Image 01 Image 03

Why is the Clinton Foundation Accepting Donations from Foreign Governments?

Why is the Clinton Foundation Accepting Donations from Foreign Governments?

And why is the Democratic Party permitting it?

According to recent reports, the Clinton Foundation is accepting large donations from foreign governments. Accusations of influence peddling are already being made.

James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus of the Wall Street Journal:

Foreign Government Gifts to Clinton Foundation on the Rise

The Clinton Foundation has dropped its self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign governments and is winning contributions at an accelerating rate, raising ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up her expected bid for the presidency.

Recent donors include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline.

In 2009, the Clinton Foundation stopped raising money from foreign governments after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state. Former President Bill Clinton, who ran the foundation while his wife was at the State Department, agreed to the gift ban at the behest of the Obama administration, which worried about a secretary of state’s husband raising millions while she represented U.S. interests abroad.

The ban wasn’t absolute; some foreign government donations were permitted for ongoing programs approved by State Department ethics officials.

The panel on Special Report with Bret Baier addressed the issue last night:

Considering their prior position on this issue, the Democratic Party’s silence is surprising.

Jim Geraghty of National Review:

So Foreign Money to Political Candidates Is Cool Now, Huh?

Back in 2010, President Barack Obama and the Democrats were extremely upset about the possibility that foreign money could end up in the hands of Americans attempting to influence the outcome of the midterm elections:

Democrats, from President Barack Obama on down, are trying to turn an evidence-free allegation into a major campaign theme, claiming that foreign corporations are “stealing our democracy” with secret, illegal contributions funneled through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Peter Baker of the New York Times said this in 2010:

Obama Ratchets Up Tone Against G.O.P.

With his party facing losses in next month’s election, President Obama pressed his argument Sunday that the opposition is trying to steal the election with secret special-interest money, possibly including money from foreign companies.

The Clinton Foundation website, states their goals in this way:

We believe that the best way to unlock human potential is through the power of creative collaboration. That’s why we build partnerships between businesses, NGOs, governments, and individuals everywhere to work faster, better, and leaner; to find solutions that last; and to transform lives and communities from what they are today to what they can be, tomorrow.

While it’s not unusual for former presidents to take up charitable work, Hillary Clinton will have to answer for donations made to her family foundation by foreign governments.

Her own party has made that quite clear.

Featured image is a screen capture from the Clinton Foundation website.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


There are two reasons. 1. Foreign governments are buying future influence. 2. The Clintons have mortgages to pay as well as a daughter who couldn’t make it anywhere else.

    Brian Williams was making $10M per year – is now out potentially indefinitely. Chelsea was only making $600K for her stunt. I say give her a raise to $1M and the anchor chair, and let NBC save a boatload. One lib is as good as any other lib.

    No, I’ve had no alcohol today ….

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to McAllister. | February 20, 2015 at 4:19 pm

    Hillary: “Wah!…..Wah!….. But Obama Did It!!!!!!

AN ANALYSIS by the Wall Street Journal finds that 60 companies who have donated to the Clinton Foundation also lobbied the State Department while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State, and in some cases pushed to receive overseas contracts.
—Fox News

So THAT’s ANOTHER apparent conflict of interest. Glaring, I’d say.

    jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | February 20, 2015 at 12:12 pm

    The Wall Street Journal reported that the foundation discontinued accepting foreign donations when Hillary was Sec of State, or didn’t that info register on your brain, dumnkopf?

    And the foundation intimated they’d do the same if/when she announces she’s running.

    So in addition to other foreign entities, the Canadian company and its allies pushing for the completion of the pipeline who donated to the Clinton Foundation better make any other donations ASAP.

      Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | February 20, 2015 at 12:37 pm

      Here, stupid, let’s try this…

      1. If my foundation takes money from you before I take public office, and may take money from you in the future, and you lobby me while I hold public office and I permit your lobbying, do you see a conflict of interest? Yes or no, please.

      2. Would it curtail lobbying or increased lobbying if we had small government? Curtail or increase, please.

      Ya moron.

        jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | February 20, 2015 at 1:47 pm

        To – Yes to 1, Ragbrain, if by lobbying you mean
        donations by those with inordinate socioeconomic or governmental power who use the donations to corrupt an official’s future legislation. But the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated money to Bill Clinton (as they did to the G. Bush Foundation, and the GW Bush Library). So does that mean the Gates family can’t proselytize the next president for help with their charitable work if a Clinton or a Bush is president because they donated to one or the other in the past and will in the future?

        The problem is your brain is like a Maraca — every time you shake it the same pebbly droning sound comes out: the Far Right Cha Cha Cha: Democrats bad. Liberals Worse. Heil Cookie-Cutter Conservatism.

        Your second question is silly: it’s like asking if there was less traffic on the freeway wouldn’t it reduce the number of accidents? Well yes, if government was smaller, there would be fewer bureaucrats and office holders to lobby; but probably the same number of lobbyists now concentrated in greater number on each target. Greed and graft isn’t going to decrease in the modern world. And the size of the government isn’t going to shrink much, if at all, no matter who’s in office.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 20, 2015 at 2:12 pm

        You’ve heard the witness, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.

        I leave it with you.

      You’re adorable, Jay.

“While it’s not unusual for former presidents to take up charitable work, Hillary Clinton will have to answer for donations made to her family foundation by foreign governments.”

