Emails Show Clinton Foundation Donor Reached Out To Hillary Clinton Before Arms Export Boost by David Sirota

 

Hillary Clinton Flint

Hillary Clinton addresses local officials in Flint, Michigan, about the city’s water crisis at the House of Prayer church Feb. 7, 2016. Photo: Getty Images/Sarah Rice

 

Reproduced from International Business Times
BY DAVID SIROTA @DAVIDSIROTA ON 08/22/16 AT 7:03 PM

Emails just released by the State Department appear to show Clinton Foundation officials brokering a meeting between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a top military leader of Bahrain — a Middle Eastern country that is a major foundation donor. Soon after the correspondence about a meeting, Clinton’s State Department significantly increased arms export authorizations to the country’s autocratic government, even as that nation moved to crush pro-democracy protests.

In a statement quoted by the Wall Street Journal, a Clinton spokesperson, Josh Schwerin, said of the newly released correspondence: “The fact remains that Hillary Clinton never took action as secretary of state because of donations to the Clinton Foundation.”

The emails, which were obtained through a lawsuit by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, detail how foundation operations and State Department business intersected, even though they were supposed to be walled off from one another. Last week, Clinton’s campaign said the foundation would stop accepting foreign government donations if she is elected president — but did not explain why it accepted that money while Clinton was America’s top diplomat.

Clinton-Salman

Clinton-Salman
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shakes hands with Crown Prince of Bahrain Sheikh Salman bin Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa, May 9, 2012 before a bilateral meeting at the Department of State in Washington, DC. Photo: KAREN BLEIER/AFP/GettyImages

A 2015 International Business Times investigative series examined how, in that role, Clinton ran an agency that is responsible for regulating U.S. arms exports, and how those State Department exports approvals substantially increased to governments that donated to the Clinton Foundation. Federal law explicitly designates the secretary of state as “responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales” of arms, and early in her term, the State Department called one arms deal a “top priority” for Clinton.

The email exchange about Bahrain shows the Clinton Foundation’s top executive Doug Band in 2009 asking Clinton’s State Department aide Huma Abedin to set up a meeting between Clinton and Crown Prince Salman, who had recently been named the deputy supreme commander of Bahrain’s armed forces. Band referred to Salman as a “good friend of ours.”

Abedin told Band that Clinton had initially rejected a previous request for a meeting with Salman because “she doesn’t want to commit to anything for thurs or fri until she knows how she will feel.” Soon after, though, Abedin told Band that the State Department was now offering Salman a meeting with Clinton.

Salman has directed $32 million to a Clinton Foundation program, and the Kingdom of Bahrain has donated up to $100,000 more. As Bahrain money flowed into the Clinton Foundation, State Department documents showed that between 2010 and 2012 the Clinton-led State Department approved $630 million worth of direct commercial arms sales to Salman’s military forces in Bahrain. That was a 187 percent increase from the period 2006 to 2008, and the increase came as Bahrain was violently suppressing uprisings.

 

CGI Salman

Prince Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa of Bahrain (R) speaks as former U.S. President Bill Clinton looks on during a special session on peace in the Middle East at the annual Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) September 21, 2010 in New York City. The sixth annual meeting of the CGI gathers prominent individuals in politics, business, science, academics, religion and entertainment to discuss global issues such as climate change and the reconstruction of Haiti. The event, founded by former U.S. President Bill Clinton after he left office, is held the same week as the General Assembly at the United Nations, when most world leaders are in New York City. Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images

During those Arab Spring uprisings of 2011 — when Bahrain was accused of using tear gas on its own people — the Clinton-led State Department approved more than $70,000 worth of arms sales classified as “toxicological agents.” That compared to just $700 worth of such sales in the immediate prior period.

In the same period, the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced proposals to sell missiles and armored vehicles to Bahrain. The office notes that “the Department of State approves individual programs on a case-by-case basis.” The State Department itself says it “is responsible for managing all government-to-government transfers of military equipment to other countries.”

At the time of the armored vehicle proposal, Foreign Policy magazine reported that Clinton’s department “has not released details of the new sale, and Congress has not been notified through the regular process”; instead, the State Department “simply briefed a few congressional offices and is going ahead with the new sale, arguing it didn’t meet the threshold that would require more formal notifications and a public explanation.”

