Many donors to clinton foundation met with her at state

Well, then pay attention to the dates.. The CP of Bahrain donated in 2005.. Look into those individual dates.

 

Read the AP story earlier. It's quite comprehensive & revealing. It probably won't have any effect on her & her supporters though, because she won't face much media scrutiny. In fact, it's more likely the media will provide cover for her than allude there's anything seriously 'questionable'.
Here's the deal; Hillary hasn't done an unscripted presser in what, 250+ days? She shows up on late night TV where she's treated like royalty & the only questions about issues turns morph into jokes about her opponents. Besides late night, she done a few short, one on one, well scripted "interviews" where her answers to questions are never seriously challenged. Then there's her public campaign events the media covers by giving us a few sound bites followed by either glowing praise or a few negative inferences about her opponent, or both.
Bottom line: The DNC/media/Hillary strategy is to keep Hillary as well protected as possible. That protects the media too, because they'd be forced to either grill her or look like her campaign operatives (which many of them are). And, since the first debate isn't until late Sept. I doubt we'll see much change in the "hide her" strategy. OH, about those debates... I know folks have high expectations about them, but it's worth remembering who holds the whole cards, it's the media. They're the moderators & they pick the topics & the questions. And, because they're basically in control, they also set the tone & direction of the debates. Get my point?

 

I presume peddling influence through either tentacle of the Clinton pay for play machine is illegal.

 

Ya'll think this stuff matters?

 

LOL - Let's not be naive, credulous saps...

 

Breaking laws never matter when you're caught with your pants down.

 

And this is all we'll be hearing...



*chirp* *chirp* *chirp* *chirp* *chirp*

 

The Clinton Machine knows how to over come this type thing. They been doing it for 30 years.

 

The "Clinton Crime Family" in action. If Hillary is elected it will legitimize all the dirty illegal schemes and scams she and Bill have built up over the years.

Every single vote for Hillary is a vote for corrupt inside the beltway racketeering.

 

So, what do we know?

High dollar donors to the Clinton Foundation had a better than average chance of getting some face time with the SOS.

Wake the kids and phone the neighbors folks, we've got a scandal brewing here!

Did it ever occur to anyone that high dollar donors get access to politicians, whatever the scenario?

If this is news to you, I've got a bridge to sell.

Do we know what these meetings entailed? No.

Could they have been a simple meet and greet photo op for the donor to put on their wall? That wouldn't be unheard of in politics, would it now?

Does the spine shattering squelch of the right wing echo chamber have any proof to the contrary, that these meetings influenced policy? No.

If they had it, they would post it.

I've got a question for all you right wingers.

How many people did Clinton meet with as SOS that didn't didn't involve a donation to her foundation?

I'm going to predict that those who didn't donate outnumber those who did by something on the order of 5000/1.

My question is if Donald J. Trump, who gave a charitable $100,000 to the foundation to help meet it's goals, got some face time with the SOS.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=$100,001 to $250,000&page=7

 

According to a good many people, none of this stuff matters. However, the underlying question is "Should it matter?" Many still believe it should (myself included...).

Exactly. I hope people will find somebody else, anybody else, to vote for besides Hillary Clinton. The idea that a majority of people will disregard any evidence of wrongdoing is extremely disturbing.

 

You're going to have to actually come up with some evidence of wrongdoing first.

 

The lying about emails and her co-mingling of State Department and Clinton Foundation business doesn't bother you at all?

 

Let's be completely honest here. This is not a charity.

 

Once it has been proven that she lied, and that she co-mingled State Department business with Clinton Foundation business, I'll give it a second look. Until then, no, it doesn't bother me at all.

You guys now want to pretend that this situation is unique. It isn't.

The very rich move in some rarified air.

Ask Trump if he got some face time for his $100,000 donation.

 

Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about.

Looking just at the private email server, we have the following info:
A report from the State Department Office of the Inspector General, entitled Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements.
FBI Director Comey stepping through the list of Hillary Clinton created problems.
Representative Gowdy's questioning of Director Comey, to make sure there's absolutely no chance of confusion.

And your response is that we have to "come up with some evidence of wrongdoing"? Really?

 

Look at the timeline.. Hillary wasn't SOS until 2009.

 

Pay attention then to Trey Gowdy's very first question to James Comey
and Comey's response. You can even see it on video too. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/rep-...r-james-comey-on-hillary-clintons-intent.html
Unquestionably Hillary lied, and continues to lie about her email problem.

As far as co-mingling State Department and Clinton Foundation business that is harder to prove, just because Hillary controls all access to her wheeling and dealing as Secretary of State, but her lying about meeting with Clinton Foundation donors while in office gives one reason to certainly suspect, with very
good reason, she's lying once again. http://www.businessinsider.com/hill...oundation-donors-as-secretary-of-state-2016-8

See if you can find another Secretary of State who conducted his business in office the way Hillary has. She even lied to Obama when he she promised to stop Clinton Foundation business if appointed. And she promised him to keep John Podesta tucked away as Secretary of State. She did not.

There is corrupt and unethical and then there is Clinton corruption...it's a whole other level and the "everyone does it" defense is really quite inadequate.

 

Independents care. She sold privilege as SOS.

 

I think you make some very valid points in this post.

I'm amazed at the irate postings on politicians giving time and access to donors, but not one mention of Citizens' United, where unlimited amounts of dark money can make its way to politicians to sway legislation and tax laws that benefit everyone except the tax paying middle class.

 

What???
Way to stay irrelevant.

 

That's interesting
but Citizens United is the result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision, whether you like it or not, and everyone knows about it. What goes on in Madame Secretary's meetings with big wealthy donors? Not so much.

The attempt to draw some sort of equivalency here is pretty absurd and strained to say the least. At the very least what we've seen in the co-mingling of State Department access and Clinton Foundation business is suspicious and worthy of a serious investigation. No. We don't know everything right now but we do
know Clinton lied about meetings with donors and it's unethical if nothing else. An investigation is the only way to untangle the web Hillary spun while in office.

 

This is just another cheesy attack from Trump.. although I suppose its possible that he is too stupid to know about the Clinton Foundation Fund or the Clinton Global Initiative.

Either he's stupid or he's just lying.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/

 

Money and influence seem to be intertwined in politics. I'm as outraged by Citizens' United as I am with the corruption of elected or appointed officials. It seems to me that the difference here is that Citizens' United money can be dark, anonymous, and unlimited. We know the donors to the Clinton Foundation because it is reported in their tax returns, so that's why we know who got meetings and who didn't. Speaking of tax returns… the Donald.. well, never mind.

I don't have a problem with an investigation. She's had lots of investigations, so what's one more? If she's done something illegal, then she needs to face the consequences for that. If she hasn't done anything illegal, there are some that won't ever believe she didn't corruptly escape punishment because of her influence and position. That's just the way things go with the Clintons. It makes her paranoia seem legitimate and then she can paint her critics as witch-hunters. Accusations can work against her for those willing to believe them and for her with those that see partisan attacks. In the end, if there is no cut and dried evidence, this "scandal" will have little effect on the election, IMO. Those in her camp will remain there and those not in her camp wouldn't be swayed if she was tried and found not guilty. The independent waits on evidence to decide.

 

Then there should be ample evidence of similar activities by other Sec of States. Otherwise it just looks corrupt, and well it isn't like Hillary is known for her honesty and integrity. Its easy enough to settle, just show similar activity by previous holders of the office, no conspiracy, just cold hard facts. If the facts reflect similar activity then conservatives should man up and admit it, if not they should pounce on the corruption yet another Clinton has brought to our government...