Emails reveal how foundation donors got access to Clinton and her close aides

anatta

100% recycled karma
In each case, according to emails released Monday from Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state, the requests were directed to Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and confidante, Huma Abedin, who engaged with other top aides and sometimes Clinton herself about how to respond.

The emails show that, in these and similar cases, the donors did not always get what they wanted, particularly when they sought anything more than a meeting.

But the exchanges, among 725 pages of correspondence from Abedin disclosed as part of a lawsuit by the conservative group Judicial Watch, illustrate the way the Clintons’ international network of friends and donors was able to get access to Hillary Clinton and her inner circle during her tenure running the State Department.

The release of the correspondence follows previous disclosures of internal emails showing a similar pattern of access for foundation contributors, and it comes as Republicans allege that Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, used her perch in the Obama administration to trade favors for donations. Clinton and the foundation have vigorously denied the charge.

The disclosures also cast new doubts on Clinton’s past claim that she turned over all her work-related email from her private server to the State Department for eventual release to the public.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters Monday that there is “no clear sign” donors received access for their contributions.

The emails released Monday showed how requests from donors would often come through Doug Band, a longtime Bill Clinton aide who helped create the foundation, with Abedin as a primary point of contact. Band declined to comment on the newly released emails, and attorneys for Abedin did not respond to a request for comment.
The appeal appears to have had more success in the case of Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, the crown prince of Bahrain. In June 2009, Band emailed Abedin that the prince would be in Washington for two days and was seeking a meeting with Hillary Clinton. “Good friend of ours,” he added.

Abedin responded that the prince had already requested a meeting “through normal channels” but that Clinton had been hesitant to commit. Two days later, Abedin followed up with Band to let him know that a meeting with the prince had been set. “If u see him, let him know. We have reached out thru official channels,” she wrote to Band.

Bahrain has a spotty human rights record but full relations with the U.S. government.

In a statement, the court of the crown prince said his participation at a 2005 foundation event “happened years before and was wholly unrelated to any

to any meeting with Secretary Clinton,” adding that the prince is deputy head of state of an American ally and so he often meets with U.S. officials.

The new disclosures come as the Clinton Foundation and its international network of powerful donors have returned to the forefront of the presidential campaign

The newly released emails underscored the central role played by Abedin, a top adviser to Clinton’s campaign who has been working for her since Clinton’s time as first lady.

When S. Daniel Abraham, a major Democratic donor who had also given to the foundation, was visiting Washington in May 2009 and wanted to see Clinton, the emails showed that he placed a call to Abedin. “Do u want me to try and fit him in tomorrow?” Abedin emailed Clinton, who appeared to indicate in her response that she was willing to make time.

Abraham said in an interview Monday that he talked with Clinton about the Middle East and that his status as a donor had nothing to do with his ability to secure time with the secretary.
Longtime Clinton friend and fundraiser Maureen White wrote Abedin in July 2009, saying that she would be in Washington three days later. “Would she have any time to spare?” White wrote.

“Yes I’ll make it work,” Abedin responded.

White went on to serve in the State Department under Clinton. White said she and her husband, Steven Rattner, gave $31,000 to the foundation before 2009 and $25,000 to the foundation in 2012. White said that she did not remember the specific exchange but that she has met often with Clinton as a longtime supporter and has worked on refugee and humanitarian issues in several capacities in and out of government.

Usually when I told Huma I wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton, Huma made it happen,” White said.

In another email exchange, Democratic donor and activist Joyce Aboussie of St. Louis wrote to Abedin requesting a meeting between Clinton and a top executive of St. Louis-based Peabody Energy, one of the world’s largest coal producers.

“Huma, I need your help now to intervene please,” Aboussie wrote in June 2009. “We need this meeting with Secretary Clinton, who has been there now for nearly six months. This is, by the way, my first request.”

Abedin responded: “We are working on it and I hope we can make something work . . . we have to work through the beauracracy [sic] here.”

It is not clear whether whether the meeting took place. Neither Peabody officials nor Aboussie, who donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation, responded to requests for comment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-main_clintonfoundation-0720pm:homepage/story
 
Last week, The Boston Globe, a paper that endorsed Hillary Clinton in January, published an editorial calling on the Clinton Foundation to stop accepting funds.

Winding down the foundation, and transferring its assets to some other established charity, doesn’t have to hurt charitable efforts,” the Globe‘s editors wrote. “If the foundation’s donors are truly motivated by altruism, and not by the lure of access to the Clintons, then surely they can find other ways to support the foundation’s goals.”

That’s a pretty big “if,” by the way, and it’s unclear if the Globe editors are being sarcastic.

Even the Huffington Post seemed to suggest the Clinton Foundation should be disbanded, running a front-page splash with the headline, “JUST SHUT IT DOWN,” and linking to a New York Times story about how the foundation was causing problems for Hillary’s campaign.

