• 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!

Clinton gave State Department appointments to 194 donors

NonoBadDog

NonoBadDog

Hates Kittens
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2014
Messages
17,226
Reaction score
6,895
Location
Mountains
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Clinton gave State Department appointments to 194 donors
Hillary Clinton placed dozens of her donors on State Department advisory boards between 2009 and 2012, federal records show.

The former secretary of state's agency appointed 194 donors who had given either to her family's foundation, her political campaigns, or both, or were affiliated with groups that had.
Those donors represented nearly 40 percent of the 511 advisory appointments the State Department made during Clinton's tenure.
Click to expand...
The Foreign Affairs Policy Board, for instance, was filled with donors in Dec. 2011. Thirteen of the 25 appointments to that panel went to Clinton donors that year, while at least two other positions went to advisers at the Center for American Progress — a group closely connected to the Clintons.
Click to expand...

Rajiv Fernando, who has donated up to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and bundled at least $100,000 for Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign, was named to the elite policy panel despite having little experience in the area given his career as a financial trader. Hillary Clinton's team nonetheless rushed a top secret security clearance for Fernando so he could attend meetings.
Shortly after a reporter from ABC News asked the State Department for a copy of Fernando's resume, Cheryl Mills, Clinton's chief of staff, quietly announced his resignation.
Click to expand...

Clinton gave State Department appointments to 194 donors | Washington Examiner

Not even a smidgen of corruption or conflict of interest going on here.
 
Her corruption has been vetted by the FBI, and approved by the DoJ, so we will soon see if America wants corruption as part of government business.

Who knows? Maybe greasing palms is the future and we Rube's are just to stupid to appreciate it.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Clinton gave State Department appointments to 194 donors





Clinton gave State Department appointments to 194 donors | Washington Examiner

Not even a smidgen of corruption or conflict of interest going on here.
Click to expand...

Yeah, not a smidgen of pay to play.

Yeah, right. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you, or perhaps some oceanfront property in Arizona.

Geez you guys, Clintons have been practicing pay to play since they rented out the Lincoln bedroom. What's the matter with you guys (and gals)?
 
chuckiechan said:
No. They gave to reelection campaigns, rather than a Foundation benefiting the entire family, and her political infrastructure.
Click to expand...

No one has yet explained what Bill and Hillary Clinton get out of this alleged Foundation conspiracy considering they have a salary of $0.
 
Napoleon said:
No one has yet explained what Bill and Hillary Clinton get out of this alleged Foundation conspiracy considering they have a salary of $0.
Click to expand...

For that you have to follow the speech fees.
 
j-mac said:
For that you have to follow the speech fees.
Click to expand...

An allegation that makes no sense whatsoever. Did any of the 194 people described in the OP also pay the Clinton's for their time at a speaking engagement?
 
Napoleon said:
An allegation that makes no sense whatsoever. Did any of the 194 people described in the OP also pay the Clinton's for their time at a speaking engagement?
Click to expand...

I'd be willing to bet yes.
 
Napoleon said:
No one has yet explained what Bill and Hillary Clinton get out of this alleged Foundation conspiracy considering they have a salary of $0.
Click to expand...


There are ways to collect money from the foundation without being labeled a salary. The Clinton's prefer to call them expenses
 
Chillfolks said:
There are ways to collect money from the foundation without being labeled a salary. The Clinton's prefer to call them expenses
Click to expand...

Can you present evidence that such an arrangement existed or is this just more baseless innuendo?
 
chuckiechan said:
True, but it will have a seat at the table.

How much power and wealth do you think the Clinton Foundation will have after four years?
Click to expand...

I think its more plausible and probable that a President Trump would find ways to funnel contracts to his businesses.
 
Napoleon said:
Can you present evidence that such an arrangement existed or is this just more baseless innuendo?
Click to expand...

Yep all you have to do is a little homework with any internet search engine and you will have plenty of evidence. If you haven't taken the time to investigate this you should. If you have seen the reports and choose to ignore them, then your mind is made up and there is no changing It.
 
Chillfolks said:
Yep all you have to do is a little homework with any internet search engine and you will have plenty of evidence. If you haven't taken the time to investigate this you should. If you have seen the reports and choose to ignore them, then your mind is made up and there is no changing It.
Click to expand...

I'm not sifting through millions of terabytes of data on the internet to look for something that supports what you're saying. You can't even be bothered to do that and you're the one making the claim - so why should I?
 
For knowledge.

Educating ones self is its own reward.

It's no skin off my back if you prefer the hype over the reality of the Clinton's receiving compensation from their foundation labelling it as expenses verse salary.
 
Napoleon said:
I think its more plausible and probable that a President Trump would find ways to funnel contracts to his businesses.
Click to expand...

Can you present evidence, or is all you have is innuendo?
 
Chillfolks said:
For knowledge.

Educating ones self is its own reward.

It's no skin off my back if you prefer the hype over the reality of the Clinton's receiving compensation from their foundation labelling it as expenses verse salary.
Click to expand...

What can I say except that I prefer non-fiction material for educational purposes. :shrug:
 
Napoleon said:
I'm not sifting through millions of terabytes of data on the internet to look for something that supports what you're saying. You can't even be bothered to do that and you're the one making the claim - so why should I?
Click to expand...

After a week of being attacked for shady bookkeeping and questionable expenditures, the Clinton Foundation is fighting back. In a tweet posted last week, the Clinton Foundation claimed that 88 percent of its expenditures went “directly to [the foundation’s] life-changing work.”


There’s only one problem: that claim is demonstrably false. And it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim.

Clinton Foundation 2013 Breakdown
In order for the 88 percent claim to be even remotely close to the truth, the words “directly” and “life-changing” have to mean something other than “directly” and “life-changing.” For example, the Clinton Foundation spent nearly $8.5 million–10 percent of all 2013 expenditures–on travel. Do plane tickets and hotel accommodations directly change lives? Nearly $4.8 million–5.6 percent of all expenditures–was spent on office supplies. Are ink cartridges and staplers “life-changing” commodities?

Those two categories alone comprise over 15 percent of all Clinton Foundation expenses in 2013, and we haven’t even examined other spending categories like employee fringe benefits ($3.7 million), IT costs ($2.1 million), rent ($4 million) or conferences and conventions ($9.2 million). Yet, the tax-exempt organization claimed in its tweet that no more than 12 percent of its expenditures went to these overhead expenses.

How can both claims be true? Easy: they’re not. The claim from the Clinton Foundation that 88 percent of all expenditures go directly to life-changing work is demonstrably false.

The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent On Charity In 2013
 
Napoleon said:
What can I say except that I prefer non-fiction material for educational purposes. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I tried that with you on another thread and you keep denying it anyway.
I'm afraid you've gotten yourself into a denial-no-matter-what box.
Your motivation is something you'll have to work out for yourself.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Then why are you posting?
Click to expand...

I am not the subject............and the question was......

Do what if Clinton saw folks who gave to the Clinton Fund...........SO WHAT........

Are you trying to say something you never stated?
 
imyoda said:
I am not the subject............and the question was......

Do what if Clinton saw folks who gave to the Clinton Fund...........SO WHAT........

Are you trying to say something you never stated?
Click to expand...

You don't think it matters. You even said so. It doesn't matter,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom