Category Archives: DOJ, DC and inside the Beltway

Refugees Have Temporary Status in U.S. but not under DHS

Posted on by

The United States has been taking in refugees, migrants and asylees from Latin America and several dozen countries for decades. This is supposed to be a temporary condition but the truth is it has never been temporary.

Image result for manbij

Now with 45 million people from just 2015 displaced from their home countries around the world, there is a crisis that is hard to define much less solve. The United Nations is the lead organization that is under pressure to find solutions and world leaders are not in any kind of collective agreement. Meanwhile, there are people, mostly innocent that are suffering. This is a historical time, one that was in fact not only predictable but solvable if civil war, conflicts and terrorism was addressed long before it manifested.

At issue is the total cost of war where there is no end in sight but more, the cost of creating a viable and living long term solution for migrants to include education, healthcare, law enforcement, jobs, entitlements to list a few. No country is monetarily prepared for the future costs many yet to be known, studied or funded.

Related reading: Bodies found off coast of Libya as migrant toll climbs

The United States had every opportunity in 2011 to launch humanitarian action missions to offset refugee conditions especially as Islamic State was born, and predicted to become a global terror operation directly after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed. He is the original father of Islamic State…al Qaeda in Iraq.

Image result for zarqawi

As a result of the long war in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, the complete damage to cities and towns where normal infrastructure has been destroyed, there is no viable location to go back to. There are no schools, hospitals, roads, buildings and commerce has stopped except for black markets and smuggling. Further, no countries are stepping up with funds to help rebuild or as many call it, nation building.

In summary, refugees are in fact a new permanent status for wherever they are located, including the United States.

Consequently, the United Nations is chartered with drafting a global solution with world leaders.

The first cut a the draft is found here.

In part from the NewYorkTimes: Refugees and migrants will be the biggest issue at the gathering of world leaders at the United Nations next month. President Obama plans to lead a meeting at the General Assembly in an effort to nudge countries to take in more refugees and contribute to countries that have taken them in for years.

The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, also plans to hold a meeting on the plight of refugees and migrants. The document under negotiation will be the centerpiece of his meeting.

While the draft text has no force of international law, every sentence has been argued and negotiated. The resulting language is sometimes so vague that it is likely to bring little comfort to the millions of men, women and children who are seeking safety and opportunity abroad.

Eritrea, for instance, recently complained that the many references to human rights in the document were “redundant.” (A United Nations committee earlier this year accused Eritrea of atrocities against its own citizens.)

Russia resisted a sentence that called for countries to share in the “burden” of taking in refugees. (Russia takes in very few, except lately, from parts of Ukraine.)

The United States suggested a phrase asserting that detention is “seldom” good for children. Activists for immigrants and refugees found that suggestion so appalling that they fired off a letter on Friday to President Obama. They argued that any international agreement should make clear that detention is “never in the best interests of children” and should commit to ending the practice. (The United States detains children who arrive from Mexico without legal papers.)

Amnesty International said in a statement over the weekend that “with some states trying to dilute the agreement to suit their own political agendas, we may end up with tentative half-measures that merely reinforce the status quo or even weaken existing protection.”

This draft agreement sets out a long list of principles, most already enshrined in existing laws. It says refugees deserve protection and should not be sent back to places where they could face war or persecution. It urges countries to allow refugees to work and to let their children attend school, though it stops short of saying refugees have a right to either jobs or schools.

It asserts that migration can be good for the world, which is wording that migrant-sending countries wanted. It also calls for countries to take back their citizens if they travel illegally and fail to get asylum, which is what migrant-receiving countries, especially in Europe, wanted.

An early draft had proposed a global compact to allocate where refugees could be permanently resettled, but that proposal failed. African and Latin American countries wanted to know why the compact was on refugees alone, according to diplomats involved in the negotiations. Why not also have a compact on the rights of migrants, they asked.

The latest draft sets a 2018 deadline for two compacts — one for refugees, a second for migrants.

The draft text also says nothing about the rights of the 40 million people who are displaced in their own countries, or about those who are leaving their homes because of climate change.

 

 

Russia Weaponizing the Arctic

Posted on by

Russian Military Build-Up in Arctic Highlights Kremlin’s Militarized Mindset

Image result for russia arctic  Image result for russia arctic

Jamestown: Despite Russia’s economic crisis, which has already imposed restrictions on military spending (see EDM, May 3), the Kremlin is trying to implement a questionable buildup in the Arctic, aimed at strengthening Russian military might. During a recent board session of the Russian Ministry of Defense, Minister Sergei Shoigu paid special attention to the implementation of the “2020 Activity Plan by the Northern Fleet.” He reminded participants that the Northern Fleet, an “inter-service strategic formation,” was formed over two years ago “in order to protect [the] northern borders of Russia” (Mil.ru, July 27). He mentioned in particular that the construction of “closed-loop” (self-sustaining) military towns will be finished on the Franz Josef Land archipelago and the Novosibirsk Islands in 2016. A joint situational awareness system is being created to support air defense.   The Russian defense ministry intends to build or reconstruct ten airfields in the Arctic. “Russia’s Federal Agency for Special Construction [Spetsstroy] is building military infrastructure facilities on six islands in the Arctic,” Izvestia quotes a ministry official. According to this source, over 100 tons of military equipment for more than 150 facilities are planned to be delivered to these remote military garrisons. In addition to the materiel supply, more than 190 tons of construction materials—including precast concrete, cement, metal, pipes, fittings and equipment—will be delivered to the Arctic for building the facilities (Izvestia, July 11). The construction and renovation of runways and other structures is ongoing at Severomorsk-1 airfield (Murmansk oblast) as well as Nagurskoye air base (Alexandra Land Island, in the Franz Josef Archipelago). The airfields at Rogachevo (Arkhangelsk oblast), Tiksi (Yakutia Republic) and Temp (Kotelny Island in the Arctic Ocean) are also under construction. It was announced that beginning next year, Tiksi is to become the permanent base for a formation of high-altitude MiG-31 interceptors (Rossiiskaya Gazeta, July 19).   Meanwhile, troops deployed in the Arctic are undergoing intensive training. Specifically, units of mobile rapid-reaction forces are being exposed to the conditions of the Far North. During several snap inspection exercises in the past year, the Russian General Staff has concentrated on the ability to reinforce three land-based brigades in Murmansk oblast—the 200th Motorized Rifle Brigade (Pechenga), the 80th Arctic Motorized Rifle Brigade (Alakurtti) and the 61st Marine Brigade (Sputnik)—with airborne units based in Ivanovo and Pskov (western-central Russia) (Mil.ru April 9, 2015).   Over the last decade, the Russian leadership has become obsessed with the notion that climate change will result in the imminent melting of the polar ice cap in the Arctic Ocean. At this point, these politicians argue, Russia will be able to tap a wealth of heretofore inaccessible natural resources, such as oil and natural gas from the seabed. In addition, the role of the Northern Sea Route (which hugs Russia’s Arctic coast) will increase dramatically, providing huge revenues to Moscow from cargo ships allowed to pass through this transit corridor connecting Europe, Asia and North America.   However, climate change is unlikely to bring only benefits for Russia. In addition to polar ice, the Arctic permafrost will also melt. Consequently, a belt of Russia’s northern coast is expected to turn into a swamp many kilometers deep, making it impossible to build the infrastructure necessary to serve the Northern Sea Route or the facilities required to extract the region’s oil and gas. Moreover, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) prohibits parties to the agreement from placing restrictions on foreign ships passing along the Northern Sea Route. Thus, Russia (a party to UNCLOS) is obligated to provide passing foreign vessels with communications as well as meteorological, hydrological and rescue services at its own expense. This means that President Vladimir Putin’s dream of cashing in on the route is wishful thinking. Even now, his plans clearly diverge from reality. Transit traffic via the Northern Sea Route has dropped catastrophically: from 1.18 million tons in 2013, to 39,000 tons in 2015 (Regnum, December 8, 2015).   For almost 80 years of this route’s existence, no one had any reason to question its economic viability. Military bases and prison camps were the main destination and departure points along the Northern Sea Route. Now, with transcontinental cargo traffic having collapsed, Moscow’s main hope is that this route will be used for transporting offshore oil. However, all major Western oil companies have so far refused to develop the Arctic shelf: it is too dangerous and expensive. Furthermore, sections of the Northern Sea Route are inaccessible to larger ships. Vessels with a draught of over 12 meters cannot operate in the vicinity of the Novosibirsk Islands, for example (Fni.no, November 8, 1999).   Future prosperity in the Arctic looks highly doubtful, but the Kremlin lives according to a different logic. It believes that the possession of even hypothetical treasures in the Far North will inevitably encourage other countries to forcibly take them from Russia. Therefore, the Kremlin has demanded that the defense ministry “strengthen the battle capability” in the region.   In executing this order, the Russian military is bound to redevelop old Cold War–style scenarios, even though none of the other Arctic-region countries have shown any sign of militarization in recent years. Nearly Russia’s entire military potential in the Far North is currently concentrated on the Kola Peninsula—the extreme west of the Russian Arctic. This was no accident, and it stems from the Arctic region’s role as a zone of military confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States throughout the Cold War. It was convenient to deliver nuclear strikes against the enemy from the depths of the ice-covered ocean. The main task of all Soviet Armed forces in the Arctic—the naval surface fleet, the air force and ground troops—was to ensure nuclear submarine combat patrols and the protection of their bases on the Kola Peninsula. No one at that time suggested the need to control and defend thousands of miles of ice desert. Surface vessels of the Northern Fleet, in fact, cannot operate east of Novaya Zemlya—beyond this point they lack ground support and air protection. To ensure wide-scale patrols, it is not enough to restore Soviet-era airfields and station there a few dozen jets. Thousands of tons of fuel will also be required. Deploying small garrisons in the Arctic makes no military sense either. Thus, Russia is spending massive resources simply for Shoigu to be able to report to Putin that the country’s unobtainable natural wealth is being protected.

 

–Aleksandr Golts

Hillary’s Relationship with Russia is Approved Espionage

Posted on by

Dealing with evil, the evil empire as President Reagan declared. Quite actually under the Barack Obama administration it is nothing more than groveling with the Kremlin.

The United States has an Open Skies Treaty. and one must question why. Further, the Russians have taken full advantage of it.

Then there was the red line threat by Obama where it was later dismissed and handed over to Putin to handle those chemical weapons in Syria for removal.

Then we heard about the Bill and Hillary deal with the Canadian operative on Uranium One giving over rights of U.S. uranium supply to Russia.

But now we have yet another operation concocted by the White House and the Hillary State Department and this one is a blockbuster as noted by going back in history through the original WikiLeaks cables.

It is highly suggested to read the full document below, as it summarizes how Hillary allowed trade secrets and professional Russian espionage within the United States.

****

The full document is here.

FROM RUSSIA WITH Money

Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset, and Cronyism

NYPost: Key players in a main component of the reset — a Moscow-based, Silicon Valley-styled campus for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies called “Skolkovo” — poured tens of millions of dollars into the Clinton Foundation, the report by journalist Peter Schweizer alleges.

As the Obama administration’s top diplomat, Hillary Clinton was at the center of US efforts on the reset in general and Skolkovo in particular, Schweizer argues.

Yet, “Of the 28 US, European and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo, 17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors” or sponsored speeches by former President Bill Clinton, Schweizer told The Post.

“It raises the question — do you need to pay money to sit at the table?”

In one example cited by Schweizer, Skolkovo Foundation member and then-Cisco CEO John Chambers donated between $1 million and $5 million in personal and corporate cash to the Clinton Foundation, the report says.

But Skolkovo wound up making America less safe, Schweizer argues, because it shared advanced US technology that Russia can develop for both civilian and military applications, a concern raised already by Army and FBI officials.

Many of Skolkovo’s research projects involved “dual-use” technologies, meaning they would have both civilian and military uses, the report said, citing one in particular — a hybrid airship called an “Atlant” developed at the Skolkovo Aeronautical Center.

“Particularly noteworthy is Atlant’s ability to deliver military cargoes,” including “radar surveillance, air and missile defense and delivery of airborne troops,” the Skolkovo Foundation bragged in a document Schweizer cites.

Hillary Clinton personally launched the State Department’s efforts toward a Russian reset, presenting her Russian then-counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, with a prop reset button in Geneva in 2009.

The reset petered out by the end of 2011, when Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Hillary of fomenting Russian protests over suspicions of fraud in that year’s parliamentary elections.

But by then, the damage had already been done, Schweizer feels.

“I think the idea that you’re going to help develop a Russian version of Silicon Valley, which, by the way, will be controlled by the Russian government, and then not to expect that the technology will be siphoned off for military uses, is incredibly naive,” Schweizer said.

As early as 2010, cybersecurity experts also expressed deep concerns about Russia using Skolkovo to develop hacking capabilities.

Russia’s FSB spy agency — the successor to the KGB — reportedly keeps two of its information warfare “security centers” at Skolkovo, the report says.

“There certainly is an irony that as we are now concerned about Russian cyber-attacks on the US, that the reset played a role in enhancing their cyber-capabilities,” Schweizer said.

In this latest report, as in his book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” Schweizer concedes he found no “smoking gun” evidence that any of the donors who poured cash into the Clinton coffers actually were promised, or received, any State Department favors in return.

“We don’t have an email or a pirated voice mail message saying, ‘We’ll give you money if you help us with Skokovo,’” Schweizer told The Post. “But what we do have is a pattern that shows a high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors.

“I think that everybody at the Russian reset table seems to walk away with something,” he added.

“The Clintons, they get their donations and speaking fees in the millions of dollars. The Russians get access to advanced US technology. The tech companies [that participated in the reset, including Cisco, Intel, Microsoft] get special access to the Russian market and workforce.

“But the American people get nothing. In fact, we get a rival — Russia — with enhanced technological capabilities. At best, that makes them a tougher competitor [in legitimate commerce],” Schweizer said.

“At worst, they get a more robust military, with technologies that we helped develop, and that can be sold to our enemies.”

The Clinton Foundation is sure to be a sore spot in Hillary’s campaign for the presidency, Schweizer predicted — tainted as it is, despite its laudable philanthropy.

“At the entire Democratic convention, they did not mention the Clinton Foundation once,” he said. “And it’s been the Clintons’ life work for 16-plus years.”

The Clinton campaign did not respond to requests from The Post for comment on the report.

“All I ask is that people look at the money. Who made the deals, who benefited from the deals,” Schweizer said. “We can’t get inside people’s heads as to why they did something, but we should follow the money.”

 

UK Report: Charities Funding Terror

Posted on by

At least the police in the UK noticed something and asked officials for an inquiry. An investigation was performed and you gotta hand it to the Brits, they are so proper and careful, but did the right thing. Question is, was it enough. Further, we must look inward and ask if our own State laws and the IRS are doing the same thing when it comes to charities and foundations? Two come to mind immediately, the Clinton Foundation(s) and those that are advocates of Islamic organizations when the Holy-land Foundation case left many un-indicted co-conspirators.

UK charities that raised cash for ISIS and promoted Al-Qaeda struck off

TWO British charities that raised cash for ISIS and promoted Al-Qaeda respectively have been struck of the register after separate investigations by the regulator.
The Charity Commission has released reports on two separate organisations that claimed to be raising cash to help victims of the war in Syria, and Kurdish Muslims in Birmingham, but were in fact funding and promoting terrorists.

In one case, charities set up by Adeel Ul-Haq, 21, of Sutton-in-Ashfield in Nottinghamshire, raised money through social media that was used to buy a high-powered laser pointer, night-vision goggles and a secret waterproof money pouch.

Ul-Haq was jailed for 12 months in February after a separate police investigation found he funded terrorism by sending money to an ISIS fighter in Syria.
Ul-Haq used Twitter to appeal for cash “to help people in war-torn Syria crisis, but instead sent it to the ISIS fighter.

He was jailed for a further five years for helping another person travel to Syria.

The Charity Commission report said the regulator was unable to account for much of £12,500 raised by Ul-Haq, but at least some of it went into another unnamed person’s bank account.
Some of this cash was then used to buy the specialist items oneBay, that the watchdog suspected would be used for terrorism.
The report said: “While recognising that it is not illegal to purchase such items, the inquiry was extremely concerned by the use of charitable funds to purchase a night-vision scope and its potential usage given that it can be used for hunting or surveillance.”

Ul-Haq never registered any charities with the commission, but the regulator took action as he was effectively acting as an official trustee and he had taken the donations on trust that they would help people in Syria.

The regulator found Ul-Haq breached his fiduciary duty to protect and apply charitable funds for the purposes for which they were raised and that there was evidence the second trustee had committed misconduct and mismanagement by allowing the charitable funds to be mixed in the same account as her own personal funds.

The second, unnamed, female trustee was ordered to repay any other charitable money in her account to Ul-Haq’s account, which was frozen by the commission at the start of the investigation.

However, she faced no police charges.

This cash and remaining funds in Ul-Haq’s account, plus money seized in a police raid of his home, totalled about £4,500, and was donated to two genuine charities working in Syria, which the commission has not named.
Ul-Haq been disqualified from acting as a charity trustee in the future.

At least £2,000 of money had been sent to a genuine charity, it was found.

A second charity probed by the commission was the Birmingham-based Didi Nwe Organisation.

Its website featured articles by Mullah Krekar, viewed as an associate of Al-Qaeda by the United Nations.

Didi Nwe also paid £14,000 to its chair of trustees between May 2010 and February 2013 and could not explain why, according to a statutory inquiry report published by the commission.

The charity trustees were found to have committed misconduct and mismanagement, failed to keep financial records, and were unable to show how the charity was furthering its causes of providing education and relieving poverty among Kurdish Muslims in Birmingham, the report said.

The commission launched an inquiry after the charity’s chair, referred to only as Trustee A, was stopped by police returning to the UK from France with around £1,800 in cash, which he claimed were charitable donations. Read more here.  The report is found here.

Conclusions

The commission concluded that the First Trustee had solicited charitable funds from the public via Twitter for a specific purpose but had breached his fiduciary duty to protect and apply those funds properly for the purposes for which they were raised. The commission concluded that the items the First Trustee purchased on eBay with the charitable funds, including a laser pen, a money wallet and night vision scope, could not be used for furthering the charitable purposes for which the funds were raised and raised serious concerns about what the intended purpose of their use was.

There was evidence of misconduct and mismanagement by the Second Trustee in mixing charitable funds with her own personal funds.

Charitable funds raised by or donated to the First Trustee were not accounted for; there was a serious risk of further misapplication, in breach of duty, to any remaining funds or any funds which could be recovered if the First Trustee was to remain a trustee of the funds. The commission took regulatory action to remove the First Trustee as a trustee, the effect of which was to disqualify him from beinga trustee.

On 10 February 2016 the First Trustee was convicted under section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (preparation of terrorist acts) and section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (entering into or becoming concerned in a terrorist funding arrangement) and received 5 years imprisonment. The commission issued a public statement following this conviction.

Partial List of Documents Hacked from the Clinton Foundation

Posted on by

Guccifer 2.0: In the post he says the following:

Zerohedge: This’s time to keep my word and here’re the docs I promised you.

It’s not a report in one file, it’s a big folder of docs devoted to Hillary Clinton that I found on the DNC server.

The DNC collected all info about the attacks on Hillary Clinton and
prepared the ways of her defense, memos, etc., including the most
sensitive issues like email hacks.

As an example here’re some files:

This’s time to keep my word and here’re the docs I promised you.

It’s not a report in one file, it’s a big folder of docs devoted to Hillary Clinton that I found on the DNC server.

The DNC collected all info about the attacks on Hillary Clinton and
prepared the ways of her defense, memos, etc., including the most
sensitive issues like email hacks.

