Clinton Foundation selling access

[Jim in CT]

So the AP, which NO ONE would call a conservative outfit, says that a huge percentage of mega-donors to the Clinton Foundation, were given special access to her, while she was SecState and on our dime. That Weiner guy's wife, her top aide, was a paid employee of both the State Dept, and the Clinton Foundation, at the same time (but Hilary is opposed to crony capitalism, mind you).

The Foundation has accepted tens of millions in donations from some of the worst places in the world. But Bill says that if she's elected President, the foundation will stop taking foreign donations.

I ask this of the liberal apologists here...what could possibly be wrong about accepting foreign donations as POTUS, that's also OK to accept donations while she is SecState?

Just in time for the debates, It's going to be quite the show. She's very lucky her opponent is Trump, and not someone articulate enough to club her with this stuff like a baby seal.

[buckman]

Well you do know that if it weren't for the Clinton Foundation millions of children would've died . She is a saint, a modern-day Robin Hood if you will .

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So the AP, which NO ONE would call a conservative outfit, says that a huge percentage of mega-donors to the Clinton Foundation, were given special access to her, while she was SecState and on our dime. That Weiner guy's wife, her top aide, was a paid employee of both the State Dept, and the Clinton Foundation, at the same time (but Hilary is opposed to crony capitalism, mind you).

I'm pretty sure that Huma's work at the foundation was volunteer. The guy from the AP was on the news this morning, what he ignores is that these are exactly the type of people the Sec State would be meeting with regardless.

I believe the DOJ looked at this after the Clinton Cash book came out and found there was nothing worth pursuing.

Sorry but an email helping to arrange a meeting isn't pay to play. You've got nothing...

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by spence

Sorry but an email helping to arrange a meeting isn't pay to play. You've got nothing...

Confucius Say: If U read between the lines of an email it may show more then what is on the surface.........

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm pretty sure that Huma's work at the foundation was volunteer. The guy from the AP was on the news this morning, what he ignores is that these are exactly the type of people the Sec State would be meeting with regardless.

I believe the DOJ looked at this after the Clinton Cash book came out and found there was nothing worth pursuing.

Sorry but an email helping to arrange a meeting isn't pay to play. You've got nothing...

The AP story says that Mrs Weiner was a paid employee of the foundation, but since your supposition is more favorable to Hilary, I am certain it is fact-based.

"I believe the DOJ looked at this after the Clinton Cash book came out and found there was nothing worth pursuing."

I thought the AP broke the story yesterday. Not saying it's a crime. But does it invalidate her claims that she doesn't thin the system is fair, because it favors insiders? She claims to be opposed to cronyism, doesn't this spit in the face of her claim?

With liberals, it's ALWAYS do as I say, not as I do. Always. And the sheep could care less.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm pretty sure that Huma's work at the foundation was volunteer . The guy from the AP was on the news this morning, what he ignores is that these are exactly the type of people the Sec State would be meeting with regardless of their generous donations to the Clinton Crime Family Syndicate .

I believe the corrupt and partisan DOJ looked at this after the Clinton Cash book came out and found there was nothing worth pursuing .

Sorry but an email helping to arrange a meeting isn't pay to play but it's a start. You've got nothing...but man it keeps flowing

yup

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm pretty sure that Huma's work at the foundation was volunteer. The guy from the AP was on the news this morning, what he ignores is that these are exactly the type of people the Sec State would be meeting with regardless.

I believe the DOJ looked at this after the Clinton Cash book came out and found there was nothing worth pursuing.

Sorry but an email helping to arrange a meeting isn't pay to play. You've got nothing...

"an email helping to arrange a meeting isn't pay to play"

If that's all it was, you'd be correct. However, the e-mail does a bit more, and shows that the crown prince of some swell place that persecutes gays, couldn't get an audience with her until after he donated big time.

She was on our dime as SecState, she's not supposed to use that platform to enrich her foundation.

If there was nothing there Spence, answer me this...why have they said that if she's elected POTUS, the foundation will stop taking foreign donations? By what logic is it inappropriate for POTUS to take foreign donations, but not SecState? PLEASE EXPLAIN.

"You've got nothing"

I have enough honesty to be able to criticize those on my side, when the situation warrants. If someone on my side lied about coming under sniper fire, I'd be able to say out loud that they lied. That makes one of us.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I thought the AP broke the story yesterday. Not saying it's a crime. But does it invalidate her claims that she doesn't thin the system is fair, because it favors insiders? She claims to be opposed to cronyism, doesn't this spit in the face of her claim?

There's no evidence the system favored insiders, in fact that latest emails actually show exactly the opposite of pay for play. The people requesting access through the Foundation were roundly denied aside for a single person who was working formal channels in parallel.

The AP story doesn't provide anything beyond showing that many people she met with -- people any Sec State would be meeting with -- had some donation connection or worked for organizations that had donated money. That's not pay for play.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If that's all it was, you'd be correct. However, the e-mail does a bit more, and shows that the crown prince of some swell place that persecutes gays, couldn't get an audience with her until after he donated big time.

You mean that swell place that's home to the US Navy Central Command and the 5th Fleet?

The Crown Prince had set up a scholarship program with the Clinton Foundation in 2005. He had requested a meeting via formal channels to talk about tension in Middle East elections. When Clinton couldn't commit he asked his contact at the foundation as well.

The very same Crown Prince also met previously with Powell, Rice and Bush 43.

There's nothing here Jim, you're being played by a conservative scandal factory and a media more concerned about selling ads that real journalism.

[buckman]

I'm sure a lot of rich people wake up one morning and say "I think I feel like donating millions to the Clinton Foundation , they are such nice people and 10% goes to a good cause "

You would have to be a complete fool not to believe there was something in it for the Clintons and Huma , who I believe just may be more evil than the Clintons themselves .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I'm sure a lot of rich people wake up one morning and say "I think I feel like donating millions to the Clinton Foundation , they are such nice people and 10% goes to a good cause "

Actually yes, a lot of rich people do.

You would have to be a complete fool not to believe there was something in it for the Clintons and Huma , who I believe just may be more evil than the Clintons themselves .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Based on what? Let me guess, you read about it on Brietbart.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Actually yes, a lot of rich people do.

Based on what? Let me guess, you read about it on Brietbart.

No in reality they don't Spence . If they really wanted to give to charity there are other more efficient methods of getting that money to where it needs to go. But if they wanted to write off a gift in exchange for a fat favor, the Clinton Foundation is the way to go.

As far as Huma goes... Let's just say it's based on who she associates with
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

No in reality they don't Spence . If they really wanted to give to charity there are other more efficient methods of getting that money to where it needs to go.

I'd like to see you justify this.

[Sea Dangles]

I would like to hear any justification as to why Hillary and her "foundation" would solicit money from the Saudis.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[afterhours]

it's gonna be a full time job defending her

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by afterhours

it's gonna be a full time job defending her

I wonder what spence gets paid for doing it ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I would like to hear any justification as to why Hillary and her "foundation" would solicit money from the Saudis.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would like to hear any evidence that Hillary and her "foundation" solicited any money from the Saudis.

When the "foundation" was formed in 1997 the primary goal was fundraising for the Clinton Presidential Library and Saudi Arabia appears to have given 10 million which is about what they gave Bush. There were no donations when she was Sec State and some smaller donations after...no evidence anything was solicited.

Oh, the outrage.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I wonder what spence gets paid for doing it ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A life time supply of straws and all the koolaid he can drink.....

.......and maybe an occasional sniff of her undies
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Spence, there's a question I have asked twice, I don't see that you attempted to answer. So here it is for a third time.

The Clintons have said that if he wins the election, the foundation will stop accepting foreign donations.

Here is my question...are you ready? By what possible logic is it unethical for a POTUS to accept foreign donations, but acceptable for a SecState to accept the same exact donations?

I cannot wait for your reply. I'm all a-twitter.

[Jim in CT]

From the article...

