It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

John Podesta Received 35 million dollars from Russians while working for Hillary

page: 2
36
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


The only difference I see is that Ivanka's charity isn't run by the Trump Foundation. But, that doesn't mean that she won't benefit from it in the same way that you're suggesting that Chelsea Clinton benefited from her family's charity.

Ivanka's charity's money may be managed by a bank, but who decides who gets loans, grants, subsidies, if not the board of directors of the charity itself. Do you know who will be sitting in that board or how it will be organized.

No, I don't see a difference. These deals are often accompanied by charitable donations to charities that are dear to the US president brokering the deal, in order to cater favor. It's not illegal now, and wasn't when the Uranium deal was brokered.






edit on 25-6-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




The only difference I see is that Ivanka's charity isn't run by the Trump Foundation. But, that doesn't mean that she won't benefit from it in the same way that you're suggesting that Chelsea Clinton benefited from her family's charity.


Bingo. When you find out the benefits, be sure to write a thread. Until then, it's speculation and opinion.




Ivanka's charity's money may be managed by a bank, but who decides who gets loans, grants, subsidies, if not the board of directors of the charity itself. Do you know who will be sitting in that board or how it will be organized.


"Will not be involved in its operation." It's covered in the article linked.




No, I don't see a difference. These deals are often accompanied by charitable donations to charities that are dear to the US president brokering the deal, in order to cater favor. It's not illegal now, and wasn't when the Uranium deal was brokered.


You just pointed out the difference. Huge difference. I get what your attempting to point out however and that is favors that can easily turn into pay to play. Regarding trade policies, such as labor and education, these things go on everywhere. Right down to you place of employment I'm sure.

The other large difference is funding of terrorism and terrorist states. Nation building and the like. This is not that.



posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Doctor Smith



Through the Uranium deal, the Clinton Foundation also received at least 35 million.


Ivanka's fund, for female entrepreneurs, got $100 million out of the Saudi arms deal.

Charities are often part and parcel to these deals. It's not illegal, unless you can prove the money went to directly to Podesta or Clinton.

Jesus, this ins't a contest to see which DC personality is more corrupt. If Trump or his kid did bad things, do a thread about it, call the FBI, do something. This thread is about someone other than Trump or his kids.



posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI



"Will not be involved in its operation." It's covered in the article linked.


Well, excuse me for being a tad skeptical about the honesty and moral integrity of the Trump family dealings.

We don't know anything about this charity yet, except that it's Ivanka's brain child and the fund will be managed by a bank. We don't know anything about who will be eligible for the charity's benefits, or who will be calling the shots on how that money is dispersed.



posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude


No, it's not a contest. It's a comparison and a citation of selective outrage and hypocrisy.



posted on Jun, 25 2017 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Doctor Smith



Through the Uranium deal, the Clinton Foundation also received at least 35 million.


Ivanka's fund, for female entrepreneurs, got $100 million out of the Saudi arms deal.

Charities are often part and parcel to these deals. It's not illegal, unless you can prove the money went to directly to Podesta or Clinton.



The money is going to the World Bank. Ivanka has no access to the funds. I thing they should give the money to people like me instead. Nothing like the Clinton Foundation enrichment shell game.

A partisan web site grossly misrepresented the nature of Ivanka Trump's involvement in a World Bank project to help female entrepreneurs.

Saudi Arabia, U.A.E. Pledge $100 Million to World Bank’s Women Entrepreneurs Fund



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith



Ivanka has no access to the funds.


Neither did the Clintons have access to their charity's funds, it was managed through HSBC and their board of diectors. Charity funds are distributed through the charity's declared process, and we know nothing about Ivanka's. At this point we don't anything about the charity, their mission statement, who will sit on the board, if they will offer business grants, loans, education? What is their criteria. who decides who gets the benefits of the charity?

I'm not interested in the shell corporation, The World Bank, that will house and manage the money their hold. I care about who decides where and how the money will be spent and on what criteria they choose to award benefits.

edit on 26-6-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
The Republican Congress would have already impeached President Hillary by now. Her orbit is far more cluttered with radioactive junk than President Trump.




No, no, that's not how it works in DC. The Dems would have just shopped around and found some third rate federal judge to declare impeachment unconstitutional, and while they were at it, the Republican Congress, too.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Doctor Smith



Ivanka has no access to the funds.


Neither did the Clintons have access to their charity's funds, it was managed through HSBC and their board of diectors. Charity funds are distributed through the charity's declared process, and we know nothing about Ivanka's. At this point we don't anything about the charity, their mission statement, who will sit on the board, if they will offer business grants, loans, education? What is their criteria. who decides who gets the benefits of the charity?

I'm not interested in the shell corporation, The World Bank, that will house and manage the money their hold. I care about who decides where and how the money will be spent and on what criteria they choose to award benefits.


And who exactly do you think is on their board of directors for the Clinton Foundation?

Bill, Chelsea, Cheryl Mills, Giustra, etc.....theyre all listed...its pretty easy to Google it.



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe



Bill, Chelsea, Cheryl Mills, Giustra, etc.....theyre all listed...its pretty easy to Google it.


Was that 2009, when the $35 million donation was made. Weren't the Clinton Foundation books public? Where's the paper trail, the checks and payouts that indict the Clinton's for using that money for themselves, and not for the charity?

I hear a lot of accusations about that Uranium deal. Haven't seen an indictment yet. As far as I know, there was nothing illegal about that donation, any more than there is anything illegal about $100 million that Ivanka's charity has received. However, I see no reason to trust Ivanka and Donald to do the right thing with their charity, any more than you trusted the Clintons.

I don't like any of it, but I fail to see the difference. In fact, everything that Donald accused the Clintons of, he has or is the process of doing himself. But, where the Clintons were quite and stealth, he's braggadocios and in your face blatant about it!



edit on 26-6-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

With DNC operatives Loretta Lynch and Comey in place. Their could never be any real investigation. Only white wash. Now we might just get this country out of the control of criminals.




new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1   >>

log in

join