rickyp wrote:Examining the actual workings of the Clinton Foundation might actually have legs.
At the very least its going to force a very close look at the Foundation and how it works. Could be a double edged sword though.
And be careful about the lack of rating by Charity Navigator. Here's what they said:

Why isn't this organization rated?
We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator

The question is, what does happen to all that money? And when they say "programs" what is actually being done?
If it turns out, upon examination, that the programs are actually delivering on the ground value equal to or even in excess of other established NGOs... then there's no scandal. And in fact it will look as if the Clintons have found a better way to deliver value than through the existing systems.

Between 2009 and 2012, the The Federalist reported that the Clinton Foundation raised more than $500 million dollars according to its IRS filings. 15% of that, or $75 million, was spent on charitable activities. More than $25 million was spent on travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits.
(Note: This may not actually be as bad as it sounds; it seems that for 2014, for example, 76% of their expenditures were for programs, and their program expenses were $68 million of $85 million total expenses; their charitable work is done through those programs, not through funds given out as charity as The Federalist would have you believe. If you know more about how this works, and why the 15% figure cited shouldn't be considered correct,

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/2 ... orld-Order

The Clinton Foundation has an awful lot of adherents including partners who care an awful lot about how well their money delivers... Warren Buffet, for one and the Gates.... I'm sceptical that anyone could get away with a public shell game as big as this would have to be for them only to spend 15% on actual charitable or development work. If they didn't deliver the goods they wouldn't get support.

for instance:
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/press ... -women-and

http://time.com/3737672/politics-aside- ... th-a-look/

So what happens if a really close look at the Foundation does nothing more than publicize a highly effective way of delivering on its promise? This will only burnish Hillary's reputation...

Established in 2005 by President Bill Clinton, the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), an initiative of the Clinton Foundation, convenes global leaders to create and implement innovative solutions to the world's most pressing challenges. CGI Annual Meetings have brought together 190 sitting and former heads of state, more than 20 Nobel Prize laureates, and hundreds of leading CEOs, heads of foundations and NGOs, major philanthropists, and members of the media. To date, members of the CGI community have made nearly 3,200 commitments which have improved the lives of over 430 million people in more than 180 countries.

The alternative is that the foundation is what some say, "a slush fund for the Clintons". In which case hardy journalists will demonstrate exactly what the slush is .. and donors will become irate. And Hillary might be damaged.
So far there's a lot of innuendo. And a lack of reporting transparency over what "programs" are....

A lot of innuendo?



And smart people never get fooled . . . *cough* *Madoff*

Your complaint about a lack of reporting transparency is fairly ironic. Hillary is the one who deleted her emails. She is the one who is refusing to talk to reporters. The entire Clinton MO is to obfuscate until they get to a point when they can say, "Oh, that? That's old news!"

It's easy to prove it's not a slush fund . . . open the books. I mean she only wants to be President.

rickyp wrote:I think its unwise as well. But the US mines are a sliver of the deal.

But, they're not a sliver of our supply, which is the issue.

Oh, and again, putting Putin in charge of all that uranium . . .

Your "if" defense of CGI is funny. I posted stats. You posted wishes.

The spending by a charity will vary depending upon its purpose


For example, an educational charity may spend a lot on wages and materials for teaching, and very little on donations. Similarly, a religious charity might spend a lot on a big shine temple, or on sending missionaries out to evangelise.

What is the stated purpose of the CGI? Seems to be to hold gatherings to inspire and train up leaders. Which would entail the sorts of costs mentioned in your stats, DF. Now, we may not think that's charity (I don't think private schools are charities, but they are in the UK, I don't think churches are charities if all they do is build big shiny buildings and pay the priest a ton of money), but it is the openly stated purpose of the CGI.

Technically speaking, the Clinton Foundation is a Foundation, not a Charity.

danivon wrote:The spending by a charity will vary depending upon its purpose


For example, an educational charity may spend a lot on wages and materials for teaching, and very little on donations. Similarly, a religious charity might spend a lot on a big shine temple, or on sending missionaries out to evangelise.

What is the stated purpose of the CGI? Seems to be to hold gatherings to inspire and train up leaders. Which would entail the sorts of costs mentioned in your stats, DF. Now, we may not think that's charity (I don't think private schools are charities, but they are in the UK, I don't think churches are charities if all they do is build big shiny buildings and pay the priest a ton of money), but it is the openly stated purpose of the CGI.

The roots of the issue:

1. The Clintons (Bill and Chelsea) are paid by the Foundation.
1a. Bill's speech fees went up significantly after Hillary became SecState. Is that because he got better or had better connections/more influence?
2. Hillary, while Secretary of State, made decisions and influenced policy affecting countries and companies that donated to CGI.

Hillary's team has argued there is "no quid pro quo." That may be true in the technical sense of evidence (memo, email, recorded conversation). However, the appearances and sheer number of "coincidences" should give everyone pause, particularly as this is someone with a less than pristine past when it comes to fundraising and finances.

And, the list of "coincidences" continues to grow:

The Clinton Foundation in 2008 reported that it had received a contribution of between $1 million and $5 million from Amar Singh, a member of India’s Parliament and a pal of Bill Clinton.

The size of the donation relative to Singh’s net worth raised questions about whether Singh was the true source of the cash, according to “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer .

The 2008 contribution was made as Congress debated approval of a nuclear agreement between the United States and India, which then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton eventually supported. She met with Singh in Washington in September 2008 to discuss the legislation.

Schweizer speculates on whether Singh was a conduit for other powerful interests in India pushing for approval of the nuke deal. Singh’s donation was treated with suspicion and amusement in India.

Singh, in his own financial-disclosure statement filed with the Indian government, reported his total net worth was approximately $5 million.

“If true, that meant Singh had given between 20 and 100 percent of his entire net worth to the Clinton Foundation!” Schweitzer says.

For his part, Singh gave cryptic and conflicting answers about the donation.

He told the Times of India “the payment could have been made by someone else” on his behalf.

Singh told government ministers his name was listed by the Clinton Foundation because he had “facilitated the payment and, therefore, it ‘erroneously’ appeared in the records,” according to the book.

Singh later beat charges that he bribed three other Indian politicians to support the nuclear deal.

Just like everything in the Schweitzer book, this report may be a total coincidence. It is certainly possible for a friend of Bill who is an Indian politician suspecting of bribing fellow Indian politicians to support the nuke deal, to come up with a large chunk of his net worth to give to the Clinton Foundation around the same time as Hillary was deciding to vote for the India nuke deal…and it not having anything to do with a quid pro quo.

Fate

But, they're not a sliver of our supply, which is the issue.

Actually they are a sliver...
They represent 210 tonnes out of 1887 domestic production expected this year. according to link on mines production I gave you.
Thats 9% of domestic. Probably less since they aren't actually mining there anymore..
And just to be clear, the US currently imports 91% of its Uranium.
At the moment Russia is the source of 19% of its uranium...Canada 20%

So explain for me how the sale of a non-operational mine in Wyoming that accounts for less than 1% of Uranium consumption in the US, to a nation from which the US already buys 19% of its uranium is going to be a strategic problem.
Small wonder the sale was approved.

http://www.virginiauranium.com/uranium- ... m-sources/

I do think its a problem if Putin is cornering the market on Uranium production. But, in reviewing this I think its clear that Canada alone can increase production enough to offset unreasonable price increases if Russia pushes for cartel pricing.... That is if our producers don't go along with the price increases...and forego market share..

rickyp wrote:Fate

But, they're not a sliver of our supply, which is the issue.

Actually they are a sliver...
They represent 210 tonnes out of 1887 domestic production expected this year. according to link on mines production I gave you.
Thats 9% of domestic. Probably less since they aren't actually mining there anymore..
And just to be clear, the US currently imports 91% of its Uranium.
At the moment Russia is the source of 19% of its uranium...Canada 20%

So explain for me how the sale of a non-operational mine in Wyoming that accounts for less than 1% of Uranium consumption in the US, to a nation from which the US already buys 19% of its uranium is going to be a strategic problem.
Small wonder the sale was approved.

http://www.virginiauranium.com/uranium- ... m-sources/

I do think its a problem if Putin is cornering the market on Uranium production. But, in reviewing this I think its clear that Canada alone can increase production enough to offset unreasonable price increases if Russia pushes for cartel pricing.... That is if our producers don't go along with the price increases...and forego market share..

No, I won't "explain for me how the sale of a non-operational mine in Wyoming that accounts for less than 1% of Uranium consumption in the US, to a nation from which the US already buys 19% of its uranium is going to be a strategic problem.". But, apparently, Russia NEEDED the Uranium: And, it appears your wrong about how much of our production capacity Russia controls.

Since 2013, the nuclear energy arm of the Russian state has controlled 20 percent of America’s uranium production capacity.

Rosatom’s acquisition of Toronto-based miner Uranium One Inc. made the Russian agency, which also builds nuclear weapons, one the world’s top five producers of the radioactive metal and gave it ownership of a mine in Wyoming.

The deal, approved by a committee that included then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, also followed donations from Uranium One’s Canadian chairman to the Clinton Global Foundation, the New York Times reported on Thursday.

In an interview with Bloomberg News, Ian Telfer, the former Uranium One chairman and current chairman of Goldcorp Inc., said he pledged a donation of $3 million to the Clinton charity in March 2008, “when it was never contemplated that at some point in the future the Russian government would become a major shareholder of Uranium One.”

Why did the Russian government want Uranium One?

Russia is only the world’s sixth-largest uranium miner, but has a huge nuclear fuel industry. Rosatom had built that business partly by processing uranium from Soviet warheads decommissioned under the so-called megatons-to-megawatts agreement signed with the U.S. in 1993.

As that accord neared its end, Russia needed a new source of supply and Uranium One provided a solution. In 2010, a unit of Rosatom bought a majority stake and three years later, Russia paid $1.3 billion for the rest of the company.

I'm not going to spend the time arguing uranium production. If YOU think letting Russia control ANY of our uranium is a good thing, you're entitled to your Canadian opinion about American policy. (I would note your source is from 2011 and does not deal with production capacity. Again, from the article: "At Willow Creek, 362 tons were mined that year, or 20 percent of U.S. productions, data from the World Nuclear Association show.")

The bigger issue is this:

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation's donors.

fate

And smart people never get fooled . . . *cough* *Madoff*

Who said the people who got fooled by Madoff were smart?

Unlike the Madoff clients, the one's giving money to the Clinton Foundation aren't interested in making more money, easily Fate. Most are at the point where they are giving away their fortunes... (See Gates pledge...)
But they are among the smartest, most successful business operators in the world. When they set their minds to development work as a charitable cause I'm going to assume that they take their business acumen and knowledge with them. (Madoff's clients were passive investors.) From what I've read, many involve themselves in the Foundation's work as advisers and even managers.

Fate

1. The Clintons (Bill and Chelsea) are paid by the Foundation.

How much are they paid and what to they do ? If they are raising so much money, perhaps they are good at raising money and paid commensurately? Or perhaps their pay isn't as outrageous and you seem to imply?

1a. Bill's speech fees went up significantly after Hillary became SecState. Is that because he got better or had better connections/more influence?

Where is there a complete record of his speech fees? I thought they weren't transparent about this stuff? Or is that just more unsubstantiated innuendo?
He was a President of the US and still regularly connected through NGOs to world leaders. he had access without Hilary. Moreover he's always been wildly popular around the world.

2. Hillary, while Secretary of State, made decisions and influenced policy affecting countries and companies that donated to CGI.
Hillary's team has argued there is "no quid pro quo." That may be true in the technical sense of evidence (memo, email, recorded conversation). However, the appearances and sheer number of "coincidences" should give everyone pause, particularly as this is someone with a less than pristine past when it comes to fundraising and finances.

There there was no quid pro quo is true in every sense of the word if there is no evidence of quid pro quo.
How many times have the so called pattern of coincidences been trotted out by conservative "journalists" investigating the Clinton's? And how often have the issues disappeared after a few weeks of huffing and puffing? As Bill Maher said, "Even Ken Star, after having spent millions, said all I've got is a blow job..."

Its the same kind of loose crap that says that the Uranium One sale was some how "strategic" when even a cursory glance at the actual information on Uranium use and mining, and the structure of the Uranium One deal shows it was anything but....

I will look with interest at the unveiling of the programs provided by the Clinton Foundation... But I'm expecting them to show an efficient system of NGO involvement in developmental work.
What happens to the "pattern" if this is the case Fate?

Victor David Hanson's entire article is a good summary of the history of the Clinton ethic, but the intro is worth putting here:

Hillary Clinton will probably survive her latest ethical disaster. James Carville — of “if you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find” fame — is back again to pronounce the Clinton Foundation scandal as “diddly-squat.” He may be right in the political sense. After all, we know the standard Clinton rescue plan from the past: her aging point-men like Carville, Lanny Davis, and Paul Begala flood the airways, yelling “prove it!” at their television hosts and declaring:

That the accusations are “old news.”
That the accusers are funded by right-wing conspiracists.
That everyone does what the Clintons did.
That the media pick on the Clintons.
That there is no hard evidence (because they have destroyed documents) that would ever lead to a criminal case. And:
That they are moving on, to work on behalf of the folks.

This is exactly what they are doing and will do.

Fate

But, apparently, Russia NEEDED the Uranium: And, it appears your wrong about how much of our production capacity Russia controls

.

Since 2013, the nuclear energy arm of the Russian state has controlled 20 percent of America’s uranium production capacity.

Interesting claim by Bloomberg. The links I gave you were official sources for the uranium mining capacity and official statistics for Uranium use by the US.
You'll notice Bloomberg hasn't referred to a source in their story.Nor did they try to substantiate it.
So i'll stand by my analysis.

rickyp wrote:fate

And smart people never get fooled . . . *cough* *Madoff*

Who said the people who got fooled by Madoff were smart?

Feel free to argue with the list here: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/docum ... 81215.html

Unlike the Madoff clients, the one's giving money to the Clinton Foundation aren't interested in making more money, easily Fate. Most are at the point where they are giving away their fortunes... (See Gates pledge...)

This is as ignorant a statement as you have ever made. I know that's a low bar, but come on. The whole controversy is about influence peddling. SOME people (allegedly) gave money to make MORE money.

And, NO ONE is accusing Bill Gates of that, so stop with the absolute nonsense.

Fate

1. The Clintons (Bill and Chelsea) are paid by the Foundation.

How much are they paid and what to they do ? If they are raising so much money, perhaps they are good at raising money and paid commensurately? Or perhaps their pay isn't as outrageous and you seem to imply?

You are thick as a brick. If I repeat this, maybe it will sink in: The whole controversy is about influence peddling. SOME people (allegedly) gave money to make MORE money.

1a. Bill's speech fees went up significantly after Hillary became SecState. Is that because he got better or had better connections/more influence?

Where is there a complete record of his speech fees? I thought they weren't transparent about this stuff? Or is that just more unsubstantiated innuendo?

You are as unhinged as James Carville or Paul Begala, and about as honest. I never said they were not "transparent" about Bill's speaking fees. Please read this carefully:

Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and organizations that are also major donors to the foundation he created after leaving the White House, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records and foundation data.

The amount, about one-quarter of Clinton’s overall speaking income between 2001 and 2013, demonstrates how closely intertwined Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable work has become with their growing personal wealth.

The Clintons’ relationships with major funders present an unusual political challenge for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Now that she has formally entered the presidential race, the family may face political pressure and some legal requirements to provide further details of their personal finances and those of the foundation, giving voters a clearer view of the global network of patrons that have supported the Clintons and their work over the past 15 years.

The multiple avenues through which the Clintons and their causes have accepted financial support have provided a variety of ways for wealthy interests in the United States and abroad to build friendly relations with a potential future president. The flow of money also gives political opponents an opportunity to argue that Hillary Clinton would face potential conflicts of interest should she win the White House. Though she did not begin delivering paid speeches or join the foundation until 2013, upon ending her tenure as secretary of state, the proceeds from her husband’s work benefited them both.

