As one who advocates for a more peaceful world, I find this very troubling

[Scuba]

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department

Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

...

In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual contributors’ donations, making a more precise accounting impossible.

Why are countries with horrendous records on human rights donating to the Clinton Foundation?

Why are corporations dedicated to arms manufacturing donating to the Clinton Foundation and paying the Clintons millions in speaking fees?

Why is the Clinton Foundation, purportedly engaged in improving the human condition, accepting donations from these countries and corporations?

[DanTex]

1. Old news. This is already in the archives of Hillary bashing. Get some new material.

[Scuba]

2. Are you suggesting that it's no longer true? Or that a one week old article doesn't belong in GD?

[DanTex]

3. Been discussed over and over. No quid pro quo. Entirely unrelated events.

[Scuba]

4. No quid pro quo? How do you know that?

And doesn't approving billions in arms sales to these countries trouble you? It sure as hell troubles me.

[DanTex]

5. There's not the slightest evidence or indication of quid pro quo. It only exists in the minds of

Hillary bashers. And like I've said, it's been discussed over and over. Find some new material.

Like, maybe Hillary cheated when she was doing the crossword puzzle this morning. You probably want to look into that.

[Scuba]

6. There's ample indication in the arms sales approvals following the donations. More to the point ...

... why are arms dealers donating to the Clinton Foundation? Why are countries with abusive human rights records donating to the Clinton Foundation? Why is the Clinton Foundation accepting donations froms these sources?

What happened to Hillary's pledge “to protect against even the appearance of a conflict of interest"?

[DanTex]

7. And also arms sales approvals that don't follow donations. Like I said no quid pro quo

except in the minds of Hillary bashers. See, there are two kinds of people:
--people who hate Hillary with the burning passion of a thousand suns
--people who don't care about this kind of speculative nonsense that Hillary (and Obama, and Democrats generally) have been dealing with for decades.

[Scuba]

10. There's a third kind. Those who blindly support Hillary despite her long litany of flaws.

[DanTex]

14. She's flawed, like any other candidate, or human for that matter.

Flawed candidates are the only kinds of candidates that exist.

[Divernan]

11. The International Business Times is not a "hillary basher"

At a press conference in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.

[DanTex]

16. I was referring to the OP. The press is the press. They like digging dirt on Clinton becuase

it gets a lot of hits.

If anyone thinks that Hillary Clinton would alter the course of US foreign policy in a quid pro quo deal for $10M that didn't even go to her personally, but to the Clinton Foundation, they need to get their head examined. The Clinton foundation has raised over $2B. $10M is a drop in the bucket.

It's funny that on a supposedly progressive message board, the threads about how horrible the Clinton Foundation is outnumber the threads about all the great humanitarian work they are doing by about 10-1.

[zeemike]

26. You know that should tell you something.

That people have lost faith...and it is not just here on DU.
And you don't get them back by denying that this shit happens...sticking one's head in the sand does not make it go away.

But as one said, a million here a million there and pretty soon you have some real money.
People who have lost trust in the system will not believe that all that 2 billion goes to help people...we have become too cynical for that...and with good reason.

[DanTex]

29. Denying that what happens? Quid pro quo? Yes, I'll deny that that happened, because it didn't.

How insanely stupid would it be for Hillary to change the course of US policy, thereby threatening both the Obama administration and her own political future, for what amounts to 0.5% of the money that her family foundation has raised.

[Bonobo]

32. Actually it can be neither proven nor disproven. nt

[DanTex]

34. Right, so it's in the same category as the hypothesis that Bernie Sanders is a serial rapist.

After all, he did write that creepy article. I'm not saying it's proven, just that we don't know one way or the other...

[Bonobo]

35. If you think the two are equally likely, I may have overestimated your intelligence. nt

[DanTex]

36. I'm saying neither are proven or disproven, which was precisely your standard for

justifying this piece of Hillary-bashing.

Both are highly unlikely, of course. Though I'll grant you, the serial rapist theory is more unlikely.

[Bonobo]

39. Sadly I don't think Hillary needs to be bribed to support massive arms sales to the Saudis.

So I guess maybe we agree sort of kind of in a vague kinda way.

[zeemike]

38. What proof of quid pro quo is there?

You would have to tape a conversation between them where one says I'll give you money and you give me this...do you really think that ever takes place?...you will never find that in any such deal.

It is like when a TV personality asked someone with mob ties in joking, "how much would it cost me to have someone whacked" and the mob man laughed and said it don't work that way. You do the job with the expectation that reward will come.