Ha, ha. Very funny. The Dems are all lined up with their hands out while the MSM are crafting stories about how the Clinton Foundation has very special magical internal barriers to keep that icky foreign money from contaminating the pure and innocent presidential campaign of St. Hillary.

approved by State Department ethics officials

Oh, well, it must be OK, then.

She may have no intention to run. She poses as the front runner, collects huge sums from those who want to have influence when she is president, then she just keeps the money and retires with her fortune, leaving her, Bill, and Chelsea filthy rich. And she need not answer for the ethics. Time will tell.

    clintack in reply to lawdoc. | February 20, 2015 at 5:52 pm

    This is still my view. Hillary will remain the presumptive candidate as long as possible to rake in the cash, then decline to run for health reasons.

    It will be interesting to see whether the Clintons have some one in mind to take over when she does.

From the report, only 10% goes to charities, just as big a scandal if you ask me. How are they spending these donations or bribes?

    Their 501(3)(c) is not even listed or rated on ChaityNavigator includes a note saying that they couldn’t rate it because of the odd way it’s structured. All three of the charities I’m involved with have CharityNavigator listings and ratings, and we’re proud of them, and proud to show potential donors how little of their money gets spent on administrative expenses.

    I guess people donating to the Clinton Foundation realize that they’re not so much donating to a “good works” charity as buying political influence, and that’s okay with them.

      jayjerome66 in reply to Amy in FL. | February 20, 2015 at 2:16 pm

      You need to be a little more conscientious and objective, Amy, and look into it more scrupulously.

      The Clinton Foundation isn’t set up to donate funds directly to organizations or charitable projects. It’s like an ostentatious brokerage, that proselytizes other businesses and agencies and governments who in turn aid those who need help. They act as facilitators and arm-twisters to get major drug and medical suppliers to drastically reduce prices to 3rd world countries, and for shippers to transport those items for low or no cost, etc. And they have 350 employees in 180 countries on the payroll, who act as liaisons for various projects.

      The foundation does good things globally, but it’s been criticized for poor management, and wastefulness – sort of a charitable version of the fictional Mad Men Madison Avenue advertising agency. Like the tv agency, the Clinton Foundation is based on ostentatious celebrity – of the Clintons and of the people they approach for help. The foundation yearly Global Citizen Award ceremony is as glitzy and celebrity-laden as the Academy Awards.

      Are the Clintons lining their pockets from the foundation’s operating expenses? I don’t know. Time will tell.

        Phillep Harding in reply to jayjerome66. | February 20, 2015 at 3:50 pm

        “Are the Clintons lining their pockets from the foundation’s operating expenses? I don’t know. Time will tell.”

        IANAL: You don’t know. But you make a claim that you cannot prove?


How is Clinton an odds on favorite for Queen of the World, and not an inmate, is a question Americans should be asking.

ChinaGate was glossed over with MonicaGate … which had more sex appeal. A tantalizing tale of shades of grey, just a little under the table lie about office sex. That buried the lede, Clintons selling US to China, witnesses disappearing to points unknown. Some convicted.

in the famous Filegate case, which involved Bill and Hillary Clinton illegally obtaining FBI files on perceived adversaries to intimidate witnesses and blunt the 40-plus scandals that the Clintons found themselves engulfed in during those years. …

The most evil partner of this Bonnie-and-Clyde duo was Hillary. She came to be seen as the “consigliore” of the couple, the one who had executed (pun intended) their dastardly plans and deeds. In this regard, although the moribund Republican establishment is conveniently willing to forget and forgive (since, after all, the Clintons are part of their elitist club in Washington, D.C.) –

What was learned is that more than 900 FBI files had been ordered up by a former bar bouncer, Craig Livingstone, whom Hillary had hired to work in the White House Counsel’s Office, on the first lady’s orders and without proper legal justification.

Hillary and Bill were ironically saved by Monica, who became the lightening rod drawing attention away to what at the time was perhaps the biggest scandal – Chinagate – in American history.

Revered anchor Cronkite stated the US must give up some sovereignty. But Americans are not citizens of the world. We’re exceptional and the world should emulate us. But the left promises hope and change, fundamental transformation, selling us on (or to) some new world order.

I was a little dismayed to see a report that the Newsmax CEO is dedicating a million to the Clinton Library, and is a big Hillary fan apparently. Good grief … do they own everybody, or does everyone have to buy access?

This is another one of those ‘shhhhhhhhh, let them keep doing it’ moments. Talk about a treasure trove for her political opponents.

Why? Because they’ve had a long habit of accepting donations and influence from foreign governments.

Remember Charlie Trie? Johnny Hung? John Huang? James Riady? Maria Hsia? Ted Sioeng? Notice anything similar about them?

Now the Clintons are accepting donations from Qatar and other terrorist-sponsoring nations.

If Hillary wins in 2016, she would be the 2nd oldest President on assuming office (69.3 years of age), displacing William Henry Harrison, but still behind Ronald Reagan (69.95 years of age).

If Liz Warren wins in 2016, she would be the 3rd oldest President on assuming office (67.6 years of age), displacing James Buchanan, but still behind Ronald Reagan and William Henry Harrison (68.06 years of age) .

Carlos Slims newspaper will get right on that because they are all about foreign influences.

Maybe a strawna wind that she aint a gonna run?

So to speak.