenn Greenwald. Don’t tell me… you work for that super secret social media team Nutyoohoo put together. You guys are so transparent. I think it’s the zero substance that gives you away.
“You sound like you’ve got a personal vendetta against Glenn Greenwald ”
No. I like Greenwald’s ability to generate a large amount of followers. He does not even have to report all the facts and sometimes his analysis are groundless and inconsistent. I wish I had that special talent. Nevertheless, my admiration for him does not consist of worshipping him like most of you. I simply enjoy reading his articles and the irrational arguments they create among his lapdogs (you).
I answer the only part I understood from your comment. The other parts explain the reason I come here from time to time: amusement. Lol
AiC, Mani is an embittered hasbara troll. Last April and May (more or less) he and the hasbrara crew he arrived with got smacked around with tons of unpleasant facts about Israel and Zionism, so he stopped challenging us on that issue. All he does now is drop in from time to time to spew bile about Glenn, me, Pedinska and anyone else who is in basic agreement with Glenn. He’s a troll, and isn’t above reaching out to a clearly ill women like Seema to further his trollish agenda.
@TI readers
Here, the resident bully and troll for hire, Mona targets me, a GE corporate whistleblower again. Wonder what GE offered Mona?
This GE sock puppet Mona shamelessly targets a GE corporate whistleblower again.
Read http://seemasapra.blogspot.in/p/some-of-corruption-fraud-bribery_4275.html for the evidence of corruption against GE in India.
You accuse the author and it’s commenter (lapdogs) of doing that which you yourself do here with your reply to Seema Sopra!
Shame on you!
The great freedom every American citizen enjoys is the ‘Freedom of Speech’ – that includes that you do NOT have to read the authors posts/articles.
I would recommend to stay off site rather than to continue hijacking the thread and assist you friend Seema – take it to your own site where the two of you can hash it out how thoughtful citizens are continue to be lapdogs.
Good Luck!
Quit burying threads with this please. Just give link to your site.
scroll, scroll, scroll your boat
gently down the stream
merrily, merrily, merrily
life is but a dream.
Yeah, but my index finger is showing sign of carpal tunnel. ;)
And I thinks it’s Seems who’s living in the dream whereby she thinks the comments section is her personal blog.
Purple haze, all around
It’s got Seema, going up & down
Is she happy or in misery
Whatever it is, she’s got GE after me.
That was clever.
;)
Thank Mona, the GE sock puppet for this. I start commenting here. GE lawyers looks for people on this blog they can use against me to smear me, a GE corporate whistleblower They find ever willing Mona.
Very good column, Glenn.
The Clintons learned long ago that if you can’t beat them (the Republicans), join them, steal their playbook and outplay the Republicans at their own game. Every strategic move they make is a Republican one, on steroids. Republicans can’t criticize, because they pull the same bullshit.
But as we’ve learned, D and R mean nothing anymore. It’s the powerful, privleged, corrupted and the ruthless versus everyone else who still thinks ethics and morality mean anything.
Hillary and the Clinton Foundation: Exemplars of America’s Political Rot
http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-and-the-clinton-foundation-exemplars-of-americas-political-rot/5542729
from http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-u-s-department-of-clinton-1472167746
“The U.S. Department of Clinton”
“This is the week that the steady drip, drip, drip of details about Hillary Clinton’s server turned into a waterfall. This is the week that we finally learned why Mrs. Clinton used a private communications setup, and what it hid. This is the week, in short, that we found out that the infamous server was designed to hide that Mrs. Clinton for three years served as the U.S. Secretary of the Clinton Foundation.
In March this column argued that while Mrs. Clinton’s mishandling of classified information was important, it missed the bigger point. The Democratic nominee obviously didn’t set up her server with the express purpose of exposing national secrets—that was incidental. She set up the server to keep secret the details of the Clintons’ private life—a life built around an elaborate and sweeping money-raising and self-promoting entity known as the Clinton Foundation.
Had Secretary Clinton kept the foundation at arm’s length while in office—as obvious ethical standards would have dictated—there would never have been any need for a private server, or even private email. The vast majority of her electronic communications would have related to her job at the State Department, with maybe that occasional yoga schedule. And those Freedom of Information Act officers would have had little difficulty—when later going through a state.gov email—screening out the clearly “personal” before making her records public. This is how it works for everybody else.
Mrs. Clinton’s problem—as we now know from this week’s release of emails from Huma Abedin’s private Clinton-server account—was that there was no divide between public and private. Mrs. Clinton’s State Department and her family foundation were one seamless entity—employing the same people, comparing schedules, mixing foundation donors with State supplicants. This is why she maintained a secret server, and why she deleted 15,000 emails that should have been turned over to the government.
Most of the focus on this week’s Abedin emails has centered on the disturbing examples of Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band negotiating State favors for foundation donors. But equally instructive in the 725 pages released by Judicial Watch is the frequency and banality of most of the email interaction. Mr. Band asks if Hillary’s doing this conference, or having that meeting, and when she’s going to Brazil. Ms. Abedin responds that she’s working on it, or will get this or that answer. These aren’t the emails of mere casual acquaintances; they don’t even bother with salutations or signoffs. These are the emails of two people engaged in the same purpose—serving the State-Clinton Foundation nexus.
The other undernoted but important revelation is that the media has been looking in the wrong place. The focus is on Mrs. Clinton’s missing emails, and no doubt those 15,000 FBI-recovered texts contain nuggets. Then again, Mrs. Clinton was a busy woman, and most of the details of her daily State/foundation life would have been handled by trusted aides. This is why they, too, had private email. Top marks to Judicial Watch for pursuing Ms. Abedin’s file from the start. A new urgency needs to go into seeing similar emails of former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills.
Mostly, we learned this week that Mrs. Clinton’s foundation issue goes far beyond the “appearance” of a conflict of interest. This is straight-up pay to play. When Mr. Band sends an email demanding a Hillary meeting with the crown prince of Bahrain and notes that he’s a “good friend of ours,” what Mr. Band means is that the crown prince had contributed millions to a Clinton Global Initiative scholarship program, and therefore has bought face time. It doesn’t get more clear-cut, folks.
That’s highlighted by the Associated Press’s extraordinary finding this week that of the 154 outside people Mrs. Clinton met with in the first years of her tenure, more than half were Clinton Foundation donors. Clinton apologists, like Vox’s Matthew Yglesias, are claiming that statistic is overblown, because the 154 doesn’t include thousands of meetings held with foreign diplomats and U.S. officials.
Nice try. As the nation’s top diplomat, Mrs. Clinton was obliged to meet with diplomats and officials—not with others. Only a blessed few outsiders scored meetings with the harried secretary of state and, surprise, most of the blessed were Clinton Foundation donors.
Mrs. Clinton’s only whisper of grace is that it remains (as it always does in potential cases of corruption) hard to connect the dots. There are “quids” (foundation donations) and “quos” (Bahrain arms deals) all over the place, but no precise evidence of “pros.” Count on the Clinton menagerie to dwell in that sliver of a refuge.
But does it even matter? What we discovered this week is that one of the nation’s top officials created a private server that housed proof that she continued a secret, ongoing entwinement with her family foundation—despite ethics agreements—and that she destroyed public records. If that alone doesn’t disqualify her for the presidency, it’s hard to know what would.”
from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-bribery-standard/2016/08/25/958e4eb6-6ae8-11e6-ba32-5a4bf5aad4fa_story.html?utm_term=.ca6de3b38ca3
“The central problem with Hillary Clinton’s emails was not the classified material. It wasn’t the headline-making charge by the FBI director of her extreme carelessness in handling it.
That’s a serious offense, to be sure, and could very well have been grounds for indictment. And it did damage her politically, exposing her sense of above-the-law entitlement and — in her dodges and prevarications, her parsing and evasions — demonstrating her arm’s-length relationship with the truth.
But it was always something of a sideshow. The real question wasn’t classification but: Why did she have a private server in the first place? She obviously lied about the purpose. It wasn’t convenience. It was concealment. What exactly was she hiding?
State Department: No ‘firm sense’ how many Clinton emails are new Play Video2:58
The State Department says it is reviewing nearly 15,000 previously undisclosed emails recovered as part of the FBI’s now-closed investigation into Hillary Clinton’s handling of emails while Secretary of State. (AP)
Was this merely the prudent paranoia of someone who habitually walks the line of legality? After all, if she controls the server, she controls the evidence, and can destroy it — as she did 30,000 emails — at will.
But destroy what? Remember: She set up the system before even taking office. It’s clear what she wanted to protect from scrutiny: Clinton Foundation business.
The foundation is a massive family enterprise disguised as a charity, an opaque and elaborate mechanism for sucking money from the rich and the tyrannous to be channeled to Clinton Inc. Its purpose is to maintain the Clintons’ lifestyle (offices, travel, accommodations, etc.), secure profitable connections, produce favorable publicity and reliably employ a vast entourage of retainers, ready to serve today and at the coming Clinton Restoration.
Now we learn how the whole machine operated. Two weeks ago, emails began dribbling out showing foundation officials contacting State Department counterparts to ask favors for foundation “friends.” Say, a meeting with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon for one particularly generous Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire.
Big deal, said the Clinton defenders. Low-level stuff. No involvement of the secretary herself. Until — drip, drip — the next batch revealed foundation requests for face time with the secretary herself. Such as one from the crown prince of Bahrain.
To be sure, Bahrain, home of the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, is an important Persian Gulf ally. Its crown prince shouldn’t have to go through a foundation — to which his government donated at least $50,000 — to get to the secretary. The fact that he did is telling.
Now, a further drip: The Associated Press found that more than half the private interests who were granted phone or personal contact with Secretary Clinton — 85 of 154 — were donors to the foundation. Total contributions? As much as $156 million.
Current Clinton response? There was no quid pro quo.
What a long way we’ve come. This is the very last line of defense. Yes, it’s obvious that access and influence were sold. But no one has demonstrated definitively that the donors received something tangible of value — a pipeline, a permit, a waiver, a favorable regulatory ruling — in exchange.
It’s hard to believe the Clinton folks would be stupid enough to commit something so blatant to writing. Nonetheless, there might be an email allusion to some such conversation. With thousands more emails to come, who knows what lies beneath.”
You should get a Pulitzer for all you do – and your courage. Thank you, Glen.
MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell, Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes etc have all danced around the seriousness of this issue. Basically ignored it. Or as you have said pained anyone who has tried to point out the seriousness of the issue as “Hillary haters” or something like that.
Same host have ignored her war record, Wall Street connections, Comey findings etc. Rachel etc all owned by Comcast. As if their big salaries have nothing to do with their silence
They’re nothing more than whores and soulless entertainers. Matthews reminds me of a loudmouthed alcoholic uncle.
The speed at which Rachel “moderated” her views and began to impose self-censorship when she got the gig at MSNBC was breathtaking.
She’s an exemplary sellout.
I remained teetering on the edge of finding her somewhat tolerable until she did the prissy schoolmarm sermon about the unseemliness of Bernie Sanders endorsing Tim Canova over Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Why, did you know that for a sitting member of Congress to side against an incumbent is, why, it is a scandal, is what it is.
Yeah. Pretty unbelievable and unforgivable behavior from Rachel there. I’ve given up. Watching Rachel nowadays is a big bore. She’s not going to break any news. She’s going to be best friends with Hillary, once she’s in the whitehouse. Clinton after all is the mother of LGBT and what not. I bet Rachel’s going to help sell that story. The politicians create facts from complete fiction, and the “reporters” help them do it. At least Olbermann never did that, whatever his personal shortcomings.
Unbelievable!!
She is a “sell out” that big paycheck sealed the silence deal. All of them have been hawking for HIllary since her announcement to run. Yeah a few of them had Bernie on but not until they finally got the drift that millions of young and old were supporting him in mass.
They have all gone along with burying her war record, never demand that she release Wall Street transcripts, acted as if this “pay to play” issue is just another fly on Clinton’s shoulder to brush off, barely whispered about the Comey findings and oh yeah the Debbie Wasserman Schultz “rigged system” issue disappeared completely too.
Then the obsession with the “Russians are coming, the Russians are coming” by Joy Reid, Matthews, Lawrence O’donnell (really could not stop beating that fear drum) while almost all of them have ignored addressing that Israel and the I lobby have been influencing U.S. elections for decades. Phil Weiss wrote a bang up piece at Mondoweiss http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/
All the hosts still left at MSNBC are whores who have given up any pieces of their souls that they had left. It’s pretty shameful, sickening actually. Unbelievably, they make the Fox hosts look rational by comparison.
it is hillarious and disgusting how msnbc has sold out to wallstreet pigs – firing keith, ed, joy, others. Now they have Rachel, who was a fighter once, nitpicking at how Trumps campaign guy and wife dont get along, all while Criminal Hellary runs illegal arms deals, probably money laundering, bathes and basks in corruption, favors genocide of Palestinians, is willing to turn the sovreignty of the US over to a T3 tribunal, and is on her knees to Nutinyahu and Blankfein….
Perhaps msnbc will get the scoop on how Trump’s eye contact with non-whites on THE APPRENTICE didn’t last long enough to qualify as non-racist.
Wow.
I could not agree more. While it is true that the alternative to Clinton is indeed a terrifying prospect for President of the United States, that should not mean that she is given a free pass on actions that simply do not pass the sniff test.
The fact is that Donald Trump is where he is because for the last 8-10 years, Americans who question Liberal policies in action have been called every name in the book and therefore silenced, while Liberals have been given a free pass to say whatever they want; including calling everyone who disagrees with them anti- gay bigoted, Hitlers.
It took the Associated Press 3 years to even get the information needed to write their article and that was after a lawsuit.
Under Obama we are are bombing five countries we have not declared war on, we are selling weapons to Saudi Arabia that we know are being used in a war on Yemen; unconstitutional spying on Americans continues and has been expanded and has not been challenged by his State Department and contrary to promises of transparency, his administration has worked tirelessly to clamp down on information flow and whistle-blowers, as you are well aware.
Under Democrats our war machine has spread across the globe at a pace that Republicans only dream about while the media is focused on how Donald Trump eats taco salads and fried chicken.
It’s bread and circuses and it’s killing our Republic.
So, thanks for what you do.
That reply is awesome, thanks.
Remember Barry’s sweet New Year’s Eve signing of the National Defense Reauthorization Act that gives the government the right to detain citizens vaguely suspected of undefined terrorist activity.
Trump is a man of the people,despite his wealth,while HRC is a woman of zionist delite scum.
And he will defeat the zionist MSM,and their whore, on election day.
Although when you describe Trump (I am a Sanders supporter) as a “terrifying prospect” I am amazed by Dems etc who do not see Clinton’s horrific war record as a “terrifying prospect?” Then add on her Wall Street ties, Comey findings, Clinton foundation issue etc etc….”terrifying” in my book
No comment sections are better that the ones at TI. Check this out:
A commenter called Pedinska after being savagely smacked down by another called Karen basically copied and pasted an anti Clinton article about Haiti. Of course, Pedinska’s objectives was to search for anything to blame the Clintons in order to please his master Greenwald. She obviously does not have any understanding of the political mess in Haiti. At the end of her post she suggested the Clintons did not really care about Haiti because if they did they would have helped a medical center called Gheskio after the earthquake instead of helping built an industrial park.
Another lapdog (Galactus) quickly thanked Pedinska for the “great post” and called me an ignorant because I laughed at him (her) for praising a post without even questioning the information provided.
1) Assistance to Gheskio was a priority for Bill Clinton himself after the earthquake when he visited Haiti. Gheskio was one of the first recipients of aids from the clintonbushhaiti fund after the earthquake.
2) The Clinton Foundation did provide assistance to Gheskio after the earthquake and still provides assistance to Gheskio.
Am I factually correct? Yes I am. These are public information available everywhere. But that is not the point. The point is that lapdogs do not care about facts. There are entertainers like Rush Limbaugh or rapper BoB. Are you really going to debate with somebody who insists Obama was born in Kenya or somebody who provides “proofs” the Earth is flat?
This is how it works in a lapdog’s head: the great master Greenwald has the ability to read people’s mind. He knows when a Saudi Royal or a Kuwaiti Royal gives money to the Clinton Foundation then it must be because they are looking for special favors. Even if some of those royals were always getting special favors from the US government and even if the US government never indicated a remote inclination to change its policy to those nations including the sale of sophisticated weaponry that republicans and democrats have always supported. And even if some of the royals who have strongly supported the objectives of the Clinton Foundation clashing openly with their own governments have been giving money to charities with the same objectives years before that foundation was even created.
Meh, you are simply an embittered hasbara troll who couldn’t pass his hasbara here without getting deluged with unpleasant facts about Zionism and Israel, so you quit that to just drop in with occasional spamming of bile. Lots of AOL-era “LOLs,” constant announcements that the site “entertains” you, and promiscuous use of the term “lapdog(s).”
Knock yourself out, as long as the management here permits you to flood the place with your crap.
At least concede it is entertaining when somebody spent hours writing 100 paragraph comments about her weird argument ( that has nothing to do with the article) with Seema is calling somebody else’s comments “crap”. Lol lol
YES MANAGEMENT I LOVE YOUR SITE. IT IS VERY ENTERTAINING. I ADMIT IT. I LOVE IT. I LOVE IT. I LOVE IT.
Well, Seema’s comments do have to do with the article in the sense that the poor woman fancies herself a soldier against corruption and seeks to opine from that position. The sad reality is she’s a deluded, ill woman.
You, however, are simply a rabid Zionist troll who got all pissed off that you couldn’t spout that garbage here without seeing me and others counter it with a litany of facts about Israel and Zionism that you find most unpalatable. So what you’re doing instead now is somewhat understandable, if juvenile.
“The sad reality is she’s a deluded, ill woman. ”
I get it, no one knows crazy like -Mona-, but can’t we just all get along …
“The sad reality is she’s a deluded, ill woman. ”
Actually I am not.
There you go again. Mona following me like a puppy. Dude, you like this site because you are a lapdog. You can come here all day because your life consists of staying behind a computer and praising Greenwald. This is how you entertain yourself. You come here, bash whomever disagrees with you, call them weird names and then you convince yourself that you are the smartest dude on the Internet and you just save most of the world problems.
This is your choice in life. You enjoy it, then good for you. This is how you entertain yourself. You believe I am Zionist. I am a troll, you confuse me with others and you even decide what my religion is. That is your choice. If that makes you happy then go for it. You can call me a genocidal maniac if you wish.
I rarely come here. This is a fact. Compare your ten thousand comments with my few opinions!
I find you and many of those who worship Greenwald very hilarious. You distort facts, you have weird conspiracy theories, and you guys start arguing about stupid stuffs (you and Seema). I am not interested in debating with you. Like you I write what I want and I choose the words I want. You do not like it, then move on. Get up from your ass and do something productive. Obviously Israel-Palestine is the most important conflict that is of interest for you. Then you can go to Gaza or the West Bank and do some humanitarian work for the Palestinians who really are in need of assistance. If it is that serious for you, then I am not sure how calling me Zionist will actually solve that conflict or make it better for the Palestinians. I do not sell weapons to Israel. I do not vote in Israeli elections. I do not write books about that conflict. You seriously got me with somebody else because that conflict is not of interest to me. Your personal life is not of interest for me neither. Maybe you are the nicest person on earth. I really do not care, because I am not here to make friends. Everybody can be whomever they want on the Internet. I am not looking for a job here. I already have my own. So I am not going to publish my resume stating what I know and what I do not know. I am here to entertain myself. If Greenwald gets offended because a reader likes his writing because he find them amusing, then he should not be a writer. If I get offended because you keep calling me a Zionist or you believe that I am stupid, then I should not be online.
So, I am not sure why you get so upset because I call you a lapdog. I believe that is what you are. Maybe in reality you are not. I do not care. I answer the Mona here online. I do not know the real Mona and I have absolutely no interest in knowing you. You do not even know my opinion about Israel and Palestine, but you believe I am a Zionist. I am Muslim, but you told me I am not Muslim. Big deal! Every time you say those things I just laugh at them and move on.
You do not like my comments, then ignore them. You find them stupid. Then call them stupid. Call me stupid. But on serious you really need to have at least some minimal level of self control.
And if you really think you gonna affect the US elections sitting behind a computer and writing comments all day, then as I stated you are a deranged person! LOL
Nope. Not gonna ignore you. Only if and when you keep your word and go away.
It’s terribly amusing when the hasbara troll and one of the resident antisemites both join the sub-thread to complain about me. The thread is stale enough, however, that you guys aren’t causing that much pollution.
You do not need to ignore me. As a matter of fact I know you cannot ignore me. My response when you stated you would ignore me days ago was “LOL” . You have no self control. I can keep you here all day and night. I just have to write something stupid such as Israel has the best human rights records on earth. And it would be completely irelevant whether I could find Israel on a map or not. Or I can say Greenwald is the worst journalist ever. You would be here all day writing “crap” and I would be all day laughing at you.
1) Complain about you? How? I have never complained about you. I consistently repeated the comment sections would be boring without lapdogs, conspiracy theorists, deranged people like you. Why would I be here without entertainers like you?
2) Go away? You spent so much time on that computer that you do not even recognize to whom you have been talking. I said that I like TI because it is pure entertainment.
You are really a deranged individual. Lol lol
You see? You find me amusing, but you are upset if I find you amusing.
That’s right, and I’m not going to. Nor am I going to be traduced by the ploy of “you can’t ignore me” into doing so. I did something like that with Gil and it worked, but it doesn’t on me.
Mani, after being savagely smacked down by me for having weak argument through her use of ad-hominem attacks proved how shallow and ignorant her facts were as she was relying on Al-Waleed Talal, a dwarf thrower and possibly a 9/11 terrorist funder.
She completely misinterpreted the premise of Pedinska’s post of how HRC corruptly used her position at the state department to supplant Clinton aid with other aid.
So, in a desperate attempt to cover up her ignorance and bury the thread in a Troll like fashion, she and her inferiority complex that desperately wants acceptance from anyone out there wrote a lengthy post trying to convince people that her use of the ad-hominen attack work (lapdog) actual has some meaning, when in reality, it’s just an ad-hominen attack.
Not realizing the circular nature of her posts, she will of course respond with more ad- hominem attacks and still not realize they are the weakest form of argument and are as ineffective and useless as her presence in the TI comments section.
Mani:
“There are Saudi princes who are strongly oppose to how women are treated in the Kingdom and they treat their female staff to the highest standards. How do you know their donations are not an expression of their beliefs?”
Kitt ? Mani
Aug. 26 2016, 2:27 a.m.
Who, specifically, are these Saudi Princes you speak of? What are their names?….Where is the documentation about these Saudi Princes you speak of which shows that they “strongly oppose to how women are treated in the Kingdom?” What is your description/definition—or the Saudi Princes’ that you speak of, description/definition of this: “They treat their female staff to the highest standards?”
-Mona- ? Kitt
Aug. 26 2016, 2:33 a.m.
Kitt, just FYI, “Mani” is a vicious hasbara troll…
Kitt ? -Mona-
Aug. 26 2016, 2:45 a.m.
I was dealing with some type of common “shit stirrer” but I figured it might be interesting to at least see how it might go about spelling the names of the fictitious Saudi princes it was tooting the horns for.
Mani to Kitt:
Fact check this: A Saudi Prince by the name of Al Waleed Talal has a history of publicly criticizing the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia. In his offices, women do not have to follow SA dress codes and other restrictive rules against women. He employs more women than men.He has a history of giving money to support women education. He is the one who financed the education and employed the first female pilot in SA. Any of these Infos incorrect?
I do not know why he gave money to Clinton Foundation. I am not in his mind. He might just be to get special favors or simply because he believes in the foundation objectives as he has been supporting similar objectives years before the creation of that foundation.
Galactus to Mani:
I smacked you down. Prince Talal is a dwarf thrower and a terrorist funder.
Dude, even if according to US courts, US Congress, Swiss Courts, International courts…he was the mastermind of 9/11 it does not change the fact that you, Greenwald and I have no idea why he gave money to the foundation in 2015. We only know he already had access to top government officials around the world, they already gave him special favors and he supported similar charities way before the Clinton foundation. So I am not going to challenge your ability to read people’s mind. I will just laugh at it! Lol lol
Pedinska
“…If the Clinton Foundation wanted to help in post-earthquake Haiti , they’d have funded the reconstruction of Les Centres Gheskio, one of the main research and treatment facilities doing yeoman’s work on HIV/AIDS in Haiti, instead of building an industrial park.”
Galactus:
“Great Post..”
Mani to Galactus
The Clinton Foundation did provide assistance to Les Centres Gheskio after the earthquake and is still providing assistance to that center. You should verify the information provided in a post before you describe it as “great”.
Galactus
Mani is a troll..ad-hominem…
Conclusion
1) Galactus is a lapdog
2) Do not expect lapdogs to produce rational arguments even when provided with facts
3) Do not debate with lapdogs. Just tell them how smart they are as you laugh at them.
Galactus you are so smart, so analytical, so well informed! I don’t know why I even dare answering such an intelligent individual.
Missed the point yet again completely.
It’s the CASH INFLOWS that are in question, NOT the expenditures. I know you desperately want acceptance, but your ignorance of the problem isn’t helping.
Once you realize that it’s cash being paid into the foundation, perhaps you will be able to produce some facts that are RELAVENT to the problem.
But I doubt it. You seem oblivious to facts and unable to present any. You seem completely bias in favor of the Clintons and not really caring about educating yourself.
You seem more concerned about getting people’s attention through fit-throwing and name calling. But hey, the world needs dupes too, right?
Thanks. You indeed made the argument for their being something rotten in the States not so United. PTxS
Thank you for stimulating critical thinking… something seemingly no one does anymore. I feel that we have become dumbed-down masses. I enjoy reading your work for its common sense and investigative prowess.
Loopholes and work-arounds regarding big money donors maxxing out in campaign donations:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-dnc-contributions/
I am totally perplexed by how there was absolutely no mention of the Clinton Foundation as part of Hillary Clinton’s life’s work during the DNC. This seems a glaring omission that is highly suspect. Has anyone else noticed this?
Let’s face it, James Carville is a washed up old devil.
CROOKED TOGETHER
With all the money, why give to the CrookdClintonFound when palestinian brothers need to be brought of of the hell, why wait?
@Mani, if you scroll down the comments, you will find that Mona started the attack on me after I posted an opinion about Glenn Greenwald’s article that Mona did not approve of.
Actually Seema, you made a lengthy assertion that included a legal assessment that is incorrect. Your whole premise was wrong and clearly warped by your peculiar way of looking at various events.
I kept my knowledge about you to myself for some time even as you flooded the site with endless links to your blog containing your delusional rants, but when you decided to preen as some expert on what a legal analysis about American corruption law should be (I’m a retired American lawyer), I let readers know about your documented delusions that: myriad doctors, your family, police etc. are all trying to murder you. You also believe dozens of judges, the cops and politicians are involved in a huge conspiracy to get you.
You do not deny any of this and in fact yourself post links setting forth all the medical plots to kill and harm you. Independently, Indian sources, including high court documents, establish these sad facts about your delusions and unfortunate behavior. (You’ve been fined for your antics in court and are appealing a light jail sentence for same. Several sources indicate the courts are torn between, on the one hand, needing to get your behavior under control and, on the other, feeling sorry for you due to your mental health condition.)
As I’ve told you, this is a political site and not a mental health forum. As long as you remain here, you can expect me to link to the evidence about your sad condition whenever you offer a deeply misguided judgment about facts and/or law.
Wow. Fucking off the rail with your this is not a mental health forum but since you mentioned it …
-Mona- ; Somebody a while back called her the “she-beast, hidden amongst the rocks, ready to eat your eyeballs.”
Nice.
(she’ll now proceed to call me an antisemite blah blah)
Really!? Someone said that abut moi? Well, as Mani likes to spew because he thinks it’s 1999 and AOL: LOL.
I am old fashioned. LOL
Now can you start commenting about the article above? You have been writing a lot of bs that has nothing to do with the article in the last 24 hours including your long, weird, funny, tiring argument with Seema. Earlier a commenter called those kinds of comments : “flooding the section with crap” I think she was right. Lol
You know what. I think it is better you keep writing about me. Although I have no interest in you, it shows how important I am for you.
That’s not gonna work, either.
That was a long weird attempt by Mona to shut down a GE whistleblower by spreading disinformation.
Seema, you are not a “GE whistleblower.” You are a mentally ill woman who imagines plots to kill on the part of various doctors, your family, and the police. You further imagine that virtually the entire judiciary in your country of India has been corrupted by GE to turn them against you.
My documentation for these facts about you is set forth in three posts in a sub-thread below, beginning with this comment. Henceforth, Seema, when you claim any of these delusions, or that I am smearing you or spreading disinformation, I will link readers to those same three comments and the documentation therein — documentation that includes the holdings of your nation’s appellate court.
Your choice, therefore, is to either cease posting both your delusions and claims that I am smearing you, or to have me consistently linking readers to that documentation. It’s entirely up to you.
@TI readers, a classic silencing tactic, similar to what Mona is using against me, a corporate GE whistleblower, is to bombard with disinformation and lies about me when I am exposing GE. If I respond to her, trying to set the record straight, she wins because I get caught up in unraveling the twisted false narrative being spun about me by the GE propaganda machine. And in a forum like this, where the ability to get readers attention is limited, the focus shifts to me having to defend myself from smears than on exposing what GE did and is guilty of.
Therefore, instead of reacting to Mona’s rants against me, I invite you to read my detailed comments on what I have exposed about GE which I posted in the comments at the 11 August 2016 Intercept article titled “VINDICATION FOR BALTIMORE POLICE CRITICS — BUT NO ACTION”
Also, instead of reacting to what Mona says that anonymous others are saying about me and about what I am saying, I invite you to read an appeal filed by me in the Supreme Court of India.
This appeal describes who I am , a corporate whistleblower, what I have exposed about GE corruption and fraud in India, how my Delhi High Court litigation was subverted and corrupted, how I was and am being targeted, and how in a classic case of whistleblower retaliation, I am now being targeted with a conviction for contempt of court by the same two Judges whose ruling resulted in a cover-up of my corruption and fraud complaints against GE.
My opening statement in this appeal is extracted below:
“1. This is a Criminal Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 from the judgment dated 17.12.2015 of the Delhi High Court in CONT. CAS(CRL) 2/2014, hereinafter referred to as the impugned judgment. This appeal is filed with a delay of 32 days beyond the 60-day period prescribed in Section 19. An application for condonation of delay is also filed. The impugned judgment dated 17.12.2015 of the Delhi High Court in CONT. CAS(CRL) 2/2014 (Court on its own motion vs. Seema Sapra) is annexed hereto as Annexure A-1.
2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been found guilty of contempt of court. The impugned judgment has imposed a punishment of imprisonment for a period of one month; and in addition a fine of Rs. 2,000/- to be deposited within a period of three months with the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court failing which the appellant will undergo a further term of imprisonment of one month. The impugned judgment has further directed that the appellant, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi will not be allowed to argue, whether as an Advocate or in person, except in her defence, before any Bench of this High Court or any court or tribunal subordinate to this High Court for a period of two years. The impugned judgment has directed that a copy of that judgment be sent to the Registry of the Delhi High Court and to all subordinate courts and tribunals, and further that a copy of that judgment be also sent to the Delhi Bar Council for information. The impugned judgment itself directed that the operative part pertaining to imposition of punishment would not operate for a period of three months from 17.12.2015 to enable the “contemnor” to take appropriate steps to exercise her legal remedy.
3. This appeal being filed in person by the appellant begins with a prayer, because the only reason that the appellant-whistleblower-advocate has survived almost six complete years of on-going attempts to eliminate her is because of her prayers.
“Sada durga dahine, sanmukh rahe ganesh, panch dev raksha kare, brahma vishnu mahesh.”
4. At the outset, the appellant/petitioner states that being a woman lawyer, she has the greatest respect for both the judiciary and the rule of law. As a whistleblower who complied with her ethical duty of upholding the rule of law even under grave life threats, it is evident that the appellant takes the law seriously. The appellant holds the judiciary and the judicial function in great respect. She has never sought and will never seek a confrontation with the judiciary. She has never intended to scandalize or to disrespect the judiciary or the Court or to bring it into disrepute.
5. This appeal challenging a judgment of the Delhi High Court in a criminal contempt proceeding has its genesis in a whistleblower right to life petition that the appellant had filed in the Delhi High Court i.e., Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 in the matter of Seema Sapra v. General Electric Company and Others (hereinafter referred to as the “Writ Petition”).
6. This appeal will establish that the appellant is a whistleblower, a lawyer who worked in 2010 for General Electric Company in India and who was compelled to make whistleblower complaints when her legal services were sought to be used for corrupt practices including fraud, forgery, bribery, illegal lobbying etc. in connection with Indian Railway tenders for rail locomotive factories at Marhowra and Madhepura. This appeal will establish that attempts were made to eliminate the appellant with State authorities including the Police and intelligence agencies being used to target and silence the appellant. The appellant managed to file an Article 226 petition in the Delhi High Court. This appeal will establish that this petition languished unheard in the Delhi High Court for 3 years while the appellant continued to be destroyed, physically harmed, attacked, intimidated, harassed, targeted and threatened. This Appeal will establish that a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court wrongfully dismissed that Petitionby a judgment dated 2.3.2015 without hearing the appellant who was the petitioner in that matter in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. This appeal will establish that the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court wrongfully dismissed the whistleblower corruption case against General Electric Company in complete disregard of the material on record before it, in complete disregard of the law and in complete disregard of the appellant’s right to life. This appeal will establish that this unsustainable and wrongful dismissal of the writ petition resulted in a cover-up of very serious complaints and evidence of corruption by and favouring General Electric Company facilitated by then Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and his close aide and then Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia. This appeal will establish that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition and the denial of a hearing to the appellant in that matter resulted in gross injustice, and a cover up of attempts to murder the appellant, a cover-up of the fact that the appellant was poisoned, a cover-up of State and police participation in the conspiracy and attempts to silence and eliminate the appellant, a cover-up of the severe targeting that the appellant was subjected to and a cover up of the gross violation of the appellant’s right to life. This appeal will establish that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition has resulted in the appellant continuing to be poisoned for the last one year since 2.3.2015, and continuing to be targeted, harassed, intimidated, threatened, defamed and destroyed. This appeal will further establish that a mind-boggling fraud was perpetrated on the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil 1280/ 2012 where an unauthorized person effectively impersonated as the authorised signatory of General Electric Company and two of its subsidiaries and filed patently false and unauthorized affidavits and that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition results in a cover up of this massive fraud on the Court. This appeal will further establish that affidavits filed for the Railway Ministry in the Writ Petition contained multiple instances of perjury and included documents fabricated expressly for the purpose of covering up the corruption by General Electric. Further this appeal will establish that affidavits and status reports filed for the Delhi Police in the Writ petition also contained multiple instances of perjury, and that these affidavits and status reports themselves establish that the police was targeting the appellantand besides actively facilitating her being physically harmed, the police covered up her complaints and fabricated and procured false complaints against her.
7. The same Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which dismissed the Writ Petition ( Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P.S. Teji) then proceeded to hear two criminal contempt proceedings which were instituted against the appellant while the Writ Petition was pending and which arose out of facts connected to the hearing of the Writ Petition. This same Division Bench has now after rejecting the appellant’s request for recusal, ruled against the appellant in one of the contempt cases and again without permitting the appellant to file a written reply, without hearing the appellant or affording her an opportunity to defend herself has issued the impugned judgment holding the appellant guilty of contempt of court and imposing an extraordinarily harsh punishment on the appellant which includes sentencing her to imprisonment.
8. The appellant states that she has managed to survive for 6 years fighting alone but it is certain that she will be drugged and poisoned in prison and will come out from prison both mentally and physically damaged and incapacitated. It is also certain that this incarceration will be used to falsify medical records for the appellant and to cover up the fact that she has been chronically poisoned, and that this poisoning has caused organ damage and to cover up the fact that the appellant’s left ankle was deliberately dislocated in June 2014. The impugned judgment will result in facilitation of the elimination of the whistleblower appellant and in silencing her.
9. This appeal will establish that the impugned judgment in the contempt case is wrong in law and on facts, that it has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and without hearing the appellant and without providing her even the most limited opportunity to defend herself. This appeal will establish that the impugned contempt judgment misrecords not only the facts but also the appellant’s submissions and defence. This appeal will establish that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and to the relevant material before the court.
10. The appellant does not want to comment on the conduct of the specific Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, but this appeal will establish that the judgments of this particular Division Bench both in the Writ Petition and in the contempt case are wrong, contrary to law and to the material on record, and are unsustainable and perverse.
11. The record of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 is relevant to this appeal but is very voluminous. The appellant will place the record of the writ petition before this Hon’ble Court in electronic format on a DVD.
A copy of the judgment in the Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 is being filed in a separate volume.
12. A copy of the appellant’s cv showing her educational and professional achievements as in 2010 when the appellant ended up as a whistleblower is reproduced below.
Curriculum Vitae
Seema Sapra
Contact details
xxxx @gmail.com
Work Experience
Legal Counsel for GE Transportation India in Delhi (2010 – 5 months until September 2010)
Consultant to Microsoft India on Innovation & IP law and policy – 2009-2010 in Delhi (approx. six months)
Visiting fellow at Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi, 2008-2009, working on trade policy, climate change and energy policy
Director – Trade & Policy, at Delhi office of law firm Amarchand Mangaldas, Suresh A. Shroff & Co, 2008. Worked on trade policy, competition policy, nuclear policy, investment policy, India’s comprehensive economic cooperation agreements, anti-dumping.
Visiting Fellow at the Institute of International Economic Law, Georgetown University Law Center in Washington DC 2004-2005, worked on trade and investment policy and law
Assisted GE India General Counsel, Ruby Anand as off-counsel from approx. 1999 till 2001
Associate in the office of Soli J Sorabjee, Attorney General of India, 2000-2001
Empanelled lawyer for the Government of India in the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi in 1999-2001
Lawyer with the litigation law firm of M/s Karanjawala & Co. in New Delhi, 1995-2000
Extensive litigation experience in the Supreme Court of India, the High Court of Delhi, and various special tribunals.
Policy expertise
International Trade
Bilateral and regional trade agreements
Investment policy, bilateral investment treaties
Climate change and sustainable development
Energy efficiency and climate change
Innovation policy, technology transfer and intellectual property
Competition policy
Teaching Experience
LLM tutor for the World Trade Law joint course at University College London and the School of Oriental and African Studies (2007)
Contract law tutor for 1st Year LLB at the University of Westminster, School of Law as a part-time visiting lecturer (2007)
Guest lectures for the LLM program at Kings College London and University of Leicester law school
Education
PhD studies at Kings College London 2003-2007 (not completed)
Title of proposed thesis: The Place, Treatment, and Meaning of Development in the WTO
Research supervisor – Professor Piet Eeckhout, Kings College London
3 year research fellowship by the Centre for European Law, Kings College London
LLM in Public International Law with distinction at the University of Leicester, 2001-2003
British Chevening scholar
LLB from the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi – Ist Division. 1995
Diploma in Environmental Law from the Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India -1994-1995
B. A. Honors in English Literature from St Stephen’s College, University of Delhi – 1992
Editorial Assistant for the Journal of International Economic law, 2004-2005 based at Georgetown University Law Center, Washington DC
Internship with the United Nations Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania 2002-2003
Publications
Article titled “Sustainable Development and the role of the Indian Supreme Court”, ASERI (Milan) publication, 2009
Article titled “An Agenda for Teaching International Economic Law in Indian Law Schools”, Indian Journal of International Economic Law, 2009, National Law School, Bangalore
Article titled “The WTO System of Trade Governance: The Stale NGO Debate and the Appropriate Role for Non-state actors” in Oregon Review of International Law Journal, volume 11 issue 1, 2009
Chapter titled ‘Domestic Politics and the Search for a New Social Purpose of Governance for the WTO: A Proposal for a Declaration on Domestic Consultation’ in Debra Steger (ed.) Redesigning the World Trade Organization for the Twenty-first Century, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2009
Chapter titled ‘New Agendas for International Economic Law Teaching in India: Including an Agenda in Support of Reform’ in Colin B. Picker, Isabella Bunn & Douglas Arner, (ed.) INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW – THE STATE & FUTURE OF THE DISCIPLINE, Hart Publishing, 2008
‘Ideas of Embedded Liberalism and Current and Future Challenges for the WTO’, in Ortino and Ripinsky, WTO Law and Process, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2007. pg 330 – 352
Development: Its Place, Treatment, and Meaning at the WTO / Seema Sapra (2006). In: Proceedings of the American Society of International Law Annual Meeting, Vol. 100, pg 223-226
Papers / Conferences
Presented paper titled “An Indian perspective on sustainable development: the role of the Indian higher judiciary” at panel discussion at ASERI, Milan in December 2008
Panelist for EDGE network panel on WTO Institutional Reform at the Inaugural conference of the Society for International Economic Law, Geneva, 15-17 July 2008
Presented paper titled “Developing Countries and Outreach to Non-State Actors in the WTO”, at an EDGE network project workshop on WTO institutional reform in March 2008 at Centre for International Governance Innovation, Waterloo, Ontario.
Presented paper titled “The Case for International Economic Law Teaching in India: Possible Agendas Including an Agenda in Support of Reform” at the Annual Conference of the International Economic Law Interest Group of the American Society of International Law at Bretton Woods in November, 2006
Panelist at the sixth Annual WTO Conference hosted by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law in May 2006, on the topic “Doha Development Round: Current and Future Challenges”
Presented paper titled “Development – Its Place, Treatment and Meaning at the WTO” at the 100th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, Washington D.C. 2006.
Presented paper titled “Special and Differential Treatment in international trade law” at the Institute of International Economic Law (IIEL), Georgetown University Law Center in September 2005
Presented paper titled “Constructivism and Special and Differential Treatment in international trade law” at the 2005 conference of the International Law Association, British Branch held at Edinburgh in May 2005
Memberships
Bar Council of Delhi
Society of International Economic Law
Asian WTO Research Network
13. Questions relevant for this appeal
Is the Appellant a whistleblower? What are the complaints of corruption and what is the evidence?
Has the Appellant been targeted?
Has the Appellant been physically harmed?
Is there a continuing threat to the life of the Appellant?
Has the Indian State, including the Police participated in covering up the corruption complaints and in targeting the appellant-whistleblower?
What were the events of 6.5.2014, the date on which the appellant is stated to have committed contempt of court?
Did the Appellant have an opportunity to defend herself in the Contempt case? Was she given a fair hearing in accordance with law before she was found guilty of contempt?
What is the appellant’s response to the contempt notice against her?
Is the punishment accorded by the impugned judgment fair and reasonable?”
For the rest, TI readers are invited to read the full document of my appeal pleading.
Seema, virtually no one is going to read that huge wall of text. And just scanning it I can see it’s the same delusions:
You sincerely have my pity and concern. But this is not a mental health forum and this material is wholly inappropriate.
Ignoring Mona (now acting as a GE sock puppet).
Dear Mona, please stop smearing a GE corporate whistleblower as mentally ill.
@TI readers, I really will not waste my time on Mona’s delusions and misinformation about me.
More Mona disinformation about a corporate whistleblower
This report epitomises the cynical hypocrisy, textbook corruption, and extraordinary hubris of the Clintons. When we add her war crimes in Libya, the Russia baiting and threats of war in defense of terrorist bands the US has funded to do its bidding, the Clinton campaign reveals itself as a reckless, corrupt brew of evil.
@Mani – You will notice that I am not speaking to Mona at all. I am addressing TI readers, but Mona keeps butting in with her disinformation attempts and I am forced to rebut her.
In fact, I have zero inclination to engage with Mona.
@TI Readers
Max Hospitals covered up poisoning complaint & clinical poisoning symptoms including abnormal heart ECG with rightward axis in General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra
On 20 July 2011 General Electric Company whistleblower Seema Sapra went to the Max Saket hospital and complained of poisoning specifically because of her corruption complaints against General Electric Company.
She met Dr Sushum Sharma who helped initiate and participated in a conspiracy to cover up her complaint of poisoning. He asked Seema Sapra to undergo a preventative health check-up instead of responding to a poisoning case as required by law and medical ethics. He wrote a prescription mentioning only her preexisting condition of hypothyroidism and suppressed her complaint of poisoning.He further suggested the ” Max Silver” preventative health check-up package.
Seema Sapra therefore had several medical tests conducted at Max Gurgaon Hospital on 22 July 2011 as part of a “Silver PHP Check” package offered by Max.
Several very serious abnormal test results which were clinically significant in a person complaining of exposure to poison and toxins both ingested and inhaled were suppressed by Max Healthcare doctors.
The heart ECG conducted on Seema Sapra at Max Gurgaon Hospital was abnormal with a very serious finding of an abnormal rightward heart axis which is clinically significant in a case of poisoning. This was suppressed by Max Healthcare along with several other abnormal results. Max Healthcare doctors not only suppressed Seema Sapra’s complaints of poisoning but also denied her crucial medical treatment for such poisoning.
See the the report of the abnormal heart ECG dated 22 July 2011 and the prescription by Dr Sushum Sharma at http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/max-hospitals-covered-up-poisoning.html
You da’ man, Glenn! Thank you for your superb work and for being on the side of the people (can you imagine if the other side had you? We’d be in trouble :oP)
Keep up the excellent writing and articulation on behalf of the oppressed and for the cause of freedom and peace, and don’t contract Zika. We love you, baby. (I frequently repost your articles and appearances on DN! on the FB page for my site: Divided Core.)
@TI Readers
Please look at the evidence on these links that establishes how I, a GE whistleblower in India have been targeted. And this is only a partial account of how I have been targeted.
Attempt at thyroid cancer false diagnosis targeting General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/attempt-at-thyroid-cancer-false.html
Dr S K Das of Max Healthcare attempted to poison Seema Sapra, General Electric whistleblower complaining of poisoning by prescribing Haloperidol as a sleeping aid in August 2011 http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/dr-s-k-das-of-max-healthcare-attempted.html
Dr Anuj Malhotra of Fortis Hospital deliberately dislocated the left ankle of General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra on 9 June 2014 in an attempt to force her into surgery as part of attempts to eliminate her http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/02/dr-anuj-malhotra-of-fortis-hospital.html
Max Hospitals covered up poisoning complaint & clinical poisoning symptoms including abnormal heart ECG with rightward axis in General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/max-hospitals-covered-up-poisoning.html
Max Healthcare Hospitals covered up poisoning complaint & clinical poisoning symptoms including abnormalities in blood haemogram in General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/max-hospitals-covered-up-poisoning_31.html
Jayanand Kinnattinkaryail, Regional Security Director for General Electric in India made false police complaint against GE whistleblower Seema Sapra in 2013 http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/jayanand-kinnattinkaryail-regional.html
Well, GilG is doing his wacky thing again:
Now, Gil doesn’t really believe that I sound like Donald Trump, he’s just getting a bit desperate. But let’s look at this piece from Current Affairs: DEMOCRATS ARE REDBAITING LIKE IT’S 1956, my emphasis:
And that’s just some of the prominent names. On Twitter the regular-folk Hillarybots have gone quite insane with this shit.
So, you were saying, Gil? Cuz I assure you, with the establishment Democrats it’s getting close to “all Putin all the time” vis-a-vis their critics.
The funniest moments of those comment sections are when reasonable people are attempting to use scientific facts, and logical arguments to debate with lapdogs. Those rational individuals have no idea they are dealing with lapdogs who compete on finding irrational, fact free arguments just to agree with Greenwald. Lol lol
Still haven’t learned that ad-hominem announces to all the weakness of your position, eh?
There’s only two kind of people who don’t learn from their past.
1. The mentally challenged
2. The paid advocate
Which are you? Answer if you dare. But I’m guessing you’ll simply name-call as that is really your best and only argument, which puts you in category #1.
Lol I am proudly #3
People who have no interest in learning anything from lapdogs.
#1& #2 represent the unable or unwilling, respectively. Your choice of #3 again proves you are incapable of understanding the questions and problems in front of you because #3 doesn’t exist.
And yet again, you have proved my point so now I owe you a thank you.
He’s an especially vicious hasbara troll very unhappy he couldn’t spew his hasbara without several of us, including me, overwhelming him with facts most unpleasant for Zionists and Israel apologists. So, he switched to just popping in and out to deposit bile.
“. . .attempting to use scientific facts. . .”
Here, Mani, go away and do remedial study until you understand this statement: There’s no such thing as a scientific fact.
Or, just go away. Whatever.
Ohh Doug, allow me to accommodate your view. Let’s be more technical. We shall not use the words “scientific fact” . Let’s use the words “empirical evidence”. Is there such a thing?
Isn’t it empirical evidence for instance that Mona has no self control? The same commenter who “rarely” answers people like me has been following me over and over, confusing me with I don’t know who? Lol
One again Mona. I AM ALREADY TAKEN!! LEAVE ME ALONE. Lol
Consider me as the invisible one. In fact, I do not even debate with any of you. I just laugh at you!
Not any more you don’t. Your apologia for Israel and Zionism got you roundly smacked down with a deluge of facts you deeply disliked so you learned your lesson and stopped inviting it. I do give you some credit for that: many hasbara-ists don’t figure out they harm their cause by serving as fodder for the well-informed folks here.
Hence you turned to:
You don’t, but have decided to endlessly announce it anyway. Accompanied be endless “LOLs,” and the same terms, over and over, terms like “lapdog(s)” and how “entertained” you purportedly are. It’s a tired shtick but hardly the most noxious the site has been subjected to.
