(b) Responsibility for supervision and direction of sales, leases, financing, cooperative projects, and exports Under the direction of the President, the Secretary of State (taking into account other United States activities abroad, such as military assistance, economic assistance, and the food for peace program) shall be responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales, leases, financing, cooperative projects, and exports under this chapter, including, but not limited to, determining whether there will be a sale to or financing for a country and the amount thereof;
whether there will be a lease to a country;
whether there will be a cooperative project and the scope thereof; and
whether there will be delivery or other performance under such sale, lease, cooperative project, or export, to the end that sales, financing, leases, cooperative projects, and exports will be integrated with other United States activities and to the end that the foreign policy of the United States would be best served thereby.
Clinton ran the agency that is responsible for regulating U.S. arms exports.
State Department exports approvals substantially increased to governments that donated to the Clinton Foundation.
Federal law explicitly designates the Secretary of State as “responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales” of arms, and early in her term, the State Department called one arms deal a “top priority” for Clinton.
“An offset agreement is a type of side deal, sometimes best described as a sweetener. This is an agreement between two or more parties that provides additional benefits and is ancillary to another negotiated contract.”
“The deal is between a government and company, often a defence company but it can also be used in big civil deals for items such as infrastructure and transport. The company ($$ COUNTRY-> CLINTON
“Companies (and the foreign countries in this case) do this because it boosts their chance to win lucrative government contracts, particularly in developing countries.”
“A company’s offset obligation is usually worth 50-100 per cent of the value of the contract and can be direct or indirect. Direct offsets are linked to the original defence contact. Companies often agree to transfer relevant technological knowhow or use local suppliers to build the equipment they are selling to the government.”
Clinton Foundation Donors Include:
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia $10,000,001 – $25,000,000
Friends of Saudi Arabia $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
State of Qatar $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Qatar 2022 Supreme Committee $250,001 – $500,000
Qatar Foundation International $100,001 – $250,000
The Government of Brunei Darussalam $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
The Sultanate of Oman $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
United Arab Emirates $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Dubai Foundation (UAE) $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Dubai Financial Market (UAE) $10,001 – $25,000
Abraaj Holdings (UAE) $500,001 – $1,000,000
State of Kuwait $5,000,001 – $10,000,000
National Bank of Kuwait SAK $25,001 – $50,000
OCP Corporation (Morocco) $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
BMCE Bank (Morocco) $100,001 – $250,000
Bahrain Petroleum Company $10,001 – $25,000
Kingdom of Bahrain $50,001 – $100,000
Gulf Finance House (Bahrain) $50,001 – $100,000
Exporting destruction
US approved $40 billion in 2009 private arms sales | WASHINGTON POST ARTICLE | MAR 11 2011
The U.S. government approved $40 billion in worldwide private arms sales in 2009, including more than $7 billion to Mideast and North African nations that are struggling with political upheaval, the State Department reported.
From 2008 to 2009, the U.S. authorized increasing sales of military shipments to the now-toppled Egyptian government of Hosni Mubarak and the embattled kingdom of Bahrain.
The $40 billion figure during the first year of the Obama administration reflects a rise in total approved arms sales over the final year of the Bush administration in 2008, when the State Department licensed $34.2 billion.
The $7.3 billion in U.S.-approved defense sales to Mideast and North African countries in 2009 totaled up to nearly a fifth of the entire $40 billion in licensed sales – indications of both the region’s strategic importance and their governments’ willingness to pay top dollar for American defense equipment.
Iraq, where U.S. forces are still drawing down and the fledgling government is struggling against militants, was the biggest buyer ($1.51 billion), closely followed by Turkey ($1.50 billion) and the United Arab Emirates ($1.09 billion).
U.S. Arms Sales Make Up Most of Global Market | AUG. 26, 2012 | NY TIMES ARTICLE
Weapons sales by the United States tripled in 2011 to a record high, driven by major arms sales to Persian Gulf allies.
Overseas weapons sales by the United States totaled $66.3 billion.
The American weapons sales total was an “extraordinary increase” over the $21.4 billion in deals for 2010, the study found, and was the largest single-year sales total in the history of United States arms exports. The previous high was in fiscal year 2009, when American weapons sales overseas totaled nearly $31 billion.
Increasing tensions drove a set of Persian Gulf nations – Saudi Arabia, UAE and Oman to purchase weapons at record levels.
The agreements with Saudi Arabia included the purchase of 84 advanced F-15 fighters, a variety of ammunition, missiles and logistics support, and upgrades of 70 of the F-15 fighters in the current fleet.
Sales to Saudi Arabia last year also included dozens of Apache and Black Hawk helicopters, all contributing to a total Saudi weapons deal from the United States of $33.4 billion, according to the study.
The United Arab Emirates purchased a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, an advanced antimissile shield that includes radars and is valued at $3.49 billion, as well as 16 Chinook helicopters for $939 million.
Oman bought 18 F-16 fighters for $1.4 billion.
Here’s who buys the most weapons from the U.S. | CNN ARTICLE | MAY 25, 2016
The U.S. is responsible for nearly 33% of worldwide exports — by far the top arms exporter on the planet — but which countries does the U.S. sell the most weapons to?
Saudi Arabia was the top recipient of American-made arms from 2011-2015, followed closely by the United Arab Emirates.
Experts believe the Middle East will remain a top destination for weapons for some time — it currently accounts for about 40% of U.S. arms exports — especially given the rise of ISIS.
The American exports include everything from small arms to fighter jet aircraft and tanks, to Patriot Missile batteries.
U.S. defense companies were explicit in their desire to boost international exports in the wake of recent defense budget cuts.
CEO of U.S. defense giant Lockheed Martin, Marillyn Hewson, said, “One area where we expect the majority of our growth potential to come from in the years ahead is our international customers.”
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 | INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES
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.
At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally.
In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation.
Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing — the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 — contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.
“WASHINGTON, July 12, 2012 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress July 10 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Qatar for 24 AH-64D APACHE Block III LONGBOW Attack Helicopters and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $3.0 billion.”
“This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been, and continues to be, an important force for political and economic progress in the Middle East.”
“The helicopters will provide a long-term defensive and offensive capability to the Qatari peninsula as well as enhance the protection of key oil and gas infrastructure and platforms …”
The prime contractors will be The Boeing Company, Lockheed Martin Corporation, General Electric, Longbow Limited Liability Corporation, and Raytheon Corporation.
“WASHINGTON, November 5, 2012 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress November 2 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Qatar for two Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) Fire Units and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $6.5 billion.”
“This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.”
“WASHINGTON, November 7, 2012 – The Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress Nov. 6 of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Qatar for the sale of 11 PATRIOT Configuration-3 Modernized Fire Units and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $9.9 billion.”
“This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of an important ally which has been, and continues to be, a force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East. This sale is consistent with U.S. initiatives to provide key allies in the region with modern systems that will enhance interoperability with U.S. forces and increase security.”
The prime contractors will be Raytheon Corporation and Lockheed-Martin.
“An offset agreement is a type of side deal, sometimes best described as a sweetener. This is an agreement between two or more parties that provides additional benefits and is ancillary to another negotiated contract.”
“The deal is between a government and company, often a defence company but it can also be used in big civil deals for items such as infrastructure and transport. The company ($$ COUNTRY-> CLINTON
“Companies (and the foreign countries in this case) do this because it boosts their chance to win lucrative government contracts, particularly in developing countries.”
“A company’s offset obligation is usually worth 50-100 per cent of the value of the contract and can be direct or indirect. Direct offsets are linked to the original defence contact. Companies often agree to transfer relevant technological knowhow or use local suppliers to build the equipment they are selling to the government.”
The Pentagon approved the sale to Qatar of $9.9 billion worth of Patriot fire units, radars, and various Raytheon and Lockheed missiles in November 2012.
In March of 2014, Qatar confirmed the purchase of $9.9 billion Patriot missile defense system built by Raytheon equipped with PAC-3 missiles made by Lockheed; advanced daytime, high-definition sensors and radars for Apache helicopters; and Javelin missiles built by a Lockheed-Raytheon joint venture.
Qatar announced contracts worth about $23 billion on Thursday to buy attack helicopters, guided missiles, tankers and other weapons from Boeing Co, Airbus, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon.
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the U.S. body which oversees foreign arms sales, had notified lawmakers in July 2012 of a possible sale of Apache helicopters to Qatar. Estimated contract value $3 billion.
In March of 2014, Qatar announced that Boeing was awarded the contract for 24 Apache Attack Helicopters. They will be fitted with Longbow radar equipment made by a joint venture of Lockheed and Northrop Grumman Corp. General Electric is also among the prime contractors.
While the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) takes seriously the threat of terrorism within Saudi Arabia, it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority.
Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT, and other terrorist groups, including Hamas. Riyadh has taken only limited action to disrupt fundraising for the UN 1267-listed Taliban and LeT-groups that are also aligned with al-Qa’ida and focused on undermining stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
While the GOK has demonstrated a willingness to take action when attacks target Kuwait, it has been less inclined to take action against Kuwait-based financiers and facilitators plotting attacks outside of Kuwait. Al-Qa’ida and other groups continue to exploit Kuwait both as a source of funds and as a key transit point.
United Arab Emirates (UAE)-based donors have provided financial support to a variety of terrorist groups, including al-Qa’ida, the Taliban, LeT and other terrorist groups, including Hamas.
Pakistan’s intermittent support to terrorist groups and militant organizations threatens to undermine regional security and endanger U.S. national security objectives in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Qatar has adopted a largely passive approach to cooperating with the U.S. against terrorist financing. Qatar’s overall level of CT cooperation with the U.S. is considered the worst in the region. Al-Qaida, the Taliban, UN-1267 listed LeT, and other terrorist groups exploit Qatar as a fundraising locale. Although Qatar’s security services have the capability to deal with direct threats and occasionally have put that capability to use, they have been hesitant to act against known terrorists out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S. and provoking reprisals.
Lockheed Martin

“Donations” to the Clinton Foundation”
The Lockheed Martin Foundation $10,001 – $25,000
Lockheed Martin Corporation $100,001 – $250,000
Lobbying fees paid to Podesta Group: $6,600,000
1998 | Lockheed Martin | $20,000
1999 | Lockheed Martin | $280,000
2000 | Lockheed Martin | $240,000
2001 | Lockheed Martin | $260,000
2002 | Lockheed Martin | $280,000
2003 | Lockheed Martin | $140,000
2004 | Lockheed Martin | $280,000
2005 | Lockheed Martin | $280,000
2006 | Lockheed Martin | $200,000
2007 | Lockheed Martin | $200,000
2008 | Lockheed Martin | $240,000
2009 | Lockheed Martin | $420,000
2010 | Lockheed Martin | $440,000
2011 | Lockheed Martin | $530,000
2012 | Lockheed Martin | $650,000
2013 | Lockheed Martin | $620,000
2014 | Lockheed Martin | $550,000
2015 | Lockheed Martin | $550,000
2016 | Lockheed Martin | $420,000
Side note: Mr. James Comey served as General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin Corporation from October 1, 2005 to June 24, 2010.
General Dynamics

Lobbying fees paid to Podesta Group: $3,450,000
2005 | General Dynamics | $40,000
2006 | General Dynamics | $200,000
2007 | General Dynamics | $400,000
2008 | General Dynamics | $360,000
2009 | General Dynamics | $560,000
2010 | General Dynamics | $560,000
2011 | General Dynamics | $320,000
2012 | General Dynamics | $440,000
2013 | General Dynamics | $240,000
2014 | General Dynamics | $120,000
2015 | General Dynamics | $120,000
2016 | General Dynamics | $90,000
Boeing

“Donations” to the Clinton Foundation
The Boeing Company $1,000,001 – $5,000,000
Lobbying fees paid to Podesta Group: $1,130,000
2008 | Boeing Co | $190,000
2009 | Boeing Co | $200,000
2010 | Boeing Co | $200,000
2011 | Boeing Co | $200,000
2012 | Boeing Co | $200,000
2013 | Boeing Co | $140,000
Raytheon

Lobbying fees paid to Podesta Group: $200,000
2008 | Raytheon Co | $90,000
2009 | Raytheon Co | $90,000
2010 | Raytheon Co | $20,000
Michael C. Ruettgers
Raytheon Independent Director since 2000
Raytheon Former Lead Director 2006-2013
Ruettgers Foundation Trustee since 1997
“Donation” to the Clinton Foundation
Ruettgers Family Charitable Foundation $500,001 – $1,000,000
George R. Oliver
Raytheon Independent Director since 2013
Johnson Controls International PLC President, Chief Operating Officer & Director since 2016
Tyco International Ltd. Chief Executive Officer & Director since 2006
Lobbying fees paid to Podesta Group: $970,000 + $650,000
2006 | Tyco International | $140,000
2007 | Tyco International | $240,000
2008 | Tyco International | $150,000
2009 | Tyco International | $210,000
2010 | Tyco International | $200,000
2011 | Tyco International | $30,000
2007 | Tyco Electronics | $60,000
2008 | Tyco Electronics | $140,000
2009 | Tyco Electronics | $210,000
2010 | Tyco Electronics | $240,000
“Donation” to the Clinton Foundation
Johnson Controls, Inc. $100,001 – $250,000
General Electric

Lobbying fees paid to Podesta Group: $2,850,000
1999 | General Electric | $120,000
1999 | General Electric | $20,000
2000 | General Electric | $180,000
2000 | General Electric | $60,000
2001 | General Electric | $140,000
2001 | General Electric | $100,000
2002 | General Electric | $140,000
2002 | General Electric | $200,000
2003 | General Electric | $140,000
2003 | General Electric | $100,000
2004 | General Electric | $100,000
2004 | General Electric | $100,000
2005 | General Electric | $220,000
2006 | General Electric | $300,000
2007 | General Electric | $0
2009 | General Electric | $120,000
2011 | General Electric | $50,000
2012 | General Electric | $160,000
2013 | General Electric | $170,000
2014 | General Electric | $160,000
2015 | General Electric | $160,000
2016 | General Electric | $110,000
“Donation” to the Clinton Foundation
General Electric $500,001 – $1,000,000
Clinton’s largest batch of defense-related contributors, from the beginning of 2015 through February 2016, were associated with General Electric, which received contracts from the Defense Department totaling $2.2 billion in fiscal 2014 and $2.3 billion in fiscal 2013.Clinton served on the Senate Armed Services Committee during her final six years in the Senate where she also received defense-industry contributions. Adjusted for inflation, she collected $258,024 from the top contractors for her Senate campaign and leadership political action committee (PAC) during that period — 2003 through 2008 — including $125,351 from contractor PACs.
BAE Systems

Lobbying fees paid to Podesta Group: $3,600,000
2008 | BAE Systems | $110,000
2009 | BAE Systems | $440,000
2010 | BAE Systems | $440,000
2011 | BAE Systems | $440,000
2012 | BAE Systems | $440,000
2013 | BAE Systems | $440,000
2014 | BAE Systems | $450,000
2015 | BAE Systems | $480,000
2016 | BAE Systems | $360,000
Textron

Lobbying fees paid to Podesta Group: $3,460,000
1998 | Textron Inc | $200,000
1999 | Textron Inc | $240,000
2000 | Textron Inc | $200,000
2001 | Textron Inc | $200,000
2002 | Textron Inc | $80,000
2003 | Textron Inc | $80,000
2004 | Textron Inc | $80,000
2005 | Textron Inc | $80,000
2006 | Textron Inc | $120,000
2007 | Textron Inc | $160,000
2008 | Textron Inc | $190,000
2009 | Textron Inc | $240,000
2010 | Textron Inc | $240,000
2011 | Textron Inc | $200,000
2012 | Textron Inc | $200,000
2013 | Textron Inc | $200,000
2014 | Textron Inc | $200,000
2015 | Textron Inc | $280,000
2016 | Textron Inc | $270,000
United Technologies

“Donation” to the Clinton Foundation
United Technologies Corporation $25,001 – $50,000
Lobbying fees paid to Podesta Group:
2010 | United Technologies | $270,000
2011 | United Technologies | $240,000
United Technologies sold China software for attack copter | USA TODAY | JUN 28, 2012
In June 2012, United States charged Hamilton Sundstrand, its parent company United Technologies, and Canadian affiliate Pratt & Whitney Canada, of selling engine control software to China, which aided in the development of the CAIC Z-10.
UTC, Hamilton Sundstrand, SolarReserve
Hamilton Sundstrand, a subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation, was an American globally active corporation that manufactured and supported aerospace and industrial products for worldwide markets.On 2 January 2008, Hamilton Sundstrand announced it would commercialize the concentrated solar power tower technology and corresponding molten salt storage system developed by Rocketdyne through a new entity known as SolarReserve.
The very next year, SolarReserve hired the Podesta Group.
Lobbying fees paid to Podesta Group: $1,510,000
2009 | SolarReserve | $180,000
2010 | SolarReserve | $180,000
2011 | SolarReserve | $200,000
2012 | SolarReserve | $200,000
2013 | SolarReserve | $200,000
2014 | SolarReserve | $200,000
2015 | SolarReserve | $200,000
2016 | SolarReserve | $150,000

Professional Services Council
Lobbying fees paid to Podesta Group: $1,690,000
2007 Professional Services Council $40,000
2008 Professional Services Council $310,000
2009 Professional Services Council $170,000
2010 Professional Services Council $110,000
2011 Professional Services Council $170,000
2012 Professional Services Council $280,000
2013 Professional Services Council $280,000
2014 Professional Services Council $120,000
2015 Professional Services Council $120,000
2016 Professional Services Council $90,000
3 thoughts on “Hillary’s Armory”