Phil Clarke. No news on why a mysterious Russian was donating to the Clinton Foundation? Couldn't you scrape the barrel a bit more to find out?

Gwen. What's your beef? Who cares from whence the money came? What's important is to what use that money was put, and for that we have multiple unimpeachable sources that the Foundation is triple A rated. If you believe donations came with strings attached, that's a different matter but where's your evidence? You, and others here seem so prejudiced against the Clintons that you are seemingly unable to accept that they could do anything good.

Nov 16, 2017 at 1:14 PM | Supertroll

With the media all lined up to take shots at Trump (I am no great fan) it seems strange that some people are not prepared to question the amazing success of the Clinton Foundation in attracting donations from mysterious Russians.

Russian involvement in anything dodgy should not be assumed to originate from Putin, even if it can be traced back to the Kremlin. There are too many rich Russians aiming to get richer.

The Russian economy does depend on selling oil, gas and coal, and it can be very lucrative for powerful Russians inside and outside the Kremlin.

If Clinton supporters are trying to make something of Russian support for Trump, then I would like to know why Russians supported Clinton. The Guardian printed the story, without asking a very simple question.

But Gwen the Foundation gets contributions from all over - including Saudi (Russia and Saudi make strange bedfellows). The funds go to charities, attested to by independent assessors. I repeat my question - "Who cares from whence the money came? What's important is to what use that money was put."
Just accept that the Clintons are extremely good at charity fund raising and be grateful for it - I'm sure millions around the world are.

>>Phil Clarke. No news on why a mysterious Russian was donating to the Clinton Foundation?

Your mysterious Russian was a Canadian with a wikipedia entry.

Scepticism failure.

Supertroll,

Perhaps a better question is why exactly do these countries contribute to a charitable foundation in another country? Do they do it out of the goodness of their hearts OR are they doing it for favours?

Besides, it seems the ONLY people not actually colluding with them RUSSIANZ was Trump himself! Everyone else appears to have been in on the take!!!

Phil Clarke, from your link:

Giustra began to discuss putting together the company UrAsia Energy Ltd. with potential investors in 2004.[5] According to Giustra, Sergey Kurzin, who is the founder of Orsu Metals in Kazakhstan, had initiated discussions with Giustra about Kazakhstan.[13] Clinton arrived on "billionaire Ron Burkle’s plane, four days after Giustra"[13] According to Giustra, "UrAsia and Jeffcott Group exchanged a final version of the agreement on Aug. 25, 11 days before Clinton’s trip to Kazakhstan."[13]

Clinton and Giustra visited with Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, the President of Kazakhstan on September 6, 2005.[5] According to Forbesmagazine they were there to "announce a Clinton Foundation agreement enabling the government to buy low-cost HIV drugs."[13] They also went to India and China to see the philanthropic work done by Clinton Foundation in the three countries.[5]

Giustra sold UrAsia in 2007 to Uranium One.

Nov 16, 2017 at 3:05 PM | Supertroll

The Kray Twins and Al Capone did a lot of "charitable" work, but they didn't let it interfere with their business interests.

Giustra sold UrAsia in 2007 to Uranium One.

Quite, years before the Russia/Uranium deal. Big old nothingburger. Almost as if some parties are trying to distract attention from something .....

Phil Clarke & tomo,

I found this article quite interesting. Imagine the Clintons taking money from Big Oil, courtesy of Columbia, via Giustra who happened to donate to the Clinton's "Charitee Work".

http://www.ibtimes.com/colombian-oil-money-flowed-clintons-state-department-took-no-action-prevent-labor-1874464

If you consider Greenpeace a reliable source, look what they dug up, about Clintons devotion to Big Oil Money

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/

Then of course, many more suspicions about the Clintons support for Columbian exports:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/10/the_clinton_foundation_colombia_scam.html

https://colombiareports.com/clinton-changed-stance-on-colombia-trade-deal-after-receiving-oil-money-report/

https://nypost.com/2016/10/15/clinton-foundation-more-concerned-with-bills-pal-than-colombias-poor/

When the US elected Trump, they got the more honest one.

This one is good, suggesting how the whole Clinton Giustra partnership started. Who would have thought it involved a private jet and oil money?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-clintons-a-luxury-jet-and-their-100-million-donor/2015/05/03/688051d0-ecef-11e4-8abc-d6aa3bad79dd_story.html

The Green Blob ought to be more sceptical about their financiers.

<I>Hilary Clinton in multiple speeches has described her arrival in Sarajevo and laced those speeches with falsehoods portraying a combat arrival - squawking "liar!" doesn't change that - it makes you look like a twat.</I>

Ah but you said she claimed to have liberated the city, which she never did. Which makes it a lie and you a liar.

I mean really, after all these years, this is all you have?

Nov 17, 2017 at 12:11 AM | Phil Clarke

So you do accept that the Clintons have benefitted from dodgy deals in Government from Big Oil, in countries with dubious business ethics, employee exploitation rights and questionable legal responsibilities, all for purely selfish financial interest, and then not been honest about it?

No wonder the Green Blob place so much faith in Hillary as a paragon of virtue and self righteousness, apart from Greenpeace, who may have got something right.

Was it only Columbian oil exports that they benefitted from?

Phil Clarke, are you aware of this bit of fact checking?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/23/recalling-hillary-clintons-claim-of-landing-under-sniper-fire-in-bosnia/

Hardly 'liberating' the city huh?

Really, this is the best you have? I thought she was some crooked, corrupt megacriminal ('Lock her up'!), not someone who once slightly exaggerated the level of peril she encountered.

Nov 17, 2017 at 8:39 AM | Phil Clarke

And the Columbian exports?

Nov 17, 2017 at 8:39 AM | Phil Clarke

Should everybody ignore all of Greenpeace's statements as lies and propaganda?

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/

I stand corrected. Mrs Clinton inferred she was in more danger than was the case.

Repeatedly. Clearly a deeply corrupt individual.

Interesting that a thread about Trump spends so much time disparaging Clinton. It's not as if Trump doesn't offer ample material to discuss.