• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ABC’s Stephanopoulos gave $75G to Clinton Foundation without disclosing it...

I won't believe anything bad about Snuffleupagus until Media Matters writes it and Pete posts it.
 
I'm confused.

Is donating to the Clinton Foundation the same as donating to Hillary's run for Presidency?

It's a donation to get access. Lotsa people did it ... even conservatives.
 
More on why I say this donation issue is more like an "optic-al" illusion than a scandal.

Stephanopoulos regrets Clinton donations | TheHill

“Those donations were a matter of public record, but I should have made additional disclosures on air when we covered the Foundation,” he said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

“And I now believe that directing personal donations to that foundation was a mistake,” said Stephanopoulos, who served as an aide to former President Clinton before leaving the White House for a successful TV career.

“Even though I made them strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children and protect the environment in poor countries, I should have gone the extra mile to prevent even the appearance of a conflict,” he added.

I get that perception is reality to some people, but there really isn't anything to see here. A mistake in judgment perhaps in not making the donations known beforehand, but that's all this amounts to.
 
No. It's about gaining favorable treatment if she wins. We do live with the security of knowing that Hillary would never, ever consider such donations favorably with regard to policies when president, though. And we have Bill's assertion that she should avoid any appearance of impropriety, and coming from Bill, why, that holds a lot of weight.

How is that any different than the way that politics is run in your country? Think the Koch brothers' investment in Congress is just for the heck of it?
 
How is that any different than the way that politics is run in your country? Think the Koch brothers' investment in Congress is just for the heck of it?

No, it is done, but not at the level and scale that the Clintons have attempted to achieve. Buying access and influence is as old as politics. Selling the Lincoln bedroom for donations isn't normally done, though. You'll have to ask Bill about that.
 
More on why I say this donation issue is more like an "optic-al" illusion than a scandal.

Stephanopoulos regrets Clinton donations | TheHill



I get that perception is reality to some people, but there really isn't anything to see here. A mistake in judgment perhaps in not making the donations known beforehand, but that's all this amounts to.

Only if you accept mistaken judgement. Me thinks intentional omission.
 
No, it is done, but not at the level and scale that the Clintons have attempted to achieve. Buying access and influence is as old as politics. Selling the Lincoln bedroom for donations isn't normally done, though. You'll have to ask Bill about that.

You have not proven the difference in the very least.
 
Right. Now put that logic to actual proof.

Right. Have you been paying any attention at all to the news in the US since 1992? Ever hear of spoliation? Renting out the Lincoln bedroom? (coffee was extra). Monica Lewinsky? Sniper fire? Dead broke? $100,000 return on a $1000 investment in 90 days? Rose Law Firm? Whitewater? That's certainly not comprehensive, but do any of those ring any bells at all? Yes, yes, I know - all part of a vast right wing conspiracy, but have you heard of them?
 
More on why I say this donation issue is more like an "optic-al" illusion than a scandal. I get that perception is reality to some people, but there really isn't anything to see here. A mistake in judgment perhaps in not making the donations known beforehand, but that's all this amounts to.
Yes, no doubt Algeria also wanted “strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children and protect the environment in poor countries" when they donated their $500,000 to the Clintons. Who else would the Algerians turn to in order to do this fine work?
 
Yes, no doubt Algeria also wanted “strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children and protect the environment in poor countries" when they donated their $500,000 to the Clintons. Who else would the Algerians turn to in order to do this fine work?

They did so secure in the knowledge that at least 15% of that would end up helping some recipient of the Clinton Foundation largesse.
 
Right. Have you been paying any attention at all to the news in the US since 1992? Ever hear of spoliation? Renting out the Lincoln bedroom? (coffee was extra). Monica Lewinsky? Sniper fire? Dead broke? $100,000 return on a $1000 investment in 90 days? Rose Law Firm? Whitewater? That's certainly not comprehensive, but do any of those ring any bells at all? Yes, yes, I know - all part of a vast right wing conspiracy, but have you heard of them?

LOL. Just as I though... you have nothing but a bunch of nonsense. Tell me, how does those events make the $1 billion and junkets offered by the Koch brothers less corrupting?
 
Right. Have you been paying any attention at all to the news in the US since 1992? Ever hear of spoliation? Renting out the Lincoln bedroom? (coffee was extra). Monica Lewinsky? Sniper fire? Dead broke? $100,000 return on a $1000 investment in 90 days? Rose Law Firm? Whitewater? That's certainly not comprehensive, but do any of those ring any bells at all? Yes, yes, I know - all part of a vast right wing conspiracy, but have you heard of them?
There is clear evidence of the media having a close relationship with the Clintons. Of course this was always suspected by the downplaying of stories, the twisting of facts, and so on, but the financial donations from media organizations to the Clintons is quite remarkable.Clinton Foundation donors include dozens of media organizations, individuals - POLITICO.com
 
Right. Have you been paying any attention at all to the news in the US since 1992? Ever hear of spoliation? Renting out the Lincoln bedroom? (coffee was extra). Monica Lewinsky? Sniper fire? Dead broke? $100,000 return on a $1000 investment in 90 days? Rose Law Firm? Whitewater? That's certainly not comprehensive, but do any of those ring any bells at all? Yes, yes, I know - all part of a vast right wing conspiracy, but have you heard of them?

Not exhaustive at all, nevertheless, why is she nearly the default nominee again?
 
Not exhaustive at all, nevertheless, why is she nearly the default nominee again?

She can get 40% of the vote out of the gate, and she has presented the DNC with a demand for payment, with "she" being one of the operative words.

Poor Jim Webb. I like that guy.
 
She can get 40% of the vote out of the gate, and she has presented the DNC with a demand for payment, with "she" being one of the operative words.

Yeah, and why is 40% of Americans willing to vote for her out of the gate? :screwy
 
Yeah, and why is 40% of Americans willing to vote for her out of the gate? :screwy

They're party line voters. I've know many over the years. It doesn't matter who's in the party, they just know they're going to vote for the "D" or the "R", and that's the end of it. Of course, in Hillary's case, she gets a few percentage points from those who desperately want a woman in the WH. They'd vote for Lucy Borden.
 
The Clinton Crime Family.

Now you have me thinking of the Adams Family and Uncle Fester. Let's see. Chelsea would be, ah, never mind. But Stephanopoulos would definitely be the boy with the hair...
 
Back
Top Bottom