Hillary Clinton's Big Benefactor Has Trade Links with Iran

[FreakinDJ]

Hillary Clinton's Big Benefactor Has Trade Links with Iran

Enemies of Hillary Clinton waiting to discredit her bid for the White House are likely to seize on news that one of the biggest benefactors to the Clinton Foundation has been trading with Iran and may be in breach of US sanctions imposed on the country.

Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, 54, has courted the Clintons for at least nine years – in the United States, the Alps and Ukraine.


earlier this year, he was confirmed as the largest individual contributor to the Clinton Foundation, whose aims include the creation of “economic opportunity and growth”. He also has links to the Tony Blair Foundation and represented its biggest single donor in 2013.

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/24/hillary-clinton-runs-white-house-and-row-over-ukrainian-benefactors-trade-322253.html

I mean a really REALLY Big Closet

[Thinkingabout]

1. The manner you wrote the title appears Clinton is the benefactor when if one continues to

Read it is the Clinton Foundation, why did you forget Foundation?

[FreakinDJ]

3. If you had clicked the link you would have seen verbatem

[NanceGreggs]

16. In other words ...

... it's okay to post a completely misleading title, because people should read the link if they want the truth of the matter?

[Autumn]

18. Interestingly enough it's Newsweek's title. In big ole letters in the OP.

Straight from the Newsweek link. There's even a place at the link where you can ask for a correction.

[NanceGreggs]

19. And interestingly enough ...

... I knew that, because I know how to click on a link.

And even more interestingly, it's still a misleading title - no matter whose title it is.

[Autumn]

28. Yes it is a bit misleading. It's about the Clinton Foundation Hillary and Bill started.

But I would think that changing a writers work after it's published would be unethical. I read the link and knew in the first sentience the author of the piece wasn't talking about Hillary's campaign. The problem is Hillary's name is attached to the foundation which gives a bit of a sense of damn it when one reads the whole article. Of course Pinchuk's donations to the foundation and his friendship with Bill and Hillary wasn't a bribe. Wealthy people give to the foundation as well as poor but it does give the republicans ammo against Hillary if the US Treasury decides to look into Interpipe’s dealings with Iran.

[JDPriestly]

22. Because the foundation is irrelevant.

Why do you think these people are giving to that foundation?

Because it has the Clintons' name on it, and the Clintons have a lot of political clout in D.C.

It is naive to think otherwise.

[Thinkingabout]

30. Does this mean you have never donated to a charity to help others?

[JDPriestly]

31. It means I used to raise money for a charity, and if you run a charity, you should not run for

office. I know what it takes to raise money and how it is done. The process is not what is wrong. It is accepting donations from people or organizations and then placing yourself in a position in which you must or may be able to make decisions that promote or hinder the donors' interests.

There is the appearance of a conflict of interest inherent in relying on donations from people for a "charity" and then potentially placing yourself in a position in which you have the power or authority to do small and large favors for your donors or former donors.

Hillary should either run her charity or run for office. The combination gives her the appearance of corruption.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for Citizens United.

You read that here first.

[Thinkingabout]

35. Some people have the capability to do two things at a time. Hillary is not deeply involved in the

Clinton Foundation. The foundation existed during her time as senator and as SOS. Yes it raises money worldwide and the money is spent worldwide. I see lots of bitching about people who have money and the poor people who dont. The foundation is funded by rich people who gives to the Clinton foundation freely. Just as Princess Diana used to raise money for causes her sons do also. I don't understand why this is a problem. The Clinton Foundation is doing a better job of placing funds in needed places than our government is doing and when some wants to tax to get money from the rich and son come in and complain about the Clinton foundation, does not add up. Maybe Hillary is not going to respond to donations like has been to the NRA.

[JDPriestly]

37. I don't question that the Clinton Foundation is doing a great job. The charity I worked for did

a great job too.

It's just that I dealt with donors. I kind of know how they think and what they expect.

Hillary may be perfectly honest and above-board, but sooner or later a question will arise as to whether she, if elected president, has shown a preference or exchanged a favor with some party or person that or who donated to her Foundation.

I'm sorry. Hillary may be the most honest person to venture into politics. Makes no difference. She was not born wealthy. Her Foundation is funded by people with certain interests, and sooner or later her role in the Foundation even if she is only lending her name to it, will become a problem for her and for Democrats.

I'm sorry about this, but that is the way the world works.

I think her Foundation is great, but she is kind of locked into her association with it, and that is going to harm her effectiveness if elected. The Republicans have threatened to impeach her right away, and this is just fuel for their nefarious purposes.

It would be a mistake to nominate Hillary.

[Thinkingabout]

39. I don't think she will even be keeping up with the donor list, she will have a full time job as

President. The GOP running on wild goose chases is not new, we expect them to cover up for poor job performances by wildly spending tax payer dollars on their stupid hunts. They will do this to any Democratic president.

[JDPriestly]

40. There is already quite a donor list. Probably includes a lot of creepy people.

The damage has been done.

Don't expect the Republicans to share their homework on that Foundation until after our nomination process is over.

Bernie worked with Republicans as mayor in Burlington, in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. He has both executive and legislative experience. He knows the senators in Congress from both sides of the aisle and probably quite a few of the representatives too.

Bernie is the best qualified, the most experienced, yet the most independent representative of the people that is running from either party.

We would be fools not to nominate him.

As a bonus, Bernie is also the most dedicated of all running to the task of doing a good job. It's just his nature.

He has been elected and re-elected against the odds, the money odds, the party odds. That's because once elected, he devotes himself to doing a good job.

Bernie is trustworthy.

If Bernie weren't running, I might be forced to support Hillary, and I would justify that by telling myself, well, at least she is a woman.

But the fact is that Bernie is running, and getting a person of his integrity, his intellect, his understanding, his humanity, his morality and his ethical sense is just a once in many lifetimes event.

Bernie is the one for America and the world. We will never have a better candidate.

Too bad for Hillary, but Bernie is just much better. By far.

[Thinkingabout]

41. Bernie also responded to a $18,000 donation from the NRA to help defeat his opponent, don't expect

That kind of response from Hillary.

[JDPriestly]

43. What does "responded to" mean in that context? And was that before or after Citizens United.

[Thinkingabout]

44. Before

[JDPriestly]

46. And "responded to"?

Face it. There is no evidence that Bernie accepted any money for his campaign from the NRA, not for any campaign of his.

Way back in 1988, the NRA independently wanted to defeat a candidate against whom Bernie was running, but they did not give Bernie money.

These innuendos are surely beneath Hillary's campaign.

Innuendos are not facts.

Let's try to stick to facts and opinions and stay away from innuendo.

Thanks.

[Thinkingabout]

47. There is a fact he voted against the Brady Bill several times and other times he has voted the NRA

Way. Just because Sanders has done this does not mean others does the same thing. Making accusations even before Clinton is in office?

[JDPriestly]

48. What did you mean by "responded to?"

[Dr Hobbitstein]

2. The Clinton Foundation =/= HRC's campaign. EOM

[JaneyVee]

4. Oligarch philanthropists?

Jesus Christ, what is this world coming to?

[Thinkingabout]

5. You posted

"Hillary Clinton's Big Benefactor Has Trade Links with Iran",

It did not say Clinton Foundation, there is a lot of difference in Hillary Clinton and Clinton Foundation. One is a person, the other is a foundation who does good works all over the world.

[floriduck]

6. Maybe you will understand the article

in comic book format. Long articles might be too much for you to absorb.

[Thinkingabout]

7. I understand the article, I don't understand the op title. Hillary Clinton is not the

Benefactor. That would be the Clinton Foundation, not the same. Is the title too long to understand?

[floriduck]

9. So you made your point on the title. Any thoughts on the article??

Or do you want to raise the title question a fourth time?

[Thinkingabout]

11. No I realized the first time I read it.

[JDPriestly]

32. Hillary IS RUNNING FOR AN OFFICE THAT WILL MAKE HER A POTENTIAL BENEFACTOR

for some of the benefactors of her foundation.

Definition of "benefactor."

noun
1.
a person who confers a benefit; kindly helper.
2.
a person who makes a bequest or endowment, as to an institution.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benefactor

So an influential person from Ukraine has donated to the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation does wonderful things around the world. I believe that Chelsea is one of the leaders of the Foundation.

BUT . . . .

the money for the Clinton Foundation comes from individuals and companies and charities that WANT THINGS FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Take the Ukraine (or any other foreign country). It wants the friendship, moral support and possibly even military support of the United States.

Now if you like Hillary, you will find the idea that she would do favors for someone who did her the favor of giving to her Foundation a laughable idea.

But many people in the world will not assume an innocent intention on her part so easily. It may be true that she would never be influenced by the kindness and largesse of a donor to her foundation and never return the good will with the good will of the American treasury or military or trade policy, etc. once president.

But that cannot be assumed or proven. Hillary should not be running for president after she has, on behalf of her Foundation, accepted and perhaps solicited so many donations from foreign and American interests, individuals, corporations, etc.

It's just rife with the appearance of a conflict of interest, a serious one.

[NanceGreggs]

17. And maybe you will understand ...

... that the article does NOT say what you are implying it says by your OP title - or is that too much for you to absorb?

[Autumn]

10. The Clinton foundation is mentioned in the first sentence of the article

"Hillary Clinton's Big Benefactor Has Trade Links with Iran" is the title of the Newsweek article.

[JDPriestly]

20. Tell that to the Republicans.

It can easily be made to look like some kind of bribe whether it is or not.

This kind of donation has the appearance of corruption.

The Clinton Foundation is certainly dedicated to doing good things, and if you want to be friends with the Clintons and maybe have an edge on asking Hillary to do you some small favor and you are a billionaire, you definitely want to donate to it.

Personally, I think it is inappropriate for someone who has a foundation and accepts donations to it from people who might want something from our government to run for office. It's inappropriate. The appearance of a conflict of interest, of corruption is implicit in running for office and having a foundation that accepts donations from people who want things from our government, like military protection for their country or special trade deals or contracts.

This is very troubling. It looks really bad for Hillary. Doesn't Chelsea work for the foundation? Isn't she potentially being paid from some of the money from some of the donations?

[cry baby]

8. I, for a moment, thought my interweb had switched to

one that must not be named...initials are FR.

[Beacool]

42. No need to use initials, this site is the mirror image of Free Republc.

The RW fringe has FR and the Left has DU.

[kelliekat44]

12. Good! With her as President there should be no war with Iran!!! nt

[Scuba]

14. Except she's kissing Yahoo's ass all over the front pages.

[Fred Sanders]

13. If folks think The Clinton Foundation has a closet, these folks are looking in the wrong closets.

The Clinton Foundation is a world-wide gem. That a charity may have little control over the reputation of everyone who gives it money, without strings attached, is just the way it is.

If there are strings attached....the proof lies with the accuser....who are usually RW, or used to be.

[JDPriestly]

21. These donations have the appearance of corruption. It's just a fact.

If a Republican ran for the presidency and had a foundation to which people who might want something from the president gave money, it would most definitely be an issue. And the Hillary supporters would be the first to make it one.

Hillary should either have started a foundation that receives donations from very wealthy people all over the world or run for office. Not both.

If she makes a decision that favors one of the donors to her foundation, it will look like corruption and may even be corruption.

This does not work. You can't have it all. Hillary either has a foundation or she runs for office. She can't do both.

Sorry. But this is going to be a problem for Hillary at some point or another.

[Fred Sanders]

29. Proof lies with the accuser. But wild allegations from RW sources at DU are pleasing to some at DU!

A lot of folks at DU have totally shredded their credibility by holding hands with the RW attacks on Clinton....if you can call conspiracy theories facts.

[JDPriestly]

34. I wish you were right. But there are just some actions that invite scandal.

Running for president, asking to have all that power, when you have received gifts for your foundation from so many rich people all over the world with so many wishes, dreams, plans, is just a big mistake.

Proof lies with the accuser in OUR courts of law, we hope. But in the court of public opinion, proof can often lie with the accused. And explanations, however honest, often do not convince much of anyone.

Sorry, but Hillary should have chosen -- either a foundation or the presidency. The two do not mix. Especially not when her daughter is playing a large role in the running and management of the foundation. Chelsea is not paid, but when you have the millions that the Clintons have, getting paid directly is not what matters to you so much. The values are different.

[JDPriestly]

33. The appearance of corruption is the problem.

Actual corruption may or may not exist, but running for perhaps the most powerful office in the world after asking for donations and receiving donations from wealthy individuals and corporations and foundations around the world invites scandal and the appearance of corruption.

It's just not a smart thing to do.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for Citizens United.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

15. What a piece of shit fucking post! nt

[Live and Learn]

24. Hmmm, you know who else donated to the Clinton Foundation:

Donald Trump’s millions have snagged him favors from several prominent politicians -– including Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, he said tonight.

“Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding, and she came to my wedding," the reality-star-turned-politician said at the first GOP presidential debate in Cleveland. "She had no choice because I gave to a foundation.”

Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton was present at Trump’s 2005 wedding to model Melania Knauss -– and Clinton and her husband attended the reception together.

Just this week, Trump came under fire for a private telephone conversation with President Bill Clinton that took place just weeks before Trump announced his candidacy.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-money-drew-hillary-clinton-wedding/story?id=32936868

[leftofcool]

25. Good. He can afford to and needs to spread his wealth around

[Live and Learn]

26. You seriously think that is good?

I guess you also don't believe that power corrupts, right?

[leftofcool]

27. Do I think it is good for a billionaire to give money to a charity?

Darn right! Especially one that helps people all over the world like the Clinton Foundation and the CGI. Trump could give away half of what he has in wealth to many charities and still be rich. That would work for me.

[Cheese Sandwich]

38. looks like fun

[sabrina 1]

36. Just one more reason why I support Bernie!

[olddots]

45. If Bernie and I were in that room

We would be waiting tables and trying to keep our cool .