Can you show me that debate about Israel?
I promise I will stop laughing at you immediately after you do. Lol lol
Oh yes..you are a lapdog.
The Israel stuff was many months ago. Last April and May I, maybe also early June. You were right in their with your pals like Gorsky (if not your alter egos) doing the hasbara thing.
But you don’t keep your word. Early last June after you introduced Zionism into a thread about something else you said: “Do not worry, I have no interest in wasting time on a site where foolish arguments are praised,” indicating you wer leaving. You didn’t.
But you have stopped trying to debate Zionism, for the reasons I set forth.
“Isn’t it empirical evidence for instance that Mona has no self control?”
No, Mani, that’s merely an unsupported assertion. And years of empirical evidence support the contrary assertion that Mona has exquisite self control — and that the fact that she sometimes decides to rip new orifices in trolls and crapflooders (or even, occasionally, in me, as misguided as that is ;^) doesn’t work to negate the evidence for her self-control.
Thanks for playing and we’ll send you home with the consolation prize: An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method — well, at least a link to the consolation prize.
“No, Mani, that’s merely an unsupported assertion”
The fact that you reject the impeccable evidence of an individual who cannot keep her own words simply because she feels persecuted by opinions that are not even directed at her illustrate how membership of the lapdog community has seriously damaged an individual’s ability to grasp the concept of empirical evidence.
I appreciate the consolation price, but the delight of laughing at your irrational and sometimes demented comments transcends all the benefits from that price. Besides it would be a disgrace for me to accept such an important tool that will be more instrumental to you as it will guide you to reality if by any chance you decide to renounce any affiliation with the lapdog community which impedes your capacity to understand basic concepts.
Funny isn’t LOL
The butthurt is strong in you.
I believe you sound like Donald Trump in the way you state your case. You say something, it gets refuted by me, so you name call, change your argument and still don’t address the point.
Tons Tons of neo-McCarthyism swelling from neoliberal sectors? sounds a lot like the generalizations Trump makes about immigrants.
Illegal immigrants.
@TI Readers
Some of the evidence that shows how I have been targeted is at http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/
Sadly, Seema, that link does, indeed, show the nature and quality of your “evidence”:
This bit is especially revealing of the merits of your claims:
In addition to your delusions about the courts and police in India, you believe myriad physicians have tried to harm and even kill you. Your position is that someone is poisoning you and the various doctors you’ve seen are covering this up. It would seem that nearly every professional you interact with is out to get you, and even murder you.
Seema, this is not the appropriate site for your travails. This is a political venue, and not a mental health forum.
” This is a political venue, and not a mental health forum.”
Say the one who spends a decade behind a computer barking for her master. Isn’t it hilarious when a deranged individual is calling somebody insane? Lol lol lol lol
Don’t even think about stopping your personal fight with that commenter. Your long statements that are completely irrelevant to the articles are what exactly make TI comment sections so entertaining.
There you go again. “LOL.” “Lapdog(s)” and “entertaining.” Dude, get a thesaurus and maybe try some synonyms. You know, for some variety.
I love those words. TI is so entertaining!!! And Mona is such a lapdog!!! Lol lol
@TI Readers
Once again I face Mona’s disinformation tactics which I will ignore.
Please read my blog http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/ for evidence of how I have been targeted and even physically harmed.
A corporation like GE does not have its enemies shot on the street. Instead doctors, police, judges and intelligence agencies are used to harm them. Chronic poisoning to damage the health of a whistleblower or dissident is not unusual.
Doctors from three Delhi Hospitals funded by GE were used to target me. They not only failed to record my complaints of poisoning but attempted to create false medical records, and in August 2011 an attempt was made to falsely diagnose me with thyroid cancer.
The evidence of all this, including hospital records, Xrays, and audio records are on this blog.
In June 2014, a doctor at one of these GE funded hospitals intentionally dislocated my ankle, three days after I fractured my fibula in a fall because I was being poisoned. He then told me I needed surgery. What is the evidence? Xrays, hospital records and audio recordings including of the exact moment this doctor dislocated my ankle. Mona would like you all not to look at this.
I have hard evidence not only of GE corruption and fraud but also of being targeted and physically harmed. That is why GE does not want my voice heard. That is why I encounter disinformation propaganda at every turn.
Please go through the evidence on my blog for yourself and ignore Mona’s commentary which is clearly motivated.
Attempt at thyroid cancer false diagnosis targeting General Electric whistleblower Seema Sapra
Aug 2011, Max Healthcare tried to falsely diagnose General Electric whistle-blower Seema Sapra with thyroid cancer after complaint of poisoning. False diagnosis attempt proved by subsequent Fortis Hospital report obtained under false name by Seema Sapra
Note that Max Saket Hospital Radiology Head Dr. Debajyoti Chaudhuri of Max Healthcare used a Senior Resident to issue a falsified neck ultrasound report. My complaints were of poisoning so the clinically significant lymph node swelling was deliberately played down in this falsified report by terming it benign. The issue was never of malignancy but of a visible lymph node swelling at the back of my neck. Swollen lymph nodes are clinically significant in cases of poisoning or toxin exposure.
Even more egregiously, Max Healthcare falsified the report to include a finding of a single nodule in the thyroid lobe and then used language to suggest that it needed to be investigated for malignancy. Note that an ultrasound is not capable of supporting these conclusions.
I knew that Dr Debajyoti Chaudhuri had falsified this report and I confronted both him and Dr. Nisha Dabas. Dr. Nisha Dabas admitted that her report was not sustainable based upon an ultrasound procedure.
On 20 Feb 2012 I visited Fortis Hospital under an assumed name and repeated the neck ultrasound procedure. Note the complete absence of any nodule in the thyroid lobes. Note that the dimensions of the relevant thyroid lobe are in fact smaller than the fictitious nodule reported by Max Healthcare. My thyroid gland is shriveled as I have had hypothyroidism since 1996/7.
If I had fallen for this lie by Dr Debajyoti Chaudhuri and Max Healthcare, I would have started to believe I had cancer. I would then have been slowly poisoned and eliminated using doctors and everyone including me would have thought I was dying of cancer.
This is how corporates like General Electric Company eliminate their enemies.
For the medical records establishing this see http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/attempt-at-thyroid-cancer-false.html
@TI Readers
Dr S K Das of Max Healthcare attempted to poison Seema Sapra, General Electric whistle-blower complaining of poisoning by prescribing Haloperidol as a sleeping aid in August 2011
In July and August 2011, I had complained of poisoning and had visited Max Saket and Max Gurgaon hospitals.
On 14 August 2011, I saw Dr S K Das, a physician/ internal medicine consultant at Max Saket Hospital. I had complained of poisoning and wanted to show a doctor a swollen lymph node at the back of my neck.
Dr S K Das attempted to cover up the complaint of poisoning and the clinical sign of the swollen lymph node. Instead he wrote a prescription for antibiotics, anti-histamines, vitamins and told me that he wanted to try these first.
Not only did he suppress the complaint of poisoning and the swollen lymph node, he even more egregiously attempted to poison and drug me by prescribing Haloperidol using the brand name Serenase. When I asked him what each medicine was for, he described Serenase to me as a sleeping aid. Since I was being very cautious about consuming anything and since I had no sleeping complaints, I told Dr S K Das that I did not want any medication to help me sleep. He then struck out Serenase from the list and thankfully I never purchased it and never consumed it.
The neuroleptic drug Haloperidol would have kept me sedated, drugged, and would have over time resulted in brain damage and in essentially what can only be called a chemical lobotomy.
Note that Dr S K Das in his prescription did not even mention the swollen lymph node leave alone the complaint of poisoning. Instead he falsified his prescription to suggest as if I had approached him in regard to thyroid related complaints. During the consultation, Dr S K Das had asked me if I took any medication and I had mentioned that I took thyroxine for hypothyroidism. He asked me if my thyroid function had been recently tested and I had informed him that it had been tested at Max itself on 22 July 2011 and that the results were normal. My hypothyroidism was therefore under control and I did not consult Dr S K Das for that.
For the evidence or medical records establishing this see http://gewhistleblower.blogspot.in/2016/01/dr-s-k-das-of-max-healthcare-attempted.html
@TI readers
Why GE wants to silence me.
Why did GE’s “alleged” lawyers produce fraudulent authority documents for GE before the Delhi High Court?
My blog at http://geimpersonationfraud.blogspot.in/ describes and explains how GE effectively evaded the summons issued by the Delhi High Court and how Bracket Denniston, Alex Dimitrief, Brad Berenson, and Jeffrey Eglash the top 4 lawyers at GE, issued fraudulent authority docs violating GE’s own board resolution so that an employee of GE’s Indian subsidiary could “impersonate” as General Electric Company’s authorized signatory before the Delhi High Court in my case against GE.
This is a very serious matter and a violation of US law and Dimitrief and Berenson should lose their jobs for this and get disbarred. Criminal charges for obstruction of justice would lie. This amounts to fraud and criminal impersonation. It is a fraud on General Electric Company itself. Someone impersonated as General Electric Company’s authorized signatory before a court.
A high level executive/ lawyer of GE would otherwise have had to file affidavits before the Delhi High Court.
The GE India employee K Radhakrishnan was used to file false affidavits as part of the cover-up. I guess Dimitrief and Eglash did not want to commit perjury.themselves.
Also, it appears as if my entire litigation was outsourced by GE. The intent was to conceal my litigation records from GE. GE will not have the full court record of this litigation.
I have posted the fraudulent “authority documents” on this blog so anyone can read them.
This is where one must start to logically understand the fraud and corruption charges I have leveled against GE in India.
@Sparrow and other TI readers.
Please read through my comments on my GE whistleblower complaints which I posted at https://theintercept.com/2016/08/10/vindication-for-baltimore-police-critics-but-no-action/?comments=1#comments
These are detailed comments and will give you an idea of the high stakes of my whisteblower complaints against GE corruption in India.
The fact that I was in-house counsel for GE and that I made corruption complaints and even filed a corruption case against GE in the Delhi High Court are facts. That I am being retaliated against, that I am being targeted, that I am being smeared, that I face a life-threat, that the judicial system was subverted to cover-up GE corruption should surprise no one.
I filed Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 against General Electric Company, two of its Indian subsidiaries, and others and on 7 March 2012 the Delhi High Court summoned General Electric Company and its two subsidiaries. This case remain unheard until February 2015. The relief claimed included disqualification and blacklisting of GE.
Please ask yourself, why did you never learn about this case from the US, Indian or international press. Why did GE never disclose this litigation in its SEC filings?
There’s no evidence for any of that. No Indian court has found a whit of credible evidence for a bit of it.
Because it’s baseless?
@TI Readers
The Delhi High Court did not give my case against GE a hearing in accordance with law. The order reflects that. It ignored the evidence and material before it.
The case was before the Court for three years. It was finally heard only in Feb 2015. Why did no Press report this case from 2012 to 2015.
I produced internal GE emails as evidence. The 2010 tenders were cancelled because of my case.
Why did GE’s “alleged” lawyers produce fraudulent authority documents for GE before the Delhi High Court?
My blog at http://geimpersonationfraud.blogspot.in/ describes and explains how GE effectively evaded the summons issued by the Delhi High Court and how Bracket Denniston, Alex Dimitrief, Brad Berenson, and Jeffrey Eglash the top 4 lawyers at GE, issued fraudulent authority docs violating GE’s own board resolution so that an employee of GE’s Indian subsidiary could “impersonate” as General Electric Company’s authorized signatory before the Delhi High Court in my case against GE.
This is a very serious matter and a violation of US law and Dimitrief and Berenson should lose their jobs for this and get disbarred. Criminal charges for obstruction of justice would lie. This amounts to fraud and criminal impersonation. It is a fraud on General Electric Company itself. Someone impersonated as General Electric Company’s authorized signatory before a court.
A high level executive/ lawyer of GE would otherwise have had to file affidavits before the Delhi High Court.
The GE India employee K Radhakrishnan was used to file false affidavits as part of the cover-up. I guess Dimitrief and Eglash did not want to commit perjury.themselves.
Also, it appears as if my entire litigation was outsourced by GE. The intent was to conceal my litigation records from GE. GE will not have the full court record of this litigation.
I have posted the fraudulent “authority documents” on this blog so anyone can read them.
This is where one must start to logically understand the fraud and corruption charges I have leveled against GE in India.
Recently, Frontline did a stunning undercover documentary in Saudi. After seeing the abysmal conditions most citizens live in, subsistence at best, plus the utter lack of regard of the Saudis basic human rights, the everyman, regardless of all else — one does wonder why they’d give money to an outside charity, instead of simply charitably contributing to their own countrymen?
But I jest. Hillary worked for Nixon and Kissinger.
The Shah of Iran was in need of funding his modernization plans for Iran, including schools, libraries, parks, public buildings, and the students were going hippy dissident ala the US late 1960s. He ran out of money, the protests grew, he told Nixon personally that he had to raise the price of oil, because he had to fund what he had promised. The unrest was growing. The Nixon admin, in the mean time, was being dick-licked by the less than societized Saudis, modernize us with some good old fashioned corp cronyism, and we’ll give you oil for less than Iran does.
The old adage — keep the price of gas down, and you’ll win re-election. Recall Nixon had a price freeze in place due to rampant inflation, and he had made some promises about prices.
The memos indicate that they considered the Saudis weak and backwards, but the administration -didn’t- shut them down. The cronys swarmed in (how dare the Shah want to run oil himself) … as they say, the rest is history.
Make friends and money? A few million die? Well, we know Hillary’s “charitable” contributions to the death of less-thans. As she said under oath, “Does it matter now?”
Proof? In the wikileaks. Start with the old docs with Shah of Iran, if you plan to check it.
And her cold war playbook on Russia is so absolutely retarded, I simply can’t believe her campaign is using that. Its straight from the old republican’s “make them fear” playbooks. (However, maybe this platform is for the Soros connection as he has a stake in that $$ pie ala Ukraine.) If she can’t use the Middle East for her fear campaign, because the Donald is, she would had to “find” another enemy to make $$ (power.) Somewhere along the line maybe she forgot 50 years had passed.
Jesus, this is hilarious. With a h/t to altohone for calling attention to it, I just saw that the resident paid Hillary troll, Karen, actually thinks Glenn Greenwald is a — wait for it! — neoliberal. And she’s using the term as a pejorative:
Folks, this is your brain on Hillary. It also causes you to, as GilG does, embrace the Republican, central premise of Citizens United (that money in politics isn’t corrupt or corrupting except in those rare cases where one can firmly prove an explicit quid pro quo).
These people are wholly shameless. What’s next? That maybe abortion should be illegal after all? (Think that’s far-fetched? Hillary’s VP pick has a long record of opposing abortion and to this day endorses the Hyde Amendment that makes sure poor women cannot get an abortion — and you are now seeing a reasonably prominent “feminist” defending rapists if they did it in the 80s — then all should be forgiven and a rapist can be a good feminist.)
There is literally nothing too absurd and/or far out in right field for these Hillary hacks to embrace. It’s simply breathtaking.
Mona writes: “It also causes you to, as GilG does, embrace the Republican, central premise of Citizens United (that money in politics isn’t corrupt or corrupting except in those rare cases where one can firmly prove an explicit quid pro quo).”
Said nothing of the kind. What I said was that there has been special access given to political donors and others with connections and that it has It’s gone on forever. That in no way implies approval. Tell me one gov’t in the world today where you think that doesn’t happen.
Come now, Gil. You wrote:
That’s exactly the rationale Justice Stevens scathingly rejected in his Citizens United dissent, the Republican rationale. But you — and Hillary defenders all over — are now embracing it. “Can’t prove quid pro quo? Then STFU.”
Hillarybots truly will go to damn near any wingnut extreme — if she “needs” it.
How does my statement show support? Rhetorical or otherwise?
Your bolding skills are excellent Mona however putting words in bod do not magic change their meaning.
Oh but Gil, take some comfort; with your response in this sub-thread you have made me wrong. For just below I said of you: “And he ain’t going no further in the discussion until I admit to his contrivance.”
I didn’t admit to your contrivance, yet you have now at least attempted a substantive reply to my observation that you’ve adopted the Citizens United/GOP rationale.
I agree, the foundation has many programs. You may notice that the girls that you are so concerned about look like they are from Africa and are not part of the Arabic area. Therefore, enriching or assisting them to a better life has nothing to do with what the Islamic culture may be against. This kind of misleading crap is so common today and is frankly disgusting.
You go Glenn! Righteous indignation directed right where it should be. This reader so appreciates your work.
GilG will not, under any circumstances, address why he and so many other Clinton defenders have explicitly adopted the Republican rationale for money in politics on which the Citizens United case rests. He continues to insist that until I and others admit to a reading of Glenn’s article (on a tangential matter*) we deny is accurate, he won’t answer address this central point of the piece.
He likely learned this sort of dishonest casuistry from his years spent as an Israel apologist. Some things do not get better with age. If he ever gets a little honesty and addresses the actual issue of his support for the Citizens United rationale, I’ll continue with him, but in this thread, not until then.
*Gil pretends to think Glenn actually argued some Clinton defenders have raised their hand when asked this rhetorical question Glenn poses above: “All those who wish to argue that the Saudis donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation out of a magnanimous desire to aid its charitable causes, please raise your hand.” And he ain’t going no further in the discussion until I admit to his contrivance.
Creepy vibe of access selling at the Clinton Foundation event he attended says a New Yorker writer on Slate’s Gabfest podcast.
Excuse the conservative website link (Newsbusters), don’t know how else to link the podcast.
The interesting info starts at the 24:55 minute mark.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/randy-hall/2016/08/26/liberal-podcast-guest-slams-creepy-vibe-clinton-foundation-events
Great link. Thanks for posting it.
And here’s Clinton defender GilG making the argument adopted by Citizens United, so scathingly denounced in his dissent by Justice Stevens, the reasoning Republicans have long embraced:
Justice Stevens:
As Glenn wrote above, Team Hillary is repudiating the central argument against Citizens United and are talking like Republicans always have.
what Glenn said among other statements I already posted:
“Is Clinton loyalty really so strong that people are going to argue with a straight face that the reason the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Emirates regimes donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation is because those regimes simply want to help the foundation achieve its magnanimous goals?
Here’s one of the Clinton Foundation’s principal objectives; decide for yourself if its tyrannical donors are acting with the motive of advancing that charitable goal”
Again what people are claiming that the motive of the Saudis is a charitable goal. Answer the question Mona.
Ah Gil, your straw-manning is transparent. You’d rather argue about what Glenn did not write than address the points he actually did make: Glenn did not write nor imply that any Clinton defender has argued the Saudi’s motive is a charitable one. He, in fact, rhetorically asked for a show of hands for anyone who would. (Rather conspicuously, you won’t say what you think the Saudis’ motive actually is.) We’ve been through all that ad nauseam.
No, Gil, I’m quite content that those reading the exchanges I and others have had below with you will see your ploy for what it is, and also that you will not address the points actually made, including that which I make above, which is also Glenn’s primary point. But then you have to carry on like that if you are going to continue to participate in this thread, because the alternative for you is to admit you’ve adopted — as so many other Clinton defenders have — the rationale of Citizens United.
Because you and Hillary Clinton are such progressives!
“But stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by pretending that these donations were motivated by noble ends.”
Who is doing the pretending Glenn claims is taking place Mona? answer the question.
Let’s say, arguendo, that Glenn did claim any Clinton defenders argue the Saudis made these donations for magnanimous ends. I can’t point you to examples of what I deny Glenn claims exists, but let’s say for purposes of advancing the discussion that you are right.
We both appear to agree the Saudis did not make these donations for magnanimous reasons, but why, Gil, are you and so many other Clinton defenders adopting the rationale Justice Stevens denounced in his CU dissent? Hmmm?
answer my simple question first Mona. who is doing the pretending Glenn mentions.
your game is always to deflect.
and speaking of games I’m off to play hockey but will check back in when I return.
Also wanted to make sure you saw this.
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/25/why-did-the-saudi-regime-and-other-gulf-tyrannies-donate-millions-to-the-clinton-foundation/?comments=1#comment-272808
He’s speaking rhetorically, Gil, and you know that. He’d link to examples if he thought that was really happening. The ONLY time he has ever stated anyone was saying that was in one also rhetorical, sarcastic tweet that concluded #UniteBlue, to indicate disgust with how absurd they can be. He linked to no one because he wasn’t actually saying anyone *had said that, simply that the Unite Blue freaks are so unhinged they damn well could and what they were saying was nearly as silly.
No, Gil, his Twitter TL is replete with examples and discussion of Clinton defenders who — like you — adopt the Citizens United rational. And sure thing, you go run away to a hockey game rather than face the music.
oh so now he was speaking rhetorically. lol. first he wasn’t saying anything of the kind now you admit he was saying it but claim it was just a rhetorical claim. wow you are starting to sound like Trump. Never admit you are wrong just call names and keep making excuses until one works.
Um, no, Gil. I made it clear about his “show of hands” question, which is rhetorical, You know, like when I said:
He never said anyone actually stated that — hence the “show of hands” question. He knew damn well not a soul would raise theirs. No, what they do — and you have done — is instead adopt the Citizens United/GOP rationale for money in politics. And y’all do it because she “needs” it.
“And sure thing, you go run away to a hockey game rather than face the music.”
lol must be hard for someone who spends their entire life on the computer to understand that people actually do have lives.
What I find especially laughable is that you accuse everyone one who you disagree with of being paid to be here, something you have zero evidence for, and yet you are the one who clearly has no other means of support. not that I believe for a second that anyone would pay you for this.
Oh for fuck’s suck. That’s simply false. I’ve never said any of these folks are paid: Stan, nuf said, dahoit, Victoria Boulevard, Craig Summers, Photosymbiosis, Doug Salzmann, and the many, many others I’ve disagreed with, at times quite strenuously, some more than others.
And that includes you. Altho I’ve said you have some indicia of the hasbara troll, I’ve also long-stated that many or most of those are volunteers. I’ve certainly never claimed you are paid to post here and don’t think you are.
At the moment, there are only two accounts I strongly suspect are paid to spew here: Jimmy (who actually seems to have gone MIA) and Karen. It is well-established the Clinton campaign pays for people to troll online, and those two literally follow the same script. (There’s been a third spouting the identical, obviously scripted talking points — e.g., claims of having supported Wikileaks in the past and now seeing the folly of that way, how the DNCLeaks are akin to Watergate — but I can’t recall his name.)
Face the music. More listen to the moans of failure by Mona.
Oh dear, Gil, you’re slipping into incoherence. Maybe there was lotsa brew at the game?
It’s gone on Forever
I love this type of logic. It’s tradition, so why bother?
People have been killing forever, so why bother?
If this is the short of logic that civilization should live by, the we should abolish all law and government.
Stoopid
Yup. Gil made a boo-boo “going there,” and now, having done so, he’s running for cover so as not to have to say another substantive thing defending or expanding upon it.
Where did I say why bother?
What I said is don’t act like this is something new. Especially when in a recent article he accused everyone who complained about Putin’s possible ties to Trump of being a McCarthyite. You can’t have it both ways. I would suggest that before you call anyone logic “stoopid” you actually criticize them for something they said not for what you want to believe they said.
That’s an utter non sequitur. It’s daft for other reasons as well, but in this context primarily because it bears no relationship to your adopting the Citizens United rationale.
The term, ‘It’s Gone On Forever’ is a justification/rationale. You are implying hopelessness or defeatism and/or tradition and that nothing can be done.
This must be the case, because if you’re saying Glenn was unaware of corruption and that you are now informing him, you’re even stoopider than previously thought, since he’s been writing about corruption for years.
Same goes Qid Pro Quo. If you believe this is the only form of corruption, same conclusion applies. More Stoopid.
Everyone should read this post. Hillary will laugh away all her corruption charges, till everyone starts crying.
http://observer.com/2016/08/how-much-corruption-can-clinton-laugh-off/
@Sparrow – The court order that Mona quoted from (which incidentally includes no adverse finding against me) was by a Judge who I had to ask to transfer the case as she was targeting me and sabotaging my case against GE.
One of the reasons I did this was that a Canadian national with ties to GE and the CIA started an internship with this judge days after my litigation against GE went before this Judge. See http://seemasapra.blogspot.in/2014/12/complaint-to-president-of-india-seeking.html for details.
Indian Judges are not allowed foreign interns.
In the unlikely event anyone cares about the claims Ms. Sapra makes and her constant linking to her blog, I documented what her issues are in a series of three comments in a sub-thread below, starting here.
I am currently reading up on your articles…I posted a reply requesting help from The Intercept to investigate the (constant) interference, bribes, and usurping of sovereign governments by the CIA. I am truly sorry for the typical treatment done to whistleblowers like yourself…especially when revealing truth to power…especially when that power is a nuclear arm of the US. I pray for your protection. Thank you for having the courage to endure hardship…please keep hope.
Because of course you did.
Thank you. And yes, I have both courage and hope. I never give up. God, the truth and evidence are on my side.
Have you considered becoming a source? https://theintercept.com/staff/
The staff here has often been approached by those kinds of would-be “sources.” Unsurprisingly, they’ve shown no interest.
Yes, I have emailed the Intercept’s editors and journalists asking if they are interested in covering my story as a GE whistleblower in India.
@GilG
No one, including Tami, has claimed that Clinton foundation support is the sole reason the U.S. sells weapons to the Saudis. Glenn wrote, with four embedded links:
He also asked some questions:
Is your hand up, Gil?
Mona- The fact remains military sales to SA predate the Clinton foundation. Tami’s argument was that donations to the Clinton foundation were behind arms sales.
Mona writes: “All those who wish to argue that the Saudis donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation out of a magnanimous desire to aid its charitable causes, please raise your hand. ”
Huh? No one is making that argument except the bogymen Democrats that Glenn refers to, but does not cite. That is precisely my point. I have no idea what yours is.
Glenn, and you act as if you’re just finding out about some people and groups having special access to gov’t based on money or other privileges. It’s gone on forever. It’s one thing to allege quid pro quo. It’s another thing to prove it.
Great, so you now concede no one, including Tami, argues the Clinton Foundation is the sole reason the U.S. has ever sold arms to the Saudis.
She wrote:
So, Gil, this access the Saudis urgently wanted, and got, after giving all that money to the Foundation has absolutely nothing to do with this? Are you waving your hand, Gil?
“So, Gil, this access the Saudis urgently wanted, and got, after giving all that money to the Foundation has absolutely nothing to do with this? ”
Mona , the Saudis had access before this. did they not ? Why do you think you are making some kind of point when you are not.
You don’t believe that, you simply do not like the ineluctable point.
Actually my dear it is you that is doing that. Rather than address my issue with Glenn building a straw man by making an argument that there are HC supporters are claiming the donations by the gulf region regimes are for magnanimous reasons, you instead try to change the argument. See if you can address my argument instead of changing what the argument is.
I’ve addressed your claim Glenn did this ad nauseam. You are well aware I and others deny he did this, and you have been shown he did not.
No, Gil, you do not like that the Saudis donated that money to obtain access for reasons of…what, Gil? You will not, ever, be honest enough to admit or address that.
Your performance here is even more base and dishonest than your Israel apologia, which is saying a lot.
Democratic Party can add Ca. Governor Jerry Brown to the pay to play corruption…..
Consumer Watchdog found that twenty-six energy companies including the state’s three major investor-owned utilities, Occidental, Chevron, and NRG—all with business before the state—donated $9.8 million to Jerry Brown’s campaigns, causes, and initiatives, and to the California Democratic Party since he ran for Governor. Donations were often made within days or weeks of winning favors. The three major investor-owned utilities alone contributed nearly $6 million.
An exhaustive review of campaign records, publicly-released emails and other documents at PUCPapers.org, court filings, and media reports, shows that Brown personally intervened in regulatory decisions favoring the energy industry, and points to Brown and his operatives having used the Democratic Party as a political slush fund to receive contributions from unpopular energy companies in amounts greater than permitted to his candidate committee. Between 2011 and 2014, the energy companies tracked by Brown’s Dirty Hands donated $4.4 million to the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party gave $4.7 million to Brown’s re-election.
The full report can be downloaded at watchdog.org and select ” Browns dirty hands “…
Consumerwatchdog.org
Countless silly comments, siting Republican talking points that intentionally misconstrue the way the foundation works and why it is rated as a top charity… and yet not a soul has answered the very simple question: since the Clinton’s can easily leverage their position to make countless dollars without the cumbersomeness of the foundation, and nobody is ignorant and hateful enough, even Glenn, to think the Clinton’s don’t know that, then why on earth set up a foundation like this for which you do not take a dime? To get munitions to the Saudi’s? Huh? If you wanted to do that, you don’t need the Saudi’s to give money to a charity, nor would you care, so we can discount that silly motive. No, no, no, the peanut galley along with their fearless leader, Greenwald the Great Constitutional Law Scholar, have not the foggiest idea, except that “there must be something somewhere we dig up, or at least David Sirota can do it for me.” They scan the websites of faux liberals such as Sirota and the alt-Right for answers, posting all sorts of silly nonsense that has not an iota of truth to it such as the 80 percent of the money goes to line pockets. Politifact: The claim that 80 percent of the money the foundation raises goes to overhead — a term used to described expenses that go to management and fundraising costs — is something that has been made by Carly Fiorina and Rush Limbaugh in varying forms. But, despite what Priebus says, it’s an incorrect reading of tax forms submitted by the foundation, experts who monitor and study charitable organizations say. We did not hear back from RNC spokesman Sean Spicer.
So once again, the faux, elite Left, represented by the forlorn White Messiah acolytes and the Glenn Greenwald holier than thou while taking money himself from a billionaire, Julian Assange, the angry and bitter misogynist accused of rape no less, both of whom are now championing the dirty tricks of Richard Nixon via email hacking of a political organization, Megan Kelly and the rest of the Fox crew, all join hands. What an ass my husband and I were for financially supporting Assange and Democracy Now… wow, if we could only get our money back.
Oh, this part of the script again:
A few weeks ago it was a different Clinton shill account lamenting that he and his wife had given money to Assange and now regretted it. I didn’t believe that planted hack, either.
Better talking points/lies, please.
These ‘rebuttals’ to Glenn’s lucid, well presented arguments are so longwinded and convoluted. The Clear the Record types who post them are not thinking as cleanly as he did when he wrote this piece. Their supercilious, laughable fuzzy-mindedness makes for hard reading. I’d suggest paragraphs and punctuation ………. but they might only make things worse.
Well as I just observed to Doug, the campaign probably only pays minimum wage and hires anyone breathing who’s willing to be a Hillbot for pay. Facility with punctuation is likely not required; they’re just given a talking points script and sent forth to spew.
Glenn writes: “The claim that this is all just about trying to help people in need should not even pass a laugh test, let alone rational scrutiny. ”
Except no one is claiming this? Simple enough for you? Now lets see a lucid response.
Let’s quote a bit more of that:
Are you arguing that no Hillary Clinton defenders have reject all of that analysis for the precise reason that the Foundation is, they claim, all about trying to help people?
No, I am arguing that contrary to what Glenn claimed no one is saying SA donated money to the CF for magnanimous reasons.
Glenn did not claim anyone is “saying SA donated money to the CF for magnanimous reasons.” Rather, he alludes to the hordes of Clinton blowhards insisting the Foundation exists just to “help people,” and then vis-a-vis that insistence he states: “To see how true that is, just look at who some of the biggest donors are.” He then examines the Saudis and other tyrannies that contribute lots bucks to the Foundation.
Why, Gil, do they do that?
Wrong , Glenn writes: “All those who wish to argue that the Saudis donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation out of a magnanimous desire to aid its charitable causes, please raise your hand. ” as well as
“It doesn’t exactly take a jaded disposition to doubt that these donations from some of the world’s most repressive regimes are motivated by a desire to aid the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work. To the contrary, it just requires basic rationality. That’s particularly true given that these regimes “have donated vastly more money to the Clinton Foundation than they have to most other large private charities involved in the kinds of global work championed by the Clinton family.” For some mystifying reason, they seem particularly motivated to transfer millions to the Clinton Foundation but not the other charities around the world doing similar work. Why might that be? What could ever explain it?”
He goes on to write: “Some Clinton partisans, unwilling to claim that Gulf tyrants have charity in their hearts when they make these donations to the Clinton Foundation, have settled on a different tactic:”
So again he is implying if some are unwilling than some are willing. Face it its a straw man.
Nope, he’s talking about what “some” resort to instead of the manifestly risible tactic. Not all Clinton partisans resort to, as he stated immediately thereafter: “grudgingly acknowledging that the motive of these donations is to obtain access and favors, but insisting that no quid pro quo can be proven.”
Amusingly, you are feebly erecting a straw man about a non-existent straw man.
Oh and Gil, if a Clinton spokesperson actually had made the absurd claim that the Saudis were motivated by concern for LGBT rights, income inequality & etc., he would have quoted that person(s) and mocked the shit out of them.
Of course no one made the claim that’s my point.
” he would have quoted that person(s) and mocked the shit out of them.”
you mean the way I’m now mocking the shit out of Glenn for just a short time ago saying anyone who questioned Putin the homophobic despot of Russia connection to Trump was being a McCarthyite. Apparently LBGTQ rights are only important when you can you it to advance your own political agenda.
Nope. I don’t mean that. There’s tons of neo-MccCarthyism swelling from neoliberal sectors. From people just like you.
Actually, no, your “point” is to contrive a straw argument to hide behind so you don’t have to admit to, and explain, adopting the rationale of Citizens United. That rationale, like McCarthyism, is newly popular with neoliberals because Hillary Clinton needs them both. But y’all find it icky to talk about either, so you work hard to not do so.
People like me? too funny. yes indeed you are sounding more like Trump in every post Mona.
Tons of neo-McCarthyism swelling from neoliberal sectors? How is that even an answer? It’s just more mudslinging. The fact of the matter is Glenn is quick to bring up the LBGTQ issue when it suits his political purposes and ignores it when it suits his purposes. He knows where his bread is buttered and he is willing to ignore what he needs to to keep the butter flowing. Hey he has to make a living. What’s your excuse?
Supporting the hell bitches crimes and misdemeanors diminishes one,no matter Monas character assassination of those with opposing viewpoints,a most commie method of critique.
And no,I’m not paid thank you,I’m just an old fashioned American patriot disgusted by zions mastery of America,which has made US a pay to play neoliberal nightmare.
“Except no one is claiming this? Simple enough for you? Now lets see a lucid response.”
Umm, so, what are,e.g., the Gulf State donors claiming as the motivation for their donations? Do they admit that it is something other than trying to help people in need?
A lucid response would be excellent.
I have no idea what the gulf states are claiming as their motivation. I would be surprised if they gave one. The issue is that Glenn is claiming that the Democrats are saying that the motivation of the gulf states is because they want to help people. Get it?
No I don’t get it. Did Glenn make that claim? Where?
Glenn not only didn’t make that claim, he asked:
Gil doesn’t seem to want to raise his hand, but he can’t answer why, then, all those donations were made.
Edit please Mona…
“I posted a reply requesting help from The Intercept to investigate the (constant) interference, bribes, and usurping of sovereign governments by the CIA”
….is my reply to Seema Sapra
Where am I arguing about the reasons why those donations have been made?
What I am arguing once again is that Glenn implied HC supporters are making the claim that the donations have been for magnanimous when no one has. It’s pretty simple really.
Ah, now you’ve done a quick (if not slick) little sideways shuffle to go from asserting that Greenwald “claimed” something to asserting that he “implied” that thing.
Only Glenn, of course, can know what he may or may not have meant to imply (if anything), but you should at least own your own inferences (if you recognize them, of course).
In this case, however, neither alleged implication nor honest (if misguided) inference is at issue — because you’re just spewing your usual, unsupported B.S.
again you can’t answer a simple question.
Glenn wrote:
““But stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by pretending that these donations were motivated by noble ends.”
who is doing the pretending that the donations were motivated by “noble ends” ? simple question Doug why can’t you answer?
“But stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by pretending that these donations were motivated by noble ends.”
who is doing the pretending that the donations were motivated by “noble ends” ? simple question.
I’m starting to wonder if Neera Tanden has gotten bored and decided to branch out beyond twitter. ;-}
Yeah, except I do think Neera would punctuate!
Alright, Karen. I’ll answer your stupid f-ing question. We all thought it was rhetorical because we niavely thought no one would be daft enough to need to seriously ask it.
You are literally asking why someone would just take money instead of working for it, and you are DEMANDING an answer, so…BECAUSE IT IS EASIER TO TAKE THAN TO MAKE, IDIOT.
Also, the claim that the Clintons take nothing from the foundation is assinine; it is assinine to believe anybody would believe it. Office, staff, travel, and so on ARE PAID FOR BY THE FOUNDATION FOR BOTH CHELSEA AND BILL, jackass. THAT IS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN ANNUAL BENEFITS.
No, you silly person. IT IS TO EXTRACT BRIBES TO SEND MUNITIONS TO THE SAUDIS ETC. Have you read a single word of the article or any of the responses to you?
Now, a parade of errors.
Citing, not “siting.” Bet you can’t, uh, cite any comments that steal Republican talking points, though.
“Clintons,” my dear. You have made this error about 100 times, so I assume you actually think this is how you should write it. You do not use an apostrophe to denote a plural noun, in English, which I can only guess is your first half language.
To get munitions to the Saudi’s? Huh? ….you don’t need the Saudi’s to give money…
Are you listening, darling? Same concept for “Saudi,” the plural of which is “Saudis.” “Saudi’s” would denote ownership, as in, “The Saudi’s cluster bombs sure do cut through Yemeni children like butter!”
It is the peanut GALLERY. The peanut GALLERY is bothering you so.
In conclusion,
Yes, you are an ass, and no, none of us believe you have a husband or have ever had any money.
Sorry, the following should be blockquoted above:
Let’s dismiss your poor, poor logic, one at a time, though I shant waste too much time on your moronic scribe. ‘You are literally asking why someone would just take money instead of working for it, and you are DEMANDING an answer, so…BECAUSE IT IS EASIER TO TAKE THAN TO MAKE, IDIOT.” What does that mean? Somehow setting up a foundation is easier than simply working the speaking circuit and making 50 million dollars a year? There, you’re a complete and utter idiot, you said it and there’s nothing you can do about it. You focus on grammar, (I type faster than you can speak. morron, oh, is that how it’s spelled?), and yet you haven’t the foggiest ideas how to reason yourself out of a paper bag. Because it’s easier to take than to make… Okay, repeat first grade, or is it second? Either way, you have to stay back a year, dunce.
Next…
IT IS TO EXTRACT BRIBES TO SEND MUNITIONS TO THE SAUDIS ETC.
So the Clinton Foundation was set up to extract bribes to send munitions to the Saudis? What fucking planet do you live on? Do you even know what the Secretary of State is or does? So you set up this foundation that sends money all over the world (I won’t go into the complexity of the foundation to you because your second grade mind would never be able to grasp it), you set up this foundation to what? To extract bribes? To whom? For what reason? If you want to “make money” by sending munitions to the Saudis, what the hell do you need the foundation for? To launder it in front of the world? By the way, launder has nothing to do with washing underwear. it has to do with hiding the source of funds. Sorry to have to explain to you the most basic things about the world. Take the lollipop out of your mouth, you get good grades for grammar, yes, you’re perfectly capable of disappearing up your own asshole, you’re a dime a dozen at the college where I teach, but for logic, you go back to kindergarten. Or better yet, you get the Trey Gowday, James Comey, Ass Hat of the Week Award, congrats, you worked hard for it. The rest of what you wrote is just unfathomably pathetic.
Karen, sweetie, Bill ‘n Hill are doing both. Lotsa people do not need any more money, all kinds of them are Hillary’s pals on Wall St. For reasons many normal people do not understand, as rich as they already are it’s not enough and they fanatically push for more, more , more.
Bill ‘n Hill were already worth over $125 million in 2014, yet they chose to make another $10 million in 2015. Why?
You teach at a college and you don’t know the definition of “neoliberal”?
And you hurl it as an insult unaware that Hillary is a neoliberal and that GG is not?
Is it a small school or a big rock they built it under?
” then why on earth set up a foundation like this for which you do not take a dime? ”
Because it’s a great way to get the laundry done while exploiting already poor nations. How long have you been visitng The Intercept?
You are the best Hiilary shill. In fact your long winded letters remind me on Hillary’s long winded responses to yes and know questions. Keep up the good work!
What is more anti-Mexican? A border wall that will never get built along with deportation proposed by Trump or more deportations than all presidents in history under Obama and presumably Clinton and NAFTA?
Factor out the deportations, we’ll see more and more no matter who wins in November.
So compare the border wall with NAFTA that has destroyed the rural subsistence economy, driven millions from the campo into the cities where jobs in the formal economy have not materialized. Jobs have materialized in the informal sector, namely the narco sector which has led to inconceivable increases in violence the likes of which makes the violent 1910-20 revolution look like a garden party.
The neoliberal propaganda techniques for Mexico is the same as for the Clinton Foundation, infinite disaster if the infidel is to rule while the crimes of the House of Clinton are diminished in favor of a restoration. Either you support us or you hate everyone we say we stand for.
Excellent post;Mexico’s citizens lives have also been destroyed by neoliberal scum.
Why would all these illegals want to leave the homes of their ancestors,from time immemorial,to live in a foreign land of their historical oppressors,the USA?
Keep publishing, keep linking, keep sharing and who knows enough people might see Hellary for the corrupt monster she is :
http://www.clintoncashbook.com/
Yes, I wonder what motivated her to give Saudi and other hostile countries, 68 of our fighter jets with a slew of other weaponry.. nah, it had nothing to do with the hundreds of millions of dollars these countries have given to the Clinton Foundation?
Nothing says being an advocate for woman’s rights, by accepting millions from world leaders, whose countries continue to stone their women to death, throw young girls into the sex trade, where women cant sing or dance, .please explain how her accepting that money helped any one of those women/young girls…people who cant see anything wrong with her taking that money is as sick as she is, do you realize that we pay for our military, why would anyone be ok paying for and supplying countries with our fighter jets/weapons, that house the radicals we are currently trying to eradicate from this planet..hello? It was Saudis that flew their planes into our Twin Towers here in NY and this puke takes their money and hands out our military weaponry as Thank You’s with the taxpayers money, for her private foundation.. Have you ever asked yourself how a legitimate civil servant becomes a multi millionaire?
Hillary Clinton belongs in prison, not the White House..Its debatable as to whose side she is on, well no, I take that back we know whose side she is on..HERS! Its all about HRC! She is disgusting.
the Saudi A isn’t considered a hostel gov’t, although perhaps they should be, but the fact of the matter is we have been selling weapons to the Saudis for far longer than the Clinton foundation has been around, so claiming that Clinton foundation support is the reason we sell weapons to SA is just plain false.
I disagree with you about Saudi, they are very questionable as far as being allies of ours..do you remember 9/11? Saudi’s took down the Twin Towers here in New York.. “with friends like that who need enemies?”
I am well aware that we have been selling weapons so Saudi and others, that’s not news, but we did not sell those, we the taxpayers paid for them, and the money went into the Clinton Foundation..this is what she did during her time as SOS, laundered money through the foundation and destroyed countries and shattered peoples lives.
As of right now we are funding, and arming ISIS, this is never going to stop, we sell all this weaponry, which is now the skies the limit with weaponry sales to other countries..anything anywhere..its asinine because we are putting these into the hands of radicals/ISIS……we keep feeding it and it will continue to grow..
“, so claiming that Clinton foundation support is the reason we sell weapons to SA is just plain false.”……….WHAT? Where did you get that from? I never said anything of the sort..lol…
She is in obvious league with the zionist mole traitors,as they back her to the hilt to stop Donald Trump and America First.
Any other explanation is hogwash and a misdirection.
And their naked collusion will have very unwanted consequences,as zions conspiracy is now nakedly evident to all,even their duped .
The hubris is unbelievable.
This is one of the neoliberal nonprofit deflection techniques, if you oppose a nonprofit or its leadership, then you oppose what the nonprofit says is trying to do and hate the people the nonprofit says it is trying to help.
Nonprofit corporations are more anti-democratic than for-profit corporations and subject to less independent oversight because, with very rare exceptions, they have no shareholders that select board members. Boards of directors self-perpetuate and see themselves as providing support to the staff they hire.
Another article in The Intercept today by Ben Norton suggests at least one purpose for all of those donations to the Clinton Foundation: Hush money to keep the Saudi air war against the rebels and its devastating effects on the people of Yemen out of the public consciousness, ensuring that nothing upsets the weapons and money apple cart provided by the U.S..
The Saudi air strikes, using American made, purchased or otherwise provided, munitions, have devastated the civilian population of Yemen, creating a humanitarian disaster which has displaced 90% of the Yemeni people, setting up millions for health disasters and starvation.
But, American officials don’t seem too concerned. Norton details the efforts of California Congressman, Ted Lieu, to get American officials and politicians to help stop the tragedy by banning certain munitions, and stopping the bombing of hospitals and schools. All of his efforts have failed, which isn’t surprising considering the vast amounts of money that are at stake for America’s arms industry–and politicians like Hillary Clinton, who supports the industry at every opportunity, and who considers herself virtually a part of the Saudi Royal Family. Now, why ruin that relationship with a bunch of questions and concerns about how Saudi Arabia does it’s business?
Americans make a hobby out of complaining about politicians, yet they seem incapable of doing anything but reelecting the usual suspects.
Think for a moment: what is the absolute worst that could happen if we elected Jill Stein?
A. She will give ever more power and money to Wall Street and Big Banks.
B. She will continue and expand our bloody wars, further inciting hatred and terrorism against the U.S. while feeding the military-industrial complex.
C. She will ignore the poor, the unemployed, the uninsured, the student- indebted in order to funnel money to her wealthy cronies.
D. None of the above.
Answer: D. The worst that could happen in a Jill Stein presidency is she won’t get a whole lot of her agenda accomplished. How can this not be preferable to what the other two candidates are offering?
Vote Jill Stein.
Yes I’ve been marvelling at that for years. It’s common belief that the US congress is corrupt, bought. Approval ratings of the “institution” are abysmal. Yet it is somehow contentious that Clinton who excelled in that environment could possibly be corrupt. There’s no “quid pro quo, only the appearance of conflict of interest, and anyway….Trump.
But to describe voting behaviour, It’s easier to understand if you think of the US as not one but two separate political entities. (Neither one of which, by the way values democracy as a value by the way, in fact a strong percentage of both groups value capitalism above democracy, but that is another story) Jill Stein on the other hand lives on a small Island somewhere on the periphery of these two political worlds.
Put another way, think of democracy as the water in which inclusive, fair, effective governance swims. Then picture the Democratic and Republican parties as giant water pumps, removing all the water from the ocean of democracy so that they can walk across while every one else, progressives, socialists, Jill Stein are flopping about on the sea bed.
The water pumps used by the Republicans and Democrats to pump away democracy are called, gerrymandering, pay-to-play, corrupt judges, voter suppression, ballot restriction, propaganda-networks, and many more.
The tough question is how are the fish (the “demos” if you want to get Greek about it) going to re-flood the ocean with democracy and drown the Republicans and Democrats. (probably by getting some of them to switch sides and start to help hauling the water. (give them some water-wings so they don’t drown as well)
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-311580204-0c3ee98d-9.pdf
A repost of the Clinton Foundations IRS form 990 detailing their expenditures and contributions.
In 2014, the Foundation received $172M. Looking down the list of expenses, one can possibly argue that ~$9M actually left the organization to help outside individuals. That’s about 5%.
They spent 53% of the money they received in 2014 and are sitting on the other 47%. A classic empire building operation. Lot’s of offices and headcount, but little on actual programs and assistance. They’re building their balance sheet.
Total functional expense was $91,281,145.
I’m trying to reconcile that with the CF charitable efficiency ratio of 85-89% I’ve seen bandied about lately. Does not compute … but, then again, 501 (c) (3) accounting rules have always seemed a bit fuzzy to me.
*year-end net assets/balances of $332,000,000.00 +/- is a tidy sum … thx for the link.
Their efficiency ratio most likely includes all the operating costs for whatever particular project.
Example, they would consider their $12M worth of conferences as ‘aid’ to whatever program it was suppose to support. Thus, the 11%-15% gap is strictly idle time as all other time and costs are linked to projects in some fashion.
I view efficiency as how much actual dollars were utilized in actually conducting a program activity. ie…people giving workshops or distribution of medicines, etc., not activities such as fund-raising or planning or other overhead type of activities.
It is common practice for large criminal gangs to “give” some of their loot to local people and members of their community. Cartels and the Mafia do this, for instance. It buys them some goodwill with the public. Bernie Madoff was famous for being “generous” with his stolen funds.
The Clintons are no different. In this case, the Clinton Foundation whitewashes both the Clinton’s own greed and bribe taking and that of some of the larger funders, tribal kingdoms known for their primitive cultural views.
It is quite a racket. How two nobodies from the Chicago suburbs and rural Arkansas can in a few decades in American politics, be personally worth a quarter of billion dollar and control a supposed charity slush fund worth hundreds of millions more paid by foreign powers and special interests.
Hillary Clinton = Eva Peron? The Clintons are political grifters who have played Third World politics successfully to become very rich while making fairly modest government salaries. What do they say or write that could possibly worth the millions they “earned” from unreadable books and secret speeches? What other former president and family has run a sordid racket like this? (Answer: none in the US; the Philippines & similar places, yes.)
David Sirota tweeted this, related:
“David Sirota [email protected]
I feel like I’m living in a Twilight Zone where its considered controversial or even insane to assert that money can affect human behavior.”
Well, if you eat too much of it, it could wreak havoc on your digestive tract. ;)
Wow,yesterday this was the top story,and today its disappeared,as I only saw it by clicking GGs name on another story from weeks ago.
The fix is in,and the clowns will regret their effort to destroy American democracy.
The Zionists want no part of Donald Trump.
I can’t wait till he says;”All you zionist traitors are fired!”
It’s still on the front page of the site, fourth story from the top. The three stories above it were posted after it was, so it looks like stories are ordered according to time of posting with most recent at the top.
I scrolled three times>I guess Mona will say I’m senile,paranoid or clinically insane.
I see it now,clear as day.Must of been the drugs.:)
Nope, you don’t evince any manifestations of psychosis, “merely” deep racism and antisemitism.
Oy.
I’ve noticed that they seem to rotate them around every couple of days. It might make it’s way back to the top in a couple of days.
Anyone else see CNN canceled the Dr., who said he was worried about the HBs health?
More insane paranoia by the clinically insane,or just another sign of the fix is in?
I always wondered about the Clinton Foundation purchasing the extremely neoliberal Democratic Leadership Council’s historical records. I’d have to bet it wasn’t to preserve every word for posterity.
Re: 3rd paragraph
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
O/T The French supreme court just suspended a recent bylaw against “threats to public order” (which according to photographic evidence appear to manifest themselves in the form of long sleeve shirts and scarves worn by women)
In an emergency judgement, “Le Conseil d’Etat” described the municipal law as “liberticide” (a word that means pretty much the same in French and English.)
The court found that the clothing worn by certain persons on the beach was not a threat to public order as the municipal government claimed.
It’s a good decision, and really an easy one, both legally and socially. And it’s a good argument for why we have constitutions. A massive majority of the French like the burkini ban. They just experienced another big terrorist attack and both the right and the left of the political spectrum want to capitalize on identity politics, at the expense of minorities, women, as usual.
Allowing the unjustified ban would (as it already has) sow public discord between groups (is that not a threat to public order?), segregate certain groups (is that not a threat to public order?), and humiliate women (doing that has already caught the attention, as well as the scorn of the entire world’s press).
But the debate is not over. The right in France, newly minted promoters of feminism have common cause with leftists, who can read the xenophobic poll numbers. The anti Muslim-women laws may keep coming in the name of “freeing” them, by force. Why them? Why Muslim women?
Why aren’t there laws outlawing Christian women from being stay at home moms? (because women would never choose that, right? Their husbands forced them to stay at home!!!) Or maybe their husbands force them to work!? Let’s send the police into the offices and ticket women who are there!! For their own good!!! Or maybe laws against women going to church? The church is patriarchal, give the women tickets!! They never chose to be Christians!! Men forced them to be Christians!! Or maybe laws against Christian women wearing high heels, no woman would choose to wear that!!..we must save them!!!
But the police haven’t been sent to do any of that to “protect” Christian women, have they?
It’s called the “Trump effect” but it is all over, brexit, neo-nazis, now we have alt-right in the lexicon…so called feminists that seem to be motivated only when they can humiliate Muslim women, and secularists that specialize in demonizing the least powerful religious groups in the nation.
Damn, this is a good article:
“being identical is required to be equal” ….that is a good way to put it.
When the zionist garment industry realizes the burkini and headscarves looks great on women,it will go nationwide,and they’ll call it their invention,like hummus.
More on the intersection of wonderful things that is Clinton as Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation and Haiti (bolding mine):
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/13/how-hillary-helped-ruin-haiti.html
If the Clinton Foundation wanted to help in post-earthquake Haiti , they’d have funded the reconstruction of Les Centres Gheskio, one of the main research and treatment facilities doing yeoman’s work on HIV/AIDS in Haiti, instead of building an industrial park.
I know Dr. Patrice Severe and worked with his laboratory for years both before and after the earthquake. Their monumental efforts to supply critical treatment and support to hundreds of people after their clinic was literally flattened was truly amazing. They only lost three patients during that time, and those were tragically lost to the earthquake, not to treatment interruptions.
Great post! Thanks.
A lapdog thanking another lapdog for a comment he obviously did not understand. Lol
Damn you are really brainless! Before you praised that anti Clinton rant did you verify what independent international election observers reported about that particular election? Did you check whether that foundation has invested in anti aids program in Haiti? Did Dr Severe request help from that foundation and it was rejected? If so why? What is the unemployment rate in Haiti? Because 5,000 workers can be very substantial in a country with when most people do not work. About the Haitians themselves? Those in the slums of Cite Soleil or Raboteau? What did they think about the Clinton Foundation?
I am not asking you to answer those questions. I already know the answers. Again this is not a debate. The whole point is to entertain myself by exposing your stupidity.
You missed the point completely, as usual. The fact you point out exactly what the article is NOT about only proves you are either careless or willfully deceptive.
It’s about Clinton using her influence as Secretary to get her program in place to supplant another program to support herself and her allies.
The rest is just noise. And your willful ignorance of it speaks volumes.
Related to the subject of Clinton family corruption in general is a gem of an email highlighting Clinton family values and reasoning. In it, Chelsea reflects on the Benghazi fiasco with observations on how painfully long it took ‘modernism to take root’ in the US. (There is even a reference to Enlightenment.) Her mother had recently pushed for the obliteration of the Libyan state, got what she wanted, then shamelessly gushed over Qadaffi’s sodomization and execution.
Here’s Chelsea, a.k.a. Diane Reynolds to her mother:
[“…I am so sorry about the State Department officer killed in Libya and the ongoing precariousness in Egypt and Libya. Such anathema to us as Americans – and a painful reminder or how long it took modernism to take root in the US, after the Enlightenment, the 14th, 15th, 16th 19th amendments, removal of censorship norms and laws, etc.
Heading to bed to read. A strange day here. Another bright blue beautiful chilly September 11th.
Much to discuss when we can talk, hopefully tomorrow?…”]
Another important aspect of the latest exposures of Clinton corruption is the interesting stuff comes from Wikileaks. Is it a mere coincidence or had leakers of the DNC and Clinton emails wised up to the yellow nature of the reporting here, one aspect of which is Greenwald’s ongoing protection of the identities of NSA employees & contractors providing data services to criminals engaged in stalking, harassment, and extra-judicial Zersetzung torture of people who have been branded state ‘targets’.
Could it be possible that Clinton believes in the good work the foundation is doing and also believes the current relationship with the Gulf states is in the United States best interest? As private citizens we can have our opinions but as Secretary of State she has to do what she thinks is best for the US.
Not sure if “Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?” is a serious question.
“Arms sales,” is the answer.
Doesn’t everybody already know that?
Hillary sold $29.5 billion of military aircraft to the Saudis. Boeing, the manufacturer, also ponied up $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation a few months before the sale.
Hillary sold hundreds of billions of dollars of arms to the Middle East as Secretary of State. She is the largest arms dealer in history.
Karen, I responded to your whattaboutery in response to my comment in the thread below here:
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/25/why-did-the-saudi-regime-and-other-gulf-tyrannies-donate-millions-to-the-clinton-foundation/?comments=1#comment-272520
Who among Democrats is claiming that the Saudi’s are giving to the Clinton Foundation because they are noble? No link to that, just a clip of Carville and that certainly does not support that. I have not seen a single Dem saying that the Saudi’s are altruistic here, have you? Certainly not he Clinton’s. Did I miss something? And yet that is the thrust of this rticle. The idea of course is to make it seem as if the Clintons and the Saudi’s are in bed together and that there is pay for play and to back that up, to that end, Greenwald provides three links, one pointing to a WP article that is sketchy at best in its insinuations, even admitting within the article that “The emails show that, in these and similar cases, the donors did not always get what they wanted, particularly when they sought anything more than a meeting” and the other two links lead us to…. drum roll please. none other than David Sirota, the Clinton hater of IB Times, a retread from post-Obama, all-white, White Messiah crowd, from the all-white and apparently all male state of Vermont, the former press Secretary of the White Messiah. So, this entire article has one purpose and to that end, all integrity goes out the door: fan the flames of the Clinton haters by insinuating through false reporting that the Clinton’s, despite their extraordinary achievements with the foundation, are actually trying to line their own pockets (or something like that, that makes no sense at all), and the “ample evidence” that Mr. Greenwald links to is David Sirota, the guy who just can’t stop writing hit pieces on Clinton and who the IB Times intentionally failed to disclose his deep ties to Sanders while he was writing them: “David Sirota, an aggressive politics reporter for the International Business Times, is a former aide to Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, but the Times is not disclosing that, even in stories that are critical of Sanders’ chief rival, Hillary Clinton. Since Clinton launched her campaign in mid-April, Sirota has written or co-written at least 11 stories for the Times that questioned the ethics of Clinton’s behavior as secretary of State or the dealings of her nonprofit Clinton Foundation.”
So Karen does not like to talk about facts just like Hillary Clinton. We must simply believe Karen when she says something just like Hillary Clinton.
To believe in Queen Hillary necessitates throwing common sense – let alone facts – out the window, simply because she purportedly has a vagina between her ample legs…
Facts? Or, tenuous, manipulative leaps of tortured logic? I guess depends on which side of the biased political landscape you sit this year.
The facts against the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of Stare are all over the comments section of this article and at https://theintercept.com/2016/08/22/peabody-hillary-clinton/
The facts about the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton corruption are all over the comments section here and at https://theintercept.com/2016/08/22/peabody-hillary-clinton/
One only needs to look at them objectively.
huh? Karen stated a number of facts, for instance that glenn”s false claim that democrats are saying the donors to the Clinton foundation are donating because they want to help people.
How has Karen said she must be believed ?
And there’s this:
Meet the woman who speaks for Hillary Clinton
“Karen Finney, Clinton’s strategic communications adviser and senior spokesperson, is the candidate’s media maven. Among her duties: tackling sticky issues like Clinton’s use of private email and donations to the Clinton Foundation.”
http://fortune.com/2015/05/27/karen-finney-hillary-clinton/
So Karen, did they hire you to replace “Jimmy” who wasn’t doing that well? Does your gig here end in early November?
Not even the Clintons are thick and brazen enough to hire this Karen; she’s a full-on, ranting, anger-consumed wack job.
Of course, I could be wrong. If I am, we’re in even deeper shit than I thought.
Of course you’re wrong! You don’t realize god is a doorknob. :;
But come on, she’s spewing from the same script Jimmy did, with all that “White Messiah” crap. Times are tough and the campaign probably only pays minimum wage, so they’re getting the “Jimmys” and “Karens.”
all-white, White Messiah crowd, from the all-white and apparently all male state of Vermont, the former press Secretary of the White Messiah.
People who rely on ad hominem and lack of proper links to citations don’t actually do much to advance their arguments. Neither spittle nor bald assertions have the necessary weight to travel much further than the toes below the lips from whence they issue. Just sayin’…..
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/28/1492912/-House-of-Clinton-House-of-Saud-911
Karen, please see this article at Daily Kos. It does a pretty good job at explaining the dealings between the Saudi Royal Family and the Clintons.
It also notes that the 20th 9/11 highjacker implicates AL-Waleed bin Talal. Although they say to be skeptical of his credibility, the 9/11 commission did note that the 9/11 highjackers may have been funded through charties which Talal has been known to give.
Bill Clinton received $3.5M just before his ’92 election, then received $20M within weeks of his election.
There are, of course, other examples. But please have a look. It’s pretty good.
cheers
Karen, I noted that you mentioned to Doug Salzmann regarding the motivations of the Clintons. To put it simply, it’s the same motivation of any corrupt person. Money.
The Clintons were poor prior to Bill being in the Whitehouse. Now, they are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. That’s their motivation.
Although Bill and Hilliary don’t receive any direct compensation from the Foundation, they do receive ancillary income in the way of speeches, etc from engagements that come from their connections to the Foundation.
During the time HRC was Secretary of State, she approved 143% more in arms shipments than the Bush Administration, all the while, the Clinton Foundation received $10M-$25M from the Saudi Royal family.
If you think there’s no connection, then it’s only because you don’t want to see it, not because it’s not there.
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-311580204-0c3ee98d-9.pdf
Here is exactly how and where the Clinton Foundation spends the money it receives. In 2014, they raised $172M. Looking down at the list of expenses, at best you can make an argument that they spent (outside the Foundation itself) ~$9M.
In other words, 95% of the funds they received went to support the operation while only 5% of the funds most likely went to actually help people.
It’s the classic case of building a bloated empire for show and providing minimal services. They spent ~50% of the funds they received. They are accumulating wealth, not helping poor souls.
I told you, discount financial enrichment, an ex-President has an infinite capacity to do that. So, you are dead wrong, that is not a motive. Sorry. Go back to Go.
You “telling” people to discount it, doesn’t make it invalid. Monetary gain through production of favors is corruption.
So, you’re ‘discounting’ of money is a non-starter. It’s unrealistic as that is the very definition of corruption.
Do Not Pass Go, Go Directly To Jail.
Karen, please provide ANY example of corruption where money WASN’T involved.
“Who among Democrats is claiming that the Saudi’s are giving to the Clinton Foundation because they are noble? No link to that, just a clip of Carville and that certainly does not support that. I have not seen a single Dem saying that the Saudi’s are altruistic here, have you? Certainly not he Clinton’s. Did I miss something? And yet that is the thrust of this rticle. ”
Interestingly not one of the commenters trying to slam you answers this question. Glenn sets up a straw man and then knocks it down.
Glenn writes complaining: ” that anyone raising these questions is opposed to its charity.” Pretty funny coming from a guy who recently wrote an article claiming that anyone criticizing Putin or Russia was a Mccarthyite .
Thank you. That’s exactly my point. You need a motive. If you have near infinite power to raise money due to your former job, such as most powerful man in the world, why go through the bother of setting up a foundation such as this one? Why devote these countless hours? Why write a book about giving? There is no other reason, apart from making yourself look good, that one would do that, and quite frankly, trying to make yourself look good is not the worst crime in the world and his probably driven countless great people to some extent in the past.
thank you. Some people peel an onion in more chunky layers to get the job over with. This article is very sloppy.
Awesome article, hope you don’t mind the forwarding… Too many people are truly blind to the truth, and we as a Country need to let the sunlight disinfect our illness.
Here is an article that is brutally honest on the Clintons and minces no words:
http://observer.com/2016/08/the-clinton-foundations-global-bribery-and-crony-access-scam/
“WAR ON HONESTY • OPINION
The Clinton Foundation’s Global Bribery and Crony Access Scam
Hillary’s hybrid ‘Clinton State-Foundation’ is a national disgrace
By Austin Bay • 08/25/16 9:00am
Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton walks off of her plane at Van Nuys Airport on August 22, 2016 in Van Nuys, California. Hillary Clinton is attending fundraisers in California.
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
“Whoever you are, I have always depended on the kindness of strangers,” says the frequently delusional Blanche Dubois near the bitter end of Tennessee Williams’ Pulitzer Prize-winning play A Streetcar Named Desire.
Ah yes, kind strangers. It’s a playwright’s loaded line. Put bluntly, Miss Blanche may practice intermittent prostitution. According to rumors, before her New Orleans travails, Blanche lost her Mississippi hotel digs because her scandalous associations with menfolk tarnished the joint’s reputation. This naughty gossip, Blanche’s louche behavior, her iffy relationship with what we might call the truth—the drip, drip, drip of on-stage evidence—leads many play-watchers to conclude, yeah, right, Tennessee Williams, I get it. That kind of kind strangers, the kind that tip the tart.
Blanche Dubois is a fictional character. Hillary Clinton often inhabits a fictional universe. Claiming she was targeted by snipers in Bosnia and telling Fox News interviewer Chris Wallace that FBI Director James Comey exonerated her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information are just two examples of Hillary’s fictional existence. However, Hillary’s State Department was no cheap Mississippi hotel, and the latest batch of emails confirming close, coordinated contact between Hillary’s top State aides and the kind strangers who donate to the Clinton Foundation ain’t rumors spread by traveling salesmen. Even The Associated Press is troubled by the number of Clinton Foundation donors with quick access to Hillary’s senior staff. The second paragraph in the AP report has numbers, not rumors:
“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.”
“Released so far.” That’s the AP acknowledging the drip, drip, drip technique. More of Hillary’s emails continue to appear, including emails she swore she destroyed because they were personal.
Indeed, it appears evidence of an axis has emerged, drip by drip, an axis that operationally connected Clinton Foundation donors to Hillary’s State Department. That suggests from 2009 to 2013, when she was secretary of state, Hillary ran a hybrid organization—what we might call the Clinton State-Foundation—which served the needs of Foundation donors, in return for their… kindnesses.
If the Clinton State-Foundation looks like a pay-to-play bribery operation, well, it sure looked like Blanche Dubois was sleeping around a bit with kind strangers, didn’t it?
* * *
Rajiv Fernando was a kind stranger who, in 2011, thanks to the kindness of Clinton senior aide Cheryl Mills, ended up as a kind stranger in a strange land—or at least strange from the perspective of everyone else on International Security Advisory Board (ISAB).
Now, the ISAB’s portfolio is to provide advice on “arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy.” Fernando? He was a Democratic Party donor who had “given up to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation.”
Fernando had absolutely no experience much less expertise in security and diplomatic issues. Yet on one occasion when he attended a board meeting, members were discussing issues that required examination of top secret intelligence. As the Washington Examiner notes, it took a Freedom of Information Act request by Citizens United to shakeout the emails that revealed the “scramble” by Clinton’s aides when ABC News asked for Fernando’s resume.
Wouldn’t media bigshots call for a special prosecutor if a Republican administration had such a blatant appearance of compromise?
And what do the emails reveal about Kind Stranger Rajiv’s appointment to a prestigious national security board despite his complete lack of qualifications?
“We must protect the Secretary’s and Under Secretary’s name, as well as the integrity of the Board. I think it’s important to get down to the bottom of this before there’s any response,” the aide added. “The true answer is simply that S staff (Cheryl Mills) added him,” another official later wrote. “Raj was not on the list sent to S; he was added at their insistence.” “S” is an abbreviation often used to denote the secretary of state in documents. In this case, it was a reference to Clinton.”
Ouch. It appears Cheryl Mills, Hillary’s chief of staff and State-Foundation operative, added Rajiv Fernando, at Hillary’s insistence. When the veil was lifted the rats ran from the light. Kind Stranger Rajiv left the ISAB four days after his background was called into question. It was, so to speak, Fernando’s hideaway.
What does Rajiv Fernando actually do for a living? He says he is an investor. He certainly “invested” five million bucks in the Clintons. This kind stranger got his goody—the board position—but he didn’t get to keep it. Did Rajiv Fernando get anything else for his five million? We don’t know. It is, at this point—given the drip, drip, drip—a fair question to ask. It is a question that deserves an answer.
Prostituting the State Department isn’t a sly joke—it’s unethical, it’s a national disgrace and it’s probably criminal. It will take a special prosecutor to evaluate the criminality because the Obama Administration is culturally and ethically incapable of conducting an investigation. Attorney General Loretta Lynch is totally compromised by the Clintons. The late June 2016 meeting in Phoenix between Lynch and Bill Clinton followed by FBI Director Comey’s sell out of the law proved that.
* * *
Judicial Watch, after battering a stonewall of Obama Administration resistance, obtained emails detailing Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s thoughtful and careful concern for Clinton Foundation kind strangers.
“The Abedin emails reveal that the longtime Clinton aide apparently served as a conduit between Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton while Clinton was secretary of state. In more than a dozen exchanges, Abedin provided expedited, direct access to Clinton for donors who had contributed between $25,000 and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In many instances, Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band, who worked with the Foundation throughout Hillary Clinton’s tenure at State, coordinated closely with Abedin.”
Follow the link to the Judicial Watch page—and follow the money as the Huma and Doug State-Foundation team helps Clinton Foundation donor Casey Wasserman solve a problem related to a “criminal charge.” Wasserman is identified as a “a millionaire Hollywood sports entertainment executive” who gave the Foundation somewhere between five and ten million dollars.
* * *
For three years the Obama Administration stonewalled The Associated Press’ requests for information. The AP had to sue in federal court to get the information “released so far.”
Of course the AP isn’t the only outfit getting stiffed. Citizens United and Judicial Watch have encountered similar stonewall operations. The Obama Administration, on behalf of Hillary, is pursuing a Watergate-esque modified limited hang-out and stalling and stonewalling are part of the strategy.
The result is a clear cut case of waging war on honesty—war on honesty waged by the President and his Administration. Oh yes, indeed, it isn’t just the strategic falsehood. The Administration has justified its delays by tactical lies. See, it’s difficult to respond—time-consuming—because the questions are complex, so many pieces of information, and so forth, etc.
Buying time is the goal. An interim goal was buying enough time to knock Bernie Sanders out of the presidential race. They succeeded there. Now, as Politico pointed out August 24, 2016 the Administration and Team Clinton are trying to “run out the clock” in the general election.
* * *
The Clinton Foundation, with its plethora of kind strangers, foreign and domestic, is proving to be a problem. It won’t stop the clock, but clock watchers should beware: prostituting the State Department isn’t minutia. It’s the precisely the kind of sleazy, self-serving political class revelation that ticks people off. People get it. Everyone knows what “on the take” means and the Clinton Foundation certainly looks like a global bribery and crony access scam run by a former a president and a first lady who is a presidential candidate.
Donald Trump has called on the Clintons to shut down the Foundation and end their dependence on kind strangers.
That’s to be expected, he’s Hillary’s election opponent.
But The Boston Globe, that bastion of Democratic Party Media Privilege—even The Boston Globe wants the Clintons to stop accepting Foundation donations if Hillary is elected president.
See, taking cash from donors when you’re president is, well, so unseemly. There’d be constant gossip, innuendo, wild tales of scandal that Boston Globe editors just don’t want to hear—and don’t want to be forced to ignore.
It appears The Boston Globe’s editors don’t have the guts to call the Clintons what they are: corrupt. Their editorial plea called the Foundation a “distraction.” Distraction? C’mawn Beantown media bigshots—it’s their business and it’s a big business. When Hillary was secretary of state the Clinton Foundation accepted shady donations. Those moral, ethical and perhaps criminal failures should be investigated, right?
Wouldn’t you, Beantown media bigshots, call for a special prosecutor if a Republican administration had such a blatant appearance of compromise? For at least five years questions about quid pro Clinton quo have tagged Hillary and the Clinton Foundation. Those questions generated the Freedom of Information Act requests that the Obama Administration slow-rolled. Like pulling teeth? The AP and Judicial Watch experienced something much worse than pliers wrenching a human molar. We need a better dental metaphor. Like trying to extract a tusk from a bull elephant in musth. Credit the AP’s Washington bureau and Judicial Watch and Citizens United—they are trying to get at the truth.
So, Boston Globe editors, now that we know Huma and Cheryl met the needs of Foundation kind strangers, why not demand the Clintons shut down the Foundation immediately? It’s tainted worse than Blanche Dubois’ seedy Mississippi hotel. To say otherwise would be waging war on honesty.”
This article is a good start, but it cedes way too much as to the amount of charitable work actually done by the Clinton Foundation. Although I hate to cite Conservative sources, they bear reading, e.g. http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/: (paraphrasing) although the foundation did indeed distribute ($226,000,000) significant amounts of medication to those in need in the years 2008 and 2009, by 2011 the amount had dropped to virtually zero, and has continued so. Charles Ortel http://charlesortel.com/ has subjected the foundation to close scrutiny, also, concluding that the foundation is in fact a “charity fraud network”. Clearly, such sources need to be carefully checked, but it is foolish to ignore careful work that has already been done. Conservative news sources may be way off the mark when they characterize HRC as “progressive”, but it does behoove true progressives – and anybody interested in honest, transparent government – to check such sources out; they are often much more informative re the Clinton Foundation than MSNBC or CNN, if one can take the time to separate the wheat from the chaff.
With SoS Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff Huma Abedin on the Clinton Foundation payroll *at the same time* it’s hard to know where State business ends and the good works of the Clinton Foundation begins, Glenn. Nowadays, lots of folks have to work two jobs (or more) to make ends meet.
But this is all academic. If Clinton shot Trump on 5th ave., she would probably get a medal (and another endorsement from the NYT.). Sure, Trump might complain shrilly how Clinton ‘bit the hand that fed her’ (Trump has donated somewhere between $100-250k to the Clinton Foundation), but nothing much would come of it … except another NYT endorsement.
That’s because there is a two tiered system of Justice Glenn: 1. the poor and powerless system and 2. the most broadly
and deeply qualified presidential candidate in modern history system.
*By THE EDITORIAL BOARD JAN. 30, 2016
Our old frin Jonathan Turley recently said the ‘DOJ has not done much to go after high profile officials over the past several decades, no matter which party was in charge’. There are serious charges wrt to the Clinton Foundation/SoS nexus which should warrant a special prosecutor.
The odds of that happening?
“Not high” said Mr. Turley … in classic understatement.
Great article . . which will have every Hillary-bot blowing a gasket and spazzing out in every form of media.
Gee . . do you think we’ll be seeing Glenn anytime soon on MSNBC or CNN to discuss this article? HA! That will never happen . . .Rachel Maddow or any of them will avoid this at all costs because they are Corporate Shills and cowards. They know which side of the bread the butter is on. Instead its all “Trump Trump Trump” hysteria. Heck, you probably won’t even see this on HuffPo, which is just a rag and click bait.
Keep ’em coming, Glenn.
‘Army Training Lesson Cited Clinton as ‘Insider’ Threat Risk’ http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/army-training-lesson-cited-clinton-insider-threat-risk-n636701
Now why would they do that?
Answer: Because it is true.
Read your link. Somebody thought it was true, but it has no significance beyond that.
I was just pointing to the OECD conflict of interest guidelines included somewhere in the middle of the page I linked to.
The OECD guidelines are relevant. Objectively so.
Funny, that is not what your post says.
The last line of my comment said
“Read the OECD guidelines titled “Managing Conflict of Interest in the Public Service” dated 2003 at http://seemasapra.blogspot.in/p/dossier-on-montek-singh-ahluwalia-filed.html”
Couldn’t be clearer. The rest of the stuff on that link is interesting but off-topic.
Someone providing US Army training listed Hillary as an insider threat because of her server, which we all know was hacked, hackable, etc.
So its very true. Objectively so.
I hope by now you understood that I mistook which comment of mine you responded to here. Was not looking at the threads but the latest comments.
What is more interesting is that there is actually a Clinton Foundation with the following objective!
“Another primary project of the Clinton Foundation is the elimination of wealth inequality, which “leads to significant economic disparities, both within and among countries, and prevents underserved populations from realizing their potential.”
Oh the delicious irony!
This article selectively includes and omits information about the Clinton Foundation to say that quid pro quo and corruption cannot be proved and in doing so it actually parrots the Hillary Clinton false defense of a lot of smoke but no fire.
So what is wrong with this article. It focuses on a select few donations to the Clinton Foundation from middle-east dictators and then wastes two-thirds of the article in depicting the obvious fact that these donations were self-interested. Next the article does not even mention or discuss Hillary Clinton’s actions as Secretary of State that impacted these donors.
Yet without any investigation or discussion of the material that could show quid pro quo, the article first notes the Clinton defence that there was no quid pro quo and then immediately and uncritically adopts this defence and propounds it as true.
And finally to further let Hillary off the hook, the article goes on to equate two very different phenomena, the Clinton Foundation corruption and bribery scheme to campaign finance, and thereby falsely depicting Clinton corruption as something that is routine and accepted in American politics.
The conflict of interest and bribery and corruption surrounding the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s role as Secretary of State are not comparable to campaign finance. The latter involves donations before a politician is elected. The former involved an entity created by Hillary getting large amounts of cash while she was Secretary of State and when she was taking decisions or public positions impacting such donors. There is a big difference between the two situations.
Read the OECD guidelines titled “Managing Conflict of Interest in the Public Service” dated 2003 at http://seemasapra.blogspot.in/p/dossier-on-montek-singh-ahluwalia-filed.html
I doubt that Hillary thinks that Glenn is letting her off the hook.
Well, Glenn is letting Hillary of the hook. The evidence points to a case of legal corruption. Glenn ignores all that and depicts it as a case of the everyday All-American political corruption of campaign finance.
So Glenn is saying there is no need to investigate or prosecute Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation and all their many enablers for legal corruption, breaking the law, putting up the State Department for sale, taking decisions motivated by money paid, etc.
Ok, look, Ms. Sepra, you are a a crank and possibly mentally ill. That petition you link to is a frivolous one you filed against Montek Singh Ahluwalia, an Indian economist and former Cabinet Minister, a petition that went nowhere as none of the dozens you file ever do. You are likely mentally ill, having been tossed out of Indian courtrooms innumerable times, as well as petitioned to be placed in a “safe house,” while claiming it can’t be done by the Delhi police, who, you claim, are out to get you. (You also believe your family have tried to poison you.)
You are not in any position to spout this sort of thing:
You don’t appear to be an American lawyer, and even as an Indian one you are, if I am not mistaken, facing several months in jail for behaving outrageously in the courts of India, is that not so? (I believe you are appealing it?) In any event, I have confirmed through googling that this site is essentially correct about you when it writes:
We’ve had quite enough paranoid, clinically ill people swamping the comments here, and we don’t need any more. Please stop.
FO Mona. I won’t respond to your defamatory BS about me. You have been informed that I was in-house counsel for GE Transportation in India who became a whistleblower, I filed a court case against GE corruption. which the media failed to report for 3 years while I was targeted and my litigation was subverted. I also told you that the blog you link to is an anonymous blog targeting me. My case was Seema Sapra versus General Electric Company and Others in the Delhi High Court – Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012.
But I think you are upset because I did not agree with Glenn Greenwald’s writing here.
TI readers can read about me at http://seemasapra.blogspot.in/p/about-me.html
That Mona stoops to this kind of character assassination when she has been pointed to the correct facts reflects on who she is and what her function is on the TI comment section.
I will let TI readers judge my comments for themselves.
My previous interaction with Mona and others on the subject of my being a GE whistle-blower can be read in the comments section at https://theintercept.com/2016/08/10/vindication-for-baltimore-police-critics-but-no-action/
This is the main reason I am cooling it with TI Seema…this has no place in discourse or liberty of reasoning. It is Defamation boldly so and I am sick of it. I do hope you receive the Justice you deserve as we all know how corporations and wealth along with their media can and do defame those who are whistleblower(s)…whether it be Snowden, Assange, Manning or the myriad of unspoken souls who have challenged the corrupt status quo. Mona’s 100% blind bias gives her some kind of elated elevation to call names, defame and degrade…and it is no wonder why she is followed by trolls. May her words get censored the same as others have been here.
Mona…you owe Seema an apology…if you are humble enough to deem so. Shame on you.
You elide right over that she doesn’t deny what I wrote and quoted. Do see this: Delhi HC finds lawyer guilty of contempt, bars from law practise for 2 years
Twenty-eight recusal demands. She’s repeatedly had to be forcibly removed from the courtroom and imagines all kinds of corrupt conspiracies which not one court has found hold any merit. She thinks people are trying to kill her, and has formally petitioned to be placed in a “safe house,” but not by the Delhi cops whom she thinks are all in on it.
There is much more available about this poor women’s delusions and legal antics.
Her judgment and claims are clearly not trustworthy.
This is taken from a Delhi High Court holding which reproduces multiple claims involving her from lower Indian courts:
She’s ill, and they don’t know what to do with or about her. The point being, she’s in no position to judge whether anyone is properly assessing the Clinton Foundation matter in terms of legality or anything else.
So GE retaliated against me, I was rendered homeless, forced to sleep in my car and that according to Mona makes me mentally ill and incompetent to comment on Glenn Greenwald’s article?!
Ignore this BS, TI readers.
Read about me at http://seemasapra.blogspot.in/2016/03/criminal-appeal-filed-today-in-supreme.html
I especially ask The Intercept to investigate the US Embassy India, CIA foreign interference (as has been reported in the past with countless ME, South America, and other sovereign states.)…according to the article written by Seema Sapra @http://monteksinghahluwalia-alert.blogspot.com/
[“Complaint against Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia for violating Section 5 of
the Official Secrets Act – by Seema Sapra, General Electric
whistleblower – Writ Petition (Civil) 1280/ 2012 – in the matter of
Seema Sapra v. General Electric Company and Others in the Delhi High
Court”]
You are pathetic lickspittle,defending your dear leader(Not attacking GG just you)) at every turn.
Character assassination and condescending attitudes reveal zionist malignant influence,no matter your crocodile tears for Palestine.
And as Steve Earle mentioned,paranoia doesn’t mean its not true,and clinically ill could very well be laid at your miserable feet.
@TI readers, a classic silencing tactic, similar to what Mona is using against me, a corporate GE whistleblower, is to bombard with disinformation and lies about me when I am exposing GE. If I respond to her, trying to set the record straight, she wins because I get caught up in unraveling the twisted false narrative being spun about me by the GE propaganda machine. And in a forum like this, where the ability to get readers attention is limited, the focus shifts to me having to defend myself from smears than on exposing what GE did and is guilty of.
Therefore, instead of reacting to Mona’s rants against me, I invite you to read my detailed comments on what I have exposed about GE which I posted in the comments at the 11 August 2016 Intercept article titled “VINDICATION FOR BALTIMORE POLICE CRITICS — BUT NO ACTION”
Also, instead of reacting to what Mona says that anonymous others are saying about me and about what I am saying, I invite you to read an appeal filed by me in the Supreme Court of India.
This appeal describes who I am , a corporate whistleblower, what I have exposed about GE corruption and fraud in India, how my Delhi High Court litigation was subverted and corrupted, how I was and am being targeted, and how in a classic case of whistleblower retaliation, I am now being targeted with a conviction for contempt of court by the same two Judges whose ruling resulted in a cover-up of my corruption and fraud complaints against GE.
My opening statement in this appeal is extracted below:
“1. This is a Criminal Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 from the judgment dated 17.12.2015 of the Delhi High Court in CONT. CAS(CRL) 2/2014, hereinafter referred to as the impugned judgment. This appeal is filed with a delay of 32 days beyond the 60-day period prescribed in Section 19. An application for condonation of delay is also filed. The impugned judgment dated 17.12.2015 of the Delhi High Court in CONT. CAS(CRL) 2/2014 (Court on its own motion vs. Seema Sapra) is annexed hereto as Annexure A-1.
2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been found guilty of contempt of court. The impugned judgment has imposed a punishment of imprisonment for a period of one month; and in addition a fine of Rs. 2,000/- to be deposited within a period of three months with the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court failing which the appellant will undergo a further term of imprisonment of one month. The impugned judgment has further directed that the appellant, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi will not be allowed to argue, whether as an Advocate or in person, except in her defence, before any Bench of this High Court or any court or tribunal subordinate to this High Court for a period of two years. The impugned judgment has directed that a copy of that judgment be sent to the Registry of the Delhi High Court and to all subordinate courts and tribunals, and further that a copy of that judgment be also sent to the Delhi Bar Council for information. The impugned judgment itself directed that the operative part pertaining to imposition of punishment would not operate for a period of three months from 17.12.2015 to enable the “contemnor” to take appropriate steps to exercise her legal remedy.
3. This appeal being filed in person by the appellant begins with a prayer, because the only reason that the appellant-whistleblower-advocate has survived almost six complete years of on-going attempts to eliminate her is because of her prayers.
“Sada durga dahine, sanmukh rahe ganesh, panch dev raksha kare, brahma vishnu mahesh.”
4. At the outset, the appellant/petitioner states that being a woman lawyer, she has the greatest respect for both the judiciary and the rule of law. As a whistleblower who complied with her ethical duty of upholding the rule of law even under grave life threats, it is evident that the appellant takes the law seriously. The appellant holds the judiciary and the judicial function in great respect. She has never sought and will never seek a confrontation with the judiciary. She has never intended to scandalize or to disrespect the judiciary or the Court or to bring it into disrepute.
5. This appeal challenging a judgment of the Delhi High Court in a criminal contempt proceeding has its genesis in a whistleblower right to life petition that the appellant had filed in the Delhi High Court i.e., Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/ 2012 in the matter of Seema Sapra v. General Electric Company and Others (hereinafter referred to as the “Writ Petition”).
6. This appeal will establish that the appellant is a whistleblower, a lawyer who worked in 2010 for General Electric Company in India and who was compelled to make whistleblower complaints when her legal services were sought to be used for corrupt practices including fraud, forgery, bribery, illegal lobbying etc. in connection with Indian Railway tenders for rail locomotive factories at Marhowra and Madhepura. This appeal will establish that attempts were made to eliminate the appellant with State authorities including the Police and intelligence agencies being used to target and silence the appellant. The appellant managed to file an Article 226 petition in the Delhi High Court. This appeal will establish that this petition languished unheard in the Delhi High Court for 3 years while the appellant continued to be destroyed, physically harmed, attacked, intimidated, harassed, targeted and threatened. This Appeal will establish that a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court wrongfully dismissed that Petitionby a judgment dated 2.3.2015 without hearing the appellant who was the petitioner in that matter in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. This appeal will establish that the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court wrongfully dismissed the whistleblower corruption case against General Electric Company in complete disregard of the material on record before it, in complete disregard of the law and in complete disregard of the appellant’s right to life. This appeal will establish that this unsustainable and wrongful dismissal of the writ petition resulted in a cover-up of very serious complaints and evidence of corruption by and favouring General Electric Company facilitated by then Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and his close aide and then Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Mr Montek Singh Ahluwalia. This appeal will establish that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition and the denial of a hearing to the appellant in that matter resulted in gross injustice, and a cover up of attempts to murder the appellant, a cover-up of the fact that the appellant was poisoned, a cover-up of State and police participation in the conspiracy and attempts to silence and eliminate the appellant, a cover-up of the severe targeting that the appellant was subjected to and a cover up of the gross violation of the appellant’s right to life. This appeal will establish that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition has resulted in the appellant continuing to be poisoned for the last one year since 2.3.2015, and continuing to be targeted, harassed, intimidated, threatened, defamed and destroyed. This appeal will further establish that a mind-boggling fraud was perpetrated on the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Civil 1280/ 2012 where an unauthorized person effectively impersonated as the authorised signatory of General Electric Company and two of its subsidiaries and filed patently false and unauthorized affidavits and that the wrongful dismissal of the Writ Petition results in a cover up of this massive fraud on the Court. This appeal will further establish that affidavits filed for the Railway Ministry in the Writ Petition contained multiple instances of perjury and included documents fabricated expressly for the purpose of covering up the corruption by General Electric. Further this appeal will establish that affidavits and status reports filed for the Delhi Police in the Writ petition also contained multiple instances of perjury, and that these affidavits and status reports themselves establish that the police was targeting the appellantand besides actively facilitating her being physically harmed, the police covered up her complaints and fabricated and procured false complaints against her.
7. The same Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which dismissed the Writ Petition ( Justice Valmiki Mehta and Justice P.S. Teji) then proceeded to hear two criminal contempt proceedings which were instituted against the appellant while the Writ Petition was pending and which arose out of facts connected to the hearing of the Writ Petition. This same Division Bench has now after rejecting the appellant’s request for recusal, ruled against the appellant in one of the contempt cases and again without permitting the appellant to file a written reply, without hearing the appellant or affording her an opportunity to defend herself has issued the impugned judgment holding the appellant guilty of contempt of court and imposing an extraordinarily harsh punishment on the appellant which includes sentencing her to imprisonment.
8. The appellant states that she has managed to survive for 6 years fighting alone but it is certain that she will be drugged and poisoned in prison and will come out from prison both mentally and physically damaged and incapacitated. It is also certain that this incarceration will be used to falsify medical records for the appellant and to cover up the fact that she has been chronically poisoned, and that this poisoning has caused organ damage and to cover up the fact that the appellant’s left ankle was deliberately dislocated in June 2014. The impugned judgment will result in facilitation of the elimination of the whistleblower appellant and in silencing her.
9. This appeal will establish that the impugned judgment in the contempt case is wrong in law and on facts, that it has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and without hearing the appellant and without providing her even the most limited opportunity to defend herself. This appeal will establish that the impugned contempt judgment misrecords not only the facts but also the appellant’s submissions and defence. This appeal will establish that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and to the relevant material before the court.
10. The appellant does not want to comment on the conduct of the specific Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, but this appeal will establish that the judgments of this particular Division Bench both in the Writ Petition and in the contempt case are wrong, contrary to law and to the material on record, and are unsustainable and perverse.
11. The record of Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 is relevant to this appeal but is very voluminous. The appellant will place the record of the writ petition before this Hon’ble Court in electronic format on a DVD.
A copy of the judgment in the Writ Petition Civil No. 1280/2012 is being filed in a separate volume.
12. A copy of the appellant’s cv showing her educational and professional achievements as in 2010 when the appellant ended up as a whistleblower is reproduced below.
Curriculum Vitae
Seema Sapra
Contact details
xxxx @gmail.com
Work Experience
Legal Counsel for GE Transportation India in Delhi (2010 – 5 months until September 2010)
Consultant to Microsoft India on Innovation & IP law and policy – 2009-2010 in Delhi (approx. six months)
Visiting fellow at Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi, 2008-2009, working on trade policy, climate change and energy policy
Director – Trade & Policy, at Delhi office of law firm Amarchand Mangaldas, Suresh A. Shroff & Co, 2008. Worked on trade policy, competition policy, nuclear policy, investment policy, India’s comprehensive economic cooperation agreements, anti-dumping.
Visiting Fellow at the Institute of International Economic Law, Georgetown University Law Center in Washington DC 2004-2005, worked on trade and investment policy and law
Assisted GE India General Counsel, Ruby Anand as off-counsel from approx. 1999 till 2001
Associate in the office of Soli J Sorabjee, Attorney General of India, 2000-2001
Empanelled lawyer for the Government of India in the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi in 1999-2001
Lawyer with the litigation law firm of M/s Karanjawala & Co. in New Delhi, 1995-2000
Extensive litigation experience in the Supreme Court of India, the High Court of Delhi, and various special tribunals.
Policy expertise
International Trade
Bilateral and regional trade agreements
Investment policy, bilateral investment treaties
Climate change and sustainable development
Energy efficiency and climate change
Innovation policy, technology transfer and intellectual property
Competition policy
Teaching Experience
LLM tutor for the World Trade Law joint course at University College London and the School of Oriental and African Studies (2007)
Contract law tutor for 1st Year LLB at the University of Westminster, School of Law as a part-time visiting lecturer (2007)
Guest lectures for the LLM program at Kings College London and University of Leicester law school
Education
PhD studies at Kings College London 2003-2007 (not completed)
Title of proposed thesis: The Place, Treatment, and Meaning of Development in the WTO
Research supervisor – Professor Piet Eeckhout, Kings College London
3 year research fellowship by the Centre for European Law, Kings College London
LLM in Public International Law with distinction at the University of Leicester, 2001-2003
British Chevening scholar
LLB from the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi – Ist Division. 1995
Diploma in Environmental Law from the Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India -1994-1995
B. A. Honors in English Literature from St Stephen’s College, University of Delhi – 1992
Editorial Assistant for the Journal of International Economic law, 2004-2005 based at Georgetown University Law Center, Washington DC
Internship with the United Nations Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha, Tanzania 2002-2003
Publications
Article titled “Sustainable Development and the role of the Indian Supreme Court”, ASERI (Milan) publication, 2009
Article titled “An Agenda for Teaching International Economic Law in Indian Law Schools”, Indian Journal of International Economic Law, 2009, National Law School, Bangalore
Article titled “The WTO System of Trade Governance: The Stale NGO Debate and the Appropriate Role for Non-state actors” in Oregon Review of International Law Journal, volume 11 issue 1, 2009
Chapter titled ‘Domestic Politics and the Search for a New Social Purpose of Governance for the WTO: A Proposal for a Declaration on Domestic Consultation’ in Debra Steger (ed.) Redesigning the World Trade Organization for the Twenty-first Century, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2009
Chapter titled ‘New Agendas for International Economic Law Teaching in India: Including an Agenda in Support of Reform’ in Colin B. Picker, Isabella Bunn & Douglas Arner, (ed.) INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC LAW – THE STATE & FUTURE OF THE DISCIPLINE, Hart Publishing, 2008
‘Ideas of Embedded Liberalism and Current and Future Challenges for the WTO’, in Ortino and Ripinsky, WTO Law and Process, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2007. pg 330 – 352
Development: Its Place, Treatment, and Meaning at the WTO / Seema Sapra (2006). In: Proceedings of the American Society of International Law Annual Meeting, Vol. 100, pg 223-226
Papers / Conferences
Presented paper titled “An Indian perspective on sustainable development: the role of the Indian higher judiciary” at panel discussion at ASERI, Milan in December 2008
Panelist for EDGE network panel on WTO Institutional Reform at the Inaugural conference of the Society for International Economic Law, Geneva, 15-17 July 2008
Presented paper titled “Developing Countries and Outreach to Non-State Actors in the WTO”, at an EDGE network project workshop on WTO institutional reform in March 2008 at Centre for International Governance Innovation, Waterloo, Ontario.
Presented paper titled “The Case for International Economic Law Teaching in India: Possible Agendas Including an Agenda in Support of Reform” at the Annual Conference of the International Economic Law Interest Group of the American Society of International Law at Bretton Woods in November, 2006
Panelist at the sixth Annual WTO Conference hosted by the British Institute of International and Comparative Law in May 2006, on the topic “Doha Development Round: Current and Future Challenges”
Presented paper titled “Development – Its Place, Treatment and Meaning at the WTO” at the 100th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, Washington D.C. 2006.
Presented paper titled “Special and Differential Treatment in international trade law” at the Institute of International Economic Law (IIEL), Georgetown University Law Center in September 2005
Presented paper titled “Constructivism and Special and Differential Treatment in international trade law” at the 2005 conference of the International Law Association, British Branch held at Edinburgh in May 2005
Memberships
Bar Council of Delhi
Society of International Economic Law
Asian WTO Research Network
13. Questions relevant for this appeal
Is the Appellant a whistleblower? What are the complaints of corruption and what is the evidence?
Has the Appellant been targeted?
Has the Appellant been physically harmed?
Is there a continuing threat to the life of the Appellant?
Has the Indian State, including the Police participated in covering up the corruption complaints and in targeting the appellant-whistleblower?
What were the events of 6.5.2014, the date on which the appellant is stated to have committed contempt of court?
Did the Appellant have an opportunity to defend herself in the Contempt case? Was she given a fair hearing in accordance with law before she was found guilty of contempt?
What is the appellant’s response to the contempt notice against her?
Is the punishment accorded by the impugned judgment fair and reasonable?”
For the rest, TI readers are invited to read the full document of my appeal pleading.
A few facts about Julian Assange and the leaks that he is going to publish:
1. Assange and his team are not the hackers. They only publish what information others provide them with. The media slips in the “hacker” word to discredit him.
2. Assange does not manufacture the information. There is no point blaming him for the information that he publishes. If you don’t like it then probably you as the originator of the information are to be blamed, not Assange. A lot of media organizations would like us believe otherwise.
3. When it came to Hillary Clinton’s unprotected servers, Director Comey gave a clean chit to them that there was no evidence they were hacked by Russians. This was convenient so that Hillary could be absolved of the negligence as no state secret was compromised. Now it is more convenient to accuse Russians in order to discredit Assange. All types of subservient pseudo-experts with zero knowledge of networks and hacks are screaming from the nearest hilltops that the Russians are all over our servers. Could Director Comey please clarify?
4. There are a lot more allegations of rape and abuse about the husband of Hillary Clinton than Assange. Yet there are experts and supposed journalists who preface their comments on the leaks with a string of the crimes that Assange is accused of before stating that he is a threat to national security, thus thinking they have convinced enough people to dismiss his revelations as garbage.
Watch for these as the story unfolds.
I think it’s wonderful news that all the US will shortly be bound to have to go the way of Nevada and consider the decriminalization of all so-called prostitution. Just because a john hands a wad of dollars to a hooker, and s/he accepts it, is no proof of there being any kinda quid pro quo. After all, as all of us know, johns always feel driven to extend charity to the less affluent; and hookers always tend to find johns sexually attractive enough to get intimate real fast. Very simply, a gift of the filthy lucre is not to be confounded in any way with the inherently sacred act of consensual sex. What on earth would have become of the world, for godsakes, if sex had ever been construed by any members of humanity as no more than a commodity?
My posting is predicated on the notion of an imminent HRC presidency, which of course is not something guaranteed. I imagine Trump circumvented the #PayToPlay ethos long ago by tacitly inviting any number of hookers to seek bona fide charitable contributions from all the many johns who enthusiastically (= infused w/ theos = god) patronized his casinos.
tijdI sselnU hunnee u haev ben miss gided abowt teh professhum uv prostumtooshum.
awl uv Myrna’s cumstumerz ar furry effluent butt so iz Myrna don u no.
an ennee paymunt she getz foor hur survices is cawled a quid pro cum.
neffur missunderesteemate hoo iz holdink teh shart hairz in ennee bizness tranzackshum invulvink cumsenshual sux.
*ToidiY sselesU might be crazy Mabel. No one ever got any ‘charitable contributions’ from the hookers @ Trump casino that I know of? … much less Myrna!
bahmihummerbung hunnee Myrna’s contrumbushumz ar rayrely charitumble.
tehy ar mosly uv teh in-kind survice variumty don u no.
Until campaign finance is reformed we have one effective party: Plutocrats.
Campaign finance reform is vital to restoring any semblance of integrity to the two-party system. It’s not a two-party system when, in fact, they’re both financed by corporate interests and, increasingly, foreign interests at that.
