Clinton Foundation Reveals $26 Million in Additional Payments of Previously Undisclosed Donations from Major Corporations, Universities & Foreign Sources
MORE CLINTON CORRUPTION …
If Hillary Clinton cannot run a foundation in an ethical manner, how the hell can anyone think or believe that she could run a country in kind? The Clinton Foundation is now revealing, ahead of the long Memorial Day holiday weekend, an undisclosed $24 million of additional payments from major corporations, universities and foreign sources. How Clintonian. There is no way that this woman should ever be elected President. Character has to matter, ethics have to matter, being able to remotely tell the truth has to matter … Hillary Clinton has none. The Clinton Foundation has been nothing more than a “slush fund” for the Clinton’s to become rich. We also recently learned that apart from the Foundation, the Clinton’s made $25 million in speaking fees since January 2014. Quite the Democrat populist candidate, ain’t she?
The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups.
The disclosure came as the foundation faced questions over whether it fully complied with a 2008 ethics agreement to reveal its donors and whether any of its funding sources present conflicts of interest for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she begins her presidential campaign.
The money was paid as fees for speeches by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. Foundation officials said the funds were tallied internally as “revenue” rather than donations, which is why they had not been included in the public listings of its contributors published as part of the 2008 agreement.
According to the new information, the Clintons have delivered 97 speeches to benefit the charity since 2002. Colleges and universities sponsored more than two dozen of these speeches, along with U.S. and overseas corporations and at least one foreign government, Thailand.
The payments were disclosed late Thursday on the organization’s Web site, with speech payments listed in ranges rather than specific amounts. In total, the payments ranged between $12 million and $26.4 million.
This becomes a major issue when payola for influence peddling is received by an individual who is running for the President of the United States, especially when she tried to hide who was making the donations. So much for transparency.
There’s nothing wrong with people cashing in. But when that person is the likely Democratic nominee, it raises questions.
That Hillary would be the nominee has been presumed for several years, so these payoffs take on a different meaning than the fat fees paid to speakers routinely. By classifying the payments as “revenue” instead of “donations,” the Clinton Foundation shielded the identity of the donors.
Powerline discusses another reason why Hillary Clinton should never be president.
This is what happens when you have a liberal media that does not punish their own for liberal media bias …
In the wake of the media bias scandal where ABC’s George Stephanopoulos failed to make it known that he had donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation and at the same time running cover for the Clinton Foundation amidst its own scandal of taking foreign money as she was Secretary of State, Georgy Porgy decided to apologize for his actions. If you call it an apology. But it was not just that George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton White House political operative, donated money to the Clinton Foundation, Stephanopoulos acted as the Clinton defender when interviewing Peter Schweitzer on his book Clinton Cash and went after the author claiming that he was bias.
But check out the VIDEO below and the less than sincere apology. Listen to his snarky and elitist tone when he says, “Even though I made them strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children and protect the environment in poor countries, I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict.” In his effort to make an apology he basically says, but look at me, I am great, because even though I made these donations to save the word, no the planet … I should have gone the extra mile. PLEASE GEORGY, SPARE US THE DRAMA. You knew damn well, being a former Clinton operative and a political news correspondent that the Clinton Foundation was nothing more than a slush fund. Would it really have been that difficult to do some research and investigation to find what were the best charities for Aids, helping children or the environment, if you were actually being sincere? After all, you are supposed to be some kind of correspondent for the media, is it that difficult to do a Google search of best charities?
But when you have a news organization like ABC News defending such actions of bias and a lack of transparency to protect their own agenda of liberal bias in the media, what would one expect from an ex-Clintonista but a hollow apology.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, I want to address some news you may have seen about me. Over the last several years, I have made substantial donations to dozens of charities, including the Clinton Global Foundation. Those donations were a matter of public record. But I should have made additional disclosures on-air when we covered the foundation and I now believe directing personal donations to that foundation was a mistake. Even though I made them strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children and protect the environment in poor countries, I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. I apologize to all of you for failing to do that.
Peter Schweizer, author of the book,“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. So the Clinton’s want us to believe it is all just one big coincidence. PLEASE!!!
WALLACE: And hello again from Fox News in Washington. Well, it’s the old adage — follow the money. And in the case of Hillary Clinton, who just launched her presidential campaign, following the money has led to some troubling questions. Today, we want to drill down into the controversy with Peter Schweizer, author of the new book, “Clinton Cash,” here for his first live interview. But first, “Special Report” anchor Bret Baier, who’s been leading Fox News reporting on the book, has the highlights — Bret. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRET BAIER, SPECIAL REPORT ANCHOR: Chris, the dealings of Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of what “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer calls the Clinton blur, a mix of money and politics, diplomacy and personal interests all so interconnected that it’s pretty easy to get lost. From lucrative construction deals given to Hillary friends and family after the earthquake in Haiti to $500,000 and $750,000 speeches for Bill Clinton paid for by countries or foreign companies with some action or policy in front of his then-secretary of state wife, to a major uranium mining deal for Clinton friend Frank Giustra, a deal with the country Kazakhstan that is finalized during a Giustra trip with former President Clinton.
JO BECKER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: And then soon after that, Bill Clinton got a huge donation, $31 million from Frank Giustra, to his charitable foundation, followed by a pledge to donate $100 million more. BAIER: The company became Uranium One, and was eventually sold to a Russian company that is essentially controlled by Vladimir Putin. They now also control more than 20 percent of American uranium. Officials with Uranium One and investors who profited from that deal donated more than $140 million to the Clinton Foundation. But millions of dollars of those donations were never disclosed, flying in the face of a deal the Clintons struck with the Obama administration. Again, and all of this does not fit on a bumper sticker, but from the book and various media organizations like The New York Times, The Washington Post and Fox News, connecting some of the dots here, most political watchers will tell you, this is, at best for Hillary Clinton, a serious political issue for her campaign — Chris.
(END VIDEOTAPE) WALLACE: Brett, thank you. Now, let’s bring in the man whose team spent 10 years on the Clinton money trail, Peter Schweizer, author of “Clinton Cash”. And welcome to “Fox News Sunday.”
SCHWEIZER: Thanks for having me, Chris.
WALLACE: Let’s start with the phrase that Bret mentioned you use in the book, the Clinton blur, the mix of private and public, of charity and government action. What’s your point?
SCHWEIZER: The point is basically when former President Clinton travels the world, which he does extensively, he spends time in the developing world, in Europe. When he goes there, he’s usually wearing several hats. When his wife was in public office, he’s obviously the spouse of a very public figure, he’s the head of a charity, he’s also giving speeches and he’s probably there with an entourage that includes foreign businessmen that have matters before the government, in Colombia, or Kazakhstan, or wherever it may be. And the problem is, when you have a mix of public and private, profit-making backed by the government power that your spouse has, I think it creates a very dangerous cocktail as far as conflict of interests is concerned.
WALLACE: Well, you have an interesting point that I want to put up on the screen that seems to demonstrate exactly the point you’re making. Between 2001 and 2012, Bill Clinton made 13 speeches, 13, for which he was paid, $500,000 or more. Eleven of those 13 speeches were at least eight years after he left the presidency while his wife was secretary of state. Peter, what do you think that shows?
SCHWEIZER: Well, I think you can only come to one or two conclusions. Either in January of 2009 when Hillary Clinton becomes secretary of state, former President Clinton has become dramatically more eloquent than he ever was. He’s a very eloquent man.
WALLACE: Because his speaking fees went dramatically up.
SCHWEIZER: Dramatically. I mean, for example, in the uranium deal, there’s a $500,000 speech that he’s paid by an investment banking firm that is tied to Putin. He was paid $500,000. He had only given one speech in Russia before that five years earlier, for which he was paid a third of that. So, the question becomes, why did his speaking fees go up and why did it go up with corporations and with individuals and with people connected to foreign governments who had business before the State Department?
WALLACE: What’s your answer?
SCHWEIZER: My answer is that’s extremely troubling. The fact you find it’s a very extensive pattern. There’s not one or two examples. There are 11 instances and I think when you have one or two examples, it’s a coincidence. When you have this many, to me it’s a trend.
WALLACE: OK, let’s go through a timeline, and it’s complicated. But a timeline of the uranium deal that you — that Bret mentioned and you reported in the book. 2005, Bill Clinton and Canadian millionaire Frank Giustra fly to Kazakhstan. Giustra lands a big uranium mining deal. Giustra gives the Clinton Foundation $31 million and later pledges $100 million more. 2010, a Russian company wants to buy Uranium One, which has taken over Giustra’s company. The new chairman of Uranium One donates $2 million to Clinton foundation, which fails to report that money. In June of 2010, Bill Clinton gets $500,000 for a speech in Moscow. In October, a U.S. government committee approves the sale of Uranium One to the Russian company. Question, is there a connection between always of those millions of dollars that are going to Clinton personally and to the Clinton Foundation and State Department’s approval of this uranium deal?
SCHWEIZER: I believe there is. It’s not just Frank Giustra. I lay out in the book, there are actually nine, nine major donors to the Clinton Foundation who had written multimillion checks that are tied to this deal. The two financial advisers that arrange for the sale of Uranium One to the Russian government, they’re both major Clinton contributors. The chairman of the company is, some of the key shareholders are. The question becomes, when CFIUS approved this transfer in October, what role did Hillary Clinton play?
Clinton Foundation acknowledges mistakes after hand caught in the cookie jar …
On Sunday, The Clinton Foundation’s acting CEO, Maura Pally admitted to some mistakes in the organization’s listing of donations from foreign governments on its tax forms. Imagine that, after all this time they have admitted mistakes after being caught. Peter Schweizer, the author of “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” appeared this Sunday on ABC’s This Week and on Fox’s Fox News Sunday to discuss the claims in the book of the coincidental Clinton Foundation donations from foreign governments, Bill Clinton’s increased speaking fees while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and made favorable decisions in regards to those nations.
Looks like some one is admitting wrong-doing. It would appear that Hillary Clinton is trying to do damage control ahead of the release of the Clinton Cash book.
The Clinton Foundation’s acting CEO, Maura Pally, on Sunday admitted to some mistakes in the organization’s listing of donations from foreign governments on its tax forms.
In a statement, Pally wrote, “Our total revenue was accurately reported on each year’s form—our error was that government grants were mistakenly combined with other donations. Those same grants have always been properly listed and broken out and available for anyone to see on our audited financial statements, posted on our website.”
The statement comes as Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer has been delineating claims in his forthcoming book, which he says shows a pattern in which the Clinton Foundation received donations from foreign governments before the U.S., under Clinton’s leadership as Secretary of State, made favorable decisions in regards to those nations. Pally’s statement also acknowledged that those grants were not always properly reported.
“So yes, we made mistakes, as many organizations of our size do, but we are acting quickly to remedy them, and have taken steps to ensure they don’t happen in the future,” the statement says. “We are committed to operating the Foundation responsibly and effectively to continue the life-changing work that this philanthropy is doing every day.”
Transparency, really? If there was ever a word to never describe Bill and Hillary Clinton it would be transparency. Can you say she scrubbed her private server of all emails she illegally used as Secretary of State to do government business.
With scrutiny of the Clinton Foundation’s financial practices threatening to create political problems for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, the organization on Sunday took the unusual step of acknowledging “mistakes,” but insisted that it is committed to transparency regarding its donors and operations around the world.
Nevertheless, the foundation explained for the first time publicly that one of its affiliates — a Canada-based charity that bears Bill Clinton’s name — would continue to keep its donors secret because of restrictions in Canadian law.
Sunday’s blog post also coincided with national television appearances by conservative author Peter Schweizer, whose forthcoming book, “Clinton Cash,” charges that the State Department gave preferential treatment to foundation donors while Clinton was secretary of state and that the foundation violated its own promise to disclose all of its donors.
The Clinton campaign spent much of last week blasting the book as a partisan attack. Still, the Sunday statement was a sign that the growing focus on the $2 billion foundation and its relationship with donors may have begun to rattle Clinton’s team.