Clinton ally and former Democratic National Committee chairman Ed Rendell said last week the foundation should shut down if Hillary is elected in November. “I definitely think if she wins the presidency they have to disband it,” Rendell said. “It’d be impossible to keep the foundation open without at least the appearance of a problem.”

Over the weekend, Senator Ben Cardin (D., Md.) said the Clinton Foundation would “clearly need to change the way they do business” if Hillary becomes president.

The Clinton Foundation has been forced to respond. Former president Bill Clinton announced Monday that if Hillary is elected president,the foundation would stop accepting foreign donations in order to address “legitimate conflict of interest questions.”

That’s not good enough for some.

Bill Clinton’s statement also raises another set of interesting questions, such as:

What about the “legitimate conflict of interest questions” raised about the foundation’s operations while Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary of state?
What about the conflicts of interest posed by your lucrative public speaking career paid for by foreign entities while Hillary was serving as secretary of state and, potentially, as president?

What about the foundation’s shady Canadian offshoot, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, run by billionaire mining magnate Frank Giustra, which for convenient legal reasons is not allowed to disclose its donors?"

heatst.com/politics/hillary-clinton-foundation-problem/
 
So much for Hillary Clinton’s claim to have handed in all of her work emails: Turns out the FBI found another 14,900 — meaning she “missed” at least a third of what the law required her to fork over.

It’ll be weeks before the public learns anything about what’s in that dump — but Monday brought plenty of dirt from yet another stash of emails, ones that top Hillary aide Huma Abedin sent or received on her clintonemail and other non-State accounts.

Brought to light by the good folks at Judicial Watch, these show new cases of special attention for big Clinton Foundation donors.

In 2009, for example, the crown prince of Bahrain wanted a sitdown with the secretary of state — but couldn’t get it through “normal channels,” as Abedin wrote.

So he asked the foundation’s then-chief, Doug Band, for help. Presto! A quick reminder to Huma that the prince was a “good friend of ours” (he’d donated millions) and the prince got his meeting within 48 hours.

SlimFast king Danny Abraham, who also gave millions, similarly got a meeting with the secretary via the Band-Abedin channel. Indeed, judging by Clinton’s own emails in the thread, she even delayed her plane’s takeoff to make the sitdown possible.

Other donors got action via direct appeal to Abedin: For example, 75-grand-giver Maureen White wrote, “I am going to be in DC on Thursday. Would she have any time to spare?” Huma’s reply: “Yes I’ll make it work.”

Doug Band went on to found the “consulting” firm Teneo Inc. — the (explicitly) for-profit arm of Clinton Inc. And Abedin, in an unprecedented setup OK’d by Secretary Clinton, then got to draw simultaneous paychecks from State, Teneo and the foundation.

All par for the course for a crew that can’t tell the difference between the people’s business and their own.
http://nypost.com/2016/08/22/another-e-mail-dump-more-proof-of-clinton-inc-sleaze/
 
So much for Hillary Clinton’s claim to have handed in all of her work emails: Turns out the FBI found another 14,900 — meaning she “missed” at least a third of what the law required her to fork over

Isn't it time to give it up and focus on real issues?
 
So you're a Bernie supporter? He's the only candidate from either party who has those attributes

Actually I'm a Gary Johnson supporter but that's really neither here nor there. If those issues aren't important what are?
 
So you're a Bernie supporter? He's the only candidate from either party who has those attributes
he did have both, until he sold out to a candidates her called out for her Big Donor Wall St.ties/ "judgement" ( Iraq vote -Clinton's role as chief advocate and architect of the assassination of Qaddafi in Libya )
 
Actually I'm a Gary Johnson supporter but that's really neither here nor there. If those issues aren't important what are?

OK, fair enough. I was referring to Republicans and Democrats, not people with no chance to win. I do think Gary Johnson has integrity and certainly I support him on some issues, gun rights, legalization of drugs. But he's not going to advance education, the safety net or build up infrastructure. And again, he's not going to win
 
he did have both, until he sold out to a candidates her called out for her Big Donor Wall St.ties/ "judgement" ( Iraq vote -Clinton's role as chief advocate and architect of the assassination of Qaddafi in Libya )

His endorsement of Hillary was disappointing. After running as the ultimate anti-establishment candidate he endorsed an establishment candidate. I think he should have endorsed the Democrat party rather than the nominee. But that's up to him.

My support for Bernie though isn't personal, his saying that doesn't change that he's the only candidate that wants to take America to the next level. And I believe he had exactly the right priorities to accomplish that. We need a better educated country, we need to eliminate poverty and we need to rebuild our infrastructure
 
fantastic. are you here to speak about the candidates/election or tell us whom you're voting for?

