{"id":76528,"date":"2016-04-18T18:40:19","date_gmt":"2016-04-18T18:40:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2016\/04\/18\/hillary-opulente-victime-collaterale-de-panamagate\/"},"modified":"2016-04-18T18:40:19","modified_gmt":"2016-04-18T18:40:19","slug":"hillary-opulente-victime-collaterale-de-panamagate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2016\/04\/18\/hillary-opulente-victime-collaterale-de-panamagate\/","title":{"rendered":"Hillary, opulente victime \u201ccollat\u00e9rale\u201d de Panamagate<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Hillary, opulente victime \u00ab\u00a0collat\u00e9rale\u00a0\u00bb de Panamagate<\/em><\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

Ce qui est excitant dans notre \u00e9poque au point où elle en est, et que l’on soit \u00ab\u00a0complotiste\u00a0\u00bb ou pas, c’est qu’il semble y avoir une \u00ab\u00a0main invisible\u00a0\u00bb (celle qui r\u00e9gulait le march\u00e9 in illo tempore<\/em> et qui en a eu marre depuis) qui ne cesse de nous m\u00e9nager des surprises sans fin, autant de peaux de bananes que les employ\u00e9s-Syst\u00e8me, – BHO, Clinton, les Saoud, Soros & Cie, pour citer les vedettes du moment, – s’emploient \u00e0 \u00e9carter comme l’on \u00e9cope avec un grand z\u00e8le les voies d’eau du Titanic<\/em>. Ainsi, pour ce jour, d’Hillary Clinton et du Panamagate<\/em> (ou Panama Papers<\/em>), où la candidate, de par sa position, ses fonctions et sa r\u00e9putation, apparaît comme la championne du monde toutes cat\u00e9gories des diff\u00e9rentes victimes de l’affaire, m\u00eame si elle ne l’est qu’indirectement, par les connexions qui l’impliquent<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

C’est le groupe McClatchy qui publie des r\u00e9v\u00e9lations concernant les \u00ab\u00a0vedettes am\u00e9ricaines\u00a0\u00bb, jusqu’alors tr\u00e8s discr\u00e8tes, de l’affaire… D\u00e8s lors, et pour notre cas sans conclure en aucune fa\u00e7on \u00e0 ce propos, le myst\u00e8re du Panamagate <\/em>ne cesse de s’\u00e9paissir. Lanc\u00e9e par un groupe international de journalistes important mais jusqu’alors compl\u00e8tement inconnu (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists<\/a><\/em>), et fort bien subsidi\u00e9e par les ONG Soros et par USAID, on imagina d’abord que la cible principale \u00e9tait Poutine (cela fut le cas durant une demi-journ\u00e9e pour se terminer en un \u00e9clat de rire g\u00e9n\u00e9ral) ; puis on n’imagina plus grand’chose tant la chose se diversifia et que le nom de Poutine n’apparaissait plus du tout ni celui d’aucun autre \u00ab\u00a0d\u00e9mon\u00a0\u00bb du temps ; et maintenant, l’on d\u00e9couvre qu’une cible de choix, dans tous les cas la martyre principale, pourrait s’av\u00e8re \u00eatre indirectement Hillary Clinton (avec son cher Bill, dans le cadre de la Fondation Clinton), au travers de multiples personnes impliqu\u00e9es qui ont des liens directs d’argent avec les Clinton. (Selon le premier texte cit\u00e9 plus bas : « Il y a eu beaucoup de confusion, \u00e0 certains moments des r\u00e9criminations, sur la fa\u00e7on dont les r\u00e9v\u00e9lations des Panama Papers laissaient de c\u00f4t\u00e9 la plupart des noms de citoyens am\u00e9ricains. D\u00e9sormais, gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 McClatchy, il est finalement r\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9, d’ailleurs sans qu’il s’agisse d’une surprise en aucune fa\u00e7on, que nombre des nouveaux noms<\/em> [am\u00e9ricains] cit\u00e9s ont des connexions<\/em> [financi\u00e8res] avec Bill et Hillary Clinton<\/em>. »)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Mais alors, qui dirige cette gal\u00e8re et \u00e0 quoi sert-elle, quand l’on sait les liens qui unissent Soros \u00e0 Hillary<\/a> ? On irait jusqu’\u00e0 penser que la brillante th\u00e8se (le 7 avril<\/a>) de Clifford G. Gaddy, de la Brookings Institution dont on connaît le prestige, et faisant de Poutine et de son FSB (ou RSM, qui surveille les questions financi\u00e8res en Russie) l’instigateur du complot, – on irait jusqu’\u00e0 penser que cette th\u00e8se aurait un certain charme, d\u00e9j\u00e0 mis en \u00e9vidence par la description kafka\u00efenne et rocambolesque imagin\u00e9e par Gaddy…<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Enfin, redevenons s\u00e9rieux et revenons-en aux seules forces qui nous paraissent devoir \u00eatre identifi\u00e9es comme instigatrices de cette affaire plein de rebonds int\u00e9ressants, comme nous l’observions le 7 avril 2016<\/a> : « Nous sommes entr\u00e9s dans l’\u00e8re, dans l’<\/em>oc\u00e9an d\u00e9chaîn\u00e9 du chaos<\/a>, – fort bien. Comme nous avons essay\u00e9 de le montrer, le chaos est un \u00e9tat d\u00e9cisivement avanc\u00e9 du d\u00e9sordre, et sup\u00e9rieur dans ses potentialit\u00e9s au d\u00e9sordre, parce que tous les facteurs impliqu\u00e9s dans le d\u00e9sastre du monde comme dans sa possible reconstruction \u00e0 venir sont pr\u00e9sents. Ce n’est pas nous, antiSyst\u00e8me, qui avons obtenu cela, mais bien le Syst\u00e8me lui-m\u00eame, signant son acte d\u00e9cisif de passage de la surpuissance \u00e0 l’autodestruction. C’est aussi l’\u00e8re où les forces sup\u00e9rieures qui, \u00e0 notre sens, vont constituer les interventions essentielles pour faire \u00e9voluer ce chaos vers des orientations de reconstruction, peuvent faire donner leur plein effet. Le r\u00f4le de l’antiSyst\u00e8me n’est pas d’\u00e9laborer des plans mirifiques ou de se lamenter sur l’impossibilit\u00e9, \u00e0 lui tout seul, de d\u00e9truire le Syst\u00e8me, mais bien de pousser dans le sens du chaos qui doit \u00eatre, dans la situation où nous trouvons, op\u00e9rationnalis\u00e9 par la perte acc\u00e9l\u00e9r\u00e9e du contr\u00f4le de la situation par les \u00e9lites-Syst\u00e8me<\/strong>, – et il faut reconnaître leur brio dans cette mati\u00e8re<\/em>. »<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Dans le m\u00eame article r\u00e9f\u00e9rence, comme dans celui du 10 avril<\/a>, nous mettions en ligne divers aspects du commentaire ou de citations faisant la connexion entre le Panamagate<\/em> et les \u00e9lections pr\u00e9sidentielles. (Il y avait notamment, ce 10 avril, un article de Jake Anderson sur la question pr\u00e9cise des connexions d’Hillary avec le Panamagate<\/em>, sous le titre qui commence \u00e0 prendre des allures pr\u00e9monitoires : « Panama Papers Could Really End Hillary’s Campaign<\/em> ».) On esp\u00e8re bien entendu que ces diverses r\u00e9v\u00e9lations et pr\u00e9cisions sur la valeur \u00e9thique et sur la probit\u00e9 de la candidate d\u00e9mocrate vont un peu animer cette campagne \u00e9lectorale qui commence \u00e0 perdre de son sel ces derniers jours. Il va bien falloir que Bernie Sanders attaque directement Clinton pour ce qu’elle est, puisque c’est l\u00e0 d\u00e9sormais la voie \u00e9vidente qu’il doit suivre s’il veut avoir une chance de se placer pour la convention d\u00e9mocrate. Sanders a devant lui l’arch\u00e9type de ce qu’il d\u00e9nonce en th\u00e9orie depuis des semaines, du point de vue de la corruption absolue de l’hypercapitalisme postmoderne<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\n

Ce que montrent les derni\u00e8res trouvailles de McClatchy, c’est la confirmation des formidables arrangements et connexions du couple Clinton dans les arcanes de la corruption, du blanchiment d’argent, etc., qui les ont amen\u00e9s \u00e0 constituer une fortune assez respectable en ne produisant rien, en n’offrant rien, en ne cr\u00e9ant rien, mais simplement en exploitant l’acquis d’une influence n\u00e9e des huit ans de Bill \u00e0 la pr\u00e9sidence, de la carri\u00e8re s\u00e9natoriale d’Hillary et surtout de son passage au Secr\u00e9tariat d’État<\/strong>. Rarement, tr\u00e8s tr\u00e8s rarement au point qu’on dirait \u00ab\u00a0jamais\u00a0\u00bb, on a pu voir, quasiment sous une forme arch\u00e9typique, l’\u00e9volution du capitalisme hyper-postmoderne, travaillant \u00e0 la fois sur la corruption et l’influence sans rien produire de tangible sinon l’amas d’argent puisque produisant effectivement une fortune. On dira que la fortune des Clinton est en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral \u00e9valu\u00e9e \u00e0 quelque part autour de $175-$300millions, mais certains vont beaucoup plus haut, en approchant le $milliard. Le couple est donc l’embl\u00e8me absolu d’une \u00e9poque totalement nihiliste, une \u00e9poque d’entropisation de tout ce qui concerne l’activit\u00e9 humaine, avec l’ach\u00e8vement dans le rien que constituent ces masses d’argent sans aucune justification, et sans aucun autre but que celui de l’amas d’argent<\/strong>. (Ah oui, il y a les buts, \u00e9videmment humanitaires, pour \u00ab\u00a0changer le monde\u00a0\u00bb de la Fondation Clinton. Nous les laissons de c\u00f4t\u00e9, par discr\u00e9tion pour ces \u00e2mes g\u00e9n\u00e9reuses.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Nous allons placer ci-dessous deux textes cons\u00e9quents, l’un tout r\u00e9cent puisqu’exposant tous les aspects de l’implication par relations et connexions efficaces d’Hillary dans le Panamagate<\/em>, l’autre datant de mai 2015 et expliquant en d\u00e9tails, avec des r\u00e9f\u00e9rences impeccables, le \u00ab\u00a0travail\u00a0\u00bb de corruption d’Hillary Clinton en marge de sa fonction de Secr\u00e9taire d’État, et gr\u00e2ce \u00e0 cette fonction bien entendu.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