Most of us at one time or another have been infatuated with someone only to realize down the line that they don’t belong on a pedestal. So why is partisan politics so uniquely blinding insofar as we are loathe to admit that the “pay to play” rule cuts across party lines?
The idea that the American people could be 35-plus years down this shamelessly corrupt Big Money finance road and voters still believe there are marked differences between mainline (elected) Democrats and mainline (elected) Republicans defies logic. What career politicians say before they’re elected to appeal to their base isn’t what they do while in office: Both, by in large, support foreign entanglements and “nation building”. Both, by in large, have enabled the Total Surveillance State we live in, Fourth Amendment notwithstanding. Both arrive by different paths to the same stance on immigration — to leave the borders as porous as ever to exploit cheap labor (Republicans) and as open as need be to advance humanitarianism (Democrats). Both, upon entering office, kowtow to their pet Big Pharma, H1-B visa-importing, Monsanto-enabling, Big Energy interests, to the same health-, job- and environmentally-questionable effects. (Whether it was strip mining for coal in the Bush years or the earth-shaking onslaught of numerous water-poisoning fracking operations under President Obama.)
Like an abusive relationship, we voters need to recognize that our electoral democracy has been battered and abused. It is no longer appropriate to celebrate one’s independence or national identity — today that elicits isolationist, nationalist, racist, protectionist or any other number of “You’re not a good globalist!” accusations. So is it any wonder that our political system, too, has begun to lose its identity in this codependent relationship we call globalization? Unlimited access not merely to domestic but international Big Money in politics results in the rest of us, liberal or conservative, amounting to little more than “pesky populists” — meaning we’re not influential enough to matter. Yes, that’s cynical. But it’s the corner we’ve naively hemmed ourselves into by thinking that “our candidate” or “our party” is immune to corrupting influences whereas the other candidate or party is somehow uniquely corrupted (or corruptible).
The political process in this country is “bought and paid for” by special interests, and not one leader in recent years, particularly at the presidential level, will do anything about it as long as embracing Big Money is the only way to make it into office. And you don’t have to look too far back to find examples of this reality in action, either: President Obama, at the outset, promised transparency in government and expressed an intent to limit the power of special interests. But like every president before him in living memory, Obama staffed his cabinet with talent from Goldman-Sachs and other corporate insiders with agendas of their own to serve. Obama then went on to abuse executive orders much like his Republican predecessor, failed to shut down Gitmo — which is no longer even a conversation in this election year! — and instead of transparency his administration pursued whistle-blowers with more zeal than a neocon. My point isn’t to bash Obama — he’s only the most recent example in a lengthening presidential line of fundamental “sameness” with respect to key issues in which voting Democrats and Republicans ought to observe stark differences between administrations (yet don’t). And so if we think there is a two-party system in place and that he/she who runs on this side of the ticket vs. the other will advance a positive change, be it liberal or conservative, think again. Dating back at least to the 1990s-era energy and financial deregulation that one might have expected a democrat in the Oval Office to oppose, to “free trade” both then and now, our elected leaders have been on the same page with respect to an increasing number of controversial issues.
This thing we call globalization — to open business opportunities, cheap labor and tax-loopholes for conservatives and to “raise all boats” for liberals, has had both parties on the same page acting in concert on just about every major front. Behind that global curtain, international Big Money is increasingly in the driver’s seat — and it doesn’t care who sits in the Oval Office because it finances both sides of the ticket and, in turn, “shops” that influence the world over. And so the only drum we should be beating on — if we’re even half-way intellectually honest or even half-way concerned about our children’s future — is campaign finance reform.
This isn’t about the Clintons. It isn’t about Trump. It wasn’t about Obama. And it wasn’t about Bush I/II — it’s about the future of our electoral democracy under a system of globalization that is doing it’s best to shame us into believing that only global interests know best and that local control is somehow rooted in the “evil” of self-interest. People the world over will always thirst for more locally-responsive political leadership. And I think it’s safe to say that without that emphasis, we’ll see more unrest and polarization of the kind that surrounded the recent “Brexit” vote. Domestically-accountable leadership is what citizens the world over want for their democracies. But that’s not what we’re going to get if we keep letting Big Money erode obligation to the citizenry in favor of a fraction of a percent of the world’s wealthiest both at home and abroad.
We need to appreciate, Democrat and Republican alike, that the internationalization of campaign finance is a whole new beast entirely. What we’re seeing is the globalization of domestic politics — and the time to stop it through the process of campaign finance reform is now. Only after such reform is in place can we afford to go back to disagreeing on the finer points of being a “liberal” or a “conservative”.
Fantastic journalism Glenn, I agree with everything you said.
And more tv shows keep inviting her on to showcase how sweet she is. Wow. It just amazes, really how gullible or willing to ignore, the American voters can be. But that’s because, in this case, they have little to choose from in this election. They all know it. To elect T-Rump would be a nightmare. To elect Clinton would be a nightmare. Our wars are not even close to ending, and the more weapons we continue to release to the Saudis and others in that region, is just furthering the mindset of more killing. It is pure insanity. T-Rump won’t be any less evil. To think so would be very foolish. We’re s_cr_ew_ed, either way we go.
Willing Victim Syndrome
After the abuse Americans have suffered for decades from disastrous illegal wars, beatings from unemployment, lack of health care, wallstreet, robbery of return on productivity, theft of personal power and destiny, disregard by elected politicians, etc… maybe Americans are just saying “Beat me. I expect it and because it gives me an excuse for failure, i need it.”
the magnificent cities of ages past, alexandria, egypt, greece, rome, maya.
Trump is a builder. That’s what he does. He wants to build stuff worth protecting because right now, America has nothing to protect.
You wrote that people are gullible because of how sweet Hillary looks. You then follow up with how Trump would be a nightmare without supporting arguments. Do you think we are as gullible as you were, in believing that the wars magically happened, for no reason?
Trump is at zero in the evil dept,while HRC has a track record of evil that Hitler would admire,as an example of how to get away with murder and be praised for it,universally,by the zionist media.
Clinton apologists reject the very same lines of reasoning and relationships that they fully accept when proving that Trump is a paid for shill of Putin.
I don’t know how anybody could justify what the Clintons are doing. Just read about their activities in Columbia. It is wrong as many legitimate groups have said for a “charitable organization to act as a private equity firm. Just read about Bill Clinton’s ties to the former wall street investor who was convicted of “sex trafficking”. Bill Clinton learned how to parlay his connections with people like this to make money after he left office, along with his speeches to wall street. I am sickened by the failure of the media to vet the Clintons or Trump. Thanks to the Intercept for covering this issue. I think most people know that what the Clintons have been up to for some time in many realms is unethical, if not illegal. Al Gore has made millions cozying up to private investment firms to get insider information. I’m so disgusted by the corruption in the democratic party that the Clintons embody. We need a viable third party.
If this is the shoddy level of scrutiny the Clinton Foundation gets in the US press, then I can only say – people get the government they deserve.
I think the Clintons’ hearts are in the right place, running a foundation that is a charity. They are also after power. But this is not necessarily a bad thing. It is also not a trait unique to the Clintons as politicians.
This being said, I DO have a problem with the OPEC states wielding as much power and influence in the world as they do. But the Clintons are not at all unique in the political field as regards US politicians yielding to that influence.
As a political liberal, it is a personal affront to me that these highly oppressive–and utterly murderous–regimes in the Middle East are even allowed to exist, let alone wield any influence.
But I do not blame the Clintons for this sorry state of affairs. I blame instead our collective dependence on the OPEC states’ number one export. For this reason as well as that of the climate crisis; we desperately need to work together to achieve independence–not only from OPEC–but from all fossil fuels, generally.
That there is political corruption endrmic to our two-party system and the inertia of our mega-corporate system is regrettable. But it is my contention as someone who lives in the US and who will therefore live with the consequences of the result of this years’s presidential race, and having examined the history of what is a concerted and very partisan smear campaign against the Clintons, also my awareness of Hillary’s accomplishments within the US on behalf of women, children, and abortion access; I will be voting for Hillary Clinton for president.
I like Jill Stein A LOT. But unless Jill and the Green Party seize the momentum and aquire the largest non-Republican voting block, they WILL NOT WIN. Running for office is not enough in this election in which the stakes are so high. The non-GOP candidate MUST WIN. Period. Full stop. Nothing less than VUCTORY is acceptable. This means that our candidate must have at least a *significant* chance to actually win. Anything less than this is utterly useless. Anything less than this allows the US Republican Party to make policy for DECADES (and possibly permanently)–because of the Supreme Court appointments that the next administration WILL make–on crucial civil rights and civil liberties issues like abortion rights and access for all women, equal rights for LGBTQIA people, restraint of the police and protection of minorities from official brutality and protection of rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, protecting separation of church and state and fighting against Christian privilege, promotion of science over religious nonsense, acting to combat climate change.
None of these vital needs will be met under a Trump regime. They much more likely will be under Hillary Clinton AND a Democratic Party/Green Party congress.
Merlin David
https://www.facebook.com/david.liverman.90
Yes,their hearts are on the left side,above the belly,but x rays show nothing inside.
Merlin: I don’t mean to take issue with your opinion about the Clinton’s “heart being in the right place” — I merely wish to make a point: many people, even GG, concede the Foundations have done many good things. Often times HIV programs are pointed out.
HOWEVER, if you look at how much they take in and how much actually goes directly to charity, it is an extremely low number, I believe 10% or less. That is absolutely unacceptable for a charity/non-profit. I don’t have the figures, but they are out there. The Foundations have been set up as a money making enterprise that employs Clinton-sycophants and their army of worshippers. The Foundations spends lavishly on travel, real estate, conferences, and the like – which is a way to enriched the Clinton’s and their “employees” at the Foundation without calling it a salary.
Moreover, the Foundation is also used to extract exorbitant speaking fees for bill & hill which enriches them directly.
These sort of practices, for any other charity/non-profit, would give rise to RICO indictments and other criminal charges.
Parsing Karen’s defense of Hillary Clinton:
I think she means speaking fees? Sure, Rudy Giuliani also pulled down millions in speaking fees in 2007 as he was running for president. But a big foundation can finance the salaries of a big group of people – and Clinton, like Kissinger, is hungry for power, not just money. If we look at the overthrow of Gaddafi (not a Clinton donor) and the protection of Bahrain (big Clinton donor) during the Arab Spring:
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/foundations-without-protest/
Well, the Gulf royal families donate so they can go to Clinton and say, help us with this arms deal, or help us crush the Arab Spring, help us hold onto power. And is it really an accident that so many top Clinton donors played a role in and benefited from the overthrow of Libya, for example? It’s not just about money, it’s about power. Hillary Clinton seems kind of obsessed with power, doesn’t she? If you want to follow the money, though, look at Bill Clinton speaking fees; they track Hillary’s donor meetings.
This claim doesn’t seem very solid. I mean, you want to save people from AIDS in Africa, then pass a law allowing African pharmaceutical outfits to manufacture their own AIDS drugs, give them an exemption from intellectual property rules. Clinton is clearly not in favor of this; she has many ties to Big Pharma; she’s their candidate. And again, Libya was not about “saving lives.”
So this is repetition; we have money and power as motives. Might as well call it the Kissinger Foundation.
More repetition; Clinton’s destablizing regime change games seem to have been conducted in coordination with many Clinton Foundation donors; this fueled civil war in Libya and Syria as well as a massive refugee crisis.
A detailed study of money flow from donors into the Clinton Foundation, and from the Clinton Foundation to other groups, and of Bill Clinton speaking fees, and of State Department decisions, would show it’s all linked together pretty closely – the more is revealed, the shadier it gets, and the weaker the justifications appear.
“Jimmy” must have quit the campaign and so they assigned “Karen” to spew the Hillarybot bullshit in this space.
If we look at the overthrow of Gaddafi (not a Clinton donor) and the protection of Bahrain (big Clinton donor) during the Arab Spring:…
whoa! and i mean huge whoa. ….. That is PROTECTION RACKET stuff. That falls in the category of extortion on a major scale. And now that i think about it…. whoa. One might conclude that if Russia/Putin is not shoveling bit money to CGI, whoa again.
whoa! so hellary would insinuate perhaps “wanna be our friend? or enemy? i can help you or……… it’s all up to you” and do that in a private meeting.
whoa.
The main issue with the way our elections are funded is not that it necessaily breeds corruption (it probably does with some candidates and not with others) it is that secret dark money has an outsized influence on the outcomes of elections. In other words – it’s not so much a matter of dark money corrupting politicians – but that dark money can choose the candidates they want to win. In that way, the argument of this article – that is mostly fair – breaks down toward the end imo.
Glenn,
people see what they want to see and are blind when it suits them – myself and you included.
Case in point: Your article is great but fails to expose the obvious at the core of Citizen United and the Clinton Foundation.
We the American people have allowed these political offices & government positions to gain power and authority they simply didn’t have years ago. The power to topple regimes, grant favors and hand pick corporations for billion dollar pay days – all without checks and balances and without legitimate authority and without anyone really paying attention.
Citizen’s United and the Clinton Foundation isn’t the problem – its a symptom of the power we have handed over.
We have to open our eyes and start taking responsibility for the situation we’ve created. And it starts by not voting for either the democrats or republicans.
Glenn gives no evidence of any intention by these regimes. He merely describes how awful they are and begs the infantile question “how can some one like the REALLY support these causes?” As though every billionaire who ever donated to a charity did so to maintain favor with the charity’s owners or passionately cared about the cause. His argument amounts to “if you don’t limit your skepticism to these two possibilities, you are gullible.”
I love your work! Nobody wants to ask the hard questions. Instead they bow to Clinton and deflect by talking about Trump supposed Russian ties
???? .People are now saying the motive is to help others less fortunate, you mean to tell me Hillary is risking her Political Career ( She has suffered humiliation after Humiliation because of her husband’s numerous affairs. Take a look at Bill Clinton, he certainly looks like he’s got AIDS) And all because she wants to help some poor kid in Africa? Plzzzzz!!!!
The motive is GREED, for power as well as money. Thank you and keep up the exceptionally excellent work.
P.S. Hillary’s doing Soros bidding?
yep. Wallstreet thieves and their whore media and whore politicians are looking to rob American again. To do this, they need Hellary and her TPP. Their claim is forget Hellary’s corrupt and criminal ways and weapons and war funding whatever… she gives money to help aids victims fer chrise’ sake.
http://anonhq.com/44923-2/
Oh yes. And those ‘hard questions’ and adversarial positions by Mr. Greenwald (which is what REAL journalists practice) is exactly why he is seldom, if ever, invited back on mainstream networks like MSNBC Hillary cheerleader channel. And you can be damn sure it wont happen between now and the election on ANY of them. Their news directors have been issued their marching orders.
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/28/1492912/-House-of-Clinton-House-of-Saud-911
A good story about Al-Waleed bin Talal and his history with the Clintons.
Masterful work as always Glenn. Thanks.
Once again, the question is posed. In order for there to be corruption regarding the foundation, there has to be a motive, so what is it? What is the true motive? Of course, in this case, the motive must be none other than self-enrichment. But that is an idiot’s argument. Why? Because the Clintons can raise as much money directly as they damn well please. Why? Because Bill Clinton is an ex-President, because he is one of the most famous people in the world, and Hillary is an ex-Secretary of State. So, even Glenn, himself supported by billionaire cash cannot argue there is a financial self-enrichment motive. But that’s not how this silly elitist tripe reads. It states there is corruption, a quid pro quo–but to what end? Mr. Greenwald would never attempt to answer that because the true motive must be right in front of him: to raise money, big money, to help other people far less fortunate than the Clinton’s–and not to worry whether that money comes from the likes of a billionaire like Pierre Omidyar or the Saudi’s because it’s not going to matter to the people who in the end its lives save. To most of the Clinton haters on this website, this is impossible, and so off they go, making up bizarre and twisted allegations, no more based on fact thanthose of Mr. Trump or Mr. Greenwald, outlandish, unfounded suggestions that if the giving party’s money is corrupt, so must the receiving party be corrupt. The fact that not a soul on this website could possibly identify a motive is testimony to the fact that the far Left and the far Right have now joined hands. Megan Kelly, Julian Assange and Glenn Greenwald, a veritable love fest. No, it’s not enough to suggest some sort of quid pro quo, as Glenn does here, that doesn’t come close to the suggestion of a motive. No, it’s a brazen attack on one of the top rated charities in the country charity that’s saved the lives of hundreds of thousands–oh, and he’s worried about drones taking lives? Give me a break. If this is not the incredible elitism itself supported by a billionaire that Greenwald cries about, what is it?
Chill out!! Just enjoy the show.
Greenwald made it clear that we should not rely on him for impartial information.
Information is inherently non partial.
Partial info is everywhere on the internet,and MSM,all for the Hell bitch.
You keep dropping prolix comments in an injured tone regarding your idols (Bill and Hil as you call them.) Give it a rest. Greenwald and others have spelled it out and if you can’t see it–well, none so blind, etc.
BTW, you seem to be emotionally invested in the Clintons. Do you know them personally or something?
Do you have some documentation on millions of dollars they gave to charities.
Of the, lets say, 10 million from the Saudis how much went to charity?
I heard of a 4 million dollar fundraiser of which $20 000 went to the cause.
omfg! so complicated…. i’m spinning….. must be dazed and confused….my ears are ringing with “ka-ching ka-ching ka-ching ka-ching ” what’s that sound? goin’ on?……
it’s a brazen attack on one of the top rated charities
TOP RATED? by whom? corrupt minds who LOVE A FRONT FOR COINCIDENTAL FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS?
ha ha ha ha
brazen attack on one of the top rated charities?
There isnt enuf water on the planet to make me swallow that one.
@barabbas-some of the pieces published has made me laugh. Some of the comments made me laugh. Your above comment took me from kicking snakes to pinching tightly to stop peeing myself! I won’t go back to kicking snakes, I won’t do it…..
sorry about that
hope i didnt ruin your carpet
It’s difficult to have to admit your idols are imperfect, not to mention criminals, chronic liars and thieves. The pattern of transaction is quid pro quo to me & most of the world. Set aside sentimentality and accept truth when presented.
Karen must be a wild child,who likes to stare into the hollow idols eyes.
Speaking of “motives”, according to Trey Gowdy, the FBI never asked Mrs. Clinton what her “intentions” were in setting up a private server for all her work-related emails:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gowdy-fbi-didnt-ask-clinton-about-intent/article/2600177
I am no lawyer, but it seems to me if the FBI never ASKED the question, then obviously Comey can then stand before the world and say, “There was no INTENT to commit any crime.”
but they did want to know what she wanted on her pizza!
Seriously? You Americans are truly in a deep shit if even so-called liberals find it in their heart to put Greenwald, Kelly, and Assange in the same box. And the rest of us won’t fare any better with you trying to unleash Trump or Clinton.
Let me put it this way: the fact you, USA, still haven’t tried to bomb the crap out of Saudis and Qataris doesn’t make them a friend. Shouldn’t, at least.
This is such a brilliant piece. Not only is it thoughtful and informative, you get people to think about the implications of what they are thinking. Before reading this, I got all bogged down with “Did she or didn’t she?” in relation to the quid pro quo conjectures. You make it so clear that Clinton’s has, at the very least, allowed “access, ” which (as you also informed me) Justice Stevens states is only a matter of degree between that and selling the vote. I think very few Democrats, myself included, saw how incoherent my thinking was in not equating Clinton’s actions to what most of us rail against with the Citizens United decision. I never planned to vote for her anyway, because I can’t stand her hawkishness and her ignoring of the rights of Palestinians, but this business about the Clinton Foundation seals the nail on the coffin for me.
Great read. Thanks !
I blame the corrupt-establishment-crony-capitalist press for the fact that both Hillary and Trump won their primaries. So supine is the establishment press these days, so in the tank, so amoral. I would call the MSNBC and CNN and Fox News talking heads and the Hillary endorsing WaPo and NYT whores but that would be too mild and basically inaccurate. Whores perform a sometimes necessary service. They’re certainly not as destructive as our media enablers.
Rant all you want about politicians–politicians will be politicians–but it’s the press who are the real villains because they have forsaken their role. They are supposed to be watchdogs, not lackeys and partisans.
Both candidates should have been thoroughly and aggressively investigated by the press early in the primary season.
RIGGED
tripped across an interesting wallstreet styled conjob
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jun/23/andrew-napolitano/did-google-adjust-its-autocomplete-algorithm-hide-/
i was stunned. give it a look.
So right. To say that journalism and reporting has gone by the wayside is an understatement. I am grateful for the few journalists attempting still, to stand with routing out the evil right in front of us. It takes a good bit of courage to keep standing up to the hawks in power who simply will not give peace any chance at all, because it is so much more satisfying to them, to just go for the bullets first. The Main Stream Media is indeed to blame. They’ve done nothing to further truth and integrity for more than 4 decades now. Without voices like Glenn’s, Bill Moyers, Amy Goodman and a few others, we’d be without any integrity in journalism at all.
Why does Hellary and her CGI operation remind me of Madoff?
ahhh…. so if Hellary is elected, she will already have her pardons prepared, while taking the oath left hand on the bible and right hand raised with pen in hand, and upon dropping her hand, sign those pardons, spring Mr. Madoff, and make him President of CGI of customer development?
Hellary : “I will arrange for you to have all the weapons and ammunition you want to kill anyone you want for a modest donation to help us fight for rights of people you kill with the weapons i sell. SOUND GOOD?”
Great piece Glenn!
This “issue” really is the most trenchant of all. Just because people can’t prove “quid pro quo” corruption, doesn’t mean anybody is fooled by what is really going on, even if that “something” isn’t readily or immediately apparent. But elites either think we are stupid and believe their lies, or we can’t do anything about it so long as they have an argument or plausible deniability we are all impotent. They will be in for a very big surprise someday is my guess as to the latter.
And the bullshit propaganda that the likes of Madeline Albright or James Carville or any other fuckstick are peddling to sugar coat or defend this very old and very obvious variety of corruption, should be embarrassing to each and every one of them but it isn’t.
It isn’t because one of two things is true: 1) they actually believe it is ethically acceptable to do what they are doing, or 2) they are so morally and ethically bankrupt they don’t care that the “means” they employ to achieve an “end” matters all most as much, if not more than the ends they seek.
Then again, I think America is one of the most morally bankrupt cultures/societies on the planet. Not because they don’t do what everyone else on the globe does (and always has), but because they lie to themselves about it and think they don’t and/or that they are superior to others because they actually believe their own self-serving self-deluded bullshit propaganda. At least the Russian people had enough integrity not to believe what Pravda and their party officials were peddling most of the time.
Yes, the fact that the Clintons are way to smart to provide the smoking gun, or “dispositive” proof, as Glenn puts it, in no way diminishes the weight of the evidence of corruption, albeit technically circumstantial.
P.S. Your third paragraph reminds me of Rome.
*fourth paragraph
Yep.
Well said.
I would like to think that those who sow the wind will reap the whirlwind. But alack, probably not.
quid pro quo is a concept from the origins of the US when the US was a place for individuals. Since then, individuals have been confronted by groupification. The supreme court itself has recognised the behavior of groups to be that of a single person, yet these con artists fail to recognise the concerted efforts of the GCI which indulge in the same illegal efforts, citing “well, a bunch of people acting in concert does not have the standing as individuals”.
WHAT A CON JOB
the favorite saying of corrupted minds “Do as i say, not as i do”.
Actually, it’s “do what I meant, not what I said”.
That is a better way to put it.
“At least the Russian people had enough integrity not to believe what Pravda and their party officials were peddling most of the time.”
I remember you. You are the expert statistician and economist who stated the countries with the highest corporate tax rates are generally the most prosperous with good social safety nets.
Now another statement obviously based on strong scientific research. I just wonder what percentage of Russians do not believe in the NASA moon landings. The state worked to prove they were staged. But the Russians with so much integrity wouldn’t not believe such conspiracy theories coming from party officials.
You make people laugh by making yourself look stupid?
Meh, you’re just an embittered hasbara troll who couldn’t get anywhere with the hasbara, so you quit all that and now pop in and out to post incoherent, inane and nasty tripe.
I appreciate your interest, but I am already taken. Nah you are just not my style… Lol
Now that is just gross, almost obscene, even. The intimation that I’d take up with a Zionist hasbara trolls is on the order of an online sexual assault.
What is obscene, gross and even embarrassing is your relentless determination to follow me even after telling you many times that I am not interested!!
Lol lol lol
@ Mani
Yawwwwwwnnnnnnn. Still waiting for your proof disproving my statement.
Dude, you are a lapdog. That means you are stupid. You cannot analyse for yourself. You wait for your master to write an article so you can praise him with words that make reasonable individuals wondering whether you have any dignity.
