Reason #856 Why Folks Call Clinton Corrupt: Massive Arms Sales in Xchange for $$$$$ Donations

[amborin]

In 2011, the State Department cleared an enormous arms deal: Led by Boeing, a consortium of American defense contractors would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns over the kingdom's troublesome human rights record. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Times investigation released Tuesday.

The Saudi transaction is just one example of nations and companies that had donated to the Clinton Foundation seeing an increase in arms deals while Hillary Clinton oversaw the State Department.

IBT found that between October 2010 and September 2012, State approved $165 billion in commercial arms sales to 20 nations that had donated to the foundation, plus another $151 billion worth of Pentagon-brokered arms deals to 16 of those countries—a 143 percent increase over the same time frame under the Bush Administration.

The sales boosted the military power of authoritarian regimes such as Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, which, like Saudi Arabia, had been criticized by the department for human rights abuses......



http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals

eta: Saudi Arabia (Sunni/Wahhabi) is using some of those fighter jets to bomb Houthis (Shiites) in Yemen, with massive civilian casualties; YET---the Houthis have been constantly FIGHTING AGAINST AL QUEDA in Yemen! INSANITY

[snagglepuss]

1. k and r

[yourpaljoey]

2. So much to explain away... who has time to talk issues?

Another baggage car will be along shortly.
Trump would have a field day with this.

[Cheese Sandwich]

3. rec

[AtomicKitten]

4. This reeks of quid pro quo.

"Prove it," says Clinton fans.

This reminds me of the evolution of public opinion of the Bill Cosby mess. As victims came forward and accusations piled up, it became damn near impossible to believe he is innocent. The plethora of evidence - one count after another - arms sold followed/preceded by a yuuge Clinton Foundation donation - that makes this stink to high heaven. Just the appearance of wrongdoing should have prevented this from happening. But no. The Vast Rightwing Conspiracy is being mean to Hillary. Yeah, that's it. (rolls eyes) She is not fit for the top job.

k/r

[amborin]

5. Let's see if Hillary bashes Boeing in SC: Boeing shifted work there from Washington state

to derail an IAM union battle....now Boeing workers in right to work South Carolina are getting a fraction of the
union wages that workers got in WA state.

Will Hillary call Boeing on this? I wont' hold my breath

[thereismore]

6. Quid pro quo. No proof but a huge appearance of impropriety.

Good enough for me.

[Buns_of_Fire]

7. This is what I can't understand...

Why go out of your way to create question marks over your future candidacy? Hubris? Piss-poor advisers?

Has the entire process devolved THAT much that candidates just don't care "what it might look like" anymore?

(Oh, and to whoever gave me the hearts: Thank you. )

[thereismore]

8. As they say, where there is fire... and there is plenty of smoke! nt

[Arazi]

9. But she's the foreign policy expert doncha know

Here's all the bad shit about Hillary Clinton wrapped into one deal. A prime example

[jalan48]

10. For Sale! Hillary's real campaign slogan.

[SammyWinstonJack]

14. To the highest bidder, it's what they offer(ed)

[MisterP]

11. this just in, Mother Jones part of the GOP lie machine! nt

[cantbeserious]

12. We Us Together - Vs - Me MyBank And I -- The Choice Is Clear

eom

[EdwardBernays]

13. It's not just SA in Yemen.

The US and the UK are also committing war crimes in Yemen.

[Jarqui]

15. The House goes after her on a trumped up Benghazi fishing inquisition

that turns up nothing and then the email thing (I do think the authorities have proven somebody broke the law there).

There were more
9 Companies That Paid Clinton To Speak And Donated To Clinton Foundation Also Lobbied Clinton At State Department – OpEd

and this
181 Clinton Foundation donors who lobbied Hillary's State Department

Clinton Foundation raised $26 million in Sweden while Swedish government lobbied Hillary Clinton to ditch Iran sanctions: report

Someone even writes a book on it (which many heard about)
Clinton Cash LP: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich
and they have more articles on other stuff that has gone on

Sen. Grassley Demanded DOJ look into Hillary’s ‘Clinton Cash’ Uranium Transfer to Russia

Some of the book was refuted here:
The truth about the Hillary Clinton-Russia-Uranium 'scandal'
and here:
Sheikh Mohammed Al Amoudi’s Response to ‘Clinton Cash’

I looked at David Brock sites, Clinton campaign responses & responses from Hillary.

