Posted on 05/17/2025 8:37:49 AM PDT by simpson96
Well, Qatar signed the largest deal in Boeing history about $100 BILLION to buy 160 civilian airliners, so I guess throwing in a freebie to the US SecDef is a small sweetener…not to mention putting our CinC in a safer airworthy airframe as our national strategic flying command post, until Boeing delivers a new AF One.
Trump now is flying in a 40 yr old aircraft used by Reagan..
How dumb can Hil be,,,,,,muslims don’t like women as politicians,,,,,,one would think by now Hil would understand that,,,,,Bill didn’t like Hil. No body likes Hil.
No one signs over a large part of US uranium deposits to Uranium One ( Russians ) without expecting something in return….
Can’t read the article without signing up...Why would I want to read anything she has to say anyway? Doesn’t she know her day has come and gone? Came and went long ago!
WHO builds a building without windows?
Bull shite !
That plane is a gift to Nancy Pelosi......she been shopping long time.( sarc.)
Trump said the plane is being gifted to the US Air Force.It is not Trumps personal property.
According to Clinton’s logic, we need to send back the Statue of Liberty to France.
Hitlery is jealous and projecting.
reuters.com
By Jonathan Allen
November 4, 2016
Clinton’s “charity” confirms Qatar’s $1 million gift while she was at Obama’s State Department
pic-—U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton reacts as she arrives for a campaign rally in Detroit, Michigan, U.S., November 4, 2016. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson Purchase Licensing Rights
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Clinton Foundation has confirmed it accepted a $1 million gift from Qatar while Hillary Clinton was U.S. secretary of state without informing the State Department, even though she had promised to let the agency review new or significantly increased support from foreign governments. Qatari officials pledged the money in 2011 to mark the 65th birthday of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton’s husband, and sought to meet the former U.S. president in person the following year to present him the check, according to an email from a foundation official to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign chairman, John Podesta. The email, among thousands hacked from Podesta’s account, was published last month by WikiLeaks.
Clinton signed an ethics agreement governing her family’s globe-straddling foundation in order to become secretary of state in 2009. The agreement was designed to increase transparency to avoid appearances that U.S. foreign policy could be swayed by wealthy donors. If a new foreign government wished to donate or if an existing foreign-government donor, such as Qatar, wanted to “increase materially” its support of ongoing programs, Clinton promised that the State Department’s ethics official would be notified and given a chance to raise any concerns.
Clinton Foundation officials last month declined to confirm the Qatar donation. In response to additional questions, a foundation spokesman, Brian Cookstra, this week said that it accepted the $1 million gift from Qatar, but this did not amount to a “material increase” in the Gulf country’s support for the charity. Cookstra declined to say whether Qatari officials received their requested meeting with Bill Clinton.
Officials at Qatar’s embassy in Washington and in its Council of Ministers in the capital, Doha, declined to discuss the donation. The State Department has said it has no record of the foundation submitting the Qatar gift for review, and that it was incumbent on the foundation to notify the department about donations that needed attention. A department spokeswoman did not respond to additional questions about the donation.
According to the foundation’s website, which lists donors in broad categories by cumulative amounts donated, Qatar’s government has directly given a total of between $1 million and $5 million over the years. The Clinton Foundation has said it would no longer accept money from foreign governments if Clinton is elected president and would spin off those programs that are dependent on foreign governments.
“MATERIAL” INCREASE
Foundation officials told Reuters last year that they did not always comply with central provisions of the agreement with President Barack Obama’s administration, blaming oversights in some cases.(reut.rs/2fkHPCh) At least eight other countries besides Qatar gave new or increased funding to the foundation, in most cases to fund its health project, without the State Department being informed, according to foundation and agency records. They include Algeria, which gave for the first time in 2010, and the United Kingdom, which nearly tripled its support for the foundation’s health project to $11.2 million between 2009 and 2012.
Foundation officials have said some of those donations, including Algeria, were oversights and should have been flagged, while others, such as the UK increase, did not qualify as material increases.
The foundation has declined to describe what sort of increase in funding by a foreign government would have triggered notification of the State Department for review. Cookstra said the agreement was designed to “allow foreign funding for critical Clinton Foundation programs” to continue without disruption. The State Department said it has no record of being asked by the foundation to review any increases in support by a foreign government.
Asked whether Qatar was funding a specific programme at the foundation, Cookstra said the country supported the organisation’s “overall humanitarian work.”
“Qatar continued supporting Clinton Foundation at equal or lower levels” compared with the country’s pre-2009 support, he said. He declined to say if Qatar gave any money during the first three years of Clinton’s four-year term at the State Department, or what its support before 2009 amounted to.
