Both Sellers and Buyers contributed to Clinton Foundation to get arms deals through.

[Motown_Johnny]

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

^snip^

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

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences 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 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.




Supply side ya know....

[GeorgiaPeanuts]

1. Well that's what they offered!

[Joob]

2. Let's ignore this completely! Must be right wing propaganda...

[beedle]

3. Oh come on now

Sure it looks suspicious, but it's not like Hillary, as SoS, set up her own underground communications systems to avoid having her emails subject to FOIA requests, or something like that ...all perfectly innocent no matter how suspicious it looks.

Hillary is just one of those people who suffer from really long odds things that could be seen as criminal always "just happening" to her ... like that innocent time a lawyer/future trader/lobbyist friend of her (when she was first woman of Alabama) talked her into investing $1000 into cattle futures and in what experts called a '1 in 35 trillion against' likelihood, turned it in just 10 months into a $100,000 return ... and then luckily enough, no one bothered to investigate it or even release the story until after the statue of limitations had expired.

All innocent bits of 'luck'.

[Scuba]

4. Yeah, but she hasn't been convicted of anything, so it's all good. Read that right here on DU.

[hereforthevoting]

5. But all of the gun violence in America must be stopped! Unless there's $ or votes in it for her.....

[IdaBriggs]

6. And with no Independent Inspector General for 4 years...

They were able to get away with it.



What will the FBI report say?

[ehrnst]

12. Get away with what? (nt)

[RiverLover]

7. The Saudi connection is the scariest to me.

US embassy cables: Hillary Clinton says Saudi Arabia 'a critical source of terrorist funding' (2009)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/242073


She said ^^^ that before they started throwing money at her.

[ehrnst]

11. And...

Correlation is not causation.

This link shows the trend over time and the website contains data for most countries from 1988 forward and for NATO countries from 1945.




https://www.sipri.org/news/2016/sipri-presents-latest-military-expenditure-data-un-headquarters

Spending has gone up over time, and these deals would have been made no matter who was SoS.

[FlatBaroque]

8. Bernie's a gunhumper!!!!

The hypocrisy of Clintonism is odious.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

9. Jury results

On Thu Apr 7, 2016, 10:17 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Bernie's a gunhumper!!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1670275

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Gunhumper?!?!?!?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 7, 2016, 10:20 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Seriously, don't take it too seriously. Not hide-worthy. Peace.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Left out the sarcasm thingy, but most adults would get it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[ehrnst]

10. Um.... Much is left out of this article.

This article conveniently leaves out the fact that arms spending in the Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and East Asia have been on an upward trajectory for more than two decades. As the post-Cold War unipolar moment recedes further into history and rival regional powers tussle for influence in their respective regions (Iran and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, Pakistan and India in South Asia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, and China in Southeast and East Asia), it is no surprise that arms spending is going through the roof.

There are also these things that Sanders supporters really hate called national security interests, one of which is ensuring that Saudi Arabia doesn't collapse (with all of the messy and unpleasant compromises that brings).

That HRC was Secretary of State when this happened is just a coincidence. Those arms deals would have gone through regardless of who was leading the State Department.

Obama authorized the deals and she administrated them. He's her boss. And the same deals have been sealed for decades. Had she said no, she would have been fired and the deal would have still been inked.