I have said where I am. I was a Bernie supporter. For the election, I'm considering Hillary, Jill Stein and writing in Bernie. In the end, realistically, I'm pretty sure I'll end up holding my nose and voting for Hillary. I'm not going to sing her praises though
 
I have said where I am. I was a Bernie supporter. For the election, I'm considering Hillary, Jill Stein and writing in Bernie. In the end, realistically, I'm pretty sure I'll end up holding my nose and voting for Hillary. I'm not going to sing her praises though
I was a Bernie supporter too. Not for his "free stuff" platform -but because he used small donors -unlike the Clinton Wall St Big Donor juggernaut.

Remember his speech about" political revolution"? -do you think you get that with Hillary?
That's one reason why I'm not holding my nose -she a corrupted "establishment" candidate.

I'm still thinking about Trump. H's crazy as a shit house rat at times, but he wants to grow GDP (instead of income redistribution)
and I like the fact he isn't already calling for a Cold War2.0 with Putin
 
I was a Bernie supporter too. Not for his "free stuff" platform -but because he used small donors -unlike the Clinton Wall St Big Donor juggernaut.

Remember his speech about" political revolution"? -do you think you get that with Hillary?
That's one reason why I'm not holding my nose -she a corrupted "establishment" candidate.

I'm still thinking about Trump. H's crazy as a shit house rat at times, but he wants to grow GDP (instead of income redistribution)
and I like the fact he isn't already calling for a Cold War2.0 with Putin

I don't trust her either, I've been saying that. My argument was as the Democrat she's going to have to do some things to make the party happy. It'll be a small step forward for progressivism, not a big one for sure. But Trump is just too crazy for me and I have no idea what he will actually do.

Republicans like to say "free stuff," but a country as rich as ours not giving everyone a real shot at taking their education as far as they can go, not having to live in living in extreme poverty and having a crumbling infrastructure just shouldn't happen. I never heard the free stuff the Republicans kept saying he was offering, he sounded like a man with a plan to me, and it was a good plan
 
I don't trust her either, I've been saying that. My argument was as the Democrat she's going to have to do some things to make the party happy. It'll be a small step forward for progressivism, not a big one for sure. But Trump is just too crazy for me and I have no idea what he will actually do.

Republicans like to say "free stuff," but a country as rich as ours not giving everyone a real shot at taking their education as far as they can go, not having to live in living in extreme poverty and having a crumbling infrastructure just shouldn't happen. I never heard the free stuff the Republicans kept saying he was offering, he sounded like a man with a plan to me, and it was a good plan
his plan to use a simple transaction tax on stocks was better then Clinton's convoluted 6 step tax code plan whereby how long you hold capital gains determines the tax rate for sure..

But the biggest problem is lack of GDP growth. This recovery is anemic -less the 2%.
Part of the answer is to renegotiate trade agreements, part is to stop illegals from taking jobs, and yes part of it is education
( although I'd like to see some emphasis on vocational training - 4 years degrees are fine, but plumbers still make a lot of money)


You aren't alone in questioning Trumps sanity.
But think of this: once POTUS the entire apparatus of the executive branch becomes at their disposal.
So thing like nukes, wars, terrorism is run thru a WH NSC/CIA/DNI prism .
Those are basically there to give a POTUS info from a variety of sources perspectives.

Trump just started to get classified briefings (not that level,but better),and he's toned down the craziness.
So I'm see if he keeps going nuts..or maybe can articulate positions
 
his plan to use a simple transaction tax on stocks was better then Clinton's convoluted 6 step tax code plan whereby how long you hold capital gains determines the tax rate for sure..

But the biggest problem is lack of GDP growth. This recovery is anemic -less the 2%.
Part of the answer is to renegotiate trade agreements, part is to stop illegals from taking jobs, and yes part of it is education
( although I'd like to see some emphasis on vocational training - 4 years degrees are fine, but plumbers still make a lot of money)


You aren't alone in questioning Trumps sanity.
But think of this: once POTUS the entire apparatus of the executive branch becomes at their disposal.
So thing like nukes, wars, terrorism is run thru a WH NSC/CIA/DNI prism .
Those are basically there to give a POTUS info from a variety of sources perspectives.

Trump just started to get classified briefings (not that level,but better),and he's toned down the craziness.
So I'm see if he keeps going nuts..or maybe can articulate positions

Vocational training is a great point. I've focused my points so far on more traditional schooling, but yeah, we should totally help with trade skills as well. Europe provides much more opportunity for those skills and it really benefits them. Everyone should have the opportunity for an advanced education, but you're right, we shouldn't limit education to that either.

As for toning down the craziness, I agree, but I'd like to see it a bit longer. I don't see him focusing on my priorities either and his party will push him to the right. At least Hillary's party will push her to the left
 
List the trade agreements a president has the power to renegotiate, telemarketer.
Sanders. Clinton ( to an extent) and Trump allay they would re-negotitate NAFTA. I'm not 100% sure of the process,
and it would depend on if it was an actual treaty or an "international executive agreement" (fast tracked)


List the jobs that illegals have taken, telemarketer.
telemarketing :) Construction, carpentry down here are big drains
 
Back
Top