• Le premier texte, qui fait de forts emprunts \u00e0 McClatchy, est de ZeroHedge.com<\/em>, du 18 avril 2016<\/a>. Il d\u00e9taille les diverses trouvailles que les Panama Papers<\/em> nous fournissent obligeamment sur la situation des Clinton, via leurs nombreuses connexions et amiti\u00e9s. (Le titre original, que nous avons modifi\u00e9 pour des raisons techniques, est « Multiple Clinton Connections Emerge As More \u00ab\u00a0Panama Papers\u00a0\u00bb Names Revealed <\/em>»).<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

• A cela, nous joignons un deuxi\u00e8me article, datant du 26 mai 2015<\/a>, de International Business Times<\/em>, sur la fa\u00e7on dont la Fondation Clinton a \u00e9t\u00e9 abreuv\u00e9e de donations diverses venant de gouvernement, de compagnies, de personnalit\u00e9s, etc., durant les mandats public d’Hillary, notamment celui de Secr\u00e9taire d’État. (« Sous la direction d’Hillary Clinton, le d\u00e9partement d’État a approuv\u00e9 des march\u00e9s d’armement pour vingt nations, dont les gouvernements ont donn\u00e9 des $millions \u00e0 la Fondation Clinton.<\/em> » [Les trois plus gros donateurs, de $10 millions chacun, sont les gouvernements d’Arabie, d’Australie et de Norv\u00e8ge.] Les cinq plus gros donateurs pour la Fondation Clinton venant de l’industrie d’armement sont \u00e9galement mentionn\u00e9s… Boeing pour $5.000.000, Lockheed Martin pour $250.000, General Electric pour $1.000.000, United Technologies pour $50.000, Goldman Sachs (Hawker Beechcraft) pour $500.000, Hooneywell pour $50.000.) (Le titre original, que nous avons modifi\u00e9 pour des raisons techniques, est « Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department <\/em>».)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/h4>\n<\/p>\n

dedefensa.org<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n

______________________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Multiple Clinton Connections Emerge From \u00ab\u00a0Panama Papers\u00a0\u00bb<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

There has been much confusion, at time quite angry, how in the aftermath of the Soros-funded Panama Papers revelations few, if any, prominent U.S. name emerged as a result of the biggest offshore tax leak in history. Now, thanks to McClatchy more U.S. names are finally being revealed and it will probably come as little surprise that many of the newly revealed names have connection to both Bill and Hillary Clinton.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

As McClatchy writes, donors to Clinton foundation used the Panamanian law firm for offshores, adding that the connections come from the more than 40 years Bill and Hillary Clinton have spent in public life. Ironically this comes just days after Hillary criticized those exposed in the Panama Papers, accusing them of looking to hide their wealth.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

As McClatchy reports, Hillary Clinton<\/strong><\/a> recently blasted the hidden financial dealings exposed in the Panama Papers<\/a> , but she and her husband have multiple connections with people who have used the besieged law firm Mossack Fonseca to establish offshore entities.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Among them are Gabrielle Fialkoff<\/a> , finance director for Hillary Clinton’s first campaign for the U.S. Senate; Frank Giustra<\/a> , a Canadian mining magnate who has traveled the globe with Bill Clinton; the Chagoury<\/a> family, which pledged $1 billion in projects to the Clinton Global Initiative; and Chinese billionaire Ng Lap Seng<\/a>, who was at the center of a Democratic fund-raising scandal when Bill Clinton was president. Also using the Panamanian law firm was the company founded by the late billionaire investor Marc Rich<\/a>, an international fugitive when Bill Clinton pardoned him in the final hours of his presidency.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The ties are both recent and decades old, not surprising for the Democratic presidential front-runner and her husband, who have been in public life since the 1970s.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Each is listed in the massive leak of data from Mossack Fonseca, a law firm with expertise in registering offshore companies, which can have legitimate business purposes, but can also be used to evade taxes and launder money. Several heads of state were found in the leak, leading to the departure of the leader of Iceland<\/a> and investigations in several other countries.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

McClatchy Newspapers<\/a> and about 350 other journalists working under the umbrella of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists<\/a> have searched an archive containing more than 11.5 million Mossack Fonseca documents, including passports, financial records and emails. After a series of articles earlier this month revealed how business owners and politicians used offshores, authorities raided the law firm’s offices in Panama. The law firm has denied all accusations of wrongdoing.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Hillary Clinton condemned<\/a> what she called \u00ab\u00a0outrageous tax havens and loopholes that super-rich people across the world are exploiting.\u00a0\u00bb <\/strong>\u00ab\u00a0Now, some of this behavior is clearly against the law, and everyone who violates the law anywhere should be held accountable,\u00a0\u00bb she said, speaking at the AFL-CIO convention recently. \u00ab\u00a0But it’s also scandalous how much is actually legal.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The Clintons themselves do not appear to be in Mossack Fonseca’s database, nor does it appear that their daughter, Chelsea, or her husband, Marc Mezvinsky, who co-founded a hedge fund, are listed. But Bill and Hillary Clinton’s connections to people who have used offshores is fuel for her Democratic rival, Bernie Sanders.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Clinton has struggled throughout her campaign to show that she can relate to working Americans, while Sanders has cast her as a wealthy out-of-touch Washington insider who has accepted hefty paychecks <\/a>for speeches and received millions of dollars in campaign contributions from those tied to big businesses. Her connection to the Panama Papers, even if indirect, could magnify that perception. Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion in New York<\/a>, said it would draw voters’ attention once again to Clinton’s ties to big money. \u00ab\u00a0It certainly would play into Sanders’ narrative,\u00a0\u00bb he said.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Sanders<\/a> said Clinton’s support of a free-trade agreement between the U.S. and Panama – one that he claims has allowed the wealthy to avoid paying taxes – should disqualify her from being the Democratic nominee for president.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0I don’t think you are qualified if you supported the Panama free trade agreement, something I very strongly opposed, which has made it easier for wealthy people and corporations all over the world to avoid paying taxes owed to their countries,\u00a0\u00bb Sanders said recently.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

To be sure, a long life in politics has allowed the Clintons to accumulate relationships to wealthy people and businesses across the globe.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

One such connection is to Jean-Raymond Boulle<\/a>, a one-time diamond miner from the volcanic island nation of Mauritius whose company was once based in Bill Clinton’s hometown of Hope, Ark. In the mid 1990s, Boulle was listed as a director of Auk Limited, a British Virgin Islands offshore company, and Gridco Limited, a Bahamas offshore company.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

After two meetings with Boulle, Bill Clinton, then-governor of Arkansas, signed legislation allowing his company to engage in exploratory mining in the state<\/strong>. Later, Boulle and his wife attended Clinton’s first inauguration. <\/strong>Boulle’s company did not respond to a message.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0Obviously there’s no wrongdoing – it’s a question of perception and values,\u00a0\u00bb said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center<\/a>, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. \u00ab\u00a0They’ve been in public life so long; when you enter that sphere you have these connections.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon declined to answer specific questions about her connections but referred to Clinton’s earlier comments that criticized the behavior last week. Bill Clinton’s office and the Clinton Foundation declined to comment.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Also among the Clinton connections is Fialkoff, now a senior adviser to New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and director of the city’s Office of Strategic Partnerships. She, her brother, Brett, and her late father, Frank, are listed as shareholders of UPAC Holdings Ltd, a British Virgin Islands offshore company incorporated in June 2012.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Gabrielle Fialkoff said in an email that she has \u00ab\u00a0no knowledge\u00a0\u00bb of the company and referred questions to her brother.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Brett Fialkoff, who serves as chief operating officer at his family’s business, Haskell Jewels, a New York-based designer, marketer and distributor of costume jewelry, initially told McClatchy he didn’t know why his family would be in the documents. Later, he said that someone must have opened an account in their names.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Still, later, he said he set up an offshore company to export accessories from China to the United States. The documents indicate the company’s files are registered in Beijing.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

But, he said, he abandoned the new business to give more attention to his family’s jewelry company. He said there’s no money in any bank account overseas and declined to provide details about his compliance with U.S. tax laws.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0I have news for you: There is no money,\u00a0\u00bb he said in a phone interview. \u00ab\u00a0We’re not like Vladimir Putin, trying to hide money.\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The most recent Mossack Fonseca information of December 2015 shows the company remains active, registered on behalf of the Fialkoffs in the British Virgin Islands by a Hong Kong-based consulting company on June 6, 2012. Brett Failkoff acknowledged the company is still \u00ab\u00a0legally alive\u00a0\u00bb but said it does not – nor has it ever – conducted any business.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Gabrielle Fialkoff, a longtime friend of de Blasio, was finance director for Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, which de Blasio managed. After serving as Haskell’s president and chief operating officer, she chaired de Blasio’s inauguration and led New York’s unsuccessful bid <\/a>to host the Democratic National Convention in 2016.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

She has been a regular donor to Democratic candidates, including Clinton, according to the Center for Responsive Politics<\/a> [33], which tracks money in politics. She also donated between $250 and $1,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Her father donated to Clinton as well. Her brother contributed money to Republicans, including presidential candidates Ben Carson and Rand Paul.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Another connection is Giustra, the director of UrAsia Energy Ltd, a British Virgin Islands offshore company registered in May 2005.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The company wanted to \u00ab\u00a0conduct uranium exploration, development, production and marketing operations and related activities in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan,\u00a0\u00bb according to a draft of the shareholders’ agreement.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

UrAsia, based in British Columbia, Canada, finalized a deal<\/a> [34] in September 2005 to buy uranium mines for $500 million in Kazakhstan, according to published reports<\/a> [35].<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The deal came after Giustra joined Bill Clinton in Kazakhstan for the launch of a Clinton Foundation health initiative and dined with him and Kazakhstan’s president, among others. The timing prompted questions about whether Bill Clinton played any role in the agreement. Giustra denied that, saying it came after months of negotiations.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The following year, Giustra, who is also involved in filmmaking and founded Lionsgate Entertainment, made a donation of more than $30 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to published reports.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

In total, Giustra has committed $100 million to the foundation, according to at least one report<\/a> [19], though foundation records<\/a> [36] don’t give an exact amount, saying only that he is one of the largest individual donors giving more than $25 million. In 2007, he started an affiliated charity<\/a> [37] that bears his name and initially kept its donors secret despite a 2008 agreement between the Clintons and the Obama administration to make public foundation contributors.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Bill Clinton has flown around the globe on Giustra’s plane, sometimes with him, including to Kazakhstan.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Messages left for Giustra on his cell phone and by email and at several of his companies were not returned.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Former fugitive billionaire Marc Rich’s name doesn’t appear in the Panama Papers, but his company does. The Bahamas offshore Industrial Petroleum Limited was registered in 1992, established by the commodities firm Glencore International in Switzerland, inactivated in 2001.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The allegations against Rich, who died in 2013, ranged from tax evasion to trading with Iran despite bans to selling oil to South Africa’s apartheid government. He fled to Switzerland in 1983, but before the pardon, his ex-wife Denise made a $450,000 donation to Clinton’s presidential library in Little Rock.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Rich’s business partners appear in the data too. And they also give generously to the Clinton Foundation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Sergei Kurzin, a Russian engineer and investor, appears in a draft shareholders agreement in partnership with Giustra in the British Virgin Islands offshore UrAsia Energy Ltd. Kurzin worked closely with Rich in the 1990s looking for opportunities in the former Soviet Union when it was opened to mining and oil investment.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Kurzin, who has given the Clinton Foundation between $50,000 and $100,000<\/a>, appears in the Panama Papers as the director and chairman of various oil companies. Kurzin was also a partner in the uranium deal<\/a> involving Giustra.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

In a 2009 interview with Forbes<\/a>, the British-Russian dual citizen boasted of giving generously to a Clinton-Giustra initiative, noting: \u00ab\u00a0I wrote a check for a million dollars. I don’t think you can call it a small amount.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Messages left for Kurzin were not returned this weekend.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Also in the Panama Papers is Ronald Chagoury, who along with brother Gilbert leads the Chagoury Group, a Nigerian family-run construction business. The brothers were associated with Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha, who died in 1998, and did business with Glencore and Rich, according to news reports<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Ronald Chagoury appears in the Panama Papers as the main shareholder of Echo Art Ltd. in the British Virgin Islands.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

In 2009, the Chagoury Group pledged $1 billion in coastal erosion projects to the Clinton Global Initiative, an offshoot of the foundation, according to the<\/a> initiative’s website.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The Chagoury Group is building Eko Atlantic, a peninsula city adjacent to Lagos that will be reclaimed from the Atlantic Ocean. The company’s website<\/a> cites the Clinton Global Initiative’s praise for it as an \u00ab\u00a0environmentally conscious city\u00a0\u00bb under construction.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Gilbert Chagoury’s ties to the Clintons stretch back years. He has given to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s campaigns and has donated between $1 million to $5 million to Clinton Foundation, foundation records<\/a> show. In 2003 he organized a trip to the Caribbean where Bill Clinton was paid<\/a> $100,000 for a speech.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Messages left for the Chagourys were not returned this weekend.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Another businessman in the Panama papers, Ng, is listed as a shareholder of two British Virgin Islands companies – South South News International Group Ltd in May 2010 and GOLUCK Ltd. in 2004.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

He leads a real estate development company in Macau, China, and is one of the world’s wealthiest people. He was accused in 1996 of sending more than $1.1 million to a Little Rock restaurant owner who then contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic National Committee, according to a 1998 Senate committee investigation<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The restaurant owner, Charlie Trie, pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance laws. Ng was not charged. Another congressional report criticized Ng and others for failing to cooperate during the investigation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Published reports say Ng visited the White House 10 times from 1994 to 1996, had his photograph taken with Bill and Hillary Clinton, sat beside Bill Clinton at an event at a Washington hotel, and rode in an elevator with Hillary Clinton.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Last year, Ng was charged with bribing a United Nations official and lying about what he was doing with $4.5 million in cash he brought into the U.S. over two years<\/strong>. Investigators say instead of spending it at casinos or on art, antiques or real estate, he used the money for bribes as he sought investments in Antigua and China. Another man listed in the same criminal complaint is president of the New York-based South South News, the same name of the British Virgin Islands company.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Ng’s lawyer, Kevin Tung, has said that his charges are based on a misunderstanding. Tung, Benjamin Brafman and Hugh Mo, two others who are or have represented Ng, did not respond to requests for comment.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

In 2011, Sanders predicted in a Senate speech<\/a> that the Panama trade deal would make it easier for the wealthy to hide their cash in Panama.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0I wish I had been proven wrong about this, but it has now come to light that the extent of Panama’s tax avoidance scams is even worse than I had feared,\u00a0\u00bb he said in a statement earlier this month.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Hillary Clinton had opposed the deal in 2008 when she was running for president. But later, as secretary of state, she helped push the agreement through Congress. Her supporters, however, say that the trade pact did not open the door to additional tax evasion.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

