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.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: dragonridr
Hillary Clinton was able to get $25 million to help gays with AIDS in Africa, from the Saudi. Where's the respect?
It's the same ole pay to play game. Difference faces, same rules.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth
Is it a charity?
“It’s incredibly non-transparent. We don’t know if there has been any filing. We don’t know how it’s structured — is it a 501(c)3, an LLC, what is it?” Watson told ThinkProgress over the phone. Per the World Bank’s account, that is still up in the air — which means they could not possibly have filed the necessary documents to begin fundraising.
thinkprogress.org...
Earlier this week, it was revealed that the first daughter is spearheading efforts to create an investment fund for female entrepreneurs. The news broke on a panel at the W20 Women’s Summit in Berlin, where the German chancellor and U.S. presidential advisor were joined by IMF managing director Christine Lagarde and the Netherlands' Queen Maxima. But according to Dina Powell, President Trump's deputy national security adviser for strategy and senior counselor for economic initiatives, who was in attendance, the announcement was unplanned.
"Chancellor Merkel was so excited about it that she said, 'And we will have a fund!" recounted Powell, speaking at a Thursday evening dinner in Washington, D.C. welcoming the 2017 class of the Fortune/U.S. State Department Global Women's Mentoring Partnership
The announcement was made before the White House or the World Bank—which will manage the fund—have ironed out many of the details, Powell said. "We're still working it all out." She also declined to say how large the fund will be other than to say it will have "significant amount of capital" and that it has already secured investments from Germany and Canada.
the world bank is not controlled by trumps whereas shillary and slick willy completely run and own the clinton foundation.
Speculation that you hope leads to cries of nepotism
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: proteus33
the world bank is not controlled by trumps whereas shillary and slick willy completely run and own the clinton foundation.
Not true. Do a little research to find out why you're upset.
www.cnn.com...
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: missed_gear
So? Your post doesn't discredit anything I've said.
originally posted by: windword
Interesting. China owns the World Bank and China just gave Ivanka all kinds of Trademark licenses, the same night she had dinner with President Jim Yong Kim!
originally posted by: missed_gear
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: missed_gear
So? Your post doesn't discredit anything I've said.
W20 is very much involved.
Also:
originally posted by: windword
Interesting. China owns the World Bank and China just gave Ivanka all kinds of Trademark licenses, the same night she had dinner with President Jim Yong Kim!
The World Bank is not owned by China
China has nothing to do with this topic
Jim Youg Kim (S. Korean) is the President of the World Bank, Not China (FYI it is Xi Jinping)
Ivanka Trump Mark LLC. was given a whopping 3...out of 30+ still pending in China (180+ world wide).
mg
SECTION 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the “Stop Waste And Misuse by the President Act of 2017” or as the “SWAMP Act of 2017”.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Presidential travel to commercial entities owned in whole or in part by the President or First Family results in the American taxpayer effectively subsidizing the President’s businesses.
(2) Given current expenditures, President Trump is on track to spend more during his first year of office than all eight years of the Obama administration combined.
(3) It is unacceptable for the President to maintain an interest in traveling to properties in which he has a direct financial interest, as the U.S. Government is responsible for renting space for personnel in said private commercial entities.
(4) Every time the President travels to Mar-a-Lago, he necessarily promotes his private business interests via free press at the Government’s expense.
(5) The State Department’s recent promotion of Mar-a-Lago on its official website raises serious ethics concerns.
(6) As of April 14, 2017, President Trump has cost the U.S. taxpayer unprecedented amounts of money, including the following estimated costs:
(A) For trips to Mar-a-Lago:
(i) Total cost for security in Palm Beach: $3,700,000 (each trip).
(ii) Roundtrip flights from Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, to West Palm, Florida: $700,000.
(iii) Overtime for local law enforcement during Trump’s trips: $60,000/day.
(iv) Total golf cart rentals ordered by the Secret Service “for POTUS visit”: $35,185.
(v) Estimated loss of business due to airport closure: $30,000/weekend.
(B) For Trump Tower:
(i) Request for additional Secret Service funding to secure Trump Towers: $60,000,000.
(ii) New York Police Department security costs: $127,000–$146,000/day.
(iii) “Elevator services” ordered by the Secret Service: $64,000.
(iv) Air Force One flights to New York City: $180,000/hour.
(7) The proposed 2017 Federal spending bill includes reimbursements for millions of dollars spent by Florida and New York to protect the President and First Family, and facilitate their travel. While localities should be reimbursed, the taxpayer should not be responsible for said reimbursement.
SEC. 3. Reimbursal for costs of protection.
In the case of a person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 3056(a) of title 18, United States Code, if that person, while traveling for official business or for personal purposes, stays in a hotel or other establishment providing daily-rate accommodation in which that person has an ownership or financial interest, that person shall reimburse to the Treasury—
(1) any amount expended by the United States Secret Service for the provision of such protection; and
(2) any amount expended for other costs incurred by the Government pertaining to that stay.