Thanks to @MarcoPolo501c3 for the help with emails.
On July 9, 2014, an email to Hunter Biden floated the idea of Burisma becoming a "partner" with USAID.
By October 25, just over three months later, Burisma had secured a role in the USAID Municipal Energy Reform Project in Ukraine. Hunter received a thank-you in an email.
USAID would ultimately allocate $16.5 million to this project.
Hunter Biden was deeply involved with USAID. He is also seen in other emails making connections with USAID appointees and even being asked for advice on appointees and resumes.
@MarcoPolo501c3 That, right there, is why Hunter Biden was worth the $50,000/month.
@MarcoPolo501c3 The emails have been public for some time, but people focused on the scandalous stuff.
Only with recent context do we start to understand what's actually buried in them and why Hunter received his pardon.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵THREAD: How Samantha Power gave USGLC power over USAID
(Thanks to @J_P1776 for the breadcrumb)
In 2022, USAID Administrator Samantha Power resurrected an old, mostly-forgotten advisory board, ACVFA (Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid) and gave it a new mission:
Bring America's top NGOs, business leaders, and global development experts directly into USAID's decision making.
In order to do so, she tapped her peers from the US Global Leadership Coalition (USGLC).
ACVFA pre-dates USAID, but did not have the influence it has now.
Until Power came on stage, ACVFA had met infrequently, their last meeting having been in 2019, and before that, 2017.
But Power's re-imagined ACVFA was to evolve it "to be not just an advisor to USAID, but a bridge linking the institution of USAID to nongovernmental organizations, to the private sector, to religious leaders, to civil society."
The board established in 2022 was praised as the "most diverse in the history of ACVFA" and its vision was to establish tighter partnerships - AKA bringing NGOs into the decision-making process.
Which party receives donations from both USGLC member companies and their employees?
Let's start with Land O'Lakes, which was a surprise recipient of 100 million in USAID money.
The company's donations are split and relatively small, but they do spend an increasing volume of money in lobbying. Amy Klobuchar is the top recipient of funds.
80% of their 2024 employee donations go to Democratic candidates.
For Walt Disney Co., the numbers are similar. 63.4% of employee donations are to the Democratic party. The company itself spends 5 million on lobbying annually. Donations started decoupling in the Democratic favor around 2008.
Although USGLC was founded in 1995, it only gained federal prominence in the 2008 cycle. Bill Gates gave USGLC its first big investment in 2007.
🧵 THREAD - US Global Leadership Corporation, representing 400 NGOs
Nicolas Turza, the person who got exposed by @JamesOKeefeIII and OMG, was featured in the following YouTube video by an interesting super-NGO - the US Global Leadership Corporation.
In the video, he argues for the involvement of USAID and Department of State in military operations.
US Global Leadership Corporation on its Youtube Channel describes itself as representing 400 NGOs and businesses. Its mission - "support the smart power approach of elevating diplomacy and development alongside defense in order to build a better, safer world."
If you've been with me long enough, you know that is code word for increasing NGO influence in military affairs.
The US Global Leadership Corporation is broken into two nonprofits:
Center For Us Global Leadership, a 501(c)(3) with EIN 743093659, with a budget of 10MM. That is the so-called "education arm."
Us Global Leadership Campaign, a 501(c)(4) with EIN 522024493, with a budget of 2MM - their "advocacy arm."
Neither report taking in any government grants, but they've got plenty of political influence.
Completely independent of tariffs, we need to have a frank conversation about why so many seniors are financially dependent on the stock market, especially when fixed-interest instruments are have been offering attractive yields.
This is the kind of investment advice that was common in my 20s:
Note, I am not a financial expert and I don't endorse this model. Just giving this as an example.
The point is, the stock market was always depicted as a high-risk investment and you were supposed to reduce your exposure to high-risk investments by age.
Which is why the amount of exposure of seniors have to the market is confusing.