By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Poojipoo on 25 September 2016
Edit Thread
thranx said:
Poojipoo said:

I'm curious, am I missing something on the Clinton Foundation scandal? I've been doing a ton of research on it (and other aspects of each candidate to stay informed) but I'm having trouble understanding the controversy here. The Foundation's use of its funds are fully transparent and obviously going towards very good causes across the world... There's only allegations that the Clintons give special attention to donors, but no substantial evidence it had any negative impact in how Hillary did her job.  There's definitely stuff of substance to criticize her for, but I'm having trouble finding evidence their Foundation is of importance? 

 

On the flip side, Trump uses the Trump Foundation's charity earnings to pay off lawsuits for his businesses and buy paintings of himself. It's sort of hilarious to even compare the two foundations' work in this regard... 

Did you miss the whole "pay to play". Donate to become an ambasador. Donate to get to talk to hillar, Donate to get to talk to other government officials. Donate to get your uranium purchse approved. Thats just from memory.

 

Nevermind I guess you have seen them but just think corruption doesnt impact doing your job. Head in the sand much? The polls sure dont show that the rest of the american people dont believe that.

The Uranium One deal is a great example of how a complex situation gets twisted in to a conspiracy theory.

Uranium One was a South African company that merged with a Canadian company called UrAsia back in 2007.  A bunch of guys mostly associated with UrAsia donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2007 and 2008, before the Russians bought a 51% majority share of the company in 2009. Most of the individuals who donated were no longer involved with the company when the deal to transfer a portion of the US' Uranium holdings went down, and had nothing to gain at that point. In particular, the lion share of donations came from Frank Giustra, who confirmed to have sold his UrAsia shares back in 2007. Only one man was still associated, and his donations amounted to something in the range of $1-5m, chump change compared to the other $140m in question.

 

Furthermore, Hillary did not and could not sign off on the deal on her own. Many government agencies had to sign off, as well as several independent and state regulators. The idea that Hillary would pull that many strings of the government for a measly $1-5m donation is down right absurd. The Clintons make twice that each year just from book deals and speaking.

 

It's far more likely the deal went through because at the time the US government was extending an olive branch to the Russians while trying to get them on board for with the Iran nuclear deal. At the end of the day, it wasn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things (especially since the US doesn't produce that much Uranium to begin with, and the Russians aren't licenses to export it from the US, heh).