http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...anged-stance-on-trade-deal-after-donations-to The Clinton Foundation reportedly accepted millions of dollars from a Colombian oil company head before then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton decided to support a trade deal with Colombia despite worries of human rights violations. The report in the International Business Times comes as Clinton readies an expected run for president. She’s been dogged by questions about whether foreign donations to her foundations could have influenced her official decisions. The report centers on donations from Frank Giustra and the oil company that he founded, Pacific Rubiales. In a Wall Street Journal story from 2008, Giustra is described as a “friend and traveling companion” of former President Clinton who donated more than $130 million to Clinton’s philanthropies (read: Clinton campaign fund). He’s also a Clinton Foundation board member and has participated in projects and benefits for the foundation. When workers at Pacific Rubiales decided to strike in 2011, the Columbian military reportedly used force to stop the strikes and compel them to return to work, IBT reports, citing the Washington office of Latin America, a human rights group. Those accusations of human rights violations were part of the criticism of the United States-Colombia Free Trade Promotion Agreement, which was passed by Congress later that year. Pacific Rubiales has repeatedly denied charges that it infringed on workers’ rights. On the campaign trail in 2008, Hillary Clinton, along with then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, opposed the deal as a raw deal for workers, according to IBT. The pair changed their tune after the election and publicly supported the trade agreement. As secretary of State, Clinton’s State Department certified annually that Colombia was “meeting statutory criteria related to human rights.” The deal had originally been negotiated by the administration of former President George W. Bush, and the Obama administration won changes on labor and environmental issues not included in the original deal. Just months after Congress approved the agreement, IBT reported, Giustra helped raise $1 million for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, supported by Pacific Rubiales. ...but no outrage from campaign donation reformers in either party.
LMFAO Another faux outrage story of supposed corruption by Hillary Clinton. The American people will care about this one right? Benghazi was a collective yawn and e-mailgate didn't do much and is starting to fade... But by GOD this one will stick and the American public will care and turn on her and Slick Willie! What a joke, rather than fake overblown "scandals", just accept that if anyone stops Hillary Clinton, it will be Hillary Clinton... She isn't Her husband and has proven she can self inflict her own wounds. Don't you have a Tea Party rally to go to with Marco Rubio?
i voted for clinton, gore, kerry, obama x 2. but i will not be voting for her (h clinton). i would vote for warren though.
I'm not going to dismiss this so quickly. I do find troubling how tangled the Clintons' public and private affairs are and I think foreign donations to the Clinton foundation is one area of concern, especially during her period as secretary of state. Not saying that any of this rises to the level of whether I would or wouldn't vote for her but as someone who does have an interest in clean government it is concerning.
It's an interesting case given the unique nature of their relationship and career goals. I'm generally for the highest levels of scrutiny into any financial dealings of our politicians, but not really sure why this is any more newsworthy than any other of the numerous congressmen, including those who are running for president, who are in the pockets of corporations and lobbyists.
This is really the crux of the accusation, but all the article can do is insinuate that this is a hidden campaign contribution? I think this bit needs a lot of fleshing out.
Hillary Clinton does not have the charisma and raw political skills to overcome all of the trust issues that America has with her. The Democrats would be wise to find another candidate. The electorate is very dissatisfied with the status quo Washington situation, and Hillary's polarizing status and questionable ethics take us backwards, not forwards, in terms of restoring confidence in government. Is anyone excited about a Hillary candidacy? Or are people just supporting her because there are no alternatives? You need voter enthusiasm to get out the vote, especially with the Democratic base (historically low turnout). I see her as a very vulnerable candidate. Remember she has only won two races in her life -- against Rick Lazio and John Spencer. Her personality is grating and stern, and to say that she has baggage is the understatement of the year.
According to wikileaks, the illegal chinese donors had vince foster killed because he had knowledge of the Whitewater emails that were hosted on a private server in Benghazi. Duh.
How exactly are contributions to the Clinton's philanthropic organization, funds which can't be used in a political campaign, problematic with regards to a free trade agreement originally negotiated by Bush and passed by Congress four years after Clinton left? The only possible tie is that the State Department issued a statement that Columbia had "met statutory requirements" regarding human rights, but so have regimes that are far more brutal, such as China and Saudi Arabia. Seems like more Fox-fueled BS to me.
So everyone is ok with PAC money going directly to benefit the candidate, but casting aspersions on money given to a charity, like that's somehow more corrupting?
I think it is very naive to believe that corrupt foreign governments with terrible human rights records and millionaire/billionaires from similar countries are giving money to the Clinton initiative just because they believe in the mission. Hmmmm... Former president, current Secretary of State and probably future president run a charity that seeks major donations and gets them from corrupt heads of state, millionaires in horrible human rights countries...but no influence is being peddled? If she had an (R) next to her name when she ran the corruption wouldn't even be speculated about, just assumed.
I do personally. I'm ain't even mad about this, I just find it ridiculous that this BBS (and liberals in general) are quick to defend the purity of their candidates yet they are convinced that Republicans are being bought off by big business and all that nonsense. Comcast for example didn't just give money to Ted Cruz.
I don't recall ever having defended the purity of any Democrat and I really don't see anyone in this thread defending Clinton as in any way "pure." However, this particular instance certainly doesn't look like corruption on Hilary's part, in order for her supposed link to even come into play, a free trade agreement was begun by Bush, modified by Obama, and passed by Congress. I am convinced that all politicians are bought off by big business, as evidenced by the fact that most corporations give to both sides in addition to the specific candidates they support (the Representatives for the districts where their facilities are, etc.). Some businesses give more to Democrats and some give more to Republicans, but virtually all of them are greasing both sides of the aisle just to hedge their bets. The defense of Hilary on this issue is hardly lauding her as an innocent, merely arguing that the supposed link between the donation to the foundation and the passage of the trade agreement is ludicrous. There were quite literally hundreds of players, two different presidential administrations of opposite parties, and control of Congress even changed hands during that process. This is mud being thrown at Hilary because, for those biased partisans who believe Fox "News," it will stick just because they talk about it.
Sure, many folks of both sides accept money from various lobbies. The difference is at the policy level - Republicans overwhelmingly support policies that favor "big business" wihch is just anohter word for the very rich. Democrats are generally on the other side of many of these policies, with some exceptions. Likewise, Democrats generally are in favor of efforts to limit the influence of money from these sources, while Republicans are generally opposed. Neither of these things is controversial.