Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(3,343 posts)
Sat Feb 6, 2016, 12:12 PM Feb 2016

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department

Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States' oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region's fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At a press conference in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation...

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire...

Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation

That figure...represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration.

These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.


NOTE: If you read that last sentence carefully it's damning. You had almost a 50% better chance of having your arms deal approved if you donated to the Clinton Foundation.


American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.

The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department.

Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.

As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton also accused some of these countries of failing to marshal a serious and sustained campaign to confront terrorism. In a December 2009 State Department cable published by Wikileaks, Clinton complained of “an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.” She declared that “Qatar's overall level of CT cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region.” She said the Kuwaiti government was “less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks.” She noted that “UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups.” All of these countries donated to the Clinton Foundation and received increased weapons export authorizations from the Clinton-run State Department.


There's SOOOOOO much more at the link.

It should ALSO be noted that a HUGE percentage of the companies and countries listed ALSO have hired the lobbying firm owned by John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman.

These include things like Boeing, General Electric, Goldman Sachs, and Saudi Arabia.

At the time of these sales Podesta was a "Personal Advisor" to Barrack Obama.

During Bill Clinton's Presidency, Podesta - who owned that lobbying firm back then as well, was the Chief of Staff.

This is pretty much the definition of corruption in my book.
13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department (Original Post) EdwardBernays Feb 2016 OP
HRC - Enabling Corporate Grease - One Donation At A Time cantbeserious Feb 2016 #1
bribery works Duckhunter935 Feb 2016 #2
This post includes some powerful indications that there was ladjf Feb 2016 #3
It has been going on for a long time FreakinDJ Feb 2016 #4
yep EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #6
Hey, Cut it Out! Ferd Berfel Feb 2016 #5
Nooooh! Her influence can't be bought. notadmblnd Feb 2016 #7
Clinton's have no shame kcjohn1 Feb 2016 #8
Spot on. EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #9
Having no principles is considered one of her assets by those who have purchased her influence. notadmblnd Feb 2016 #10
The link is from May 2015. thesquanderer Feb 2016 #11
yep EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #12
K/R UglyGreed Feb 2016 #13


(17,320 posts)
3. This post includes some powerful indications that there was
Sat Feb 6, 2016, 12:24 PM
Feb 2016

quid pro quo between Clinton and the manufacturers.


(3,343 posts)
6. yep
Sat Feb 6, 2016, 12:30 PM
Feb 2016

Hillary is in the tradition of Obama, who is in the tradition of Bill... but the Dems have been in the pocket of lobbyists and special interests for years and years...

Ferd Berfel

(3,687 posts)
5. Hey, Cut it Out!
Sat Feb 6, 2016, 12:28 PM
Feb 2016

move along.....nothing to see here......

GOD this stinks ! And I'm supposed to support this just because the republicans are worse?


(751 posts)
8. Clinton's have no shame
Sat Feb 6, 2016, 12:39 PM
Feb 2016

Even if you are naive enough to believe there is no corruption here, the appearance of corruption is just as bad. This type of behavior erodes trust in institutions and leads to more outrages behavior.


(3,343 posts)
9. Spot on.
Sat Feb 6, 2016, 12:52 PM
Feb 2016

People will look at this behaviour and assume it's the norm leading to more and more corruption.


(11,894 posts)
11. The link is from May 2015.
Sat Feb 6, 2016, 01:03 PM
Feb 2016

The topic has been discussed here numerous times, most recently at


As I said there:

It's old news, but the Republicans will use it in November

It doesn't matter if it was all legal, or if these countries would have gotten the arms anyway. The optics are bad, and that's what matters. "Appearance of impropiety" is the issue, real or not.

No matter what people think the Republicans would throw at Bernie, it can't match the ammunition that Hillary is giving them. Another reason he'd be the stronger candidate in November.


(3,343 posts)
12. yep
Sat Feb 6, 2016, 01:20 PM
Feb 2016

totally agreed...

And yes, I knew it was discussed previously... it just need to keep being discussed until everyone knows about it

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Clinton Foundation Donors...