Scientific facts do not work with lapdogs or conspiracy theorists. It’s actually counter-productive. Lapdogs typical response to scientific facts is to chase the scientists away. They want their own community where their weird ideas are not allowed to be challenged with reality.
You don’t need to wait for proofs. You can read them. Your statement about corporate tax was ignorant, stupid and laughable. Your above statement about Russia is also ridiculous. A huge amount of Russians believe in weird conspiracy theories promoted by the state media. You did not check the multiple surveys from Russian themselves that prove that fact. And even if you check them you just cannot accept them because you are stupid and you wouldn’t tolerate any scientific fact that disturbs your level of comfort in your ignorant and conspiracy loaded world.
The best way to deal with you? Laugh at you. The more I debunk your statements the more frustrated and upset you get and your weird theories become even more insane. So, at the end you become a comedian…
“That the Clinton Foundation has done some good work is beyond dispute.”
Just using the desperately needy and vulnerable as convenient human shields.
Nice piece, Glenn. Genuine journalism is becoming a very rare commodity.
the twisted funny part…
When McCain refused to name names, Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, standing just eight feet from him said..
” I have been accused of being corrupt. … I take personal offense.”
Did the senate then howl with lafter? of did they duck?
This is another fine article by Glenn addressing one of the most poignant issues of our times.
Every parent faces the responsibility of teaching their children the difference between right and wrong. We do the best we can as we know that we must, because our children will come face to face with gray areas that will one day define their characters.
As parents and people that strive to live by some basic sense of morality it is our responsibility to not let our anti-leaders get away with this “money does not corrupt me scam”.
The only words we can offer our children about this are “It is absolutely wrong, amoral, and if the realm of Satan exists it brings him to his finest hour”.
Regarding the later paragraphs campaign donations clearly benefit the person running for office, as it is their number one goal at the time. That is different than a contribution to a charity that does not give money to the Clintons and as you said in the early part of the article “undisputedly does a lot of good” in the world. In neither case can you prove the favor, but one is clearly going to benefit the political recipient. Much worse than a charity donation–unless someone shows the Charity is a slush fund for the Clintons for which there has been no evidence.
Mrs. Clinton doesn’t get enough credit for being a political trailblazer. Now that she’s shown how easily a US Secretary of State can shake down foreign despots, all future paths to the Presidency will pass through the State Department. Given her pioneering role, I won’t nitpick by pointing out that she could have extracted much higher sums of money. Future Secretaries of State will be able to build on her efforts.
In a way, it’s surprising it took this long. All empires have extracted tribute from vassal states as the price for allowing the local nabobs stay in power. The US, for too long, was content to reap the imperial perks of having the dollar as the international reserve currency. But it’s possible to extract so much more, and it took the Clintons to figure it out.
Afterwards, everyone will claim it was obvious, But sometimes it takes genius to see the obvious. Americans may be mostly oblivious of Mrs. Clinton’s special talents, but history will acknowledge her accomplishments.
Thank you for saying it so well. Not since the Peron family has a country been so blessed as we have with the Clinton dynasty.
January 21 2017
President Hillary Rodham Clinton was impeached today.
Will two thirds of the Senate convict?
Looks like the Dems will win the Senate so no way.
All roads lead to the Clinton Foundation. . .
Here’s some breaking news of interest:
A United Arab Emirates dissident has had his iPhone targeted with malware based on several zero-day exploits, sourced by CitizenLab to an obscure U.S.-ownded Israeli technology firm, NSO, causing Apple to release new security updates for iPhone and iPad in the past few days:
http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/08/actively-exploited-ios-flaws-that-hijack-iphones-likely-spread-for-years/
Francisco Partners Management recently bought out Dell’s software unit with another equity fund for $2 billion:
Dell is a Clinton Foundation donor ($0.5-$1 million bracket); United Arab Emirates is a Clinton Foundation donor ($1-$5 million bracket).
Does the Clinton Foundation play a central role in helping the Gulf Arab dictatorships keep democratic reforms at bay? A sort of go-to coordinating role?
It’s as if every major sleazy outfit in world that does business with the U.S. government is a Clinton Foundation donor. Booz Allen Hamiltion (Snowden’s ex-employer), HSBC, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Duke Energy, General Electric, Microsoft, Monsanto, every Gulf Arab dictatorship, Tracfone (linked to Obamaphone program). . . the list is astonishing.
It’s almost like the Clintons are corrupt, and entrenched firmly within the compromised system of corporatism, militarism and imperialism that is the multinational bank-owned ‘American’ government.
The spyware was developed by NSO Group, an ISRAELI-based division of US-headquartered company Francisco Partners Management.
When murdering people then stealing their land is legal, is then murdering people then stealing their land wrong?
The push to portray Hillary Clinton as nice or ‘good’ is as laughable as the push to make Trump look serious.
Another great article, thank you!
These articles always seem to proceed from an opening statement something like “Of course the Clinton Foundation does good work”. The truth is we don’t know that much about the outcomes of the Foundation’s work, as an article in Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/clinton-foundation-controversy-actual-work) pointed out this week. There’s simply very little data, but people mindlessly repeat statements about what great work the Foundation is doing. Some aspects of the Foundation’s work are actually troubling, such as its promotion of microfinance (discussed by Thomas Frank: http://harpers.org/blog/2016/02/nor-a-lender-be/).
I would like investigative journalists actually to investigate what the Foundation is doing and has done. Organizations like these turn over millions of dollars. We need to know more about the outcomes of their work.
Agree.
Rancid racist, antisemite and Trump supporter, Victoria Boulevard,spews:
Replace Hillary with Trump and that’s exactly what some progressives say. I’m not voting for either of these vile creatures.
You, Victoria, are a racist who calls African-Americans “baboons” and says horribly antisemitic things that exculpates the Nazis. Of course you’re a Trump supporter: He’s literally the Klan candidate. (And thus allows Hillary Clinton to break form and concoct a truthful political ad.)
“Replace Hillary with Trump and that’s exactly what some progressives say. I’m not voting for either of these vile creatures.”
Very true.
‘The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12192975/The-KKK-leader-who-says-he-backs-Hillary-Clinton.html
Looks like neonazis love both.
Oh my. That guy is even weirder than your average Klansman:
But now he says he doesn’t like David Duke, and Duke supports Donald, so…
He’s got it in his head that Hillary has a secret, hidden agenda that is actual white supremacist. Or, for whatever reason, says he does. Just when you think this campaign season cannot get any more bizarre.
It isn’t enough to vote. We must turn into zombies and start eating rich people.
Actually until us sheeple get up enough chutzpah and march en masse, we do get what we deserve. Who will tie the bell around the cats neck, a dated expression but true. Until the poor/working class releases it self imposed bonds to consumerism and consumption, it is what it is.
The populace is very propagandized, and way too few people see through the duopoly – and you’re right, it’s often a pathetically willing submission to the propaganda, which gets really annoying lately because while both Clinton and Trump are both so obviously ethically compromised most people don’t care or want one of the gruesome twosome to be victorious.
Jill Stein could feasibly win if millions of students got off their hineys and voted for her cancelling their loan debts (that is, if the establishment honestly counts the votes), and what a president she would make! We have to step out of the Orwellian Free Speech Zones and yell truth to power, but most folk are too busy living too fast and distracted to even examine their own minds, let alone rise up against endemic corruption in politics.
Jill Stein 2016 – if you really want to annoy the establishment and save the planet.
Here’s the visionary (and remarkably optimistic) Dr. Stein a couple of days ago:
‘American people are in revolt, rejecting the two dominant parties’ – Dr. Jill Stein (12 mins)
“…very propagandized…” doesn’t really cut it anymore. This pandemic of willful ignorance has been in the making for a very long time. As a matter of fact, the U.S. was founded on the principles of “All (white rich) men are equal…” by people who owned slaves. That was Orwellian speak – roughly 130 years before Orwell was born. It still remains extremely elusive for the masses that the so called founding fathers were first and foremost very wealthy and they intended to keep it that way. Inbreeding of the establishment – since no wealthy plutocrat would marry a person from the lower Kast, the multiplied with itself. That may even constitute their proclivity for psychopathy – a psychopathy that continues to the present day.
The founding ‘fathers’ and their ilk devised a waterproof system of control to deal with the increasing masses. To get a good mental licking why things are they are now, please watch this:
https://thoughtmaybe.com/plutocracy/
Only when it sinks in that the whole left/right, Dem/Repub scheme was purposefully invented to, yup: divide and conquer. A population that is divided in left/right, Dem/Repub, can easily be incited against each other – forgetting that their real problem was always the rich. Of those one stated so fittingly “I can hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half.” J.Gould – Railroad Tycoon.
The most unnerving part of this all is simply the fact that this has been known for the longest time. With no redress for the non-rich part of the population. Every four years there is another ‘Good Cop – Bad Cop’ pony show and the masses predictably get all really excited and riled up about it, while the class to which the Clinton clan belongs is toasting with champagne and caviar just how stupid the masses are.
And indeed, they are time and time again falling for hook, line, sinker. To stay in the present – as Glenn has so fittingly remarked – so called Democrats have long surpassed Republicans in the sellout of the masses for the benefit of the few. But for those under the influence of the delusion to differ from the hard core rightwing fellowship of e.g. teabag Trump, Clinton has already reached a God-like status. In that they are even exponentially worse than the Republican followers. No crime is big enough to scratch on the sanctimoniousness of this known war criminal. The insistence of the Democrats on Clinton shows more than anything else that they are utterly indifferent to the proclaimed goals of their ‘workers party’. More like the NSDAP for sure with the only difference of leaving the ‘S’ out – Nationalistic American Workers Party.
The apologia towards Clinton can only be explained with a bad case of willful ignorance. People insist on voting for the un-votable. They insist on the delusion that there is a difference between D and R. Lacking the required intellect to concede that there has always only been ONE party – with two different names to it – R+D are but two sides of the establishment coin.
Last but not least,
“…but most folk are too busy living too fast and distracted to even examine their own minds…” for which they have been perfectly groomed since before 1776. Instead of demanding an overhaul of society, they cling on to the crumbs Clinton leaves them in the fridge. There are more important things than getting smart and standing up for a more just and equal society that is based on interdependence and not on the trickle down fairy. See for Yourself and I apologize if that is as disturbing to You and anybody else that is still able to think, as it was to me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoYjVTbLWyo
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092944/
Krokus – Eat The Rich
Not bad, but you aren’t seriously comparing these AC/DC wannabes to Motorhead are you? Motorhead was one of the greatest rock bands ever.
No shade to the author, but Stephens is wrong–selling a vote is different in kind (not degree) to preferential access. And an independent expenditure is money spent by a speaker to further their opinions. It’s very different from money given to someone else for them to spend.
Articles like this exposing the dirty money in politics need much wider coverage across social media.Linkedin is becoming much more political these days with political comments being posted on the site, and also political articles.The political elite establishment that have corrupted the political system, wont like this trend, so hopefully it will increase.
Keep after them Glenn. The Clintons’ brazenness in exploiting public service for personal gain is nothing short of breathtaking, not an ethical or honest bone in their bodies. As long as Hillary gets elected, they won’t give the nation’s outrage or scorn a second thought, just a casualty of doing business.
“James Carville announced that those who criticize the foundation are “going to hell.”
Earlier in the campaign, in reference to young women who might not vote for Hillary, Madeleine Albright declared that “there is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women.”
It seems that the Clintons’ supporters are very concerned with Hell, and they should be, because they are the ones most likely going there.
Hell for their ilk would be a life sentence in a men’s-only prison…
Thanks Glenn.
You restored some lost faith here. I for a while thought I’de be faced with the choice of discarding The Intercept altogether or having to indulge mediocre partisan journalism on a daily basis.
Please push through on that topic, there is plenty official material to get this most corrupt figure of american politics behind bars. In the comments alone, once you ditch the fanboys on both sides, there is a trove of stuff to exploit.
And there is wikileaks.
“I for a while thought I’d be faced with the choice of discarding The Intercept altogether or having to indulge mediocre partisan journalism on a daily basis.”
You know are about to face Mona’s wrath in 3…2…1…
Go away, you belong on another blog, not here. We have enough d1ckheads and c0nts spouting venom.
OMG you guys are so funny!!!!
You come on somebody else site and telling another one to leave. hehe
Mr. Greenwald:
Thank you for this insightful, convincing argument. I sure feel good after reading it because I’m absolutely fed up with so-called “progressives” who seem to have no trouble supporting Hillary Clinton, and who, in fact, have now become apologists for her and the Democratic Party.
One such progressive, Thom Hartmann, comes to mind. I used to have great respect for Mr. Hartmann, but now I consider him to be a PINO–Progressive in Name Only–who, I believe, is guilty of intellectual dishonesty concerning Secretary Clinton’s behavior during her stint at the State Department. I single Mr. Hartmann out because I used to listen to him all the time, but since the Democratic primary I find myself almost repulsed by his blind partisanship. He’s not the only one, of course.
Again, thank you for this excellent analysis; it’s made me feel as if my “take” on this situation is not just a function of my own political cynicism.
Your arguing that voting for someone is = to supporting ‘everything’ a candidate stands for. You can recognize all the corruption and cynical motives(hungry for power, militarism etc.) of Clinton and still can vote for her (maybe holding your nose). You just have to notice that other available (yes, he is the only one) option is a proto-facist. Notice Mr. Greenwald never made the argument that you should not vote for Clinton.
I have respect for both Thom and Glenn. They are just arguing in different areas.
The reality simply cannot be avoided that ” In the 2016 race, in a swing state, a vote ‘not for’ Clinton is vote ‘for’ Trump”.
Glenn…. Insulting our intelligence is Clinton’s M.O.
Bottom Line:
If you want to keep the wily, scheming, lying c*nt Hillary out of The White House, the only alternative is to vote Trump. Any thinking person knows this, so swallow your white guilt and black pride and just do it. You will not be sorry, and you’ll be doing this country a great service in the long run…
No, vote Jill Stein / Green, that’s a far better option.
The choice between the Hillary and the Donald is the choice between wars abroad and wars at home; the choice between cutting off your foot and cutting off your hand; the choice between herpes and gonorrhea.
I actually think Clinton is a bit more of a global threat than Trump is, this guy Marc Faber is spot on about this. She has that network of connections with criminals and dictators, Trump doesn’t. She’s actually more like a fascist in that respect. Trump would only do limited, local damage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y1PGb_F5ao
But no way would I vote for either one of those clowns. If either one is (s)elected, the only rational response will be to undermine their agendas as much as possible.
Needless to say, but I will:
A vote for any third party candidate is a de facto vote for Hillary. It is the cowards way to do it, and you know it. Don’t waste your vote on her.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for Hillary!
The people who will be wasting their votes are must assuredly not those who will be voting for the Green or Libertarian candidates, but rather those who delude themselves into thinking there is no choice. One of the reasons why our system has reached its present sad state is the persistent unwillingness of 85% of the electorate to open its eyes to the fundamental incompetence and corruption of the two wings of the Party.
You seem to have deluded yourself into thinking that any third party candidate has a chance to win the Presidency. At this time, they don’t, so any vote for them will only work to Hillary’s advantage, and we will all blame you and your delusional cohort if that shameless bastard Hillary takes office…
As this article by Glenn Greenwald makes clear, a vote for Hillary is a vote for Hillary.
Oh, my. So this is the argument?
Mr Trump, mentee to Roy Cohn, who built/bought casinos in NJ and was heir to a company that developed high-rises in NYC has a storied history of connections with mobsters and criminals. http://davidcayjohnston.com/
It’s common knowledge that businessman Trump has been taking money from the oligarchs. I am not drawing parallels, because I do not know what other ties may or may not exist. Mr Trump does what is good for Mr Trump – only.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial-ties-to-russia-and-his-unusual-flattery-of-vladimir-putin/2016/06/17/dbdcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290217-scarborough-trump-asked-about-adviser-about-using-nuclear
Trump to Advisor: Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?
Advisor: Because the world would be destroyed.
Trump to Advisor: So, explain to me again why can’t we use nuclear weapons?
Advisor: Because other countries would use them back and we’d be destroyed.
Trump to Advisor: I’m still not getting it. Why again can’t we just use nuclear weapons?
Advisor: Because the fall out and nuclear devastation to your hotels would cause you to lose money.
Trump: Oh,…..okay.
So don’t be a pusillanimous, say it outright – You want Hillary.
Thanks a lot…
If you believe that, I got a bridge to sell you. cheap.
Then spit it out Junior – who you gonna waste your vote on to get Hillary elected the coward’s way?
This is great. You’re using the exact same argument that the HRC lovers are using. A vote for x is actually a vote for (insert villainous candidate you don’t support)”.
So perfect.
And in this case correct.
Actually not. For example, in a solid Blue state of a solid red state, for example, Illinois and Mississippi, you can cast you vote for whomever you want and it will not change the electoral outcome.
However, if in Illinois and Mississippi the Green Party got 10% of the vote, Hillary and Donald would still win BUT the message that both parties have piles of krap could be sent.
Also, the Green Party would be much better poised to help fix the problem of the duopoly dictatorship from trying to make us choose the less stinking pile of krap as our only choice next time.
To just go along and choose the least bad smelling pile of rap this time means we will have only the same smelly choices next time!
I believe we are hoping for democracy in the USA thus one can vote for Hillary or for Trump, or for Stein or for the Socialist workers party. All are valid choices and it is important to have these differences in a democracy. I grew up under a military dictatorship where there was a choice between the ruling party and the official opposition. This government was eventually defeated partly by protest votes that refused to go along with the charade. Blank votes and joke votes outnumbered the official party making fools of all who were complicit. You can choose to vote your principles or you can vote against democracy by being complicit.
In this country, it is legal and socially okay to advocate for the candidate of your choice, and to provide your arguments for doing so. That is all I’m doing, and all that EVERYONE ELSE here knows that I am doing. Don’t be so foolish.
I think you have a reading disability. Why else would you call me foolish for more or less agreeing with you regarding your right to advocate for your candidate.
So, Clinton supporters say that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Trump, while Trump supporters say a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Clinton. . . could that have something to do with this?
http://www.mintpressnews.com/trump-clinton-refuse-explain-share-address-delaware/215907/
A little Delaware shell-corporation tax-dodging activity? So do you think Clinton gave Trump some advice, or was it the other way around? “There’s this great little place in Delaware, the IRS can’t touch anything you put there – but remember, you owe me one!”
First, you seem like a bully, which seems to align well with your political preference.
Second, yes, we all know there’s only two options on the ballot, but that the unfortunate reality is voting for status quo or status “doh!” doesn’t mean we “want” Hillary Clinton as our president. So we have 4 more years of entrenched oligarchy? It’s a bitter pill but… sure. I, and many others no doubt, would rather take the longer road to influence change than the short road of radical change through the absurd, hate espousing charlatan that’s really just here to sell more idiotic hats and t-shirts. I abhor Clinton, but calling people cowards and a pusillanimous (which is an adjective, by the way, not a noun), isn’t going to somehow badger folks into doing something completely idiotic at the ballot box.
You really are pretty funny with your adolescent arguments. Is that really the best you can do? :)
Actually, and unfortunately, it is not an entirely stupid question. The US has a fine reputation for abhorring nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons, land mines and cluster bombs while all the time continuing to manufacture them, selling some of them to other countries, refusing to sign treaties banning their use (even in cases where over 100 other nations are signatory), and publicly declaring reservation of the right to use them if we see fit.
Since the end of World War 2, every single US president has eschewed the use of nuclear weapons, even in cases where senior military commanders (e.g., Douglas McArthur) recommended their use. It took a great deal of restraint, and had political consequences in some cases (for instance helping the Republicans win the White House in 1952), but nearly everyone would agree that it was worth the price. The question for the present is whether Donald Trump is capable of exercising the degree of self control and restraint necessary to keep that record intact. Based on his behavior, observed on reality TV and the campaign trail, I think there is good cause for concern that he is not.
Which one of the major candidates is the proven Neocon war hawk?
Which one has a policy of wiping the Middle East clean of all Muslims so that Israel has a safe space around its borders?
I could go on, but history shows that only Hillary has the balls and gumption to use all the force at her disposal to create the her brutal vision.
Hillary and her husband and Obama are neoliberals, a word not know to most Americans. I cannot vote for a neoliberal under any circumstances. It is the ideology that is causing our nation’s serious poverty for which there is no escape. It also doubles and tripled the net worth of already super rich. Bernie was my choice until he kissed Hillary’ feet. Neocon she is too and that adds up to a perfectly horrible president, the Clintons becoming billionaires and the end of the middle class. Not to mention Hillary has done horrible things to women for those who think she is a feminist.
It’s really funny that you believe Clinton and Obama are neo-liberal. What proof do you have?
Obama has to his credit, the following:
-indefinate detention which includes US citizens
-secret kill list that includes US citizens
-started wars in Libya, Yemen Afghanistan & Syria
-loss of Right to jury trial and legal representation if accused of terrorism
-Wall Street bailouts
-zero prosecutions of 2008 financial collapse bank criminals
-expanded NSA spying on US citizens
Muslims are being killed by Muslims.
Just a few years ago, nobody would have even considered listening to a person as lawless as Hillary.
It’s not just the Clintons playing this game. Consider Republican John McCain, whose private foundation, the McCain Institute for International Leadership, took in at least $1 million from the Saudis:
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/05/25/john-mccain-saudi-paymasters.html
Look at that, Kerry and McCain side by side with their Saudi hosts. Bipartisan cooperation at last?
McCain and Lindsey Graham also traveled to Saudi Arabia to urge them to finance radical Islamic terror groups in a bid to overthrow Syria’s Assad, as reported in numberous articles, like this one in the Atlantic, June 2014: “Thank God for the Saudis: ISIS, Iraq, and the Lessons of Blowback”
Those forces were ISIS and Al Qaeda, who soon went off the rails and started threatening the House of Saud as well as Europe and other countries.
This is only to point out that the dirty game played by the Clinton Foundation is hardly unique, although the Clintons are clearly the leaders in leveraging dictators into donations in exchange for deals.
Doing money out of politics..
“In total, that’s $91 million for Team Clinton, versus $8 million for Team Trump.”
scares wallstreet media who want to advertise for power.
posting an unanswered question
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?
And what was the Clinton Foundation doing here – running a slush fund?
“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/
Also see http://fortune.com/2016/08/23/the-clinton-foundations-private-equity-puzzle/
Smoking gun of Hillary Clinton corruption
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
Source
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/clinton-foundation-investigation-update-key-details-about-financial-political
Any chance any one could tell me what this article is about except to malign Hil and Bill for putting their hearts into one of the highest rated charities in the US and helping millions of the uber poor? What is the implication here, that it’s not about helping people but about making money for themselves? If that’s what they wanted to do, they would have found much easier ways to do that, when you’re the most famous and potentially powerful couple in the world, just like when you’re the most famous rock star or actor, there is a nearly infinite number of ways to make mountains of cash. There are fifty others in the US that Bill’s agency represents who can make big cash on the speaking tour. So what is it? To make themselves look good in front of the public. Nah. They rarely brag about it. Bill wrote an amazing book called Giving: How Each of Us Can Change the world. Glenn has used his clout to outline why despots would give to the Clinton Foundation–and what a brilliant observation. They’re trying to make themselves look good, trying to cozy up to power.
But because somebody who wants to give moneyt has an ulterior motive, does that mean that Bill and Hill should turn down the money when that money would save lives?
Okay, let’s come down to earth and ask two people:
1) Mr. Glenn Greenwald
2) An AIDs survivor who needs his meds in Africa and lives off of two dollars a day, or better yet, the mother of a young twelve year old girl who will die without her meds.
Let’s see, what would Glenn say if he’s true to his own outstanding principles:
Glenn, are you there?
“That money is tainted, those Saudi’s are bad people and they were just trying to cozy up to power, so, yes of course, let the girl die.”
Now, let’s ask the AIDs survivor, or better yet, the mother of a child with AIDs, let’s go and ask her whether or not Bill should accept money from the rich Saudi’s to give to her twelve year old daughter who will die without it.
I’m all for carbon credits, but to use charities as ethics credits? Apparently a lot of people can’t compute the evil of that. It’s like buying indulgences from the pope reinvented.
Wake up to yourself.
“Hil and Bill” — that’s so precious.
As a matter of fact, TI told you what the article is about in the title:
Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?
And then Glenn expanded and elucidated in great detail, and with his usual skill and clarity, in each and every para from beginning to end.
How did you miss that?
Anyway, it seems that you may fall into one of the groups that Glenn addresses rather specifically, ATL, so I’ll just repeat him here:
HTH.
“Anyway, it seems that you may fall into one of the groups that Glenn addresses rather specifically, ”
Lol Lol Glenn did praise Chavez for using oil money for humanitarian assistance to the poor. His policy as predicted by those with elementary knowledge of economics resulted in more poverty. He was a demagogue.
Greenwald was insulting your intelligence by pretending Chavez donations were motivated by noble ends while it was just part of his strategy to stay in power.