rickyp wrote:https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00354241&cycle=2014

Fate

CGI is not supposed to be a Super-Pac or a PAC, is it????

And yet ... It is .... Follow the link.
Do you not think that these contributions are intended to buy them influence with the candidates they contribute too?

Tell me smart guy ...if a company wants to "buy influence" with Hillary why would they not just contribute to her PACs? Here they are...

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/cand ... =N00000019

The same way that someone wanting to "buy influence" with Scott Walker would contribute to his?
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/cand ... =N00037009

The point being, if they have this legitimate way of buying influence (that can be kept secret) why contribute to a charitable foundation?
I mean she might misconstrue and think it was just an act of charity supporting causes of the foundation - where the PAC contribution is a pretty direct pitch.

Maybe you could have your Harvard biology professor help you understand this too.

rickyp wrote:If someone wants to buy influence from Hillary why give to the Clinton Global Initiative and not to a Clinton Super PAC?

Plus, foreign governments can give without restriction.

the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline.

.Super Pacs are more regulated than CGI.

CGI's contributors include all kinds of people making donations for the purpose of bettering .... They expect results. And, they have seen results.

Archduke Russell John wrote: Also, one of my predictions has already proven wrong. I said Trump would not run. Unfortunately, he announced today. What a waste of his time and money.

Apparently Ricky doesn't understand that the word regulated isn't synonymous with the word scrutiny

That would be Dr. Fate's point.

Sassenach wrote:

Archduke Russell John wrote: Also, one of my predictions has already proven wrong. I said Trump would not run. Unfortunately, he announced today. What a waste of his time and money.

To quote a friend of mine on this subject: "Trump won't make it past the financial disclosure deadline. His ego won't allow him to admit that he is in fact not a Billionaire when it comes to net worth."

And they have to account for their monies to their board.

rickyp wrote:fate

Plus, foreign governments can give without restriction.

And the foreign governments that have are

the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline.

Is it your contention that these donations will impact policy decisions more than the the impact that the vast amounts of money that are donated by others into Super Pacs? Or that KSA or Germany don't already have sufficient leverage and influence with the US? (Look up the Carlyle Group and KSA and wonder at the history of true influence peddling...)

Only innuendo.

It is a false choice to suggest that people who may be interested in supporting political causes wouldn’t also support philanthropic work.

.Super Pacs are more regulated than CGI.

What evidence do you have of this? Really?

“We’re not trying to hide anything,” he says. There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents who donated to CGEP. “All of the money that was raised by CGEP flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,” he says.

The reason this is a politically explosive revelation is because the Clinton Foundation promised to disclose its donors as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state. Shortly after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the Clinton Foundation signed a “memorandum of understanding” with the Obama White House agreeing to reveal its contributors every year. The agreement stipulates that the “Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative” (as the charity was then known) is part of the Clinton Foundation and must follow “the same protocols.”

It hasn’t.

Giustra says that’s because Canada’s federal privacy law forbids CGEP, a Canadian-registered charity, from revealing its donors. A memo he provided explaining the legal rationale cites CGEP’s “fiduciary obligations” to its contributors and Canada’s Personal Information Privacy and Electronic Disclosure Act. “We are not allowed to disclose even to the Clinton Foundation the names of our donors,” he says.

On Saturday, responding to the Times story, Maura Pally, the acting CEO of the Clinton Foundation, issued a statement echoing this assertion: “This is hardly an effort on our part to avoid transparency–unlike in the U.S., under Canadian law, all charities are prohibited from disclosing individual donors without prior permission from each donor.”

Canadian tax and privacy law experts were dubious of this claim. Len Farber, former director of tax policy at Canada's Department of Finance, said he wasn't aware of any tax laws that would prevent the charity from releasing its donors' names. "There's nothing that would preclude them from releasing the names of donors," he said. "It's entirely up to them."

freeman3 wrote:Yeah, like that retaliation against that mayor who did not support him came from his aides.

My contention is that they gave those moneys for some reason other than pure human kindness.