NY Times Journalist Caught the Clinton Foundation Red-Handed in a Lie About a Meeting Between former President Bill Clinton and Kazatomprom, a Kazakhstan State-Owned Nuclear Holding Company
LIARS: If you actually care about America, you will watch the video below that shows of former President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Lied and sold out our country to the Russians …
How big was the New York Times story on Bill and Hillary Clinton and the uranium deal, bigger than you think. If Hillary Clinton and the Clinton’s are allowed to get away with this then this country is lost forever. At some point Americans have to actually care that those in power and have the ultimate power like president of the United States actually have an ounce of decency, credibility and ethics. The individual who holds the highest office in the land can’t be a complete and total liar and hide behind a gender card saying what difference does it make. When is enough, enough?
When Hillary Clinton announced that she was going to run for president in 2016, she stated, “Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion.” Clinton went on to further say, “Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top.” AMERICA, WAKE THE HELL UP … HILLARY CLINTON IS THAT PERSON AT THE TOP THAT THE DECK IS STACKED IN FAVOR OF!!! Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have sold America out so that they could become rich, breaking every law that the so-called people she wants to champion would have been arrested and thrown in jail. America, we are no longer talking about Bill lied about sex with an intern … THESE LIES ARE MUCH, MUCH INSIDIOUS.
Fox News: Millions To Clinton Foundation In Exchange For Russian Uranium Deal
But, as New York Times reporter Jo Becker reported, such a deal would require review by the U.S. government. That’s where Frank Giustra, a Canadian business executive and founder of the company that would become Uranium One, entered the picture.
Giustra reportedly set up a meeting between Kazatomprom officials and Bill Clinton himself — at the former president’s home in Chappaqua, New York.
Giustra has close ties to Bill Clinton and is a major donor to the Clinton Foundation. The two even flew to Kazakhstan together when Giustra’s company landed a lucrative deal to secure uranium mines there.
Here’s where the lie comes in.
Becker told Fox News’ Bret Baier that when she first asked a Clinton Foundation spokesman and Giustra about the meeting, they both said no such meeting ever took place. However, when she informed them that the then-head of Kazatomprom not only told her that the meeting had taken place, but also showed her a picture of himself with Clinton at the Chappaqua home proudly displayed in his office, they were forced to admit the meeting occurred.
In 2007, Toshiba “sold a 10 percent stake in U.S. nuclear power plant builder Westinghouse,” Reuters reported.
During Hillary Clinton’s tenure at the U.S. State Department, foreign governments and businesses donated tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and paid millions in speaker fees to former President Clinton. Some of those same players then had business or policy issues later land on then-Secretary of State Clinton’s desk.
In addition to concerns about ethics of such practices, Clinton failed to disclose millions of dollars in big foreign donations to her husband’s foundation, which she had previously vowed to do. It was also reported that the Clinton Foundation is redoing five years worth of tax returns after a review by Reuters found several errors.
That’s the gist of the bombshell reports, based on Peter Schweizer’s new book, “Clinton Cash,” that emerged on Thursday.
Mitt Romney Says on Hugh Hewitt Show Regarding Clinton Foundation Uranium Payments … “It Looks Like Bribery”
Mitt Romney says, “It Looks Like Bribery.”
Yesterday on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, Mitt Romney was asked what his reaction was of the New York Times article report documenting cash flowing from the Russians amid a uranium deal to the Clinton Foundation. Romney, the former 2012 GOP presidential nominee, said that he was stunned and “it looked like bribery”. Romney went on to say that it looks like bribery and a cover up on behalf of Hillary Clinton and had she not wiped out thousands of emails, we might know more.
“You know, I’ve got to tell you, I was stunned by it. I mean, it looks like bribery.”
“I mean, there is every appearance that Hillary Clinton was bribed to grease the sale of, what, 20% of America’s uranium production to Russia, and then it was covered up by lying about a meeting at her home with the principals, and by erasing emails. And you know, I presume we might know for sure whether there was or was not bribery if she hadn’t wiped out thousands of emails.”
“But this is a very, very serious series of facts, and it looks like bribery.”
It is too bad that Mitt Romney did not go after Barack Obama like he is now Hillary during the 2012 presidential election. Had he done so and kept his foot on Obama’s neck following the 1st Presidential debate instead of coating and playing a prevent defense, he probably would have won.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest Not Categorically Denying Clinton Foundation Donors Received Special Treatment From Sec. of State Hillary Clinton
HMM … OBAMA WHITE HOUSE NOT CATEGORICALLY DENYING CLINTON FOUNDATION DONOR AND FORMER SEC. OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON QUID PRO DOUGH SPECIAL TREATMENT …
Why would it be difficult for Barack Obama’s White House press secretary Josh Earnest to say categorically that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not provide special treatment for those who were donors of the Clinton Foundation? One would think that would be a straight forward response of, absolutely not. However, not with the most transparent presidency in history. The Obama White House does not seem to have an answer to the accusations made from the recent book by Peter Schweizer, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” otherwise known as Quid Pro Dough.
The new book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” by Peter Schweizer, lays out the case that contributions to the foundation influenced State Department policy from 2009 to 2013, during Clinton’s tenure.
ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl asked Earnest Monday, “Can you say categorically that no donors to the Clinton Foundation – nobody paying any honoraria to former President Clinton – received any favorable treatment from this administration or from the State Department?”
Earnest talked at length about the memorandum of understanding Clinton signed when she joined the Obama administration, saying that it went above and beyond ethical guidelines, given her unique circumstances.
“I know there have been a lot of accusations made about this but not a lot of evidence,” Earnest said. “So, the president continues to be extraordinarily proud of the work Secretary Clinton did as secretary of state. For the details of some of those accusations, I’d refer you to Secretary Clinton’s campaign.”
Karl pressed, “Can you assure us absolutely no favorable treatment given to donors of the Clinton Foundation?”
Earnest repeated, “There are lots of accusations. There is no one who is marshaling the evidence for this. I don’t want to be in a position.”
Jon Stewart Mocks Obama’s New Ambassadors to Argentina and Hungary (Colleen Bell) … Then Shreds WH Spox Josh Earnest’s Lame Comments
Jon Stewart of The Daily Show has been on a roll lately ripping the Obama administration. Then again, he has had so much material. What is sad, all he is doing is repeating what happened. Two new ambassadors, hand picked by Barack Obama,have been approved by the Senate. Their credentials you ask? None. America’s new ambassador to Argentina doesn’t even speak Spanish and the new ambassador to Hungary is a former soap opera producer, who has admitted not knowing what the US interests are in that region of the world. Because she did so well during the confirmation hearing. But they certainly bundled campaign cash for Obama.
Yesterday, we showed you Press Secretary Josh Earnest’s lackluster response to being grilled on the matter by ABC’s Jon Karl. But just how confounding was that response? On Wednesday’s “Daily Show” with Jon Stewart, the host stopped everything to scream out his disapproval.
To recap, when Karl pushed on the pair’s credentials and how it seems their greatest skill is their ability to raise funds for Obama, Earnest responded, “Frankly, I was not part of this decision-making process.”
Stewart was dumbfounded.
“What?! You can’t do that!” he yelled. “That is the greatest thing I’ve ever seen the president’s press secretary do. His entire job — his only job — is built around trying not to go, ‘Hey, look, I just fu***ng work here.’ But that’s what he did! ‘Take it up with my supervisor! Earnest, out.’”
Ray Nagin, the former two-term mayor of New Orleans indicted after he left office, was convicted Wednesday of 20 federal corruption charges for illegal dealings with city vendors, dating back to 2004. A jury delivered its verdict just before 1 p.m., after six hours of deliberations that followed a nine-day trial.
Nagin, 57, joins a list of Louisiana elected officials convicted of misdeeds while in office, but he is New Orleans’ first mayor to be convicted of public corruption. Under federal sentencing guidelines, he could face a 20-year prison term, possibly more, lawyers have said
Ray Nagin came into the mayor’s office in New Orleans as an avowed scourge of corruption and led the city through the worst disaster of its modern history.
He left a federal courthouse a convict Wednesday, after a jury found him guilty of taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes and other favors from businessmen looking for a break from his administration. Of the 21 counts against him, he was convicted of 20.
“He got a lot of media attention as being a reformer, a non-politician, first run for office — a businessman who was going to come in and get it right,” said Pat Fanning, a veteran New Orleans lawyer and no fan of the former two-term mayor.
After Hurricane Katrina ravaged the city in 2005, the onetime cable television executive would reassure people queasy about sending taxpayer money to a state with an epic history of corruption by telling them, “Google me. You’re not going to find any of that in my record,” Fanning said, quoting Nagin. “Well, Google him now.”
Nagin, who left office in 2010, had little to say as he left the courthouse Wednesday afternoon, telling reporters only, “I maintain my innocence.” A small knot of supporters yelled, “Keep your head up” and “He’s just a patsy,” CNN affiliate WDSU reported.
To the juror who wished that Nagin’s defense team had provided more evidence during the ex-New Orleans’ Mayor’s trial … the answer is, because they couldn’t.
A juror wished Ray Nagin’s defense attorney put on more evidence to help his client in the federal corruption case that ended with convictions on 20 counts that could send the former New Orleans mayor to prison for 20 years, possibly more.
Speaking outside the federal courthouse after the verdict was read, Lisa Hamaker, a juror from St. Tammany Parish who described herself as a “stay-at-home-mom,” said she wished defense attorney Robert Jenkins put on more evidence. Much of the prosecution’s case went unchallenged, she said
The Gateway Pundit has a list of the 20 charges that Nagin was found guilty.
Count 1: Conspiracy – Guilty
The charge: Creating, through a variety of bribes and kickbacks, “a scheme and artifice to defraud” the residents of New Orleans of his honest services as a public official. Many of the individual elements of this scheme make up the other 20 crimes with which Nagin was charged.
Maximum prison term: 5 years
Count 2: Bribery – Guilty
The charge: Accepting $60,000 from the three principals of Three Fold Consulting, an engineering firm, in exchange for special treatment.
Maximum prison term: 10 years
Count 3: Bribery – Guilty
The charge: Accepting a $2,500 bribe from Rodney Williams, a principal in Three Fold Consulting, in exchange for favorable treatment.
Maximum prison term: 10 years
Count 4: Bribery – Guilty
The charge: Accepting a shipment of granite from Frank Fradella’s company, Home Solutions, in exchange for favorable treatment.
Maximum prison term: 10 years
Barack Obama Campaign Bundler Noah Bryson Mamet Nominated as Ambassador to Argentina Even Though Has Never Been to the Country or Speak Spanish
What a joke, Don’t Cry for Me Argentina … Obama Style. What else would you expect from a community organizer and a “Campaigner in Chief”?
Remember when Barack Obama campaigned that he was going to change the way things were done inside the Belt Way? Well you can forget that as Barack Obama is rewarding one of his campaign blunders with an ambassadorship to Argentina. Noah Bryson Mamet bundled more than $500,000 for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign and is now being rewarded for his fundraising. There is just one problem, the man who is supposed to represent the United states in Argentina has never been to the country. UNBELIEVABLE. One would think, as echoed at Slate, with the current state of affairs in Argentina, “delicate times, probably opportune times for a diplomat with years logged in South America”.
The Buenos Aires Herald reports, Mamet, who would be replacing Vilma Martínez after her term ended on July 4, is a veteran Democratic fund-raiser and consultant who has no evident experience with Latin American issues.
Sen. Marco Rubio shows his disbelief that the nominee for Ambassador to Argentina has never been there
Presidents often award diplomatic posts to campaign donors and fundraisers, but Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., suspects that Obama’s choice of ambassador to Argentina — a man who bundled more than $500,000 for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, but who has never been to the country — is in over his head.
“Have you been to Argentina?” Rubio asked Noah Mamet during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Thursday.
“I haven’t had the opportunity yet to be there,” Mamet replied. “I’ve traveled pretty extensively around the world, but I haven’t yet had a chance [to visit Argentina].”
Rubio implied that Argentina is too important a country to be entrusted to a campaign donor rather than a professional, as is the case with some other diplomatic posts. “I don’t view this appointment as one — I think this is a very significant post,” he said.
UPDATE I: This nomination by Barack Obama gets worse, if possible. In the VIDEO below the US State Department spokesperson does not even know if the nominee for the position to be an Ambassador in a Latin American country speaks Spanish. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! How could you not know this? Is it any wonder how the Hillary Clinton lead State Department botched Benghazi?
“I don’t have his personal biography in front of me.”
This presidency cannot end soon enough!