New Revelations show a nation for sale under Hillary

[*PhilHos*]

What this sub-forum needs is more cowbell. Well, mine's in the shop, so the 2nd thing this forum needs is more anti-Hillary threads.

Well, here you go (I'm going to try to do my best Dino impression, just anti-Hillary instead of anti-Trump):

http://nypost.com/2016/08/23/new-revelations-show-a-nation-for-sale-under-hillary-clinton/

Quote:The Democratic Party often warns us that mixing big money and politics will corrupt democracy. They must have nominated Hillary Clinton to prove it.

The Clinton Foundation was ostensibly set up to solve the world’s most pressing problems. Though it’s done some fine work, its most fruitful program has been leveraging Clinton’s position in the State Department to enrich her family, friends and cronies.

It’s against federal law for charities to act in the interests of private business or individuals. Yet the Clinton Foundation secured high-paying gigs for its namesakes and helped for-profit corporations with family ties set up lucrative deals.

As it turns out, that’s probably the least corrupt part of the story.

It is becoming clear the foundation was a center of influence peddling. Rock stars. Soccer players. Conglomerates. Crown princes. All of them paid in. All of them expected access to the US government.

Want a seat on a government intelligence advisory board even though you have no relevant experience? The Clinton Foundation may be able to help.

Recently released emails prove the charity’s officials had sought access to State Department personnel while Hillary was in charge. Folks like the prince of Bahrain, who donated $32 million to the foundation, needed to get in touch.

An Associated Press investigation finds that more than half the private citizens who met or spoke with Clinton while she was secretary of state also happened to donate to her foundation. What are the odds?

It’s implausible that a majority of the 154 citizens — people who’d kicked in at least $156 million to her charity — would also happen to catch Clinton’s ear as she toiled away at State. It’s also worth remembering this list doesn’t even include officials from the 16 governments — many of them autocrats — who threw the foundation another $170 million.

Recently, the foundation announced it would ban donations from corporations and foreign countries if Hillary is elected president. The question is: If it’s a conflict of interest when Hillary will be president, why wasn’t it a problem when she was secretary of state?

Let’s also not forget that during Clinton’s tenure at State, she failed to disclose that regimes across the world were giving her charity hundreds of millions. Because she needed to hide this, she ended up sending 110 emails containing classified information — eight of which had “top secret” information, according to the FBI.

These days, Hillary brazenly goes on Jimmy Kimmel to clown around about her “boring” emails.

Well, if they’re so irrelevant, why was she hiding them from the Justice Department? If it’s no big deal, why did it take four years and a lawsuit against the State Department to gain access to her planning schedules? Why did she lie to the American people? Erase tens of thousands of emails? Set up a private server in the first place?

Hillary claims running the State Department gave her the experience and temperament necessary to be president. But if anything, it reminds us of the Clintons’ propensity for scandal and dishonesty. And if Clinton wins this year, she’ll become the most ethically compromised president in contemporary times. Perhaps ever.

How'd I do, Dino?

[GMDino]

(08-24-2016, 12:36 PM)PhilHos Wrote: What this sub-forum needs is more cowbell. Well, mine's in the shop, so the 2nd thing this forum needs is more anti-Hillary threads.

Well, here you go (I'm going to try to do my best Dino impression, just anti-Hillary instead of anti-Trump):

http://nypost.com/2016/08/23/new-revelations-show-a-nation-for-sale-under-hillary-clinton/


How'd I do, Dino?

Not bad.

There's a jump in assumptions there though....

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/08/23/experts-new-clinton-state-dept-emails-show-donor-access-not-favors/89118156/

Quote:Although a conservative group investigating Hillary Clinton’s relationship with donors to the Clinton Foundation maintains that newly released emails prove she granted special “access” and “favors” during her State Department tenure, nonpartisan experts say that Judicial Watchis right about the former but has not yet proven the latter.



Their insights are important as the Clinton Foundation, the family’s charity, becomes a crucial flash point in the 2016 presidential campaign.
Clinton's Republican challenger, Donald Trump, is accusing the Democratic Party's nominee of “pay to play.” It's a narrative sure to continue after Trump hired Republican operative Steve Bannon, who wrote a documentary alleging the Clintonsgot rich from their connections with big business and foreign governments, as his campaign's CEO.


Judicial Watch, which obtained the emails through a Freedom of Information Act request, released 725 pages of documents Monday, including 20 exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department. It alleges Clinton’s former top aide, Huma Abedin, provided “special expedited access to the secretary of State” for donors who had contributed from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. Many of the exchanges involve former top Foundation executive Doug Band.


“These new emails confirm that Hillary Clinton abused her office by selling favors to Clinton Foundation donors,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement.


According to experts, the emails confirm donors were gaining access to Clinton, yet there is no evidence she granted them special favors, an important distinction that may determine how damaging the controversy is to Clinton’s campaign.


“These emails show that there was a long line of Clinton Foundation friends who had no qualms about asking the Clinton State Department for meetings, favors, and special treatment,” said Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, or POGO. “Not shocking, but it is disappointing that there were such blurred lines between State Department officials and outsiders. I see little action on these latest requests, but I think further investigation is needed.”


“It’s not clear from these emails what actually happened after most of this stuff,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan government oversight group. “That’s the missing piece of this puzzle.”

I can offer to buy you dinner to help me move, but it's up to you to decide if you'll really help me.

Clinton is such an awful person she probably took the donations and never helped the donor! 

[*PhilHos*]

(08-24-2016, 12:46 PM)GMDino Wrote: Clinton is such an awful person she probably took the donations and never helped the donor! 

I laughed, but then I remembered this is the current state of our presidential candidates so, instead I banged my head into the wall repeatedly. 

Now, I have a headache.

[GMDino]

(08-24-2016, 12:55 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I laughed, but then I remembered this is the current state of our presidential candidates so, instead I banged my head into the wall repeatedly. 

Now, I have a headache.

I'm telling you I will be able to post that word for word right after voting in November. 

[McC]

She's a piece of shit. He's a piece of shit. No matter what, we will end up with a piece of shit in the White House. God Bless America.

It is interesting that, in her nauseating tv ads, she says they left the WH dead broke after Slick Willie Bubba's terms and now they're worth 110 mil and only one of them even had a job. They must've really been pinching pennies on her 174,000 Senator's paycheck then 187,000 as SOS and his $2000,000 pension. Must've been a really great book deal he got. She's laughing at us all, the ones stupid enough to vote for her most of all. She's the devil in a frumpy pants suit.

[SunsetBengal]

Interesting that the A.P. decided to go forward with this story, as mainstream media seems almost biologically tied to the political Left. Conservative talkers have been going to town on this story for quite some time, however most just blow them off as haters and conspiracy theorists. I wonder what could possibly have made the A.P. go forward? Could it be that there is so much actual proof that Worldwide news outlets were going to blow the story open, if American outlets didn't?

[GMDino]

(08-24-2016, 06:42 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Interesting that the A.P. decided to go forward with this story, as mainstream media seems almost biologically tied to the political Left.  Conservative talkers have been going to town on this story for quite some time, however most just blow them off as haters and conspiracy theorists.  I wonder what could possibly have made the A.P. go forward?  Could it be that there is so much actual proof that Worldwide news outlets were going to blow the story open, if American outlets didn't?

...or they've been covering but they didn't imply she was guilty as some people assume so they ignored the reporting?

[fredtoast]

(08-24-2016, 06:42 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Interesting that the A.P. decided to go forward with this story, as mainstream media seems almost biologically tied to the political Left. 

The mainstream media has been reporting on this all along.  If you really dispute this I will post dozens of links to prove how clueless you are.

Your problem is that you just blindly believe whatever the right wing echo chamber tells you instead of trying to learn anything for yourself.