My contention is that some in the Clinton family are on the GCI payroll and so are some of their henchmen.

It seems a swell thing to stay in good graces with the woman who might be POTUS by chipping off some cash for her family and friends

And if you get some consideration in return, so much the better

Giustra can live with that assessment, however indecisive. But, he adds, “anybody who has any sense of knowledge of how things work in the real world would absolutely tell you, you can’t make a charitable donation and have something change between governments.” He smacks the boardroom table again. “That is insanity. You want to try and bribe somebody? You go and put money in a Swiss bank account if you’re trying to bribe them. You don’t do it by trying to make a charitable donation. That’s ridiculous

rickyp wrote:Fate

My contention is that they gave those moneys for some reason other than pure human kindness.

For the same reason they could give to Pacs or Super Pacs. (Foreign companies contribute to Super Paccs through American employees). So why not them and CGI instead?

My contention is that some in the Clinton family are on the GCI payroll and so are some of their henchmen.

And many politicians have their "henchmen" and family on the payrolls of Pacs and Super Pacs. Mike Huckabee paid his family $400,000. Jim Webb paid his family ... Do a little digging... Pacs and Super Pacs are designed by professional political actors in order to enrich themselves as part of the enterprise.

Fate

And if you get some consideration in return, so much the better

.
Let the world know when you find solid evidence...

BTW, I'll grant you that foreign governments can't give to PAcs or Super Pacs, and that the CGI does give them a way to imitate the effect of giving to a PAC... However you will still be challenged to find what they have gained from this. The Saudis Germans, Algerians, Australians.. .. Where and what and how did Hillary do anything that resembles a favor for those foreign governments?

The Canadian business man (bigger in movies than mining) caught up in this says..

Giustra can live with that assessment, however indecisive. But, he adds, “anybody who has any sense of knowledge of how things work in the real world would absolutely tell you, you can’t make a charitable donation and have something change between governments.” He smacks the boardroom table again. “That is insanity. You want to try and bribe somebody? You go and put money in a Swiss bank account if you’re trying to bribe them. You don’t do it by trying to make a charitable donation. That’s ridiculous

.”
His story is here...

Like countless people before him, Frank Giustra's first meeting with Bill Clinton was a life-altering event indelibly etched in his memory. "We hit it off right away," Giustra recalls. "We hit it off for a whole number of reasons. We had a very similar upbringing. We had similar interests in books. Pretty soon, we were having a great conversation. I think he liked me."

Giustra was experiencing the famous Clinton connection, the tractor beam of personal magnetism that Clinton has deployed to pull people into his orbit since his earliest days in Arkansas. Back then, they were people like Mack McLarty, the well-to-do kindergarten classmate who became Clinton's first White House chief of staff, and Jim McDougal, the local banker and real estate investor who was the Clintons' partner in the Whitewater land deal and eventually wound up in jail. In Arkansas the stakes were comparatively small. Clinton had little money, and his admirers didn't have a whole lot more. Today, in his post-presidency, Clinton has built up a multibillion-dollar family foundation with a global reach. He may soon be back in the White House. The people he solicits are the sort who gravitate to Davos, not Little Rock—people like Frank Giustra.

Giustra is a billionaire mining magnate from Vancouver who met Clinton in 2005 aboard his private jet, which he had lent the former president for a trip to South America. (Clinton really must like Giustra—or his jet—an awful lot, because he borrowed it 25 more times, according to the Washington Post.) Somewhere in the air between Little Rock and Bogotá, Giustra realized, as so many had before him, life would be more glamorous, important, and fun with more Bill Clinton in it: "I said to him, ‘Hey, tell me more about what the Clinton Foundation does.' "

Before long, Giustra had pledged $100 million, established a Canadian arm (the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership), and joined the Clinton Foundation's board. By his own telling, his life has been utterly transformed. "I'd been doing charitable work my whole adult life but on a very small scale," he says. "Then I met Bill Clinton. Just hanging out with him and seeing how he had dedicated his life to this—I know this sounds cheesy, but it's true—he inspired me."

Uh, right. He's one of their cronies.