On one hand, there isn't much hard evidence. But the coincidences are staggering.

Then there was this discussion

Stephanopoulos: “We have no evidence of government action.”

Halperin: “Well there were government actions taken. What we don’t know, and this goes to the emails, is what kind of communication did Hillary Clinton have on her private email account regarding her husband’s speeches and regarding the foundation’s activities that involved foreign donations?

“If they hadn’t been so careless at the foundation, if she hadn’t deleted the emails and they put somebody out on the show today to answer the questions, I think a lot of this could be put to rest. But none of those things are true.”

Heilemann:“That specific question that arises, which is: Are emails that revolved around these issues—your husband’s foundation work—did those fall under what you considered private emails and personal emails and therefore were flushed down the drain? Or were they part of the public record?

“That is a question that has not been addressed, and she should answer that question, I think, because it goes to the core of whether there was the appearance of an obstruction of justice activity on her part by getting rid of that email server.”
....
Halperin: “Here’s why you know this is serious, because almost any Democrat who’s not Clintons’ payroll will tell reporters and others privately that these are serious issues,” he said. “Forget the politics. These are serious issues. The question for me right now is all these donors who gained and all these people who paid President Clinton to give speeches, what kind of communications did they have with people in the government? That may not be a quid pro quo, but everybody knows that a lot of those donations were from people who wanted access to the Clintons.”

The twist there is with the recovery of the deleted emails last September, they've got everything.

Even if she was innocent, like Benghazi, why wouldn't they drag her through the mud of a congressional hearing?

These are the only things I've seen in congress:
https://www.congress.gov/crec/2015/06/15/CREC-2015-06-15-pt1-PgH4370.pdf

This brings me to the Clinton family's next scandal. While Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State, the Clinton family foundation continued to accept millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments. All told, seven foreign nations, including Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and Algeria, donated money to the Clinton Foundation during the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

These contributions raised questions about Secretary Clinton's independence and ethical judgment. But when some of the $1 million donations in question came from nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, it raises concerns about whether these nations were hoping to gain better diplomatic ties to the United States through sizable donations to the Clinton Foundation. When the Secretary of State is playing fast and loose with the rule of law, even ignoring a memorandum of understanding with the White House regarding a questionable donation from the Algerian Government, it is extremely difficult to trust her judgment or her word when she claims not to have broken any laws.

IRS RESPONSE LETTER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
Tennessee (Mrs. BLACKBURN) for 5 minutes.
https://www.congress.gov/crec/2015/06/11/CREC-2015-06-11-pt1-PgH4165-3.pdf

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the IRS response letter that was sent to me and 51 of my colleagues asking for an investigation of the Clinton Foundation’s tax-exempt status.

....
I think it is important to talk about why we were asking for clarity on the Clinton Foundation and their tax-exempt status. We all have 501(c)(3) notfor-profit organizations that do great
work in our communities. Many of these organizations had come to us— their Member of Congress—and said: What do you know about how the Clinton Foundation works? What about
these foreign donations that are coming into the Clinton Foundation?

...
The American people are wanting to know how this charity keeps a not-for-profit status and how they conduct business. It is appropriate that we write the IRS and ask for clarity on this situation, doing it on behalf of our constituents who are seeking answers to questions.

....
Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to follow this issue. ....

Clinton Foundation was subject of State Department investigation in 2015

U.S. State Department investigators last year issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation seeking documents about projects run by the charity that may have required U.S. government approval when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, the Washington Post reported on Thursday.

A U.S. official said the matter was being investigated by the Inspector General, the State Department's internal watchdog.

I think there's little doubt they're going to weigh in at some point. The GOP House is not going to let Hillary move into the White House without dragging her and probably Bill through this. The only question seems to be when.

Benghazi and the email scandal hurt her - boosting her untrustworthy numbers and lowering her favorability. I think this would be ten times worse because millions of dollars are involved though some of that damage may have happened when the book came out.