In another email released by WikiLeaks, a former Clinton Foundation fundraiser said he raised more than $21 million in connection with Bill Clinton’s 65th birthday in 2011.
Spokesmen for Hillary Clinton’s campaign and Bill Clinton did not respond to emailed questions about the donation.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said that major donors to the Clinton Foundation may have obtained favoured access to Clinton’s State Department, but has provided little evidence to that effect. Clinton and her staff have dismissed this accusation as a political smear.
Last month, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman ordered the Donald J. Trump Foundation to stop fundraising in the state, saying it had not registered to solicit donations.
Reporting by Jonathan Allen; Additional reporting by Tom Finn in Doha; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Andrew Hay
hahahaha....yeah, as somebody well familiar with the ins and outs of the CLINTON FOUNDATION.
Most likely BILLIONS going through it, with nothing expected in return right Hillary?
It’s a piece of junk.
Was she wearing that jewelry that the late terrorist leader Yasser Arafat gave her when she made her comment?
She has a LOT to weigh.
I guess her flying the world in Pelosi’s gov paid for airliner was just fine.
“No one gives someone a $400 million dollar jet for free without expecting anything in return,” she wrote. “Be serious.”
The White House Turnstile
How is the Clinton White House like a subway? According to Johnny Chung, fund-raiser extraordinaire for the Democrats last year, you put in coins to open the gates. That cynical comment was part of a revealing interview this week with Tom Brokaw of NBC News, in which Mr. Chung seemed to live up to his reputation as a ‘’hustler,’’ the term that National Security Council officials used to describe him when they were trying to keep him out. Mr. Chung nonetheless visited the White House nearly 50 times because he arranged for almost $400,000 in party donations, and he told Mr. Brokaw he paid the money because that is how the system worked.
No less startling was Mr. Chung’s allegation that the Democratic Party was not the only player with a ravenous appetite for money. He also described how he was, in effect, shaken down for a $25,000 donation to Africare, a charitable organization supported by the Energy Secretary at the time, Hazel O’Leary. Mr. Chung said he gave the check directly to a man who said he was an Energy Department official, in order to set up a meeting with Mrs. O’Leary and a Chinese petrochemical official. On another occasion, Mr. Chung said he gave $50,000 to a White House aide to help pay for a Christmas reception in the executive mansion, and then landed a meeting with the First Lady.
Hillary Rodham Clinton said she had no recollection of such a meeting, and the White House denies that it solicited the money from Mr. Chung. But the NBC News report was filled with pictures of Mr. Chung lounging around the executive mansion like a guest at a resort hotel. There he was in the White House mess hall, or at the President’s movie theater, or at the White House bowling alley.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/22/opinion/the-white-house-turnstile.html
“No one gives someone a $400 million dollar jet for free without expecting anything in return,” she wrote. “Be serious.”
So how many organizations have donated millions to the alleged “charity” the Clinton foundation and what was their payback for that?
The Clintons sold access to the White House for overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom, hosting at least four guests a week. They also hosted coffee klatches in the White House to raise campaign funds. As well, Chi-com connected money runners like Yah-Lin "Charlie" Trie, Johnny Chung, John Huang, James Riady, and Maria Hsia were all charged, but everyone from the Clinton Administration walked free.
She is right. In her world, there is always a tit for tat. I hope she is arrested and imprisoned for her well known tit for tats, especially those which created serious problems for the American people.
Who cares what Hillary Clinton thinks
I heard she smells like cabbage 🥬 and vodka.
nonprofitquarterly.com
May 27, 2015; Washington Post——“The sheer breadth and power of the [Clinton] foundation donor base ensures that virtually any financial or legal scandal that touches major world institutions in coming years has a good chance of involving a foundation contributor, a potentially continuing headache for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she runs for president.”
That is the conclusion of the Washington Post in light of the revelations that among the Clinton Foundation’s 200,000 donors was the Fédération Internationale de Football Association—FIFA—whose leadership was largely carted away by police in Switzerland due to charges announced by the U.S. Department of Justice. Also among the donors was the Qatar 2022 Supreme Committee, the organization established to build the stadiums and other facilities for Qatar’s hosting of the 2022 World Cup in soccer.
The coverage of FIFA’s serial scandals up to and including the Justice Department actions this week clearly implicates money flowing through various Qatari operatives to members of the FIFA board to secure their votes for a World Cup which will be played in a nation whose climate is a desert. (The dates for the Cup have been moved so it can be played between November and January, rather than the oppressively hot May to September summer, although that may lead to other problems.)
In addition to the U.S. actions against members of FIFA’s leadership, the Swiss government has launched a specific inquiry into the process that led to the Qatari World Cup decision. FIFA may have had fourteen officials arrested, but the association quickly announced that it has no intention of re-voting the decisions to have the World Cup played in Russia in 2018 or Qatar in 2022.
FIFA reportedly gave the Clinton Foundation between $50,000 and $100,000 as a membership fee to participate in the Clinton Global Initiative, plus a commitment to build 20 community centers in South Africa as part of FIFA’s decision to put the 2010 World Cup there, and the Qatar committee gave between $250,000 and $500,000 as a CGI sponsor in 2013. The Qatar 2022 Supreme Committee might not have been entirely advocating for the World Cup as an independent voluntary organization, as the government of Qatar was doing whatever it could, with lots of money flowing, to get the FIFA World Cup nod. The government of Qatar has given between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation.
The Clinton Foundation has received donations from a number of sketchy donors, apparently operating under the belief that the questionable probity of the donors (and their potential business with the U.S. State Department during Hillary Clinton’s tenure there) didn’t undermine the positive things that the Foundation could do with the money or get CGI sponsors to do on their own.
It might have been a good turn for the Clinton Foundation to consider what the Qatar government does—or doesn’t do—to protect the workers, largely foreign, who will be building the infrastructure and facilities for the World Cup. City Lab estimates that 1,200 migrant workers have already died in conjunction with World Cup construction activities in Qatar since 2010. It also mentioned that Qatar (along with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries) refused to grant bereavement leave to the tens of thousands of Nepalese laborers working in the country so that they could attend the funerals of neighbors and family who might have died in Nepal’s April 2015 earthquake.
In the wake of the announcement of its hosting the World Cup, Qatar came under international pressure to make progress on nine areas of mistreatment of migrant workers, who were going to be the people building the World Cup venues. According to a recent report from Amnesty International, Qatar has made absolutely no progress on four areas of labor rights:
The forced labor provisions of the “kafala (sponsorship) system” prevent migrant workers from changing employers. At best, limited progress has made on other areas—dangerous working conditions, barriers to workers seeking healthcare assistance, and subjecting workers to conditions of human trafficking. Amnesty’s migrant rights researcher, Mustafa Qadri, suggested that Qatar’s scorecard progress was poor:
“The lack of a clear roadmap of targets and benchmarks for reform leaves serious doubts about Qatar’s commitment to tackling migrant labor abuse. Without prompt action, the pledges Qatar made last year are at serious risk of being dismissed as a mere public relations stunt to ensure the Gulf state can cling on to the 2022 World Cup.”
It’s not like FIFA didn’t know this. Qatar’s track record on labor rights for its foreign workers (only 10 percent of the nation’s population is Qatari) has long been known to be staggeringly horrendous, documented in detail in several reports, including Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2014. The Clinton Foundation had to have known as well.
The Guardian has done consistent work on Qatari labor conditions, reporting most recently on Qatar’s arrest of a BBC news crew that was looking into improvement of labor conditions there. FIFA laughingly announced that it would investigate the arrest of the BBC news team, only a little over a week before the arrests of some of its senior brass.
There’s no point in asking a corrupt body like FIFA to explain its choice of Qatar given the country’s appalling labor record. But there is a point in asking the Clinton Foundation. Simply saying that it is large and multifaceted, leading to relationships with lots of questionable donors, doesn’t do the trick. Among nonprofits of all sizes, there is the practice of gift acceptance guidelines that explain the kinds of donors that nonprofits will and will not solicit and the donations they will accept or reject, based on explicit criteria, sometimes including governance practices and treatment of labor. Given the many press reports over the years regarding allegations of Qatari bribes and favors to FIFA board members, the Clinton Foundation knew what was going on in and around Qatar’s World Cup desires. Populated by smart, experienced political and philanthropic operatives, the Clinton Foundation also knew that migrant workers are treated like modern-day indentured servants under Qatar’s kafala system. At some point, it is worthwhile for the Clinton Foundation to just say “no” to some kinds of donors, no matter how much good the foundation might be able to do with their donations. The alternative sullies the reputations of other donors and the foundation as well.—Rick Cohen
About the author-——Rick Cohen
Rick joined NPQ in 2006, after almost eight years as the executive director of the Natl Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP). Before that he played various roles as a community worker and advisor to others doing community work. He also worked in government. Cohen pursued investigative and analytical articles, advocated for increased philanthropic giving and access for disenfranchised constituencies, and promoted increased philanthropic and nonprofit accountability.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.