Deleted because I don't want to distract from current scandals.
This was a charity, that gave money away. To poor people.
This was not a Clinton bank account.
The idea that the Secretary of State would alter US foreign policy in order to get more money to give to poor people is just the weirdest of all the current GOP fever dreams.
You can't donate to a charity to gain access to a politician.
I was actually trained on this exact scenario in my last ethics training. The fact scenario specifically said that the charity in our training hypothetical (a hospital) was legitimate. However, that is irrelevant if, for example, the politician in question has ties to the charity. There are circumstances under which it can be legitimate, and there are several cases in which the DOJ declined to prosecute because it found those circumstances to be special, but at a minimum, such a scenario of charitable donations is listed as a "red flag" scenario. There is one of the example fact scenarios used by the SEC.gov site. See the link.
Donations to legitimate charities that end up giving access to benefits provided by a politician are a clear violation of ethics and US anti-bribery law. You are left arguing that this law does not apply to US politicians, but you can't argue that this is rediculous nonsense, and you can't argue that Congress hasn't decided that this type of behavior is ethical...it isn't.
Link: https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/fcpa/fcpa-resource-guide.pdf
(no message)
Shady, corrupt, crony laden project.
Link: http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
Joyce Aboussie $100-250k to the Foundation: "Huma, I need your help now to intervene please. We need this meeting with Secretary Clinton, who has been there now for nearly six months. This is, by the way, my first request. I really would appreciate your help on this."
This doesn't happen at normal "charities", Chris. Every fucking donor to this bullshit charity was looking for an angle. Every one. And the Clintons and their evil minions encouraged them every step of the way.
Even if many donors gave primarily to curry favors, there is simply no evidence - none, zip, zero - that US policy was ever affected one bit by charitable donations.
But since there is no limit to the right-wing imagination, this goes on and on.
This is just moronic. Access to the sec of state through dual employee (state and the so-called charity) Huma. Nonstop emails from the charity to lower ranking state employees. Friendly phone calls from Bill to other pols. Approval of your sale of a uranium mine to Russian oligarchs. Pretty much every angle you can imagine.
HRC is a money-grubbing turd of a candidate with no ethical values of any kind. Sadly, her opponent is a complete incompetent or her political obituary would already be written.
(no message)
It seems every time someone on this board brings up some alleged wrongdoing by a liberal or Democrat, you take the position that there is nothing to see here. Are you of the mindset that every conservative/Republican observation about a liberal/Democrat is always wrong?
(no message)
And, frankly, this is enough for me to never vote for her. I don't want to enable her to use her corruption for personal gain anymore.
They do not take money from the foundation.
And if you have ever tried to hire a speaker, you know that their speaking fees are not out-of-line with the amount of dough that people at their level get.
You have to really drink the Kool Aid to buy that one.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Don't get me started on that ridiculous "beard" arrangement...with Bill presiding over the ceremony under what authority nobody knows.
(no message)
(no message)
peddle influence. In 2013 the Foundation took in $140 million and paid out $9 million in direct aid. They use it to give jobs and salaries to friends.
If it's all so above board, why is it being scaled back during Hillary's presidency. The appearance of impropriety?
Where there's smoke there's fire. This family is getting fabulously wealthy. What is it they have to sell? Bill's advice on how to pick up fat chicks. Hillary's advice on how to beat lie detector tests?
They sell influence and access, pure and simple. They launder money through book advances, inflation of speaking fees, inflated salaries.
They hit the lottery when Ross Perot handed them the White House and they've never looked back. Bill was slick enough to pull it off for a while propped up by a phony dot.com bubble and riding the back of a peace dividend but had to swear a blood oath to Hillary when he got caught with his pants down.
Now she's collecting...in more ways than one.
(no message)
returned it after being exposed. Again, anyone else would have been charged.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Worse because of scale.
Very little actually went to charitable causes. Most to the Clinton's, their associates and 'friends" as 'expenses and fees' most of which under the radar taxwise. Bribery, money laundering and Pay for Play on a huge scale. In addition to the obvious illegality, in the Case of the Russian Mining interests obtaining 20+% of our Uranium production could be considered treasonous. American technology now in the hands of the Russians is being used against our ally's (the Kurds) in Syria now. The State Department encouraged the technology exchange.
(no message)
(no message)