Even though I never said that about Bill's speeches and lack of transparency, the Post does:

Four speeches delivered by Bill Clinton did not appear in Hillary Clinton’s filings. One such speech was a 2012 address to an annual meeting of the Carlyle Group, a politically connected private-equity firm.

A spokesman for Bill Clinton’s office said the former president at times spoke to benefit the foundation, which would not trigger a disclosure requirement for Hillary Clinton. None of the four speech sponsors are listed as foundation donors. The spokesman said the proceeds were classified as non-tax-deductible revenue — not donations.

Oops. Thanks for building the case of the lack of ethics!

There (sic) there was no quid pro quo is true in every sense of the word if there is no evidence of quid pro quo.

Whuh?

Just when I think you've reached a nadir from which it is impossible to descend, you prove me wrong.

There is "evidence" in the sense of a pattern of behavior: donations are made to CGI and then favorable action is taken by Hillary.

How many times have the so called pattern of coincidences been trotted out by conservative "journalists" investigating the Clinton's?

You're on to something, but you don't quite get it.

1. This is not only "conservative journalists," unless you believe the NYT, WaPo, and others are "conservative."

2. Being good at covering things up is at least as good an explanation as the miracle of all of these coincidences. Why did Hillary violate Administration rules by not using a government email account? Why did she have her own server? Why did she destroy it?

The way you come to her defense is very touching.

rickyp wrote:Fate

But, apparently, Russia NEEDED the Uranium: And, it appears your wrong about how much of our production capacity Russia controls

.

Since 2013, the nuclear energy arm of the Russian state has controlled 20 percent of America’s uranium production capacity.

Interesting claim by Bloomberg. The links I gave you were official sources for the uranium mining capacity and official statistics for Uranium use by the US.
You'll notice Bloomberg hasn't referred to a source in their story.Nor did they try to substantiate it.
So i'll stand by my analysis.

Go ahead. You're an idiot, so I'll stand by that.

Doctor Fate wrote:Go ahead. You're an idiot, so I'll stand by that.

To be more specific, you have your sources (I doubt you sit on a board that analyzes uranium production) and I provided my own.

However, the issue isn't production of uranium. It's conflict of interest and influence-peddling. That's what makes you look like an idiot. You keep focusing on the individual trees when you're standing in a forest.

If you want to declare Hillary as pure as the driven snow, feel free. However, many, who are substantially more lucid, see (at least) reason to do serious investigation.

Haiti.

Columbia.

Russia.

India.

They are all "coincidences" and there are more to come.

fate

However, the issue isn't production of uranium. It's conflict of interest and influence-peddling.

Its specifically about supposed influence peddling on the sale of a uranium mine in Wyoming to a Russian company....
Its "alleged' that a donation to the Clinton Foundation was somehow instrumental in gaining approval for the sale. Approval which required 7 different departments, not just the State department. SO this donation somehow influenced all of the people in those different departments as well sa Hillary.

Furtter more its alleged that a strategic interest of the US was put at risk by this decision.
And its all been alleged with no evidence of any activity on Hillary's part in influencing the decision...

Fate

To be more specific, you have your sources (I doubt you sit on a board that analyzes uranium production) and I provided my own.

\
Yes. But your sources don't quote their sources... And they certainly don't tell the whole story about uranium use and production in the US ...
Even if you beleive the Bloomberg reports that the mine represented 20% of domestic production (perhaps it did 10 years ago) thats only 20% of the 9% that domestic production represents of all Us use of uranium. So the notion that this is a strategic problem is being hyped beyond belief.

Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and organizations that are also major donors to the foundation he created after leaving the White House, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records and foundation data.

The amount, about one-quarter of Clinton’s overall speaking income between 2001 and 2013, demonstrates how closely intertwined Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable work has become with their growing personal wealth

So what this says is that Bill made about a quarter of his speakers fees money from companies that were also donors. So what?
In the end if this is about "influence peddling", the allegations will have to demonstrate more quid quo pro then the sale of a mine in Wyoming . A mine which was a throw in to a much bigger deal, is very small potatoes in terms of strategic value and who's sale was to a company from a nation that is already the second largest supplier of uranium to the US ...

per usual there's no there there.