The deal was stalled after congressional opposition — but Clinton’s State Department a year later announced it was again moving forward with arms approvals for Bahrain. That resumption followed a meeting between Salman and U.S. officials including Clinton, according to Reuters.

The Obama-Clinton “Partnership”: Greatest Arms Dealers in World History—“War is Peace”

The original title of this article was:
THEANTIMEDIA.ORG
Special Bonus:  Clinton Cash Film is included at end of second article.

August 16, 2016   |   Darius Shahtahmasebi

 

(ANTIMEDIA) On Thursday, the U.S. State Department approved the sale of more military equipment, valued at around $1.15 billion USD, to the oil-rich kingdom of Saudi Arabia. This sounds like a lot of money to most of us, but the most frightening aspect of the sale is that it represents a continuation of an arms-dealing relationship between Washington and the Saudi regime, which has been worth over $50 billion USD in arms sales to date.

It is not an understatement to say Obama’s tears over gun violence are disingenuous considering his administration has enacted a policy of systematically arming the entire world with all manner of warcraft. According to the Department of Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), during his first six years in office, the Obama administration entered into agreements to sell more than $190 billion USD in weaponry worldwide. As the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy, William D. Hartung, states, this figure is higher than any U.S. administration since World War II. Perhaps that is why the Nobel secretary has voiced serious regrets about awarding the Peace Prize to the president.

While there are a number of companies who are making an absolute killing from these sales — like Lockheed Martin and Boeing —  the fact remains that the U.S. government actively facilitates this industry in more ways than one.

In 2013, the Obama administration loosened controls over military exports so military equipment could be sent to almost any country in the world with little oversight. U.S. companies began to enjoy fewer checks than they had in the past. For example, thanks to the Obama administration, weapons manufacturers can now send military parts to most regions of the world without a license, which makes it easier for companies to extend their market — even to countries that are on the U.N. arms embargo list. This is because, according to Colby Goodman, an arms-control expert with the Open Society Policy Center, once an item is approved for that exemption, there may no longer be any ongoing, country-specific human rights review as had been conducted previously.

As Mr. Hartung observed, all of this raises a number of issues when dealing with global security:

“36 US allies—from Argentina and Bulgaria to Romania and Turkey—will no longer need licenses from the State Department to import weapons and weapons parts from the United States. This will make it far easier for smuggling networks to set up front companies in such countries and get US arms and arms components that they can then pass on to third parties like Iran or China. Already a common practice, it will only increase under the new regulations.”

The expansion of this industry is already well under way, and the U.S. is at the helm. According to Vice News, as of February of this year, the U.S. had sold weapons to nearly half of the countries in the world. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found American exports reportedly made up a third of the global trade. A congressional report found that for 2014 alone, the U.S. made $36.2 billion in arms sales.

The Middle East region, hardly known for its peace and security, accounts for approximately 40 percent of U.S. weapons exports. Nearly ten percent of U.S. arms exports between 2011-2015 were sent to Saudi Arabia, and a further 9.1 percent went to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), who are primarily responsible for thehumanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Yemen. But Obama is not merely turning a blind eye to the atrocities in Yemen — his policies are enabling its destruction.

The Obama administration is also doling out weapons elsewhere. In May of this year, the White House lifted its arms embargo against Vietnam — a country once ravaged by the United States — and is set to become a rising recipient of U.S. weaponry. The target of the move is China, as Vietnam has been one of the countries participating in a stand-off with China over tensions in the South China sea.

The current U.S. arms industry is worth more than $70 billion a year but no major news outlet is talking about it. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are not talking about it, except as far as to state how much more fantastically militaristic they can make the U.S. government.

In spite of politicians’ and weapons companies’ enthusiasm for an arms industry that generates over $70 billion per year, the glut of sales has not provided the world with security. As CNN has reported, the State Department’s 2017 budget request is likely to include more funding for African armies in places like Mali, Somalia, and Nigeria. The U.S. already has a long history of meddling in these nations — and actually helped create the very terror threat they supposedly want to fight there.

Where will this end?

Providing countries with arms so they can confront a nuclear power like China is not going to provide the world with security. There are many who paint China to be the aggressor in the region, however, even if that is the case, provoking these conflicts and making billions of dollars in the process only benefits a select few — none of whom will ever have to feel the pain they inflict on the rest of the world.

This isn’t a case of companies making a profit because the government has little to no say in regulating what goes on. In any given arms sale, the U.S. government is involved in the entire process. Yet this is the same government that claims to passionately care about gun violence domestically while enabling chaos and destruction around the world.

They can hardly be said to be leading by example with their current track record.


This article (Barack Obama: From Peace Prize to World’s Biggest Arms Dealer in 8 Short Years) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Darius Shahtahmasebi and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department | Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

 

This report was first published in December 2015. No criminal charges against Hillary in relation to her emails. The FBI has also been investigating the Clinton Foundation.

By David Sirota and Andrew Perez

July 7, 2016 

“Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States’ oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region’s fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At a press conference in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing — the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 – contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.”

Continue reading at:

Source: Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department | Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

Read complete article at ibtimes 

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

New Hillary Emails Reveal ‘Pay-To-Play’ Between State And Clinton Foundation By Robert Gehl

 

Hillary-Clinton-Pathological-Liar

Reprinted from The Federal Papers Project

 

The suspicion has lingered that there was a “pay-to-play” connection between the Clinton Foundation and lucrative State Department contracts under Hillary’s leadership.

If you’re a big donor to Hillary’s charity, then you’re first in line to get favors from the State Department.

Now we have proof that this is precisely what was happening.

Newly-released emails show a big-shot donor who wanted a job was referred to the State Department. The subject line of the email read: “A favor…”

Douglas Band, with the Clinton Foundation, sent the message to Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, Hillary’s top aides, telling her that it was “important to take care of [name redacted].”

Abedin responded: “We have all had him on our radar. Personnel has been sending him options.”

In another email, Band sent a message to Abedin and Mills again asking for help getting Clinton Foundation mega-donor Gilbert Chagoury in contact with the State Department’s point man on substance abuse. “This is very important,” Band implored. Abedin dutifully promised to follow orders, Breitbart is reporting.

Chagoury is the Nigerian-Lebanese businessman and Bill Clinton friend who was profiled in Clinton Cash. He is also a convicted felon. Breitbart reports:

In 2000, Switzerland convicted Chagoury of money-laundering and “aiding a criminal organization in connection with the billions of dollars stolen from Nigeria during the [Sani] Abacha years” of military dictatorship, according to a PBS Frontline report. And despite Chagoury’s  being put on the federal terrorist no-fly list, the Clinton Foundation accepted a $1 to $5 million donation from the nefarious figure. Chagoury’s company pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2009, the same year the Clinton Global Initiative awarded the Chagoury Group its annual prize for “sustainable development.” 

All these favors and interactions between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation are in violation of an ethics agreement Hillary signed when she took the helm. In a letter to the top ethics official, Clinton wrote:

“For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party…”

That turned out not to be true.

“No wonder Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin hid emails from the American people, the courts and Congress,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement Tuesday.

Fitton asserted that Clinton and her aides violated ethics rules and may have broken the law.

“They show the Clinton Foundation, Clinton donors, and operatives worked with Hillary Clinton in potential violation of the law.”

ALERT: How To Be Sure To Continue Seeing Our Content On Facebook.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Robert Gehl

About Robert Gehl

Robert Gehl is a college professor in Phoenix, Arizona. He has over 15 years journalism experience, including two Associated Press awards. He lives in Glendale with his wife and two young children.

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department | Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

This report was first published in December 2015. No criminal charges against Hillary in relation to her emails. The FBI has also been investigating the Clinton Foundation.

By David Sirota and Andrew Perez

July 7, 2016 

“Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States’ oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region’s fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At a press conference in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing — the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 – contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.”

Continue reading at:

Source: Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department | Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

Read complete article at ibtimes 

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Does Julian Assange Really Have an Email That Will Get Hillary Clinton Tossed in Prison? (Updated)

 

by Jesse Singal

July 29,2016

 

Julian Assange, the founder and head of WikiLeaks, has laid his cards on the table: He views it as his mission to do what he can to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming president of the United States of America. And his reasons aren’t just political, as Charlie Savage wrote earlier this week in the New York Times: In an interview with Robert Peston of ITV on June 12, Savage wrote, Assange “suggested that he not only opposed her candidacy on policy grounds, but also saw her as a personal foe.

”Recently, the internet rumor mill has been circulating an enticing possibility for those rooting for an Assange takedown of Clinton: Assange says that he has, in his possession, an email or emails that will offer “enough evidence” — that’s the simple, two-word quote that is repeated over and over and over, everywhere — for authorities to indict Clinton. If you Google “Clinton Assange indictment,” the headlines scream off the screen, each more excitable than the last: “Democrat Scandal: Julian Assange Claims New Leaks Will Send Hillary Clinton to Prison Over Campaign to Destroy Bernie Sanders,” “BREAKING: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says his next leak will virtually guarantee an indictment of Hillary Clinton,” “Julian Assange: My Next Leak Will Ensure Hillary’s Arrest,” and so on. (Disclosure: My brother does data analysis for the Clinton campaign.)

Suffice it to say, this would be a big deal. If Hillary Clinton got indicted, it would virtually hand the election to Donald Trump. But after the millions of dollars Republican members of Congress spent investigating the Benghazi attacks, the yearlong FBI inquiry into Clinton’s use of a private, non-secure server for emails that led to that agency’s director, James Comey, publicly reprimanding Clinton as “extremely careless” but declining to press charges, and the endless scrutiny of the Clinton Foundation’s finances, what could such an email possibly contain?

Continue reading here:

Source: Does Julian Assange Really Have an Email That Will Get Hillary Clinton Tossed in Prison? (Updated)

“Freedom” and “democracy” in the U.S.: Report shows 91% of Americans didn’t want Clinton or Trump — Society’s Child — Sott.net

John Vibes
Activist Post
Tue, 02 Aug 2016 00:00 UTC

 

A recent report published by The New York Times has pointed out that an overwhelming majority of Americans, 91% of them in fact, did not support or vote for Clinton or Trump in the recent primary elections. The figures were calculated from statistics that were gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau, Federal Election Commission, Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The Sentencing Project, and the Pew Research Center. The figures illustrate that scores of people living in America are not allowed to vote, they are considered ineligible due to their age, prior arrests, or incomplete citizenship applications.

In total, there are 103 million people who are essentially banned from voting, so this demographic would technically fall into the category of people who did not support Trump or Clinton in the primaries, although their actual preference can’t be determined. Furthermore, there is an increasingly significant portion of the US population that is deciding not to vote on principle, because they don’t feel particularly enthusiastic about any of the candidates. It was determined that 88 million people who were eligible to vote, did not vote in the primaries, and will not be voting in the general elections either.

These are principled non-voters who have refused to put their consent into a system that they don’t believe is legitimate.

Source: “Freedom” and “democracy” in the U.S.: Report shows 91% of Americans didn’t want Clinton or Trump — Society’s Child — Sott.net

The Democratic Party No Longer Exists. And an Orchestrated War with Russia is Contemplated | Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

Global Research, July 30, 2016

 

The Democratic Party that once was concerned with workers’ rights, the elderly, civil rights, and the constitutional protections of America liberty no longer exists. As the just completed Democratic presidential primaries and the Democratic presidential convention have clearly demonstrated, the United States now has two Republican parties in service to the One Percent.

The organized Democrats–the Democratic National Committee–have shown themselves to be even more venal and corrupt than the Republicans. Leaked emails document that the Democratic National Committee conspired with the Hillary campaign in order to steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders. It is clear that Sanders was the choice of Democratic Party voters for president, but the nomination was stolen from him by vote fraud and dirty tricks.

The DNC and the media whores have tried to discredit the incriminating emails by alleging that the leaked emails resulted from a plot by Russia’s President Vladimir Putin in behalf of “Putin’s American agent,” Donald Trump. “A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin,” as the presstitute scum put it.This diversionary tactic has not worked. Not even Americans are stupid enough to fall for it.

Source: The Democratic Party No Longer Exists. And an Orchestrated War with Russia is Contemplated | Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization