Jun 22, 2016 2:41 PM GMT
Know what you are getting when you vote...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/15/hillary-clinton-most-bought-paid-for-candidate/Besides the questions surrounding Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private server and whether secret government documents were compromised and possibly hacked by America’s adversaries, there is another issue the major media have completely ignored.
It involves an institution known as Laureate Education, the parent company of Walden University, an online, for-profit school, which in its practices, critics of Trump University might say sounds like the allegations made against that school. Several students at Walden claimed to have been repeatedly delayed and given added costs as they tried to obtain their degrees, leaving them in considerable debt. A lawsuit was filed by the students, but a spokesperson for Walden told me the suits were “resolved” and the students have re-enrolled.
Bill Clinton was paid an obscene $16.5 million between 2010 and 2014 to serve as an honorary chancellor for Laureate International Universities.
With the Clintons, the money tree never ceases bearing fruit. Are people seeking to buy influence with this amount of cash, or do they just like Bill and Hillary?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/If the Clinton Foundation’s strength is President Clinton’s endless intellectual omnivorousness, its weakness is the distractibility and lack of interest in detail that sometimes come with it. On a philanthropic level, the foundation gets decent ratings from outside review groups, though critics charge that it’s too diffuse to do much good, that the money has not always achieved what it was intended to, and that in some cases the money doesn’t seem to have achieved its intended purpose. The foundation made errors in its tax returns it has to correct. Overall, however, the essential questions about the Clinton Foundation come down to two, related issues. The first is the seemingly unavoidable conflicts of interest: How did the Clintons’ charitable work intersect with their for-profit speeches? How did their speeches intersect with Hillary Clinton’s work at the State Department? Were there quid-pro-quos involving U.S. policy? Did the foundation steer money improperly to for-profit companies owned by friends? The second, connected question is about disclosure. When Clinton became secretary, she agreed that the foundation would make certain disclosures, which it’s now clear it didn’t always do. And the looming questions about Clinton’s State Department emails make it harder to answer those questions.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/more-money-more-problems-a-guide-to-hillary-clintons-cash-scandals/391299/1. The State Department, Uranium, and the Russian Government
This one is complicated, in part because many of the relationships are carefully kept at arm's length for legal and ethical reasons, but The New York Times lays it out in a lengthy story. In 2005, Canadian businessman Frank Giustra acquired uranium interests in Kazakhstan, on a trip with former President Bill Clinton. The following year, he gave more than $31 million to the Clinton Foundation. In 2007, Giustra's UrAsia merged with Uranium One, a South African company, and acquired U.S. uranium concerns. In 2009, the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, reached a deal to take a 17 percent stake in Uranium One. In 2010, it increased that to a controlling 51 percent stake, and in 2013 acquired the rest of the company.
Because the U.S. considers uranium a strategic asset, the acquisition had to be approved by a government commission. Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, sat on the commission. As Rosatom gradually increased its stake, million of dollars flowed to the Clinton Foundation, including $2.35 million from the family foundation of Uranium One's chairman. Despite an agreement forged with the White House when Hillary Clinton became secretary, requiring the Clinton Foundation to disclose all of its donors, these donations were not disclosed. In total, people affiliated with Uranium One or its predecessor gave more than $8 million to the Clinton Foundation between 2008 and 2010. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow, paid for by a bank boosting Uranium One stock.