Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumHow Hillary Ruined Her Legacy As Secretary of State
While Republicans have been distracted by phony scandals surrounding Hillary Clinton (like Benghazi), they missed one of the dirtiest scandals ever to emerge involving the former First Lady and current front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 2016.
A damning new report from the International Business Times explains how Hillary Clinton used her position as Secretary of State to create a pay-to-play atmosphere for world leaders seeking military equipment and defense contractors looking to make a few extra billions.
Ring of Fires Mike Papantonio and Farron Cousins discuss this.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And I don't know how they figure that.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments had given millions to the Clinton Foundation.
And then a LOT of those arms manufacture's dollars went back to the Clintons in the form of high priced speaking fees.
By David Sirota @davidsirota d.sirota@ibtimes.com
Andrew Perez @AndrewPerezDC andrew.perez@ibtimes.com on May 26 2015 8:44 AM EDT
Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments had given millions to the Clinton Foundation. Scott Olson/Getty Images
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)The Clinton Foundation's business relationship with 20 foreign governments raises real questions about her judgment
While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clintons three full fiscal years in office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President George W. Bushs second term.
The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. That was a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.
American military contractors and their affiliates that donated to the Clinton Foundation and in some cases, helped finance speaking fees to Bill Clinton also got in on the action. Those firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of arms deals authorized by the Clinton State Department.
That year, the Algerian government donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation and the next year Clintons State Department approved a one-year 70 percent increase in military export authorizations to the country. The jump included authorizations for almost 50,000 items classified as toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment. The State Department had not authorized the export of any of such items to Algeria the year before.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,128 posts)There is some truth to that, I'll admit, not that should absolve Hillary. But then, again, if she's smart enough to evade bribery charges, she has the chops to run circles around the Rethugs.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Her campaign is, like none before it, totally dependent upon controlling the message and the interactions.
She hasn't stepped foot near a microphone where she might be asked about these specifics.
I know what you're saying though about her defenders and their "where's the smoking gun?"
Well, we just provided all the smoke and all the guns you could ever expect to see and we still get that reply.
.... http://www.vox.com/2015/4/28/8501643/Clinton-foundation-donors-State
.... http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/04/28/clinton-sinking-as-vox-yes-vox-continues-barrage-against-charity/
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,128 posts)to overcome all the bribe money Hillary is getting.
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts). . . surely this should raise serious questions about her ethics and judgment -- which are perfectly appropriate topics for consideration with respect to any nominee or potential candidate!
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,128 posts)NCjack
(10,279 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Is her candidacy being run in part by funds derived from favorable treatment of arms manufacturers?
I think it is.
NCjack
(10,279 posts)export earning by supplying weapons.
NCjack
(10,279 posts)OKNancy
(41,832 posts)similar to Moon.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/mar/28/newsweek-new-owners-background
Article about how IBT bought Newsweek, but goes into their background.
Sample:
Similarly, he dismissed the notion that readers should be troubled by the little-known fact that he has personally endorsed the view, espoused by the so-called ex-gay movement, that gay people may have developed their sexuality as a result of being sexually abused as children, and can be cured by therapy to make them heterosexual.
In a Facebook post in February 2013, Davis described as "shockingly accurate" an op-ed article written by Christopher Doyle, the director of the International Healing Foundation (IHF), which works to convert gay people. Davis said it cuts like a hot knife through a buttery block of lies.
Doyle, who once identified as gay but is now married to a woman, wrote that same-sex attractions are typically felt by people born with a sensitive nature and then subjected to early sexual initiation and/or sexual abuse or unusual attachment issues with their parents. He said last week that he was delighted by Daviss praise. Considering how much of the media is very gay-friendly, this is a breath of fresh air, he said.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,485 posts)Why are DUers posting right wing sources?
