• 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

jmotivator

Computer Gaming Nerd
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
34,999
Reaction score
19,471
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/82df.../many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-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.
 
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...

B-b-b-but Trump!
 
TheGoverness said:
B-b-b-but Trump!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

If Trump meets with them as president and directs national policy in favor of their business interests then I'll be on your side.
 
I'm sure it's just a coincidence. ;)
 
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...

So the bribes before he is elected don't count, interesting. I am thinking more of a reality show from the Whitehouse, that will be fun eh.
 
Hillary has not had a press conference since December and the press is not calling her out on it.

She is has the media helping her run out the clock because her average followers are generally pretty disengaged, and have no grasp of how corruption will affect her decision making that will ultimately affect them.
 
Casper said:
So the bribes before he is elected don't count, interesting. I am thinking more of a reality show from the Whitehouse, that will be fun eh.
Click to expand...

There are no bribes when you aren't in public office.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
What a quaintly absurd notion.

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

There is no law proscribing the exchange of money for private favors. The LEGAL definition of bribery is the exchange of money for favor from a government official.

"What is BRIBERY?

In criminal law. The receiving or offering any undue reward by or to any person whomsoever, whose ordinary profession or business relates to the administration of public justice, in order to influence his behavior, and to incline him to act contrary to his duty and the known rules of honesty and integrity. Hall v. Marshall, 80 Ky. 552; Walsh v. People, 05 111. 05, 16 Am. Rep. 509; Com. v. Murray, 135 Mass. 530; Hutchinson v. State, 36 Tex. 294. The term “bribery” now extends further, and includes the offense of giving a bribe to many other classes of officers; it applies both to the actor and receiver, and extends to voters, cabinet ministers, legislators, sheriffs, and other classes. 2 Whart. Crim. Law,,"

So no, there is no legally defined bribe between two private individuals.
 
jmotivator said:
There is no law proscribing the exchange of money for private favors. The LEGAL definition of bribery is the exchange of money for favor from a government official.

"What is BRIBERY?

In criminal law. The receiving or offering any undue reward by or to any person whomsoever, whose ordinary profession or business relates to the administration of public justice, in order to influence his behavior, and to incline him to act contrary to his duty and the known rules of honesty and integrity. Hall v. Marshall, 80 Ky. 552; Walsh v. People, 05 111. 05, 16 Am. Rep. 509; Com. v. Murray, 135 Mass. 530; Hutchinson v. State, 36 Tex. 294. The term “bribery” now extends further, and includes the offense of giving a bribe to many other classes of officers; it applies both to the actor and receiver, and extends to voters, cabinet ministers, legislators, sheriffs, and other classes. 2 Whart. Crim. Law,,"

So no, there is no legally defined bribe between two private individuals.
Click to expand...

Wrong, and rather laughably so.

Bribery - FindLaw
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Wrong, and rather laughably so.

Bribery - FindLaw
Click to expand...

hahaha!! Maybe you should read your own source?

"Bribery is the offer or acceptance of anything of value in exchange for influence on a government/public official or employee. "

First frigging sentence....

There is no federal statute prohibiting exchange of money for favors between private citizens.
 
jmotivator said:
hahaha!! Maybe you should read your own source?

"Bribery is the offer or acceptance of anything of value in exchange for influence on a government/public official or employee. "

First frigging sentence....

There is no federal statute prohibiting exchange of money for favors between private citizens.
Click to expand...

Your inability to read past the first sentence and intellectual dishonesty duly noted.

Game. Set. Match.

Wow.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Your inability to read past the first sentence and intellectual dishonesty duly noted.

Game. Set. Match.

Wow.
Click to expand...

You are hilarious. Your inability to quote what you consider a counter argument is intellectual dishonesty.

Pro-Tip: Sports bribery is not a federal crime.

Tell me how state gambling law applies to a candidate and donor having dinner? :lamo
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Your inability to read past the first sentence and intellectual dishonesty duly noted.

Game. Set. Match.

Wow.
Click to expand...


LOL, nice try, but you got your ass handed to you by jmotivator. Own it.
 
Hillary is being accused of something, all the information is unsubstantiated, and the Republicans are going after her?

Doesn't this same, tired nonsense get old for you people, or do you frequently watch reruns of other shows too?

You do understand that nothing is going to come of this, right?

Maybe having a political party with decent ideas that would actually help the American people as they exist, not as you wish they did on Leave it to Beaver would be helpful?
 
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...

BrewerBob said:
I'm sure it's just a coincidence. ;)
Click to expand...

While I'm sure that Hillary and her campaign would want everyone to believe that it's just a 'coincidence', a 50% or higher 'coincidence' just isn't credible.
Not any more credible than Hillary's honesty.

My God, how corrupt this woman is.
My God, how stupid this woman believes the electorate to be, to believe this BS of hers.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
You are hilarious. Your inability to quote what you consider a counter argument is intellectual dishonesty.

Pro-Tip: Sports bribery is not a federal crime.
Click to expand...

18 U.S.C.A. § 224
§ 224. Bribery in sporting contests
Currentness
(a) Whoever carries into effect, attempts to carry into effect, or conspires with any other person to carry into effect any scheme in commerce to influence, in any way, by bribery any sporting contest, with knowledge that the purpose of such scheme is to influence by bribery that contest, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Do you understand what U.S.C.A means?

It'd probably be a good idea for you stop talking now.
 
Opopanax said:
18 U.S.C.A. § 224
§ 224. Bribery in sporting contests
Currentness
(a) Whoever carries into effect, attempts to carry into effect, or conspires with any other person to carry into effect any scheme in commerce to influence, in any way, by bribery any sporting contest, with knowledge that the purpose of such scheme is to influence by bribery that contest, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Do you understand what U.S.C.A means?

It'd probably be a good idea for you stop talking now.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Opopanax said:
Hillary is being accused of something, all the information is unsubstantiated, and the Republicans are going after her?

Doesn't this same, tired nonsense get old for you people, or do you frequently watch reruns of other shows too?

You do understand that nothing is going to come of this, right?

Maybe having a political party with decent ideas that would actually help the American people as they exist, not as you wish they did on Leave it to Beaver would be helpful?
Click to expand...

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"
 
Opopanax said:
18 U.S.C.A. § 224
§ 224. Bribery in sporting contests
Currentness
(a) Whoever carries into effect, attempts to carry into effect, or conspires with any other person to carry into effect any scheme in commerce to influence, in any way, by bribery any sporting contest, with knowledge that the purpose of such scheme is to influence by bribery that contest, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

Do you understand what U.S.C.A means?

It'd probably be a good idea for you stop talking now.
Click to expand...

You ask the hilariously impossible of the tragically incapable.
 
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...

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.
 
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...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom