Greenwald: Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to Clinton Foundation?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Jess13, Aug 25, 2016.

  1. Jess13, Aug 25, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2016

    Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #1
    Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?

    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.” Others 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. At exactly the same time that Hillary Clinton was America’s chief diplomat, 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 their 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 they 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 fact that the reason the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwait 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:

    [continue]

    https://theintercept.com/2016/08/25...es-donate-millions-to-the-clinton-foundation/
     
  2. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
  3. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #3

    How is she crooked on this? What did she do for them in return?
     
  4. Jess13 thread starter Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #4
    Haha :rolleyes: Read that piece and open your eyes. Some good quotes:


    Some Clinton partisans, unwilling to claim that Gulf tyrants have charity in their heart 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?

    [...]

    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.​
     
  5. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    well, Russia got the Uranium deal and deposited 2.5 million, the SAUDIS would benefit if Assad was taken out .
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/w...-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html

    the Saudis are using the U.S as their own personal mercenaries and Clinton has supported the wars & best interest, who cares if U.S soldiers die in the process.
     
  6. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #7
    Is the concept of using money to sway government from a democratic republic to an oligarchy deemed "crooked"? Why or why not? Especially in a free market where, you guessed it, said market claims government involvement is bad so why does the market want to give government all that money just so government can get involved? Who wouldn't be confused?
     
  7. TheAppleFairy macrumors 68020

    TheAppleFairy

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Location:
    The Clinton Archipelago unfortunately
    #8
    Because the Saudi's have the American citizen's best interest in mind, and they believe Hillary will uphold our rights. /s
     
  8. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #9
    Yeah, the Sink Hillary political agenda answer. My answer is that they 1) want influence* and possibly 2) want to be seen though a kinder lense.

    * Wanting influence is not getting influence. That's the meat of the projection that passes for this convienent Conservative argument. The Clinton's don't depend or gain financial benefit from their Foundation, so their decisions about whom they support depend on the spectrum of their values, not who gives money to the Foundation they founded.
     
  9. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #10
    My guess is because we are waging a proxy war in Yemen via our arms deals to Saudi Arabia (it's our weapons they are buying and using in this war crime) we're going to continue seeing odd relationships with regimes that are extreme human rights violators.

    The things we do to keep empire from faltering.....
     
  10. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #11
    The West has a long sad history of supporting Middle East dictatorships. Most of us are smart enough not to engage in protracted , never ending regime change, but instead choose to work with the local powers in the area to achieve whatever goals we think are reachable. Yes, dealing with thugs who deny their populations civil/human rights is questionable, hypocritica for the beacon of Liberty, freedom, and human rightsl? :(
     
  11. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #12
    it's ok when democrats do it.....
     
  12. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #13
    You guys say that all the time. Who says its ok when democrats do it? ONe of the reasons so many people who voted for Obama were disappointed in him was his continuation of the ME policies.
     
  13. nebo1ss macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    #14
    One would have thought that after the evidence of what regime change can bring in Iraq and Libya that advocating regime change in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait would be off the table. Better the devil you know. You really want to see Saudi turned into another Iraq or libya, be careful what you wish for.
     
  14. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #15
    yet they voted him in a second term, and here you have a woman who has pushed those same policies at the top of the crooked DNC ticket.
    so being "disappointed" and still electing them is not doing a dang thing about it.
     
  15. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #16
    I'm just trying to understand the tired old cliche "its ok when BLANK does it". Says who? Who says its ok, maybe they still elect them because the other side is so much worse. Hey, you make jokes about being married all the time but never actually get divorced. Does that mean you are ok when you work all your days off for two months and she's sitting at home ordering lunch and dinner and doesn't even think about going shopping and cooking and you haven't gotten laid or a BJ in a month and she wants to know why you are so.....I'm sorry, what were we talking about?
     
  16. jkcerda Suspended

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #17
    still love you :D
     
  17. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #18
    Thing is Regime Change has been our de facto operational model for nearly half a century. We point to it's failures (but not it's international illegality) in the ME because it's been high profile recently, but what about our overthrowing of dozens of governments around the world (especially South America) for the last 50 years?

    Selective outrage based on partisan fault lines I presume...
     
  18. smallcoffee macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    North America
    #19
    Great article was just about to post it actually!
     
  19. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #20
    Greenwald is asking an important question, but he makes conflates Saudi government officials with the individuals who donated to the Clinton Global Initiative.

    And, we see a lot of hay about "Securing access."

    Saudi princes probably spent money with that aim, but what about the Bush family's relationship to Saudi Arabia, which secured the same "access" with two generations of presidents? And, how will Trump escape this relationship given that he's also has financial ties to Saudi princes through his hotels?

    The U.S. is inextricably tied to Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states and that will continue so long as the U.S. needs oil and the ability to project force in the region—which explains the Navy's vested interest in Bahrain.

    This isn't to excuse Clinton, but instead to acknowledge that no one at the federal level of government, including the outside guy, are untainted by this relationship.

    If the State Dept. gave favors to Saudi Arabia (like a $60 billion arms deal), it was because of this relationship, not because of leverage earned through donations to CGI.
     
  20. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #21
    Precisely correct. These sociopathic ghouls don't give a rat's ass whether their lies, innuendo and outright BS cause kids with Aids to live or die, so long as they can sully, harm and ruin the Clinton Foundation and the evil incarnate Clintons. Every last one of these people doing this can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned.
     
  21. unlinked macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Ireland
    #22
    Were they disappointed with him before they voted him in the second time or after?
     
  22. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #23
    I voted for him once. I'll never make that mistake (voting for a neoliberal) again. Or anyone that supports the internationally illegal drone program for that matter. Bernie disappointed me greatly in that regard.
     
  23. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68030

    Mac'nCheese

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #24
    Maybe both. Maybe the other side is so bad, they have no choice. I don't like Hillary at all but I could never vote for Trump. And if she wins, and Trump runs again in four years....
     
  24. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #25
    Why do you think it's ok for Democrats? That would be a double standard.
     

Share This Page