Here is precisely why I dislike and distrust Hillary:

[cali]

This is really ugly and I don't see how it can be defended. This is a long article, worth the read and it also reflects concerns about the TPP. And yes, it also reflects poorly on President Obama. Certifying Columbia as respecting human and labor rights is just repugnant.


As Colombian Oil Money Flowed To Clintons, State Department Took No Action To Prevent Labor Violations

For union organizers in Colombia, the dangers of their trade were intensifying. When workers at the country’s largest independent oil company staged a strike in 2011, the Colombian military rounded them up at gunpoint and threatened violence if they failed to disband, according to human rights organizations. Similar intimidation tactics against the workers, say labor leaders, amounted to an everyday feature of life.

For the United States, these were precisely the sorts of discomfiting accounts that were supposed to be prevented in Colombia under a labor agreement that accompanied a recently signed free trade pact liberalizing the exchange of goods between the countries. From Washington to Bogota, leaders had promoted the pact as a win for all -- a deal that would at once boost trade while strengthening the rights of embattled Colombian labor organizers. That formulation had previously drawn skepticism from many prominent Democrats, among them Hillary Clinton.

Yet as union leaders and human rights activists conveyed these harrowing reports of violence to then-Secretary of State Clinton in late 2011, urging her to pressure the Colombian government to protect labor organizers, she responded first with silence, these organizers say. The State Department publicly praised Colombia’s progress on human rights, thereby permitting hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid to flow to the same Colombian military that labor activists say helped intimidate workers.

At the same time that Clinton's State Department was lauding Colombia’s human rights record, her family was forging a financial relationship with Pacific Rubiales, the sprawling Canadian petroleum company at the center of Colombia’s labor strife. The Clintons were also developing commercial ties with the oil giant’s founder, Canadian financier Frank Giustra, who now occupies a seat on the board of the Clinton Foundation, the family’s global philanthropic empire.

The details of these financial dealings remain murky, but this much is clear: After millions of dollars were pledged by the oil company to the Clinton Foundation -- supplemented by millions more from Giustra himself -- Secretary Clinton abruptly changed her position on the controversial U.S.-Colombia trade pact. Having opposed the deal as a bad one for labor rights back when she was a presidential candidate in 2008, she now promoted it, calling it “strongly in the interests of both Colombia and the United States.” The change of heart by Clinton and other Democratic leaders enabled congressional passage of a Colombia trade deal that experts say delivered big benefits to foreign investors like Giustra.

<snip>

http://www.ibtimes.com/colombian-oil-money-flowed-clintons-state-department-took-no-action-prevent-labor-1874464

[Smithryee]

1. Hillary supports H1B which decimates tech jobs here in the US

Indian tech workers are literally taking over the tech world.

Now I get Indian recruiters sending me jobs ppportunities that doesn't even come close to my qualifications. I suspect it is done to bring even more H1B people over here for cheap costs.

I'm at a unique opportunity - I own my own business, but can put it aside and have it generate income for bills, and I can take a lower pay than average (maybe 45,000-55,000) to take another job and still make enough to buy a house and use the side job to pay for the mortgage.

Win-win scenario for me, - just have to find the right job that works for me.

[bigtree]

2. so, in this scenario, the State Dept. acts independently from the President

...or is President Obama in on the deal with the Clintons?

'Murky' isn't the word for these charges. Questionable is a better word.

What is the direct benefit to the Clintons from Giustra donating to their foundation? That's never been clear in any of the criticism of donations made to the charitable organization.

Also, how is the State Dept. able to 'intervene' in anything without the approval of the President of the United States? Does the State Dept. have the authority to independently issue 'certifications' without the direction of the President?

I find these accusations questionable, notably for their inference that the State Dept. is able to act independently in these matters from the will and direction of the President. What's his motivation? That's not even remotely addressed in this article.

[cali]

3. As I said, this doesn't reflect well on President Obama either, but Hill's

intimate embrace of corporations that support the Clinton Foundation should trouble you.

Your endless excuses for her wear thin.

[Thinkingabout]

4. Would it trouble you if you was a recipient of the deeds from the Clinton Foundation?

Why a foundation which helps people around the world is now criticized is a problem for me. Do you know the projects the CGI is involved?

[bigtree]

6. you can't explain away my questions with the bullshit remark about 'excuses'

...that's just some kind of bullying tactic to avoid explaining why the accusations of collusion, corruption, and influence peddling in this article should be believed. It's disgusting that all you can do to address the critical question of what Pres. Obama's motivation is supposed to have been for involving himself and acquiescing in what's described as some sort of quid pro quo with donations to a charity fund which doesn't appear to directly benefit the Clintons at all is to attack me personally for asking.

Show me where I've 'excused' Hillary Clinton for anything in the article. You can't, because I haven't made any such excuse.

You haven't explained why President Obama would approve these actions. That would make these accusations more believable than the assertions in the article that the State Dept. made these decisions independently. Is President Obama in cahoots with Giustra, as well?

And you'll have to do more than just point to donations to the Clinton's charitable foundation. Show me how they directly benefited the Clintons. That's always been the issue in these accusations over the years, no matter where the donations came from, Where is the direct benefit to the Clintons? That would seem to be an imperative when making accusations about some quid pro quo.

And, don't bother to spew off another vile attack on my character. The questions still stand, no matter how forcefully you attempt to deflect from your article's questionable accusations.

[joeybee12]

5. Thanks for posting from such a "liberal" source...

Honestly, when something from a very conservative rag suits your pre-conception, you jump right on it...and you wonder why Repukes control the House and Senate.

[cali]

9. this is not a conservative site, dear.

[joeybee12]

10. Yes it is sweetie...sorry you can't even see that...I will post exactly...

what I posted on another thread...and your denial of the true motives and slant of the IBT simply confirm your gullability and/or total dislike of all things Clinton that you can't even see straight:

The "report" ran in the IBT, a right-wing rag, other publications, such as The Hill add nothing, yet run it as a story in essence confirming it because the IBT ran it, without confirming it on their own...that's how the right wing smear machine works...thanks for enabling them.

[Kingofalldems]

7. Maybe you could combine all your anti-Hillary posts into one thread.

[AtomicKitten]

8. Great post. Follow the money.

Run.Elizabeth.Run