• 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!

Emails show Clinton Foundation shaped policy

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
37,046
Reaction score
17,950
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In one instance, Mrs. Clinton appeared to try to steer a Haiti earthquake recovery project to the foundation, according to new emails released this week as the State Department belatedly complies with open records requests for her communications during her four years in office.
Another email shows Mrs. Clinton directing a State Department employee to handle solicitation of money from Norway for a program she was about to announce in a speech at the Clinton Global Initiative in 2010, and which was being run by the United Nations Foundation, another nonprofit created by Ted Turner that has close ties to her family’s operation.

Hillary Clinton emails show foundation shaped policy - Washington Times

Imagine her consternation trying to decide if these emails were personal or work related. </sarcasm>
 
Hillary Clinton emails show foundation shaped policy - Washington Times

Imagine her consternation trying to decide if these emails were personal or work related. </sarcasm>

Emails show Clinton Foundation shaped policy eh B. :2wave: Imagine that!
hmmm.gif





According to Vox's Jonathan Allen, formerly of Bloomberg, at least 181 Clinton Foundation donors lobbied the US State Department while Hillary Clinton was in charge, highlighting new questions over whether the Clintons profited from effectively renting out American foreign policy:

Clinton's defenders insist that nobody has offered concrete proof that this multi-million-dollar "slush fund" favor bank ever resulted in direct action by the State Department; at some point, though, enough smoke convinces people there's a fire. And the smoke is billowing:

Former President Bill Clinton accepted more than $2.5 million in speaking fees from 13 major corporations and trade associations that lobbied the U.S. State Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, an International Business Times investigation has found. The fees were paid directly to the former president, and not directed to his philanthropic foundation. Many of the companies that paid Bill Clinton for these speeches -- a roster of global giants that includes Microsoft, Oracle and Dell -- engaged him within the same three-month period in which they were also lobbying the State Department in pursuit of their policy aims, federal disclosure documents show. Several companies received millions of dollars in State Department contracts while Hillary Clinton led the institution. The disclosure that President Clinton received personal payments for speeches from the same corporate interests that were actively seeking to secure favorable policies from a federal department overseen by his wife underscores the vexing issue now confronting her presidential aspirations...When she became secretary of state in 2009, Hillary Clinton agreed to subject Bill Clinton’s speaking engagements to a conflict-of-interest review by an ethics counsel in Clinton’s State Department. Documents from Judicial Watch show the counsel’s office approving the bulk of the speaking engagements -- even those that came during or after periods when the firms paying Bill Clinton were filing disclosure forms notifying government regulators that they were lobbying the State Department. The revelation that the Clinton family accepted money from 13 firms actively working to influence the Clinton-run State Department follows IBTimes’ report on Monday showing that Goldman Sachs paid Bill Clinton $200,000 just before the banking giant began lobbying the State Department......snip~

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...rs-also-lobbied-hillarys-state-departmen.html

I liked the part about an International Investigation jumping up into the mix. Helps those overseas to know what Hillary and these Democrats are all about.....as well as why they can't be trusted.
 
Emails show Clinton Foundation shaped policy eh B. :2wave: Imagine that!
hmmm.gif





According to Vox's Jonathan Allen, formerly of Bloomberg, at least 181 Clinton Foundation donors lobbied the US State Department while Hillary Clinton was in charge, highlighting new questions over whether the Clintons profited from effectively renting out American foreign policy:

Clinton's defenders insist that nobody has offered concrete proof that this multi-million-dollar "slush fund" favor bank ever resulted in direct action by the State Department; at some point, though, enough smoke convinces people there's a fire. And the smoke is billowing:

Former President Bill Clinton accepted more than $2.5 million in speaking fees from 13 major corporations and trade associations that lobbied the U.S. State Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, an International Business Times investigation has found. The fees were paid directly to the former president, and not directed to his philanthropic foundation. Many of the companies that paid Bill Clinton for these speeches -- a roster of global giants that includes Microsoft, Oracle and Dell -- engaged him within the same three-month period in which they were also lobbying the State Department in pursuit of their policy aims, federal disclosure documents show. Several companies received millions of dollars in State Department contracts while Hillary Clinton led the institution. The disclosure that President Clinton received personal payments for speeches from the same corporate interests that were actively seeking to secure favorable policies from a federal department overseen by his wife underscores the vexing issue now confronting her presidential aspirations...When she became secretary of state in 2009, Hillary Clinton agreed to subject Bill Clinton’s speaking engagements to a conflict-of-interest review by an ethics counsel in Clinton’s State Department. Documents from Judicial Watch show the counsel’s office approving the bulk of the speaking engagements -- even those that came during or after periods when the firms paying Bill Clinton were filing disclosure forms notifying government regulators that they were lobbying the State Department. The revelation that the Clinton family accepted money from 13 firms actively working to influence the Clinton-run State Department follows IBTimes’ report on Monday showing that Goldman Sachs paid Bill Clinton $200,000 just before the banking giant began lobbying the State Department......snip~

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...rs-also-lobbied-hillarys-state-departmen.html

I liked the part about an International Investigation jumping up into the mix. Helps those overseas to know what Hillary and these Democrats are all about.....as well as why they can't be trusted.

I guess it's no longer speculation, huh.
 
Hillary Clinton emails show foundation shaped policy - Washington Times

Imagine her consternation trying to decide if these emails were personal or work related. </sarcasm>

Private vs. official vs. business conflicts of interest are historical for both Bill and Hillary. They see no issue with freely mixing them all the time, case in point, the so call 'private' emails of Hillary, the ones she deleted from her server.

May very well have caught up with her in this instance. High time, I'd say. Couldn't happen to a nicer person.
 
I guess it's no longer speculation, huh.

Nah.....I got one in another thread talking about we people are something. All because he can't figure out where Hillary was dishonest or broke the law or government policy.
 
Private vs. official vs. business conflicts of interest are historical for both Bill and Hillary. They see no issue with freely mixing them all the time, case in point,
the so call 'private' emails of Hillary, the ones she deleted from her server.

May very well have caught up with her in this instance. High time, I'd say. Couldn't happen to a nicer person.

There were all yoga emails.
Thirty thousand of them.
We should be thankful.
The mental image alone coulda been devastating.

hillary tied up.jpg
 
Nah.....I got one in another thread talking about we people are something. All because he can't figure out where Hillary was dishonest or broke the law or government policy.

The funny thing is if, say, Hillary was ever indicted the same people would come up with something else.
 
The funny thing is if, say, Hillary was ever indicted the same people would come up with something else.

Well, this IG knows that the other IG's aren't backing down from Hillary and her team. So truthfully he can go to town on her over this issue. Her and all connected to her.
 
Private vs. official vs. business conflicts of interest are historical for both Bill and Hillary. They see no issue with freely mixing them all the time, case in point, the so call 'private' emails of Hillary, the ones she deleted from her server.

May very well have caught up with her in this instance. High time, I'd say. Couldn't happen to a nicer person.



This is exactly the kind of **** that never sticks to a Clinton. In the Whitewater case I knew a law student following it, and he lost track of exactly what happened. It is classic, she introduces statements that become red herrings, lead to dead ends, so her loyalists can brag "see, nothing there" while the principle of what happened is buried in ****.

I have said before, if she is brought down, it won't be one thing, it will be many, many things. Were I in the Republican camp I would be saying "If they play so loose now, imagine in the White House where anything can be secret if the president says so?"

I do not think she will be brought down by a Thor-like hammer, but will wither, her negative headlines, lack of policy, direction, honesty, will prevail as the campaign turns into an actual campaign. She's already running behind Bernie and The Donald.
 
This is exactly the kind of **** that never sticks to a Clinton. In the Whitewater case I knew a law student following it, and he lost track of exactly what happened. It is classic, she introduces statements that become red herrings, lead to dead ends, so her loyalists can brag "see, nothing there" while the principle of what happened is buried in ****.

I have said before, if she is brought down, it won't be one thing, it will be many, many things. Were I in the Republican camp I would be saying "If they play so loose now, imagine in the White House where anything can be secret if the president says so?"

I do not think she will be brought down by a Thor-like hammer, but will wither, her negative headlines, lack of policy, direction, honesty, will prevail as the campaign turns into an actual campaign. She's already running behind Bernie and The Donald.

To me the only thing short of a confession that could bring her down is if the media decides they have need to an alternative favorite to promote.
Like, for example ... if Liz Warren said okay, you talked me into it, I'll run.
It would be like Obama v Hillary all over again.
 
This is exactly the kind of **** that never sticks to a Clinton. In the Whitewater case I knew a law student following it, and he lost track of exactly what happened. It is classic, she introduces statements that become red herrings, lead to dead ends, so her loyalists can brag "see, nothing there" while the principle of what happened is buried in ****.

I have said before, if she is brought down, it won't be one thing, it will be many, many things. Were I in the Republican camp I would be saying "If they play so loose now, imagine in the White House where anything can be secret if the president says so?"

I do not think she will be brought down by a Thor-like hammer, but will wither, her negative headlines, lack of policy, direction, honesty, will prevail as the campaign turns into an actual campaign. She's already running behind Bernie and The Donald.

The Clintons certainly have perfected an art form the new bigots have now all adopted.
 
Back
Top Bottom