As an example here’re some files:

2016er Attacks – HRC Defense Master Doc [updated]

04.29.15 CGEP

2016 Democrats Positions Cheat Sheet 7-7-15

20150426 MEMO- Clinton Cash Unravels

Attacks on Clinton Family Members

Clinton Foundation Donors $25K+

Clinton Foundation Vulnerabilities Master Doc FINAL

Clintons PFD 2015

HRC Defense – Emails

HRC Travel – Private Jets FINAL

MEMO — Clinton Cash Claims (2)

Most notable among these files is the file called “Clinton Foundation Vulnerabilities Master Doc FINAL” which, as the title implies, is an extensive 42-page summary of how the Clinton Foundation views its biggest vulnerabilities based on mentions, references and attacks from the press.

Here are some of the section titles:

  • THE CLINTON FOUNDATION RECEIVED DONATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS TIED TO SAUDI ARABIA WHILE CLINTON SERVED AS SECRETARY OF STATE
  • AN EMBATTLED BUSINESSMAN WITH “TIES TO BAHRAIN’S STATE-OWNED ALUMINUM COMPANY” GAVE BETWEEN $1 MILLION AND $5 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION
  • A VENEZUELAN MEDIA MOGUL WHO WAS ACTIVE IN VENEZUELAN POLITICS DONATED TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION DURING CLINTON’S TENURE AS SECRETARY OF STATE
  • GERMAN INVESTOR WHO HAS LOBBIED CHANCELLOR MERKEL’S ADMINISTRATION GAVE BETWEEN $1 MILLION AND $5 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION, SOME OF WHICH WAS DURING MRS. CLINTON’S TENURE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT
  • THE CEO OF AN AMSTERDAM BASED ENERGY COMPANY DONATED AT LEAST $1 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION AND LATER ANNOUNCED AT THE 2009 CGI MEETING A $5 BILLION PROJECT TO DEVELOP ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY POWER GENERATION IN INDIA AND CHINA
  • INDIAN POLITICIAN AMAR SINGH, WHO HAD DONATED AT LEAST $1 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION, MET WITH HILLARY CLINTON IN SEPTEMBER 2008 TO DISCUSS AN INDIA-U.S. CIVIL NUCLEAR AGREEMENT
  • THE CLINTON FOUNDATION RECEIVED ADDITIONAL DONATIONS FROM INDIAN BUSINESS INTERESTS PRIOR TO HER BECOMING SECRETARY OF STATE
  • BILLIONAIRE STEEL EXECUTIVE AND MEMBER OF THE FOREIGN INVESTMENT COUNCIL IN KAZAKHSTAN LAKSHMI MITTAL GAVE $1 MILLION TO $5 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION BEFORE CLINTON BECAME SECRETARY OF STATE
  • SOON AFTER SECRETARY CLINTON LEFT THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE CLINTON
    FOUNDATION “RECEIVED A LARGE DONATION FROM A CONGLOMERATE RUN BY A
    MEMBER OF CHINA’S NATIONAL PEOPLE’S CONGRESS”
  • …AND THE CLINTON FOUNDATION DEFENDED ITS PARTNERSHIPS WITH BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC CORPORATE INTERESTS
  • POWERFUL AND CONTROVERSIAL CORPORATE INTERESTS BASED IN THE U.S. ALSO DONATED TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION
  • AMONG THE CLINTON FOUNDATION DONORS REVEALED IN 2009 WERE SEVERAL FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WHO HAD GIVEN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
  • WHEN HILLARY CLINTON BECAME SECRETARY OF STATE IN 2009, BILL CLINTON AGREED TO STOP ACCEPTING CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION FROM MOST FOREIGN COUNTRIES
  • IN THE PAST, SOME OBSERVERS HAD LINKED FOREIGN GOVERNMENT DONATIONS TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION AND SECRETARY CLINTON’S WORK AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT
  • THE CLINTON FOUNDATION CAME UNDER INTENSE SCRUTINY IN FEBRUARY 2015 WHEN IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE FOUNDATION HAD ACCEPTED DONATIONS FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AFTER SECRETARY CLINTON LEFT THE STATE DEPARTMENT
  • THE WALL STREET JOURNAL TIED FOREIGN GOVERNMENT DONORS TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION’S ENDOWMENT FUNDRAISING UNDER SECRETARY CLINTON
  • CLINTON FOUNDATION ANNOUNCED THAT SHOULD HILLARY CLINTON DECIDE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT, THE FOUNDATION WOULD FOLLOW APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES FOR ACCEPTING DONATIONS FROM FOREIGN DONATIONS, JUST LIKE IT HAD HAD UNDER SECRETARY CLINTON…
  • REPORTS THAT STATE DEPARTMENT LAWYERS DID NOT EXHAUSTIVELY VET BILL CLINTON’S PAID SPEECHES DURING SECRETARY CLINTON’S TENURE RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ROLE CLINTON FOUNDATION DONATIONS MAY HAVE PLAYED IN ORGANIZING THOSE SPEECHES
  • SOME CONSERVATIVES USED THE FOREIGN DONATIONS CONTROVERSY TO IMPLY THAT THE CLINTON FOUNDATION IS NOT A CHARITY AND QUESTION THE FOUNDATION’S CHARITABLE WORK
  • THE CLINTON FOUNDATION HAS ACCEPTED DONATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS, SOME OF WHOM HAD TIES TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, DURING HER TENURE AS SECRETARY OF STATE
  • THE CLINTON FOUNDATION RECEIVED MONEY FROM A FOUNDATION FORMED BY FORMER UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT MEMBER VICTOR PINCHUK
  • WALL STREET JOURNAL COLUMNIST MARY O’GRADY CITED A CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO CLINTON DONORS FOR HAITI AID AS EVIDENCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR THE CLINTONS