[pangaia]

40. " $10M is a drop in the bucket. "

Oh...?


Sure wish I had a drop in a bucket.

[DanTex]

41. Yes, $2B is quite a bit of money that the Clinton foundation has raised for humanitarian causes.

On any other planet except for DU, that would be laudable.

[Adrahil]

46. But Hillary did it, so she's the Debil!!!!

The Hillary bashing is getting raised to epic (and ridiculous) proportions.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Is that the same Saudi Arabia whose King died and the US President dropped everything to go kiss

the new King's cheek, just as every US President holds their hands and does as they wish? Obama lavished praise and presence upon them, as did Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan....all the while the Saudis being human rights abusers of the very worst kind.
It's hard for me to look at the US relationship to the Kingdom and credit it all to Hillary freaking Clinton. A bit much.

[drynberg]

22. Ummm, this was the first I heard of this and it doesn't sound like bashing The Hill, unless of

Course, that's was you say with every piece of news...a better question is: Is this TRUE? And if so, WHY?

[DanTex]

27. It's true that those countries (among others) got larger weapons sales. It's also true that they

(among many others) donated to the Clinton Foundation. It's not true that this was some kind of quid pro quo.

[L0oniX]

48. For some if there is smoke there is no fire.

[FlatBaroque]

8. You have to understand

corporations do not expect anything in return. They simply enjoy the hell out of listening to Hillary talk. Don't you?

[L0oniX]

49. LOL

[Oilwellian]

63. ROFL

They pay extra if she speaks with a Southern drawl.

[Sienna86]

9. The basic questions still rightfully exist.

Why would the State Department/US supply arms to countries with poor human rights records?

Why would the Clinton Foundation accept donations from countries with poor human rights records?

[fasttense]

12. Oh not this agin.

I'm no fan of Hillary but when things like this get posted over and over again, you have got to think RepubliCONS are the ones pushing it.

And every time this gets posted on DU, a RepubliCON gets his horns.

[Scuba]

13. Why? Don't you think Democrats are in favor of peace over war?

[fasttense]

15. By reposting this old news

You give leverage to RepubliCONS. This is exactly what Koch brothers GOP wants you to do. They want you to keep reposting every awful thing about Democratic lead politicians available because dirty campaigns turn off voters.

Try posting on the real issues instead of slinging mud.

[Scuba]

18. So taking fat fees from arms merchants is not a "real issue" to you?

'Cause it sure as hell is a real issue to me.

[fasttense]

19. You have no idea how you are playing into RepubliCONS' hands

And I'm tired of explaining it to you.

[Scuba]

21. The idea that criticizing a Democrat from the left plays into the Repubs hands is ludicrous.

[DanTex]

31. How is that ludicrous? Republicans have explicitly stated that this is their strategy, going so

far as to actually publish articles criticizing Hillary from the left. So congrats, you are doing exactly what the GOP wants you to do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/politics/the-right-aims-at-democrats-on-social-media-to-hit-clinton.html

[Fuddnik]

37. I think defending her from the left is insane.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be full of shit.

[noiretextatique]

74. so...Clinton, and democrats can never be criticized?

Is that your position? You would not be alone in that belief, but it is still a ridiculous assertion.

[Divernan]

24. Meanwhile, back in the real world . . .

More from the OP link/International Business Times

While governments and defense contractors may not have made donations to the Clinton Foundation exclusively to influence arms deals, they were clearly “looking to build up deposits in the 'favor bank' and to be well thought of,” said Gregory Suchan, a 34-year State Department veteran who helped lead the agency’s oversight of arms transfers under the Bush administration.

As Hillary Clinton presses a campaign for the presidency, she has confronted sustained scrutiny into her family’s personal and philanthropic dealings, along with questions about whether their private business interests have colored her exercise of public authority. As IBTimes previously reported, Clinton switched from opposing an American free trade agreement with Colombia to supporting it after a Canadian energy and mining magnate with interests in that South American country contributed to the Clinton Foundation. IBTimes’ review of the Clintons’ annual financial disclosures also revealed that 13 companies lobbying the State Department paid Bill Clinton $2.5 million in speaking fees while Hillary Clinton headed the agency.

[Trajan]

52. Yes. .. We should all just shut up ...

Lest we do the devil's work and be laid bare as evil Republicans ...

Nobody should ever criticize Hillary, ever, or they be republicans ...

[-none]

44. Isn't it also true that Republicans don't like history, because it reminds people how bad they keep

screwing things up?
Not liking history is a Republican trait. Democrats have more of a tendency to learn from history, even from other people's history, so are less likely to repeat previous mistakes.

[L0oniX]

51. Giving Hilary a free pass on everything is what the oligarchy wants. You give leverage to the 1%.

[Blanks]

33. I'm an advocate for peace too...

But selling arms to a country that is not at war is not necessarily promoting war. Countries need to be able to defend themselves in the event there is war.

...and unless we're selling weapons to a country that is using those weapons against their own people, I don't see how their record on human rights is relevant.

One of the stupid things that we did prior to attacking Iraq was claim that they had certain weapons. Of course they had those weapons, we sold them to them. It's ridiculous to think that a country shouldn't be able to defend themselves, particularly in the Middle East. Selling arms manufactured by American companies gives us two advantages. One, it is good for our economy. Two, we know the weaknesses of the arms that another country possesses.

As much as I'd like to see peace break out all over the world, I don't believe it's a smart move building foreign trade around the hope that peace is just gonna spontaneously break out if we don't sell and manufacture arms.

As far as Hillary's motivation and the ties to the Clinton Foundation. It sounds like the kind of crap I see from my right-wing friends on Facebook.

[KoKo]

50. Secretary of State's job is not to be involved with Arms Sales and conflict with Clinton Foundation

Donors makes it newsworthy.

Cheney/Halliburton conflicts of interest were reported widely here along with Bush Families ties to support for Saudi Arabia and their Oil Deal conflicts. If this were a Republican SOS it would be approved reporting but because its Hillary Clinton it is not?

[Blanks]

55. Was she breaking the law?

I realize that everyone complained about Bush/Cheney, perhaps that's because we are democrats.

I'm not offering some blanket immunity for Hillary because she's a democrat, but if this story has been vetted and no wrongdoing was found, revisiting the story ad nauseum seems more like the kind of thing that you'd witness in right-wing circles - not on a message board designed exclusively for democrats.

Bush/Cheney were sleazy, started a war. A war where their cronies profited mightily. There's a huge difference between selling arms manufactured in America and starting a war for personal profit.

[Scuba]

59. Is that how low the bar is for you? If no law was broken, regardless of how horrible ...

... the actions, it's all A-OK with you?

Selling arms to countries with horrendous human rights records is OK because no law was broken. Wow, just wow.

[Blanks]

60. I explained in a different post...

The issue that I had with selling arms to countries with human rights violations (if they aren't using the weapons against their people what's the problem?).

The low bar that I have is that when a story has been brought up, discussed and cast aside like manure, then it appears like a smear campaign to keep bringing it up.

[Blanks]

61. Here's the thing...

This 'selling of arms to Saudi Arabia' story has nothing to do with the Clinton Foundation.

What's it about, Israel is upset about us selling arms to their enemy in the region. This sort of thing also upsets certain Christian groups that think we should always side with Israel.

Another thing that it's about - American jobs.

The article in the OP is misleading in the way most 'click-bait' articles are in that if you follow the links, like the one where this statement is made:

Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally.

It is obvious that this deal is important to the president, the DOD, and a bunch of manufacturers, not just Hillary, but anyone interested in keeping the economy going.

http://m.state.gov/md179777.htm

Because of jobs, not because of the Clinton Foundation.

Excerpt:

And lastly, this agreement will positively impact the U.S. economy and further advance the President’s commitment to create jobs by increasing exports. According to industry experts, this agreement will support more than 50,000 American jobs. It will engage 600 suppliers in 44 states and provide $3.5 billion in annual economic impact to the U.S. economy.

The deal was so important that they signed it on Christmas Eve. Yes, Hillary, as a member of the president's cabinet, makes the things that are important to him a priority.

Just because someone wants for there to be 'bad news' about Hillary Clinton, and that 'bad news' can be found. It doesn't necessarily mean that the 'bad news' is entirely accurate.

[Scuba]

62. If she had the principles I'm seeking, she would have resigned in protest.

[Blanks]

64. In protest of what? eom

[Scuba]

65. Selling arms to human rights abusers, but you've made clear that's OK with you.

[Blanks]

66. You have to draw a line somewhere...

We do a lot of trade with China, and they are the worst human rights abusers in the world.

Realistically, we're not contributing to the abuse of the citizens of a country by selling them fighter jets, nearly as much as we're contributing to the abuse of the citizens of a country by buying goods manufactured in that country by slave wages.

As far as 'quitting' to make a point about something that one doesn't agree with, how can someone do anything about those problems if they've dropped out of the game?

It isn't that I'm a huge fan of Hillary, but I don't think the article in the OP is fair and accurate reporting. I would probably point it out if it were a republican that they were trashing.

I don't think it makes us better informed voters by feeding us information that isn't true. In my few minutes of looking into this, it looks like they've toyed with the truth to make nonexistent connections.

[Scuba]

67. Resigning in protest and making a public statement isn't "dropping out of the game" especially ....

... when one has the national presence of a Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

By the way, you wrote "I don't think it makes us better informed voters by feeding us information that isn't true." Which part of it are you claiming isn't true?

[Blanks]

68. The connection...

If you read the excerpted part that I posted earlier (from a link in the article), it's pretty clear that the DOD, the president, the manufacturers (and all of their suppliers) were enthused about the sales of arms to Saudi Arabia because of the American jobs that were created or at least maintained by this deal.

That's a whole lot of folks trying to get an arms deal to boost the economy. The article in the OP acts as though Hillary 'made this deal' exclusively to reward the folks who donated to the Clinton Foundation.

It's a huge stretch, and the fact that the article linked to that press statement, and the press statement did nothing to confirm what the article in the OP alleged, all that brings the source's reliability into question.

As I said before, they're smearing Hillary, and the headline is 'click bait', the connection is a stretch. I'm not convinced of any wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton as a result of the story. If she did anything wrong, she had a whole lot of accomplices. Its hardly newsworthy if there were a lot of people who fought for the deal because they benefitted too.

[Scuba]

71. So you think everyone was enthused about the jobs? Man, that's naive beyond belief.

[Blanks]

72. Oh good heavens no...

I'm sure they were all lying when THEY GAVE 'JOBS' AS THE REASON (in the press release) I'm certain that the reality is that they're just kissing Hillary's ass in the hopes that when she becomes president they will all continue to work for her.



All democrats have a stake in keeping the economy improving while the president is a democrat. Whether they're working for the DOD, the State Department, or a member of congress. With the republicans controlling congress, this is something that even the republicans can promote to keep people working since republicans that have defense industry jobs in their district are going to support selling a product manufactured by their constituents. The republicans aren't going to pass infrastructure spending under this president, so yeah, jobs are good for the democrats.

I think it's very likely that the people in the press release were actually enthused about keeping Americans working selling fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, and I think it had nothing to do with Saudi Arabia making donations to the Clinton Foundation.

[Scuba]

58. Wow, that's really, really sad to read on a board composed of (supposedly) only Democrats.

[Divernan]

17. The investigative report is only one week old.

We're not rehashing her problems on the Watergate committee, or other bits of her baggage from the 90's.

Guess this is the new damage control mode for HRC supporters? Anyone who criticizes/questions HRC's actions as Secretary of State (which is a huge chunk of the experience her supporters state qualifies her to run for POTUS) is a "RepubliCON"? And after it's been reported once, it is verboten to ever mention it again?

$165 billion worth of weapons are still in the hands of countries with despicable records on human rights. And those tens of millions they donated to the Clinton Family Foundation are still subsidizing 5 star international conferences, private jet travel, etc. More from the OP link:

The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.

[Laser102]

30. LOL!!

[madokie]

20. Bernie all the way for me

So far nothing I've read about the man gives me pause. I can't say the same for the other two. I'll vote in the general for the Democratic Nominee no matter what because I'm a democratic party hound but my preference is Bernie Sanders.

[Dustlawyer]

25. So the arguemenus are:

1. It's a week old and been posted before (First I have seen it and I am here a lot);
2. Blanket statement that there is no quid pro quo;
3. 10 million not that much;
4. Pointing out negative facts about Hillary helps the Republicans so we shouldn't talk about it;
5. Nothing mentioned about the money to the Clintons personally. Large sums for speaking for 20-40 minutes.

Sorry, I am not yet convinced.

[GummyBearz]

45. If you lived in backwards land you would understand why those 5 points make sense!

[jeff47]

54. I like how each step refutes the previous one.

We'll have to figure out where they're going to put "That's sexist!!" in their sequence of arguments.

[raouldukelives]

56. The argument is "Trust me. I got this."

Doing deals with weapons contractors, getting rich off war, helping and compromising with the right has almost got them to totally trust us.
It's all part of a grand plan we can't know for the success of the plan. Our long running, 30 year plan to infiltrate and..I can say no more!

[Laser102]

28. Sooo, Obama had no idea? Hillary Clinton's State Department did all of this on her own?

Right. Pull the other leg.

[Dont call me Shirley]

42. When the 99% refuse to participate in the wars made by the 1% we will have peace.

Refuse to participate, don't join, don't work in their weapons companies.

[KingCharlemagne]

43. Sexist pig! \sarcasm\ - nt

[BrotherIvan]

57. We're not quite there yet

They're keeping their powder dry.

[MyNameGoesHere]

47. She should have told her boss

the old darling of DU that he shouldn't sell weapons to bad guys. Now watch me drive this drone into a wedding party.

[fadedrose]

53. Take cheer, dear Scuba

just turned on the TV and heard her ratings have gone down again.

Biden's are at 14% and he's not even running, and Bernie's getting stronger.

And it's nothing we did. Our voice here in DU is very small..

[L0oniX]

69. Oh come on now ...FFS ...we need to trust rich people. They're just like us.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. Absoutely! Even "Dead Broke" rich people.

[Octafish]

73. Big Backers of Clinton Foundation Found in Leaked Swiss Bank Files: Report

Geez that's a lot of money.

Big Backers of Clinton Foundation Found in Leaked Swiss Bank Files: Report

Whether legal or not, Hillary Clinton's deep connections with the planet's financial elite may cast a shadow of her attempts to play the populist in the 2016 election

byJon Queally, staff writer
Common Dreams, Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Large financial backers of the Clinton Foundation charitable fund have been found among those named in the trove of leaked documents from a Swiss division of HSBC bank this week, raising questions about the integrity of such individuals and what it says about the relationships they have with the powerful Clinton family.

According to the Guardian newspaper, which broke the story, on Tuesday:

Leaked files from HSBC’s Swiss banking division reveal the identities of seven donors to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation with accounts in Geneva.

They include Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate and one of the foundation’s biggest financial backers, and Richard Caring, the British retail magnate who, the bank’s internal records show, used his tax-free Geneva account to transfer $1m into the New York-based foundation.

Hillary Clinton has expressed concern over growing economic inequality in the US and is expected to make the issue a cornerstone of her widely anticipated presidential campaign in 2016. However, political observers are increasingly asking whether the former secretary of state’s focus on wealth inequality sits uncomfortably with the close relationships she and her husband have nurtured with some of the world’s richest individuals.

The newspaper notes that it is perfectly legal for citizens from around the world—including those from the U.S. and Canada—to hold bank accounts in Geneva and reports there is "no evidence any of the Clinton donors with Geneva accounts evaded tax."

However, with Hillary Clinton now considered the Democratic Party frontrunner for 2016, the revelations may once again cast a special shadow over such dealings.

As Reuters reported last September ahead of a high-profile event for the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City, "When Hillary Clinton rubs shoulders with financial executives and philanthropic giants... it will underscore the tension between her elite connections and populist image likely to feature in her expected 2016 presidential campaign."

"If you look at her track record from the past, it is out of step with the current Democratic Party," said Charles Chamberlain, executive director of liberal group Democracy For America, at the time. "Not on social issues, but definitely on economic issues, so we're going to be watching very carefully."

As Common Dreams reported last summer:

Clinton has been looked on with suspicion by progressives following high-paid speaking engagements with Goldman Sachs and other powerful Wall Street institutions since leaving her post at the State Department. And last month, Clinton put her weight behind the powerful biotech industry by speaking at their national conference, not only endorsing their business model but offering political advice on how to overcome public opposition to the use of genetically-modified seeds and industrial-scale, chemical-based agriculture.

Also this week, comments made by Clinton suggest her political strategy, if elected, would follow her husband's well-worn tactic of "triangulation," tacking to the political right as a way to curry favor with Republican and corporate interests, but doing so in a way that ameliorates the objections of progressives and liberals. Bill Clinton was famous for doing this when he passed "welfare reform" legislation and deregulated the financial industry in the nineties, both of which, according to many experts and analysts, say paved the way for the current economic crisis the country is now suffering.

Asked for comment by the Guardian about the foundation's receipt of money from donors with Swiss bank accounts, a spokesperson for Clinton declined to comment.

"It is unclear whether the foundation has ever questioned the offshore status of supporters," the newspaper reported, "although foundation officials stress they thoroughly vet contributors regardless of where the donation originated from."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

SOURCE: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/02/10/big-backers-clinton-foundation-found-leaked-swiss-bank-files-report

It should go in a bank where it'd be safe, like UBS. That's in Switzerland.

[Jefferson23]

75. Because our foreign policy sucks and has been a trainwreck almost forever. We push them around,

not sure why anyone thinks its the other way.