No possible way to spin this Pay for Play. Kool Aid drinkers are hopeless but those who are honest with themselves and paying attention are going to notice this.
$156,000,000 from private donors seeking favors and 170,000,000 from heads of state seeking favorable US policy = $326,000,000.
(AP list the two categories separately.
Trump HAS to win.
Link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state-183315225--election.html
(no message)
(no message)
Link: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/
(no message)
(no message)
But they were giving to a charity. One not nearly as corrupt as your right-wing sources like to think it is. It did not make the Clintons rich - they did not take any money from the foundation. Poor African farmers did, but not Hillary.
Many of those people - heads of state, nobel prize winners, prominent businessmen - she would have met with anyway.
And - most importantly - I see no evidence that there was any effect on US policy.
So if this was "pay for play," it was a really poorly done, on all sides.
Link: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
(no message)
And I would suggest that I understand it pretty well.
Governments do often...but donors don't....
(no message)
Much more money is poured into K Street than the Clinton Foundation.
And the odds of successfully lobbying a member of congress are much, much higher than a Secretary of State.
Again, none of this affected US policy. Much right-wing ado about nothing.
Bill, Hillary and Chelsea run this dopey foundation that collects a lot of money and does very little, but people flock to donate money anyway, Hillary gives access to the donors but she doesn't ever let it affect her in any way because of her pristine ethical past.
You're in a dimension not even contemplated by Interstellar. There's the signpost up ahead...
You're in the BASIL ZONE!
(no message)
(no message)
He's in it "to give money not to make it".
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
10% of $2B can do a lot of good, while providing cover for a LOT of corruption.
If the money was going to them, then you would have a point.
It wasn't, so you don't.
Neither is true here, of course. Others have posted about how the charitable portion is a cover (10% of $2billion is a big cover), and the foundation takes care of them and all their friends.
They are corrupt.
these charities for indirect gains.
rooms, salaries to friends etc. when they can squeeze those things in the budget? They wield the influence. The payments to them are laundered through other means. Of course they don't take direct payments from the Foundation...even they wouldn't assume people woul let them get away with that. It is an influence vehicle...the money flows (to them) from elsewhere. Need to pay off Bill, call him in for a speaking engagement...inflate the payment(s) by whatever the agreed payoff is. Money laundering made easy.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Roughly, 2/3 to Bill and 1/3 to Hillary.
Nope, no room to pay them off via that means...
That is what the market pays for top people.
Hate the game, not the players.
(no message)
Link: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/presidenc1/tp/How-Much-Former-Presidents-Get-Paid-to-Speak.htm
influence....yet. That others make a lot on speeches and take in significant sums? (The Johnny Walker Blue explains how Maya Angelou sounds anyway.). They don't rake in money like the Clintons...in part, while she was a Senator and Secretary of State....
The Clintons have made far and away more than any other pair of speakers over the last 15 years while Hillary occupied significant political offices and was the "heir apparent" to the presidency.
You have no idea what their fees were or what portion of them were legitimately for "the speech" itself and you have no way of knowing...and that's the point.
You asked how they get paid. This is one of the many ways.... Book advance was another. Abusing the expenses of the foundation is another.
It adds up and it's their cottage industry
(no message)
(no message)
to active politicians or their spouses to influence policy.
Loyola in New Orleans forked over a hundred grand to get Maya Angelou to speak about ten years ago (!). And she insisted on a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue in her dressing room. And she wanted a dressing room.
A quarter million is about what the Clintons would be getting for a speech. I agree that they were total fucking stooges to not see that this would create the appearance of impropriety. They bring much of this on themselves.
You don't really think Bill would get paid this much if his wife didn't still have special access to offer, do you? Really?!
What do you think Bush gets?
(no message)
In fact, less than Cankles.
(no message)
...charity that does very little beyond covering it's own exorbitant and wasteful expenses.
They do it for a REASON. You're willfully avoiding the reason and denying basic human nature in the process.
These people just want to throw the money away and get nothing, or next to nothing, for it? Please give me a break.
(no message)
or their friends, staff, etc. Not sure what you don't get. No, the actual payoffs of cash to them are done through other means.
This just helps grease the skids to allow them to travel, dole out jobs and contracts on behalf of the foundation. Some of that will be kicked back to them.
No one is dumb enough to think they're taking direct cash payments to themselves out of the Foundation.
Used to be a problem with Catholic Charities, on a much smaller scale of course, where the people involved spent a disproportionate amount on their own expenses and parties for themselves as opposed to actually doing charitable work. Did they do some work for charity? Yes. Was what they did right? No.
The Clintons set this up with that very purpose in mind from the outset. I get that you wish to think otherwise, but this walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Part of why they're putting it in abeyance for the term of her presidency (hopefully 4 years, or shorter if she is impeached). It will be revived. It's part of their operation. Payments will be paid offshore in escrow during her term. Of course, Bill will still fly around at taxpayer expense collecting fess for speaking engagementsf for whatever amount he wishes. What percentage of those fees is laundered payoffs? Who would know?
the hog expensing all of their donations.
And if any evidence ever arises that this is true, then i will agree that you have a good point.
Until then, it's just speculation by people predisposed to believe the worst. The most untrustworthy source, in other words.
already reported by the media? You're going to ignore the fact that a lesser % of contributions make it to actual charities via the Clintons than almost any other charity? I can applaud the fact you like being difficult, but don't let it go into the land of stupidity.
Shameless sleaze bags. I know why you will still take her over Don and get it. But you are defending the indefensible when it comes to corrupt, sleazy, insider dealings and the Clintons.
I can't imagine listening to her for 4-8 years. Much more importantly, I worry that Ukraine will soon be in NATO, there will be a no-fly zone over Syria, and we'll be hip-deep in the South China Sea. Secretary of State Jim Stavridis or Anne Marie Slaughter. National Security Advisor Ivo Daalder, maybe. Kill me.
I think she is MUCH less corrupt than the people on the right do. Much less. Most of it is guilt-by-marital-association. But she has screwed up in mind-boggling ways (especially that e-mail stupidity) that open herself up for the insinuation/innuendo/assumption train to be driven in by the GOP.
on the Nixon impeachment for lying and taking docs home that she was not authorized to do. From there, it was multiple fiascos with the Rose law firm. She is the ultimate example of dishonesty and corruption.
I suppose to your are OK that she was laughing it up when telling the story of how she got a rapist off that had raped a 12 year old girl and she knew that he did it, but thought that it was funny. It takes a sick mind to laugh at being responsible for putting that monster back on the street knowing that he was guilty.
(no message)
Nobody can be expected to put up with that...
(no message)
(no message)
don't understand that, then you don't know who she is.
(no message)
of BS to protect any Lib. Fakecheck is run by the Annennberg org. They are known for having trash like Barry Soetoro and the well known close friend of Soetoro, domestic terrorist Bill Ayers as board members.
3 million goes to Chelsea Clinton for running the CF, 10% goes to charity, the rest is used at their pleasure.
(no message)
(no message)
This is either really stupid or really arrogant on their part.
(no message)
held accountable for their actions.
Witness Chris94 (no offense, Chris).
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Agree with your main point.
I suppose if the AP is coming around, then there is hope that there is some residual journalistic professionalism that might lead the rest of the media to come around. Not holding my breath, though.
Link: Clinton State Department Stonewalled AP for Three Years