alp227
(32,079 posts)"Go Left TV" is the name of the Ring of Fire YouTube and DU accounts.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,485 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,739 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Business_Times
The International Business Times is an online news publication,[1] comprising seven national editions and four languages. The publication, sometimes called IBTimes or IBT, offers news, opinion, and editorial commentary on business and business-related stories.[3] It was ranked by Alexa as the third-most visited site among business newspapers as of October 2011.[4]
IBTimes was launched in 2005; it is owned by IBT Media,[1] and was founded by Etienne Uzac and Johnathan Davis. Its headquarters are in a former Newsweek office in the Financial District of Lower Manhattan, New York City.[5]
Founder Etienne Uzac, a native of France, came up with the idea for the global business news site while a student at the London School of Economics. He found that the strongest business newspapers had a focus on the U.S and Europe and planned to provide broader geographic coverage. Uzac recruited Johnathan Davis to join him in the enterprise.[6] In late 2005 Uzac and Davis moved to New York to launch the site, with Uzac primarily focused on business strategy while Davis coded the site and wrote the first articles.[7]
In May 2012, the company announced that Jeffery Rothfeder had been appointed as the publication's new Editor-in-Chief, while Davis, who previously served as Executive Editor, will manage the company's content strategy across all platforms as the Chief Content Officer.[8]
On August 4, 2013, IBT Media, the owner of IBTimes, announced its purchase of Newsweek and newsweek.com from IAC/InterActiveCorp. The purchase does not include The Daily Beast.[9] Peter S. Goodman became the editor in 2014.
By October 2011, the site ranked within the top 400 U.S websites,[10] and the top 900 global websites.[11] By March 2015, the site ranked within the top 550 U.S websites, and the top 1,050 global websites.[12]
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)That is why people post links.
I'll help you out a little:
But they come with a backstory that is unusual for the mainstream media. The pair started their company in 2006 reportedly after meeting via Christian fellowships, and have frequently been the subject of reports linking them to David Jang, a controversial Korean pastor who is also the founder of Olivet University, an evangelical school based in San Francisco, California.
Davis once taught journalism at Olivet, and his wife, Tracy, is the universitys president. Uzac sat on Olivets board of trustees until last year, and his wife, Marion, who has also worked at IBT Media, was previously the press secretary for the World Evangelical Alliance. Olivet is a member of the alliance and Jang sits on the alliances North American council. Olivet graduates have been hired to work in a number of roles at IBT Media. The Guardian has confirmed that as Olivet expands its operations around the US, IBT Media has given money to the college.
Davis said in an interview that their work and faith were separate, and that he wanted the journalism to speak for itself both at their new magazine and at the International Business Times, a news website that was IBT Medias flagship title until it bought Newsweek.
Similarly, he dismissed the notion that readers should be troubled by the little-known fact that he has personally endorsed the view, espoused by the so-called ex-gay movement, that gay people may have developed their sexuality as a result of being sexually abused as children, and can be cured by therapy to make them heterosexual.
----------------------------------
Another link: http://observer.com/2013/08/moonies-messiahs-and-media-who-really-owns-newsweek/
n Saturday, news broke that IBT Media, a company that runs the online business (at least, in theory) newspaper International Business Times, had purchased Newsweek from IAC. So IBT Media now owns Newsweek. But exactly who controls IBT Media?
IBT Medias corporate leadership site lists two cofounders: Etienne Uzac, the companys CEO, and Johnathan Davis, its chief content officer.
But some say that the company is actually controlled byor at least has very close undisclosed ties tosomeone whose name appears nowhere on the site: David Jang, a controversial Korean Christian preacher who has been accused of calling himself Second Coming Christ.
A story in The Tennessean about Olivet University, a university founded by Mr. Jang, lists IBT as one of Mr. Jangs businesses. A deeply reported investigation into Mr. Jangs church by the magazine Christianity Today also lists IBT as among Mr. Jangs enterprises. (That investigation, incidentally, was named one of the Best Long Reads of 2012? by The Daily Beast, which had partnered with Newsweek.)
IBTs two cofounders seem to have ties to Mr. Jang as well.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)JM
merrily
(45,251 posts)This business of calling a source "right wing" and assuming that answers all questions is silly. If it's a pure opinion piece, sure. If it cites facts, attacking the source doesn't refute shit.
This is very similar to what Hillary does. When asked a question about an adverse fact, her answer begins, "The Republicans...." as if no one on the left has a single question about her and as if citing Republicans is some kind of refutation of what was said. When asked about Monica Lewinsky by Matt Lauer, she cited a vast right wing conspiracy. Guess what? There was something between her husband and Monica, even though the ones making the allegations were on the right.
Sorry. Killing the messenger solved nothing and refuted nothing before common era
.
Plutarch's Lives states: "The first messenger, that gave notice of Lucullus' coming was so far from pleasing Tigranes that, he had his head cut off for his pains; and no man dared to bring further information. Without any intelligence at all, Tigranes sat while war was already blazing around him, giving ear only to those who flattered him."[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger
It still doesn't. But only ducks the issue. For some, that's the only goal.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)It's old school thinking. See my last post on this thread.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive religious group that seeks to bring Jesus back to Capitol Hill. Is she triangulatingor living her faith?
2007 article from that notorious right-wing rag, Mother Jones
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-hillary-clintons-religion-and-politics
marym625
(17,997 posts).it's all about, and always about, the money
peacebird
(14,195 posts)"Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler were three men. Think of the immense power these three men had.... But they bound themselves together in an agreement.... Jesus said, 'You have to put me before other people. And you have to put me before yourself.' Hitler, that was the demand to be in the Nazi party. You have to put the Nazi party and its objectives ahead of your own life and ahead of other people."
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)If you can come refute the facts of these allegations, please continue.
If you can only attack the source, then I'll rest my case and continue informing readers what was going on in the Clinton state department and Clinton Foundation.
It would be a shame to see a person become president using money that came from selling arms and chemical weapons.
4now
(1,596 posts)lol
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)He's also real journalist. Mike Papantonio is credible as well.
wyldwolf
(43,873 posts)Real journalists are objective. Sirota has been misleading in the past about Clinton.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)"While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clinton's three full fiscal years in office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President George W. Bush's second term."
The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. That was a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.
The Algerian government donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation and the next year Clinton's State Department approved a one-year 70 percent increase in military export authorizations to the country.
Al-fucking-geria, human trafficking, slave labor Algeria? Awwww,you don't want to know about this..../
wyldwolf
(43,873 posts)There comes a point where it becomes a waste of time to fact check someone who has been wrong often and has a clear agenda.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Here's mu question to you the media just had to ask Bernie about a sex novel he wrote in the 70's, do you think they should ask Hillary about the $250 grand Algeria donated to the Clinton Foundation and the following weapons they received?
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals
wyldwolf
(43,873 posts)It's about a muckraker with a clear agenda named Sirota trying to disguise himself as a journalist who's been wrong often.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Sirota's used information from reliable sources. And that information doesn't paint a very attractive picture of Hillary Rodham Clinton..
It looks like there's another clear agenda and it has nothing to do with Sirota...
wyldwolf
(43,873 posts)And spun it in the worse possible light. That's called playing to your audience. Just one more example of Sirota's write first, defend later style.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Hillary's State Dept publicly admonishes Algeria for being a human rights nightmare...
Algeria donates $500,000.00 to the Clinton Foundation.
The State Dept. authorizes $2.4 billion worth of military weapons to Algeria
The Clinton Foundation fails to disclose the donation until a year later
And it's not just Algeria.. Qatar another human rights nightmare, donates to Clinton Foundation receives huge increase of arms sales
Other than making large donations to the Clinton Foundation why are we suddenly shipping billions of dollars worth of arms to countries like Algeria, a hub for human trafficking, forced prostitution, etc...?
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts)Raindaddy wrote:
Sure looks like a question to me. Even has a question mark after it. What more do you need? (And is my last sentence a question?)
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)wyldwolf
(43,873 posts)when the messenger has often given erroneous messages.
Joe Turner
(930 posts)The Clinton Foundation's long list of corporate and international contributors is a bank full of smoking guns. Note: You have a problem with your candidate.
wyldwolf
(43,873 posts)Joe Turner
(930 posts)wyldwolf
(43,873 posts)markpkessinger
(8,409 posts)wyldwolf
(43,873 posts)Sirota's tendency to go after the Clintons and others seems to have started when sought work from Lieberman twice and the DLC once and was turned down each time. And each application came after those nefarious centrists had done the evil things Sirota writes about.
David Sirota doesn't like so-called centrists. We get it. He's made it abundantly clear. And if he'd stick with facts and avoid the slime-ball Matt Drudge tactics, I'd have a lot more respect for the guy even while disagreeing with him. But as it is, he's seldom been one to walk the straight and narrow when it comes to writing.
1. There was that really odd attack on Senator Clinton in 2007 after one of the Democratic debates. Here was the line from then that so infuriated Sirota:
(Laughter first from the audience, then from Hillary]
Clinton: All I can remember from that is a bunch of charts. That sort of is a vague memory.
Here, Senator Clinton was obviously making a quip about Perot's debate with Gore and his use of charts. But how did Sirota react?
Regardless of how you feel about NAFTA or Hillary Clinton, Sirota's reaction was way off the mark - either intentionally or unintentionally. Either way says much about Sirota.
2. Matt Yglesias called out Sirota's creative spin on reality in a thorough debunking of a piece he wrote on 'centrism.' Again, regardless of how you feel about the subject matter, it's clear Sirota simply didn't know what he was writing about:
http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/12/debunking_debun.html
http://www.gregsopinion.com/archives/005332.html" target="_blank">This blog also took on Sirota's less-than-honest piece.
3. No one was surprised at Sirota's little jab at Clinton here. I mean, all this has been debated thousands times on DU but he broke new ground here with his inclusion of Elizabeth Warren:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025321334
quoting: http://inthesetimes.com/article/17021/Clinton-Warren-differences
Typically, Sirota either didn't dig deep enough or left off some pertinent Warren information to better influence progressive minds. It only took me 30 seconds of Googling to find this from a 2007 PBS interview between Maria Hinojosa and Elizabeth Warren
And she at that moment said, "Oh my God. We have to stop this law. It's not gonna happen." It gets passed in Congress and Bill Clinton, because of Hillary's conversation with you more or less, vetoes that bill. Now we fast forward to Senator Hillary Clinton, bankruptcy law comes for a vote and she votes for it?
WARREN: Yes.
This excerpt was quoted and posted a lot at the time - not as any statement on Warren because none of us knew who she was back then. Rather, it was meant damning evidence of how Senator Clinton has changed.
But Warren made a clarification in that interview and gave, in my opinion, some very insightful information about working in Washington that we already know:
Mrs. Clinton, in a much more secure positionas Senator a couple of years laterwhen the bill came up once againSenator Clinton was not therethe day of the vote. It was the day that President Clinton, you may remember, had heart surgery. But she issued a very strong press release condemning the bill and I assume if she had been there that she would have voted against it. II tell my story not to try to thump Senator Clinton but the story is important because it's a reminder of how money talks in Washington.
Here is an excerpt from Clinton's statement on the bill:
I also want to add Senator Clinton voted for every single amendment to add consumer protections to the bill - each of which were rejected by both Republican majority and other Democrats. She voted against cloture in an attempt to keep the final bill from coming to a vote at all.
As a side note, Joe Biden not only voted for the 2005 bill, he rallied around it.
As President Obama has said when referencing the ACA and Republican attacks on it, "if it's really so bad, why do you have to be misleading about it?"
David Sirota - if Hillary Clinton is so bad, why do you have to be misleading about her (and, for that matter, misleading about Elizabeth Warren?)
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts). . . As for No. 1, I don't find Sirota's reaction to Hillary's response to be misleading in any way. Her response was a clever dodge of an uncomfortable question -- and a very insensitive one at that.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Who accuse Democratic candidates of being segregationist gun-nuts.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Well! I never! There's no such thing as an "anti left DUer" don't ya know!? Every one here is a Democrat and by definition, left. Can't you tell!? Good god!
Hee hee
TM99
(8,352 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)No matter what links I posted, one of DUs more dishonest Hillary supporters insisted that the fact that Hillary never read the NIE had all come from a single, incorrect source. So, I posted a transcript of Hillary saying it to Russert from the MTP website, whereupon, the theretofore persistent DUer vanished from the subthread.
zentrum
(9,866 posts).Mike Papantonio.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)JM
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)wyldwolf
(43,873 posts)marym625
(17,997 posts)There are those with principles and those that pretend to have them.
Frankly, I want to know why there are still so many starving children in the world with all the money corporations give to "charity. " absolutely could feed all the starving children in the world with the billions collected, many times over.
I want to know why there are not schools and farms everywhere in the world that they're needed with this astronomical amount of money
I know that what I just said has zero to do with the OP. I just can't stand that someone with the kind of wealth she has, and the amount of money collected by the Clinton foundation that we're not hearing - forget it. I'm going off on another tangent. I'm tired.
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts)It is truly disturbing to me that so few seem to be troubled by a candidate who constantly manages to skate so close to the outer edges of ethical conduct.
marym625
(17,997 posts)And frankly, if it happens once or even twice, it's possible that it doesn't mean anything. But when it's constant, there's a great likelihood there's more to it.
swilton
(5,069 posts)on Sirota's web page.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota.html
wyldwolf
(43,873 posts)Becoming worse than the Arkansas Project.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Is there any criteria anymore for being able to have a (D) behind your name? Guess not?
Thanks for posting this.. No way I'll vote for this woman. How is this not illegal? And who ends up paying for it when this stuff gets in the hands of some terrorist group.. Not Hillary Clinton, not the weapons contractors, innocent civilians and our troops.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)A reply I can truly agree with...
Paka
(2,760 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Let her earn a few bucks to supplement her SS and cat food.
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
merrily
(45,251 posts)stonecutter357
(12,699 posts)zentrum
(9,866 posts)since I was a little child and my father was the Democratic Party Precinct organizer. I know a Democrat when I see one and she is a weather vane who stands for one thing onlythe further fame and power of one HRC.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)If she is the candidate on our side...she will not win.
She has too much baggage and FuksNews, Hate Radio, Pukes, Baggers, women haters and on and on...will HAMMER non-stop 24/7 about her.
There may be Bush Burnout but there is Clinton Burnout too.
zentrum
(9,866 posts)There is Clinton burnout. Both for the real scandals and the phony ones. And even the phony ones (mostly) I blame them forbecause they are both so careless. The carelessness comes from arrogance I think. Wish they'd both fold it up and just go do their Foundation work. Like the Carters.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)And Bernie is BALD!!!
marym625
(17,997 posts)He's just a fringe candidate!
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)during her term as SoS was a glorified salesperson for defense contractors and her payment were donations to the Clinton Foundation.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The difference in this case is the way influence was pedaled for personal gain.
That is entirely fresh.
IkeRepublican
(406 posts)They try it and the Hillary Camp will get every bit of data on all the Repuke candidates along with plenty of others in Congress and bury them all the way down to the mantle.
markpkessinger
(8,409 posts). . . since Republicans are just as venal as HRC, it's all good. Is that what you're saying?
IkeRepublican
(406 posts)They're going to keep wanking off to Bungoozie.
think
(11,641 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)because he is talking about issues they believe in. And this info on Clinton? I'd say surprising but it's not. She's never met a banker, now it appears arms dealer she didn't like. Brings back the photo of her hugging Henry Kissinger...ugh. Maybe the Benghazi-type fluff is to keep at bay the real stuff?
We'll see if Bernie picks up on it. I don't care if Fox News or the Moonies bring it out...which they probably will...much later. If it's true...and it appears to be pretty damning...the sooner it's out to the common folk the better.
Adenoid_Hynkel
(14,093 posts)I'm shocked.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Or in using the Lincoln bedroom like a Red Roof Inn for donors.
All just mere RW speculation and insinuation.
silenttigersong
(957 posts)That Pap and cousins are on this .Anyone else who posts concerns is thrown into the Clinton spin cycle,Pathetic situation.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)A new social media era where even anonymous memes can destroy careers.
The MSM is disappearing quicker than than water in California. The days of the boob tube are over.
Ignoring a candidate like Sanders or others who resonate with the new media by trying to trash the source, ignoring the issues, is a losing proposition. People these days increasingly seek out information and don't passively sit getting fed it. As mcglauglin that old blowhard who nobody watches says...bye bye. This is the anonymous era where anyone with a Twitter account or YouTube channel can impact millions.
I don't watch TV unless it's on YouTube, worldstar, liveleak, iTunes or Netflix, passively being fed pablum is a waste of time.
btw great video. Thanks‼️
https://m.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Hillary is a success with this information, one of the responsibilities is commerce, thanks for the heads up on her success.