A Democrat-controlled Senate approved the trade deal. In October 2012, then-Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., lauded the deal’s \u00ab\u00a0strong language to crack down on tax evasion and money-laundering in Panama.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Both Clinton and Sanders have vowed to go after Americans who try to hide their wealth.Clinton said she would shut down what she called the private tax system for the wealthy while Sanders has said he would end the trade deal with Panama within six months and investigate U.S. banks, corporations and individuals stashing their cash in Panama to avoid taxes. \u00ab\u00a0We’re going after all these scams and make sure that everyone pays their fair share here in America,\u00a0\u00bb she said. \u00ab\u00a0I’m going to hold them accountable, and we’re going to have a special effort to track all these resources wherever they might lead.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

ZeroHedge.com<\/em><\/h4>\n<\/p>\n

______________<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Clinton Foundation Donors and Hillary’s State Department<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Israeli officials were agitated<\/a>, reportedly complaining<\/a> 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<\/a> about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared<\/a> that the deal had been<\/a> \u00ab\u00a0a top priority\u00a0\u00bb for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide<\/a> to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the \u00ab\u00a0U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. 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<\/a> $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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, an International Business Times investigation has found.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — 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.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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<\/a>, Saudi Arabia<\/a>, Kuwait<\/a>, the United Arab Emirates<\/a>, Oman<\/a> and Qatar<\/a> 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. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

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<\/a> published by Wikileaks, Clinton complained of \u00ab\u00a0an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.\u00a0\u00bb She declared that \u00ab\u00a0Qatar’s overall level of CT cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region.\u00a0\u00bb She said the Kuwaiti government was \u00ab\u00a0less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks.\u00a0\u00bb She noted that \u00ab\u00a0UAE-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups.\u00a0\u00bb All of these countries donated to the Clinton Foundation and received increased weapons export authorizations from the Clinton-run State Department.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Clinton Foundation did not respond to questions from the IBTimes.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual contributors’ donations, making a more precise accounting impossible.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Winning Friends, Influencing Clintons<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

Under federal law, foreign governments seeking State Department clearance to buy American-made arms are barred from making campaign contributions — a prohibition aimed at preventing foreign interests from using cash to influence national security policy. But nothing prevents them from contributing to a philanthropic foundation controlled by policymakers.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Just before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation signed an agreement<\/a> generally obligating it to disclose to the State Department increases in contributions from its existing foreign government donors and any new foreign government donors. Those increases were to be reviewed by an official at the State Department and \u00ab\u00a0as appropriate\u00a0\u00bb the White House counsel’s office. According to available disclosures, officials at the State Department and White House raised no issues about potential conflicts related to arms sales.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

During Hillary Clinton’s 2009 Senate confirmation hearings, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., urged<\/a> the Clinton Foundation to \u00ab\u00a0forswear\u00a0\u00bb accepting contributions from governments abroad. \u00ab\u00a0Foreign governments and entities may perceive the Clinton Foundation as a means to gain favor with the secretary of state,\u00a0\u00bb he said. The Clintons did not take Lugar’s advice. In light of the weapons deals flowing to Clinton Foundation donors, advocates for limits on the influence of money on government action now argue that Lugar was prescient in his concerns.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the Clintons was to give to this foundation,\u00a0\u00bb said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, an advocacy group that seeks to tighten campaign finance disclosure rules. \u00ab\u00a0This shows why having public officials, or even spouses of public officials, connected with these nonprofits is problematic.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Hillary Clinton’s willingness to allow those with business before the State Department to finance her foundation heightens concerns about how she would manage such relationships as president, said Lawrence Lessig, the director of Harvard University’s Safra Center for Ethics.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0These continuing revelations raise a fundamental question of judgment,\u00a0\u00bb Lessig told IBTimes. \u00ab\u00a0Can it really be that the Clintons didn’t recognize the questions these transactions would raise? And if they did, what does that say about their sense of the appropriate relationship between private gain and public good?\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

National security experts assert that the overlap between the list of Clinton Foundation donors and those with business before the the State Department presents a troubling conflict of interest.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

While governments and defense contractors may not have made donations to the Clinton Foundation exclusively to influence arms deals, they were clearly \u00ab\u00a0looking to build up deposits in the ‘favor bank’ and to be well thought of,\u00a0\u00bb said Gregory Suchan, a 34-year State Department veteran who helped lead the agency’s oversight of arms transfers under the Bush administration.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

As Hillary Clinton presses a campaign for the presidency, she has confronted sustained scrutiny into her family’s personal and philanthropic dealings, along with questions about whether their private business interests have colored her exercise of public authority. As IBTimes previously reported<\/a>, Clinton switched from opposing an American free trade agreement with Colombia to supporting it after a Canadian energy and mining magnate with interests in that South American country contributed to the Clinton Foundation. IBTimes’ review of the Clintons’ annual financial disclosures also revealed<\/a> that 13 companies lobbying the State Department paid Bill Clinton $2.5 million in speaking fees while Hillary Clinton headed the agency.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Questions about the nexus of arms sales and Clinton Foundation donors stem from the State Department’s role in reviewing the export of American-made weapons. The agency is charged with both licensing direct commercial sales by U.S. defense contractors to foreign governments and also approving<\/a> Pentagon-brokered sales to those governments. Those powers are enshrined in a federal law<\/a> that specifically designates the secretary of state as \u00ab\u00a0responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales\u00a0\u00bb of arms, military hardware and services to foreign countries. In that role, Hillary Clinton was empowered<\/a> to approve or reject deals for a broad range of reasons, from national security considerations to human rights concerns.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The State Department does not disclose which individual companies are involved in direct commercial sales, but its disclosure documents reveal that countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation saw a combined $75 billion increase in authorized commercial military sales under the three full fiscal years Clinton served, as compared to the first three full fiscal years of Bush’s second term.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The Clinton Foundation has not released an exact timetable of its donations, making it impossible to know whether money from foreign governments and defense contractors came into the organization before or after Hillary Clinton approved weapons deals that involved their interests. But news reports<\/a> document that at least seven foreign governments that received State Department clearance for American arms did donate to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary: Algeria, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Thailand, Norway and Australia.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Sales Flowed Despite Human Rights Concerns<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

Under a presidential policy directive signed<\/a> by President Bill Clinton in 1995, the State Department is supposed to specifically take human rights records into account when deciding whether to approve licenses enabling foreign governments to purchase military equipment and services from American companies. Despite this, Hillary Clinton’s State Department increased approvals of such sales to nations that her agency sharply criticized for systematic human rights abuses.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

In its 2010 Human Rights Report<\/a>, Clinton’s State Department inveighed against Algeria’s government for imposing \u00ab\u00a0restrictions on freedom of assembly and association\u00a0\u00bb tolerating \u00ab\u00a0arbitrary killing,\u00a0\u00bb \u00ab\u00a0widespread corruption,\u00a0\u00bb and a \u00ab\u00a0lack of judicial independence.\u00a0\u00bb The report said the Algerian government \u00ab\u00a0used security grounds to constrain freedom of expression and movement.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

That year, the Algerian government donated<\/a> $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation and its lobbyists met<\/a> with the State Department officials who oversee enforcement of human rights policies. Clinton’s State Department the next year approved a one-year 70 percent increase in military export authorizations to the country. The increase included authorizations of almost 50,000 items classified as \u00ab\u00a0toxicological agents, including chemical agents, biological agents and associated equipment\u00a0\u00bb after the State Department did not authorize the export of any of such items to Algeria in the prior year.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

During Clinton’s tenure, the State Department authorized at least $2.4 billion of direct military hardware and services sales to Algeria — nearly triple such authorizations over the last full fiscal years during the Bush administration. The Clinton Foundation did not disclose<\/a> Algeria’s donation until this year — a violation of the ethics agreement it entered into with the Obama administration.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The monarchy in Qatar had similarly been chastised<\/a> by the State Department for a raft of human rights abuses. But that country donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was running the State Department. During the three full budgetary years of her tenure, Qatar saw a 14-fold increase in State Department authorizations for direct commercial sales of military equipment and services, as compared to the same time period in Bush’s second term. The department also approved<\/a> the Pentagon’s separate $750 million sale of multi-mission helicopters to Qatar. That deal would additionally employ as contractors three companies that have all supported the Clinton Foundation over the years: United Technologies, Lockheed Martin and General Electric.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Clinton foundation donor countries that the State Department criticized for human rights violations and that received weapons export authorizations did not respond to IBTimes’ questions.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

That group of arms manufacturers — along with Clinton Foundation donors Boeing, Honeywell, Hawker Beechcraft and their affiliates — were together listed as contractors in 114 such deals while Clinton was secretary of state. NBC put Chelsea Clinton on its payroll<\/a> as a network correspondent in November 2011, when it was still<\/a> 49 percent owned by General Electric. A spokesperson for General Electric did not respond to questions from IBTimes.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The other companies all asserted that their donations had nothing to do with the arms export deals.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0Our contributions have aligned with our longstanding philanthropic commitments,\u00a0\u00bb said Honeywell spokesperson Rob Ferris.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

"Even The Appearance Of A Conflict"<\/h3>\n<\/p>\n

During her Senate confirmation proceedings in 2009, Hillary Clinton declared<\/a> that she and her husband were \u00ab\u00a0committed to ensuring that his work does not present a conflict of interest with the duties of Secretary of State.\u00a0\u00bb She pledged \u00ab\u00a0to protect against even the appearance of a conflict of interest between his work and the duties of the Secretary of State\u00a0\u00bb and said that \u00ab\u00a0in many, if not most cases, it is likely that the Foundation or President Clinton will not pursue an opportunity that presents a conflict.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Even so, Bill Clinton took in speaking fees reaching $625,000 at events sponsored by entities that were dealing with Hillary Clinton’s State Department on weapons issues.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