There is much more in the full document presented below (link).

* * *

One important thing to note: according to an interview that Motherboard conducted with Guccifer2 on Tuesday, the hacker makes it clear he is not Russian. He is, in fact, from Romania, just like the Original Guccifer. 

“I’m a hacker, manager, philosopher, women lover,” Guccifer 2.0 told Motherboard on Tuesday in a Twitter chat. “I also like Gucci! I bring the light to people. I’m a freedom fighter! So u can choose what u like!”

The hacker, who claimed to have chosen the name in reference to the notorious hacker who leaked the George W. Bush paintings and claims to have hacked Hillary Clinton’s email server, denied working for the Russian government, as several experts believe.

“I don’t like Russians and their foreign policy. I hate being attributed to Russia,” he said, adding that he was from Romania, just like the first Guccifer.

When asked to explain how he hacked into the DNC in Romanian, “he seemed to stall us, and said he didn’t want to “waste” his time doing that. The few short sentences he sent in Romanian were filled with mistakes, according to several Romanian native speakers.”

The hacker said he left Russian metadata in the leaked documents as his personal ”watermark.” He also said he got kicked out of the network on June 12, when the DNC “rebooted their system.”

A senior DNC official said in an emailed statement that “our experts are confident in their assessment that the Russian government hackers were the actors responsible for the breach detected in April, and we believe that the subsequent release and the claims around it may be a part of a disinformation campaign by the Russians.”

Guccifer 2.0 also said the DNC isn’t the only victim of his hacks, but declined to name any others because “my safety depends on it.”

It appears the Clinton Foundation was one of the other hacks.

Finally, when asked why he targeted the DNC, “Guccifer 2.0 said he simply did it to follow the lead of Marcel Lazar, the original Guccifer, and that he doesn’t “care at all” about Donald Trump. The hacker declined to say whether he knew him personally, “cause I care for Marcel.” “I think we must fight for freedom of minds,” he wrote. “Fight for the world without Illuminati.”

Good luck.

* * *

So while we are going through the full data dump (found here), here is the leaked document revealing the “Clinton Foundation’s Vulnerabilities.”

 

Clinton Foundation Vulnerabilities Master Doc Final by zerohedge on Scribd