RonRules
02-04-2008, 10:58 AM
I found this pretty disturbing:
Look for this among other troubling paragraphs:
"contributions of between $500 and the federal $2,300 maximum per election, coming from people identified as dishwashers and other menial jobs. "
From Anacott investments New Zealand:
The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China (PRC) to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the William J. Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.
While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, the PRC's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of the PRC sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the PRC Embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the PRC targeted only congressional elections. The Chinese government denied all accusations.
Twenty-two people were eventually convicted for fraud or for funneling Asian funds into the United States elections. A number of the convictions came against longtime Clinton-Gore friends and political appointees.
Two years ago it was reported in the Financial Times Bill Clinton was advising the nation of Dubai for millions in consulting fees on how to get the Port Deal done while Hillary was publicly opposing the proposed contract.
Bill Clinton, former US president, advised top officials from Dubai two weeks ago on how to address growing US concerns over the acquisition of five US container terminals by DP World. It came even as his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, was leading efforts to derail the deal.
Mr Clinton, who this week called the United Arab Emirates a “good ally to America”, advised Dubai’s leaders to propose a 45-day delay to allow for an intensive investigation of the acquisition, according to his spokesman. Mr Clinton’s contact with Dubai on the issue underscores the relationship he has developed with the United Arab Emirates since leaving office.
Then in October, just last year:
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton defended her fundraising practices among New York's Chinese community today and said those questioning her ability to reform Washington, including attacks from her rivals, should look at her record.
The Los Angeles Times recently reported on donations Clinton has received from New York's Chinese community, including contributions of between $500 and the federal $2,300 maximum per election, coming from people identified as dishwashers and other menial jobs. (emphasis added) Of 150 contributions examined, one-third of the donors could not be found and a $1,000 donor said they did not give a contribution.
The newspaper noted that at a single April fundraiser held in an area of poverty, Clinton raised $380,000.
"I think with respect to that one event, there were more than 250 people there," Clinton said. "My campaign reviewed many of the contributors; we've returned money. As new things come to light, we'll continue to do that."
The Clinton campaign has said it reviewed donations and returned those in cases where it couldn't confirm the contributions were legally given.
And now this opinion from a major international business paper:
Is it just us, or is there something off about ex-president Bill Clinton using his influence overseas to enrich a pal and then accepting the pal's big donation to his foundation? This looks like a bribery racket.
Strong words, yes, but a New York Times report details a 2005 incident of Clinton and a minor Canadian mining financier jetting into Kazakhstan, where the two met with the local strongman. Shortly afterward, Clinton's pal won a huge uranium-mining contract that left competing mining companies astounded.
Anything untoward? Clinton says of course not. After all, doesn't every ex-president jet in to Central Asia from time to time to check up on his charity projects and sample the gourmet cuisine? Nothing to see here folks, move along.
But the story doesn't end there. Clinton's friend, Frank Giustra, eventually ended up becoming a billionaire from that "lucky" trip. He then donated $31.3 million to Clinton's $208 million foundation as its largest donor in 2006. Any connection? Nada, Clinton's defenders say.
Who doesn't think something fishy is going on?
It's the tip of a larger problem with Clinton and his global foundation that was launched in 1997 to "make a difference."
Besides ending global warming and doling out AIDS medicine, it appears to have another purpose — to function as a vehicle for extending Clinton's global power reach. The foundation's potential to draw "thank you" donations for helpful acts like showing up in Almaty, Kazakhstan is just one part of it. It could well go even further than that.
Another Clinton pal, Denise Rich, donated $450,000 to Clinton's library in late 2000, around the time that Clinton pardoned her ex-husband, Marc Rich, the fugitive financier on the lam for tax evasion and trading with the enemy. Any connection? Again, of course not.
It gets downright dangerous when one considers that Clinton's wife is now a front-runner for the Presidency in 2009. With Hillary in high office, Bill Clinton will be free to do as he pleases with his foundation, yet his proximity to real power will be far greater.
In a December 20th report, the Times asked whether Clinton's foundation donations could be misused to "circumvent campaign finance laws intended to limit political influence."
That's worth paying attention to, because Clinton Foundation records show that one of the few projects it has funded is a group called ACORN, which had employees convicted of voter fraud, in several states, over a period of many years.
So if Bill Clinton can and is willing to sway, even implicitly by his presence, a distant satrap (def: A governor of a province in ancient Persia.) such as Kazakhstan's leader to help a crony, then the potential for him to sway a U.S. president who may have interest in perpetuating and/or enriching herself and her pals in power is even greater.
Meanwhile, there's been a mysterious rise in donations that have been washing into the William J. Clinton Foundation's coffers. Mysterious, because most of the donors are anonymous.
A look at the foundation's 2006 donors from its most recent Form 990 IRS return shows that not one of the top 13 donors are identified. Clinton says he won't disclose them because he promised anonymity but for future donors, if his wife becomes president, he will.
Even that isn't as magnanimous as it looks. To all who would like to have Bill on their string, it's tantamount to a dinner call to get their donations in now. Not surprisingly, donations rose most sharply in 2006, the last published year, by almost 50% to $138.5 million.
The Washington Post reported last month that 10% of Clinton's donations for his presidential library were from overseas sources — not just wealthy businessmen, but foreign governments, too. The Saudis gave $10 million, and Kuwait and Brunei also chipped in.
It all shows that if there is a loophole, the Clintons will take it. Appearances of impropriety mean nothing to them. But with a new Clinton in the White House, the stakes rise. As money rolls in and the Clintons take power, this specter of an ex-president sitting on a cash-hungry foundation and his wife in a position to dole out favors bears potential for Marcos-like corruption and a sellout of American interests on a scale unknown in the U.S. Who is going to stop them?
On the question, who will stop the Clintons? Curmudgeon answers, Democratic primary voters will, or at least, they should. Shame on the Clintons.
Graham J O'Connor - Managing Director
Anacott Investments Co Pty Ltd
Look for this among other troubling paragraphs:
"contributions of between $500 and the federal $2,300 maximum per election, coming from people identified as dishwashers and other menial jobs. "
From Anacott investments New Zealand:
The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China (PRC) to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the William J. Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.
While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, the PRC's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of the PRC sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the PRC Embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the PRC targeted only congressional elections. The Chinese government denied all accusations.
Twenty-two people were eventually convicted for fraud or for funneling Asian funds into the United States elections. A number of the convictions came against longtime Clinton-Gore friends and political appointees.
Two years ago it was reported in the Financial Times Bill Clinton was advising the nation of Dubai for millions in consulting fees on how to get the Port Deal done while Hillary was publicly opposing the proposed contract.
Bill Clinton, former US president, advised top officials from Dubai two weeks ago on how to address growing US concerns over the acquisition of five US container terminals by DP World. It came even as his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, was leading efforts to derail the deal.
Mr Clinton, who this week called the United Arab Emirates a “good ally to America”, advised Dubai’s leaders to propose a 45-day delay to allow for an intensive investigation of the acquisition, according to his spokesman. Mr Clinton’s contact with Dubai on the issue underscores the relationship he has developed with the United Arab Emirates since leaving office.
Then in October, just last year:
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton defended her fundraising practices among New York's Chinese community today and said those questioning her ability to reform Washington, including attacks from her rivals, should look at her record.
The Los Angeles Times recently reported on donations Clinton has received from New York's Chinese community, including contributions of between $500 and the federal $2,300 maximum per election, coming from people identified as dishwashers and other menial jobs. (emphasis added) Of 150 contributions examined, one-third of the donors could not be found and a $1,000 donor said they did not give a contribution.
The newspaper noted that at a single April fundraiser held in an area of poverty, Clinton raised $380,000.
"I think with respect to that one event, there were more than 250 people there," Clinton said. "My campaign reviewed many of the contributors; we've returned money. As new things come to light, we'll continue to do that."
The Clinton campaign has said it reviewed donations and returned those in cases where it couldn't confirm the contributions were legally given.
And now this opinion from a major international business paper:
Is it just us, or is there something off about ex-president Bill Clinton using his influence overseas to enrich a pal and then accepting the pal's big donation to his foundation? This looks like a bribery racket.
Strong words, yes, but a New York Times report details a 2005 incident of Clinton and a minor Canadian mining financier jetting into Kazakhstan, where the two met with the local strongman. Shortly afterward, Clinton's pal won a huge uranium-mining contract that left competing mining companies astounded.
Anything untoward? Clinton says of course not. After all, doesn't every ex-president jet in to Central Asia from time to time to check up on his charity projects and sample the gourmet cuisine? Nothing to see here folks, move along.
But the story doesn't end there. Clinton's friend, Frank Giustra, eventually ended up becoming a billionaire from that "lucky" trip. He then donated $31.3 million to Clinton's $208 million foundation as its largest donor in 2006. Any connection? Nada, Clinton's defenders say.
Who doesn't think something fishy is going on?
It's the tip of a larger problem with Clinton and his global foundation that was launched in 1997 to "make a difference."
Besides ending global warming and doling out AIDS medicine, it appears to have another purpose — to function as a vehicle for extending Clinton's global power reach. The foundation's potential to draw "thank you" donations for helpful acts like showing up in Almaty, Kazakhstan is just one part of it. It could well go even further than that.
Another Clinton pal, Denise Rich, donated $450,000 to Clinton's library in late 2000, around the time that Clinton pardoned her ex-husband, Marc Rich, the fugitive financier on the lam for tax evasion and trading with the enemy. Any connection? Again, of course not.
It gets downright dangerous when one considers that Clinton's wife is now a front-runner for the Presidency in 2009. With Hillary in high office, Bill Clinton will be free to do as he pleases with his foundation, yet his proximity to real power will be far greater.
In a December 20th report, the Times asked whether Clinton's foundation donations could be misused to "circumvent campaign finance laws intended to limit political influence."
That's worth paying attention to, because Clinton Foundation records show that one of the few projects it has funded is a group called ACORN, which had employees convicted of voter fraud, in several states, over a period of many years.
So if Bill Clinton can and is willing to sway, even implicitly by his presence, a distant satrap (def: A governor of a province in ancient Persia.) such as Kazakhstan's leader to help a crony, then the potential for him to sway a U.S. president who may have interest in perpetuating and/or enriching herself and her pals in power is even greater.
Meanwhile, there's been a mysterious rise in donations that have been washing into the William J. Clinton Foundation's coffers. Mysterious, because most of the donors are anonymous.
A look at the foundation's 2006 donors from its most recent Form 990 IRS return shows that not one of the top 13 donors are identified. Clinton says he won't disclose them because he promised anonymity but for future donors, if his wife becomes president, he will.
Even that isn't as magnanimous as it looks. To all who would like to have Bill on their string, it's tantamount to a dinner call to get their donations in now. Not surprisingly, donations rose most sharply in 2006, the last published year, by almost 50% to $138.5 million.
The Washington Post reported last month that 10% of Clinton's donations for his presidential library were from overseas sources — not just wealthy businessmen, but foreign governments, too. The Saudis gave $10 million, and Kuwait and Brunei also chipped in.
It all shows that if there is a loophole, the Clintons will take it. Appearances of impropriety mean nothing to them. But with a new Clinton in the White House, the stakes rise. As money rolls in and the Clintons take power, this specter of an ex-president sitting on a cash-hungry foundation and his wife in a position to dole out favors bears potential for Marcos-like corruption and a sellout of American interests on a scale unknown in the U.S. Who is going to stop them?
On the question, who will stop the Clintons? Curmudgeon answers, Democratic primary voters will, or at least, they should. Shame on the Clintons.
Graham J O'Connor - Managing Director
Anacott Investments Co Pty Ltd