The email exchange about Bahrain shows the Clinton Foundation’s top executive Doug Band in 2009 asking Clinton’s State Department aide Huma Abedin to set up a meeting between Clinton and Crown Prince Salman, who had recently been named the deputy supreme commander of Bahrain’s armed forces. Band referred to Salman as a “good friend of ours.” Abedin told Band that Clinton had initially rejected a previous request for a meeting with Salman because “she doesn’t want to commit to anything for thurs or fri until she knows how she will feel.” Soon after, though, Abedin told Band that the State Department was now offering Salman a meeting with Clinton.

Salman has directed $32 million to a Clinton Foundation program, and the Kingdom of Bahrain has donated up to $100,000 more. As Bahrain money flowed into the Clinton Foundation, State Department documents showed that between 2010 and 2012 the Clinton-led State Department approved $630 million worth of direct commercial arms sales to Salman’s military forces in Bahrain. That was a 187 percent increase from the period 2006 to 2008, and the increase came as Bahrain was violently suppressing uprisings.

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_top/391086151.html

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

By what possible logic is it unethical

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has...................

[Slipknot]

I got a secret for you Jim

Money will buy you anything ANYTHING

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

I got a secret for you Jim

Money will buy you anything ANYTHING

There's two things money can't buy. and that's true love and homegrown tomatoes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

There's two things money can't buy. and that's true love and homegrown tomatoes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I bought a big tomato to go with my lunch today. The market labeled the tomatoes as "homegrown." It wasn't specified in whose home the tomatoes were grown. Maybe some big California agri-farm which uses migrant laborers who live somewhere on the property.

As for true love, if because of some legal dispute in which "true love" is supposed to be a factor, it goes before a Progressive judge, he/she might interpret, for social justice purposes, that true love does indeed involve money. Maybe like if some poor hooker type is just trying to make a living, that it is indeed "true love" for humanity, in the grand scale of things, to sell her favors in order to make some lonely guy happy.

And then there is the "true love" of money. Money can buy you as much of that true love as you can afford.

You have to be careful, Nebe, of putting your faith or rationality in any absolutes. We live in a world of Spencist relativity.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I bought a big tomato to go with my lunch today. The market labeled the tomatoes as "homegrown." It wasn't specified in whose home the tomatoes were grown. Maybe some big California agri-farm which uses migrant laborers who live somewhere on the property.

As for true love, if because of some legal dispute in which "true love" is supposed to be a factor, it goes before a Progressive judge, he/she might interpret, for social justice purposes, that true love does indeed involve money. Maybe like if some poor hooker type is just trying to make a living, that it is indeed "true love" for humanity, in the grand scale of things, to sell her favors in order to make some lonely guy happy.

And then there is the "true love" of money. Money can buy you as much of that true love as you can afford.

You have to be careful, Nebe, of putting your faith or rationality in any absolutes. We live in a world of Spencist relativity.

My comment went way over your head.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

I was referring to this.
https://youtu.be/6TWwyhCVBDg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Nebe

There's two things money can't buy. and that's true love and homegrown tomatoes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

in can buy a luxury home on a beach in Vermont for a socialist who professes the importance and need to redistribute everyone else's wealth

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by scottw

in can buy a luxury home on a beach in Vermont for a socialist who professes the importance and need to redistribute everyone else's wealth

Dig deeper and you will learn that that house was bought with funds from a house that his wife inherited in Maine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Dig deeper and you will learn that that house was bought with funds from a house that his wife inherited in Maine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No one is accusing Sanders of stealing the money they used to buy that house. The point is, he has a $600,000 second house, which means that he has no problem keeping enough of what he thinks is his, to pamper himself. Yet he doesn't think others have the same right. Again, it's ALWAYS do as I say, not as I do. He spent most of his campaign telling us that income inequality is evil, yet he has no issue with lavishing himself with the spoils of income inequality.

If it's OK for him to acquire enough wealth to have a $600,000 vacation home, then he has no right to say it's wrong that an investment banker at Goldman Sachs tries to do the same exact thing.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the–if he–if ‘is’ means is and never has...................

Quite right. And zip from Spence as far as answering my question goes. Because he can't.