In 2011, for example, the former president was paid $175,000 by the Kuwait America Foundation to be the guest of honor and keynote speaker at its annual awards gala, which was held at the home of the Kuwaiti ambassador. Ben Affleck spoke at the event, which featured a musical performance by Grammy-award winner Michael Bolton. The gala was emceed by Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, hosts of MSNBC’s Morning Joe show. Boeing was listed<\/a> as a sponsor of the event, as were the embassies of the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar — the latter two of which had donated<\/a> to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The speaking fee from the Kuwait America Foundation to Bill Clinton was paid in the same time frame as <\/a>a<\/a> series of deals Hillary Clinton’s State Department was approving between the Kuwaiti government and Boeing. Months before the gala, the Department of Defense announced that Boeing would be the prime contractor on a $693 million deal, cleared by Hillary Clinton’s State Department, to provide the Kuwaiti government with military transport aircraft. A year later, a group sponsored in part by Boeing would pay<\/a> Bill Clinton another $250,000 speaking fee.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0Boeing has sponsored this major travel event, the Global Business Travel Association, for several years, regardless of its invited speakers,\u00a0\u00bb Gordon Johndroe, a Boeing spokesperson, told IBTimes. Johndroe said Boeing’s support for the Clinton Foundation was \u00ab\u00a0a transparent act of compassion and an investment aimed at aiding the long-term interests and hopes of the Haitian people\u00a0\u00bb following a devastating earthquake.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Boeing was one of three companies that helped deliver money personally to Bill Clinton while benefiting from weapons authorizations issued by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. The others were Lockheed and the financial giant Goldman Sachs.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Lockheed is a member<\/a> of the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, which paid Bill Clinton $250,000 to speak at an event in 2010. Three days before the speech, Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved<\/a> two<\/a> weapons export deals in which Lockheed was listed as the prime contractor. Over the course of 2010, Lockheed was a contractor on 17 Pentagon-brokered deals that won approval from the State Department. Lockheed told IBTimes that its support for the Clinton Foundation started in 2010, while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0Lockheed Martin has periodically supported one individual membership in the Clinton Global Initiative since 2010,\u00a0\u00bb said company spokesperson Katherine Trinidad. \u00ab\u00a0Membership benefits included attendance at CGI annual meetings, where we participated in working groups focused on STEM, workforce development and advanced manufacturing.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

In April 2011, Goldman Sachs paid Bill Clinton $200,000 to speak to \u00ab\u00a0approximately 250 high level clients and investors\u00a0\u00bb in New York, according to State Department records<\/a> obtained by Judicial Watch. Two months later, the State Department approved<\/a> a $675 million foreign military sale involving Hawker Beechcraft — a company that was then part-owned by Goldman Sachs. As part of the deal, Hawker Beechcraft would provide support to the government of Iraq to maintain a fleet of aircraft used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. Goldman Sachs has also contributed at least $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to donation records.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0There is absolutely no connection among all the points that you have raised regarding our firm,\u00a0\u00bb said Andrew Williams, a spokesperson for Goldman Sachs.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Federal records show that ethics staffers at the State Department approved the payments to Bill Clinton from Goldman Sachs, and the Lockheed- and Boeing-sponsored groups without objection, even though the firms had major stakes in the agency’s weapons export decisions.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Stephen Walt, a Harvard University professor of international affairs, told IBTimes that the intertwining financial relationships between the Clintons, defense contractors and foreign governments seeking weapons approvals is \u00ab\u00a0a vivid example of a very big problem — the degree to which conflicts of interest have become endemic.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0It has troubled me all along that the Clinton Foundation was not being more scrupulous about who it would take money from and who it wouldn’t,\u00a0\u00bb he said. \u00ab\u00a0American foreign policy is better served if people responsible for it are not even remotely suspected of having these conflicts of interest. When George Marshall was secretary of state, nobody was worried about whether or not he would be distracted by donations to a foundation or to himself. This wasn’t an issue. And that was probably better.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Clinton Foundation Donors Get Big Weapons Deals. 17 out of 20 countries that have donated to the Clinton Foundation saw increases in arms exports authorized by Hillary Clinton’s State Department. (Source: U.S. State Department and Clinton Foundation donor data Get the data<\/a>. Created with Datawrapper<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

UPDATE (7:38pm, 5\/26\/15): In an emailed statement, a spokeswoman for the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office told IBTimes: "Taiwan’s 2003 donation was for the fund to build the Clinton Presidential Library. This was way before Mrs. Clinton was made the U.S. Secretary of State. We have neither knowledge nor comments concerning other issues."<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

This story has been updated to include an additional link to a 2010 State Department press conference about the U.S.-Saudi Arabia arms deal. <\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

David Sirota et Andrew Perez<\/h4><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Hillary, opulente victime \u00ab\u00a0collat\u00e9rale\u00a0\u00bb de Panamagate Ce qui est excitant dans notre \u00e9poque au point où elle en est, et que l’on soit \u00ab\u00a0complotiste\u00a0\u00bb ou pas, c’est qu’il semble y avoir une \u00ab\u00a0main invisible\u00a0\u00bb (celle qui r\u00e9gulait le march\u00e9 in illo tempore et qui en a eu marre depuis) qui ne cesse de nous m\u00e9nager… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[3974,3124,17449,934,8757,3858,3889,17299,10550,3090,9548,7080,3340,8327,6907],"class_list":["post-76528","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ouverture-libre","tag-argent","tag-armement","tag-blanchiment","tag-clinton","tag-contrats","tag-corruption","tag-detat","tag-fondation","tag-gate","tag-influence","tag-off-shore","tag-panama","tag-presidentielles","tag-sanders","tag-secretaire"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76528","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=76528"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76528\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76528"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76528"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76528"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}