• 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!

AP: Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State

jmotivator said:
This article goes into some detail of the US corruption case against Swedish Telecom Ericsson, currently embroiled in several corruption cases world wide. Note here that Reuters uses the term "Government Official" when in reality the corruption in question revolves around a beneficial decision for Ericsson by the Clinton State Department AFTER Ericsson paid Bill Clinton $750,000 for a speaking engagement...

Essentially, the State Department was creating a list of sanctioned electronics that were not to be sold to the Iranian Regime. Ericsson, and it's competitors, all had equipment that was on the sanction list. Ericsson then invited Bill to do a $750,000 speach and TA DA! No Ericsson equipment was on the final sanction list.
Click to expand...

That's so blatant.

It amazes me that Republicans are losing to this.
 
Mason66 said:
How do you explain this?

"At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs"
Click to expand...

1. Is that true?
2. Is it unlawful?
3. When did the donations occur? For example, were these people already donors? Did they donate after? During?
4. Is there any legitimate evidence of wrongdoing as a result?

That's just off the top of my head.

The GOP has cried "Wolf!" too many times on Hillary Clinton for any thinking person to be bothered with new cries, particularly at this time.

The Clinton Foundation has been around for a long time now. Now, Hillary can't sneeze without it being thoroughly examined by conservatives---literally. Hillary literally cannot show a single sign of ill health without it blowing up into a conspiracy that she's on death's doorstep. So do you actually believe for a half a second that the GOP/Tea Party hasn't been scouring everything they possibly can about the Clinton Foundation since its inception? And only now they're founding out untoward things?

Yet you continue to fall for it. The accusation, the rumor. It doesn't need to be substantive for you to believe it. You just need to hear the RNC say that something's true about Hillary and it's enough for you to believe it. So by all means, get your hopes up for yet another investigation into what Hillary Clinton is up to. The same thing is going to happen as has happened every single time. Then, instead of admitting that it was much ado about nothing (again), and that thousands of man-hours and millions of dollars was wasted, you'll blame Hillary and the media as evil masterminds plotting the whole thing.

Conservatives have perfected two things: 1) the harassment of a very select individual; 2) acting as doorstops to legislation good or bad. Wanna know why? It's because they can't compete on substantive issues. They have nothing to actually offer the American people except hollow words about kicking foreign ass and some golden past that never existed. Maybe if they could get beyond that and come up with something decent, they could actually become effective servants of the state.
 
cpwill said:
Overall, 55% of non-government meetings that Hillary had while SECSTATE were with Clinton Foundation Donors.

Yeesh. They weren't even pretending to be anything other than an influence-clearinghouse.
Click to expand...

LOL.

I thought reasonable people would be able to see how absurd the claim is that Clinton met 150 people in her 4 year tenure as SoS.

Now I see you are putting a percentage on it.

But I do love the outrage about people donating money to a charity vs. being totally cool about donors to political campaigns.
 
jmotivator said:
Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State

"WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million."

Discuss, don't deflect.
Click to expand...



"Discuss, don't deflect". I like that.

I don't think it said much. The Clinton Foundation does lots of good works. People or companies donate to it, just like they donate to Bill Gates Foundation. The rest of the story is mostly just smoke. Of course, Trump is insulting his way through it, like he always does.
 
jmotivator said:
OK, sure. Now explain how federal gambling applies to a candidate having dinner with a donor? Where is the bribe there? Last I checked, Trump isn't an umpire and dinner isn't a sport.
Click to expand...

I never addressed that and I don't care to because I don't see anything that Trump did wrong in that instance. See how that works? Even though I despise that bloviating, lard-covered gasbag I don't try to define a nexus of corruption where one doesn't appear to exist. My post was about your statement regarding what I replied with.
 
cpwill said:
That's so blatant.

It amazes me that Republicans are losing to this.
Click to expand...


So it was unlawful for Bill Clinton to receive speaking fees from Ericsson? Please find legal points and authorities (that doesn't include your opinion).

NOTE: Bill Clinton isn't running for POTUS.
 
jmotivator said:
This article goes into some detail of the US corruption case against Swedish Telecom Ericsson, currently embroiled in several corruption cases world wide. Note here that Reuters uses the term "Government Official" when in reality the corruption in question revolves around a beneficial decision for Ericsson by the Clinton State Department AFTER Ericsson paid Bill Clinton $750,000 for a speaking engagement...

Essentially, the State Department was creating a list of sanctioned electronics that were not to be sold to the Iranian Regime. Ericsson, and it's competitors, all had equipment that was on the sanction list. Ericsson then invited Bill to do a $750,000 speach and TA DA! No Ericsson equipment was on the final sanction list.
Click to expand...

So your evidence for all this is.... A two month old story from the Washington Times?

A story that looks like it's not been picked up by any non-wing nut media?

I can see why you guys have nothing but whispers and innuendo.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Opopanax said:
So it was unlawful for Bill Clinton to receive speaking fees from Ericsson? Please find legal points and authorities (that doesn't include your opinion).

NOTE: Bill Clinton isn't running for POTUS.
Click to expand...

It is corruption for Hillary Clinton to SELL government services and government benefit, such as allowing the largest state-sponsor of terror in the world to receive technologies that are SUPPOSED to be banned to them.

Please now pretend that Hillary and Bill Clinton are financially separate entities, so that I can laugh hysterically at you.
 
jmotivator said:
Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State

"WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million."

Discuss, don't deflect.
Click to expand...

I'm SHOCKED I tell you, SHOCKED!!!!!!!!!!
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL.

I thought reasonable people would be able to see how absurd the claim is that Clinton met 150 people in her 4 year tenure as SoS.

Now I see you are putting a percentage on it.

But I do love the outrage about people donating money to a charity vs. being totally cool about donors to political campaigns.
Click to expand...

:shrug: According to Aristotle, we are what we repeatedly do. If that's correct, then it's not a charity. It's a political favors clearinghouse.

I seem to recall that Democrats took public corruption very, very, very seriously when it was a recent Governor of Virginia. Gosh. Wonder what changed. :roll:



Literally. Hillary Clinton could murder a child on live national television, and her supporters would argue that until and unless she was convicted, it didn't count.
 
Casper said:
But is not Trump taking bribes (opps, donations) on his cross country trip as we speak. $2,500 per person to get in, $25,000 for a couple to be seated for the dinner, $250,000 gets you a private meet and greet wit The Donald himself. In the end do you not think he will be owing a few favors? They are ALL bought and paid for, been this way for all of recent history, and do not get me started on the Lobby system, (outright bribery). Is it right, absolutely not, should it be stopped, most definitely, will anything be done, nope, welcome to the world.
Click to expand...

He's not elected yet. The fees you are discussing are common for campaigns.
 
Opopanax said:
I never addressed that and I don't care to because I don't see anything that Trump did wrong in that instance. See how that works? Even though I despise that bloviating, lard-covered gasbag I don't try to define a nexus of corruption where one doesn't appear to exist. My post was about your statement regarding what I replied with.
Click to expand...

The original argument was an attempt to deflect from the Clinton corruption by saying that Trump is also guilty because he has dinner with donors. My point was that it was not a federal crime to have dinner with donors and that if such donations ever turned into the US government making favorable decisions for those donors I would be on their side. The whole point was a discussion of whether what Trump did constitutes bribery, which is doesn't.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
What a quaintly absurd notion.

Yes, bribes exist outside of the public sphere.
Click to expand...

You are deflecting from the primary discussion here. Clinton as Sec State was selling access to herself.
 
cpwill said:
It is corruption for Hillary Clinton to SELL government services and government benefit, such as allowing the largest state-sponsor of terror in the world to receive technologies that are SUPPOSED to be banned to them.

Please now pretend that Hillary and Bill Clinton are financially separate entities, so that I can laugh hysterically at you.
Click to expand...

It's amazing mental gymnastics, isn't it? I guess according to Opopanax all you have to do to avoid corruption charges is to have the business interests pay your spouse! :lamo
 
Reed95 said:
"Discuss, don't deflect". I like that.

I don't think it said much. The Clinton Foundation does lots of good works. People or companies donate to it, just like they donate to Bill Gates Foundation. The rest of the story is mostly just smoke. Of course, Trump is insulting his way through it, like he always does.
Click to expand...

I've asked this before, but what good does the Clinton Foundation actually do? Bill Clinton's track record with the foundation in Haiti is abysmal... can you find some good they did other than keep Clinton donors gainfully employed?
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
No shocker you take the logical fallacy route.
Click to expand...

Climate Change and now the Clinton Foundation ... 2 topics of which 3G knows nothing but will post about anyway. Is there no end to such skills?
 
bubbabgone said:
Climate Change and now the Clinton Foundation ... 2 topics of which 3G knows nothing but will post about anyway. Is there no end to such skills?
Click to expand...

It's a powerful skill that allows you to be ignorant on any number of subjects and still feel like you contributed! It's practitioners are walking, talking participation ribbons.
 
I can't say I'm at all surprised. I appreciate what Hillary Clinton has done for the country by accepting these "quid pro quo" donations to her foundation.

She's helping reveal to America how corrupting the influence of money is. I hope this will be the beginning of a new paradigm in America, in which the electorate of both parties refuses to vote for corporate-funded candidates.
 
jmotivator said:
I've asked this before, but what good does the Clinton Foundation actually do? Bill Clinton's track record with the foundation in Haiti is abysmal... can you find some good they did other than keep Clinton donors gainfully employed?
Click to expand...



CHAI strives to make treatment for HIV/AIDS more affordable and to implement large-scale integrated care, treatment, and prevention programs. Since its inception, CHAI has helped bring AIDS care and treatment to over 750,000 people living with HIV/AIDS around the world. Its activities have included AIDS care and treatment in Africa, including the brokering of drug distribution agreements. During President Clinton's 2006 trip to Africa, CHAI signed agreements with several new countries. Over the course of the past year, CHAI has expanded its partner countries and members of the Procurement Consortium to over 70 including 22 governments, who are now able to purchase AIDS medicines and diagnostic equipment at CHAI's reduced prices.
Click to expand...

........


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation
 
jmotivator said:
If Trump meets with them as president and directs national policy in favor of their business interests then I'll be on your side.
Click to expand...

Very well then. Why not give the same leeway to Hillary? Granted, she was Secretary of State and her husband founded the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Foundation, but when you look at who runs both non-profit entities, as well as, who are part of their organizational structure (i.e., Board of Directors) you'll notice that Hillary R. Clinton's name is nowhere to be seen.

Clinton Global Initiative Membership/Directors

Clinton Foundation

Granted, Bill and Chelsea's names are listed accordingly, but Hillary...nope.

Now, try to take the partisan blinders off for a second (I know...easy to say, hard to do, but do try) and comprehend exactly what is the function of the State Department. It's mission statement* reads as follows:

The Department's mission is to shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and people everywhere. This mission is shared with the USAID, ensuring we have a common path forward in partnership as we invest in the shared security and prosperity that will ultimately better prepare us for the challenges of tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Then look at the Department's role in domestic economic development under "Economic and Business Affairs":

The Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs (EB) pursues Economic Diplomacy for America, making our nation and our people more prosperous and secure. Every day, EB works to create jobs at home and expand economic opportunities overseas. On this site, you will find resources describing how the State Department engages with partners around the world on trade, finance, telecommunications and Internet policy, transportation, economic sanctions, commercial opportunities, and a host of other issues – ensuring that the United States remains the world’s strongest and most dynamic economy, as well as a beacon for American values.
Click to expand...

When you understand the Department's functions and understand that as long as Hillary was NOT directly involved in the day-to-day business dealings between the State Department, the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Foundation, you realize that as long as ethics, SEC, tax and campaign finance laws were not broken, there is no quid pro quo here.

Find the legal violations and not base every encounter on the optics and I'm right there with the pundits. Otherwise, your barking up a tree where no cat has climbed. Oh, I get what it looks like. Allow me to paint that picture for you...

Bill Clinton makes an agreement with president-elect Obama to make Hillary Secretary of State knowing full well he already has world-wide connections with foreign "investors" (er, um..."donors") to either the Clinton Global Initiative or the Clinton Foundation. He understand how the State Department works. Obama agrees to appoint her as Sec. of State. Once appointed, Hillary brings in her trusty Assistant, Huma Abedin, as her girl Friday to run point on foreign business affairs, specifically where the CF and CGI are concerned so as to ensure she never comes within arms length of violating any ethics laws. Meanwhile, Bill informs every foreign leader/donor to specifically ask for Huma, NOT HILLARY, on all business dealings.

Huma routes the appropriate legal documents to the appropriate members within the State Department and the deals get done - LEGALLY! Meanwhile, contributions go to either the CF or the CGI in concert with approval business applications at State. Win-Win for the Clintons. A further win for America's economic growth (not to mention its prosperity). But that's a quid pro quo you say? Is it really? Think about it...
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:shrug: According to Aristotle, we are what we repeatedly do. If that's correct, then it's not a charity. It's a political favors clearinghouse.

I seem to recall that Democrats took public corruption very, very, very seriously when it was a recent Governor of Virginia. Gosh. Wonder what changed. :roll:



Literally. Hillary Clinton could murder a child on live national television, and her supporters would argue that until and unless she was convicted, it didn't count.
Click to expand...

And where is this political favors clearinghouse you talk of? Specifically, which favors for what?
 
jmotivator said:
This article goes into some detail of the US corruption case against Swedish Telecom Ericsson, currently embroiled in several corruption cases world wide. Note here that Reuters uses the term "Government Official" when in reality the corruption in question revolves around a beneficial decision for Ericsson by the Clinton State Department AFTER Ericsson paid Bill Clinton $750,000 for a speaking engagement...

Essentially, the State Department was creating a list of sanctioned electronics that were not to be sold to the Iranian Regime. Ericsson, and it's competitors, all had equipment that was on the sanction list. Ericsson then invited Bill to do a $750,000 speach and TA DA! No Ericsson equipment was on the final sanction list.
Click to expand...

Now, that's the kind of "evidence" I'm talking about! (Re: Post #47)

So, the question now becomes who exactly at State had control of that specific sanctions list and who gave the authority to de-list Ericsson? It's about connecting the dots, finding the smoking gun and showing what you can prove not what you think. (Same as with the emails. ;) )
 
Threegoofs said:
And where is this political favors clearinghouse you talk of? Specifically, which favors for what?
Click to expand...
... Have you missed this entire thread?

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom