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.

[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.

[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

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[Nebe]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

You're right, this went way over my head. Very nice song, and well sung. There are millions of YouTube videos and I have not seen even a small fraction of most. Maybe a tiny, tiny, fraction. I apologize for not knowing about this video or about Guy Clark. Who's Guy Clark?

But, anyway, I hope you didn't take my post seriously. Or, at least, didn't take it literally. I was mostly funnin', with a, perhaps, small relevant point. Hope that didn't go over your head.

[ecduzitgood]

She sold her share to her brother for $150,000
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raven]

who is she NOT having SEX with i wanna Know

kinda reminds me of Al Bundy doing anything to avoid
going upstairs with PEG.....

[ecduzitgood]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-dono...075420856.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Just like to remind Jim that this story has pretty much completely fallen apart...

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/26/medi...ion/index.html

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

Just like to remind Jim that this story has pretty much completely fallen apart...

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/26/medi...ion/index.html

So the AP based the story on the facts available and the Clinton News Network says it's 100% inaccurate because they based the story only using available information and didn't include the unavailable information.

So where is the proof of the overestimate the amount of non government people who got to have a meeting with Hillary Clinton?
What a surprise.
Looks like they are waiting until after the election to release any more information that could prove whether the AP was overstating or under stating the influence a donation to the Clinton Foundation

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-clinto...-election.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Just like to remind Jim that this story has pretty much completely fallen apart...

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/26/medi...ion/index.html

And by "falling apart", what your article does, is say that the meetings between Hilary and her donors, were a smaller percentage of her total number of meetings, than the AP reported. CNN isn't rejecting the APs notion that donors were given access. All they are disputing, is the denominator in the ratio that the AP published.

Why would the AP question Hilary? Anyone who can laugh in the face of that sniper fire she claims to have come under, is clearly above reproach.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And by "falling apart", what your article does, is say that the meetings between Hilary and her donors, were a smaller percentage of her total number of meetings, than the AP reported. CNN isn't rejecting the APs notion that donors were given access. All they are disputing, is the denominator in the ratio that the AP published.

The article makes no assertion that donations resulted in access, only that some people she met with had or were associated with someone who had made a donation previously. There still is no evidence anyone was given access because of their donations in fact the email leak shows the opposite.

That they led the story by misrepresenting the entire article is really sloppy journalism.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The article makes no assertion that donations resulted in access, only that some people she met with had or were associated with someone who had made a donation previously. There still is no evidence anyone was given access because of their donations in fact the email leak shows the opposite.

That they led the story by misrepresenting the entire article is really sloppy journalism.

Spence, there is an email from a foundation employee to Hilary's secstate email. In it, the foundation employee says that the prince of Bahrain (who gave $32million to the foundation) is "a good friend of ours". Coincidentally, after this email, Hilary met with the guy and sold him weapons.

Also, Weiner's wife was a paid employee of the State Dept, and the foundation, at the same time.

There is no email where Hilary says that you have to pay to get access to her. But there is certainly the appearance, once again, of impropriety.

And again, there is no earthly reason why foreign donations are acceptable when she was secstate, but inappropriate as POTUS. Secstate is a very powerful position, maybe you can take high school civics and bone up on that.