• 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!

'Pay-to-play' at Clinton State Department exposed in new emails, watchdog says

There is no definitive proof is my point. You can "think" it is all you want let me know when the legal interpretation and conviction is as such. Otherwise it's all just opinion and nothing more.

Do you take the same approach toward Trump and the 'collusion' accusations?
 
Yes and even you question whether they are pay to play. It is your opinion. Let me know when you get your grand jury together ok? Until then have fun with your armchair lawyering.

If you could be so kind... could you please quote the part of this exchange between you and I which leads you to the conclusion that I am "arm chair lawyering"?
 
1. I scoff at all you libs trying to say anything about fake news, considering what ya'll consume.

2. Judicial Watch is more credible than any of your garbage sources and operate off of actual government documentation.

In other words, you have no standing to question Judicial Watch. Not one shred of it.

Show the emails then.. how hard can that be? Prove their accusation. Uncensored email chain please!
 
Do you take the same approach toward Trump and the 'collusion' accusations?

no because there is actual evidence in the collusion investigation. There are only headlines in the "pay to play" story. But of course it has to be true because you remember the "Clinton foundation money laundering op" headlines.
 
Meh. Trump does it and you don't care...so hypocrite much?

Does what? You've gone over completely, but I'm not surprised. Liberaltarians are almost like the real thing.
 
The election is over. Hilary lost. Its time to move on.

You can never get enough of a Clinton discrediting themselves. It never gets old.
 
Oh come on now. It was a well known fact that Hillary put her Sec. of State position up for auction.

What do you think she would have done as president? More of the same.

You lost me, brother.
 
Yeah that's why all you have are anonymous sources. Fake news at its finest con

You voted for a perv like trump who bragged about peeking at underage girls. Trump supporters support that.

You mean emails.
 
I really don't care what Judicial Watch or any other source says - either produce the goods (the damning email chain examples in context?) or peddle your gotcha summary on your own website. Fox News is stupid to run these kind of stories if they do not have access to the source material.

Lets face it, every media outlet this past year have done so indiscriminately. I guess its just part of the current climate of this for now, because we are going to get just as much, or even more in the near future.
 
Friendly reminder. Hillary Clinton is not the president. She really has no power whatsoever, and you don't get to keep trying to make Trump look less ****ty by pretending Hillary Clinton would be worse. Trump's ethics department just eliminated rules preventing white house staff from receving anonymous gifts. So again anything you claim Hillary is guilty of we can prove Trump is doing times 10.

Then again those rules didn't really help stop a damn thing for the last two decades, so the argument here is rather moot.
 
Lets face it, every media outlet this past year have done so indiscriminately. I guess its just part of the current climate of this for now, because we are going to get just as much, or even more in the near future.

While that is likely true, it is neither fair nor balanced. If your network's claim is to be better than the rest then it helps not to prove to be just like the rest. ;)
 
You voted for a corrupt, conniving, bitch. Pay for play happened, and there enough evidence now.
I will point out that the evidence is not readily available to us at the moment. Though seeing the track record of things, I would not doubt that such evidence exist.

I wonder when they will put the whole Clinton Foundation under a microscope?
 
Oh come on now. It was a well known fact that Hillary put her Sec. of State position up for auction.

What do you think she would have done as president? More of the same.

oh eorhn, its only "well known fact" that conservatives obediently believe what they are told to believe. And as president she would not have been a dumpster fire.
 
Yeah that's why all you have are anonymous sources. Fake news at its finest con

You voted for a perv like trump who bragged about peeking at underage girls. Trump supporters support that.

If all you have are yelling fake news, and taking his words out of context. Then your chances here are slim at best.
 
Yeah that's why all you have are anonymous sources. Fake news at its finest con

You voted for a perv like trump who bragged about peeking at underage girls. Trump supporters support that.

LOL. Do you not understand the meaning of the word "anonymous"?

The evidence here is actual emails of actual conversations between actual named people showing unusual access to the State Department by people who financial disclosure shows gave larges sums of money to the Secretary of State's private foundation.

Are you saying that the State Department gave Judicial Watch fake emails? Or that the Clinton Foundation financial disclosures are fake?
 
While that is likely true, it is neither fair nor balanced. If your network's claim is to be better than the rest then it helps not to prove to be just like the rest. ;)

An astute observation if I've ever seen one.
 
I will point out that the evidence is not readily available to us at the moment. Though seeing the track record of things, I would not doubt that such evidence exist.

I wonder when they will put the whole Clinton Foundation under a microscope?

Not likely, but I'll settle for continuing to discredit the Clintons, and hopefully this will rub off on Chelsea. Don't forget, she'll be running for the Presidency within 20 years.
 
An astute observation if I've ever seen one.

Thank you. I get pissed when the claim of being balanced turns into simply being biased in the another (opposite?) direction - see Sean Hannity. The real deal is that most media bias is simply by omission - the old mind over matter distorted into "If we don't mind then it doesn't matter". The New York Times even seems to boast of its bias by omission policy using "All the news that's fit to print" as its motto causing one to ponder who, exactly, makes that "fit to print" call other than the editorial staff at the (biased?) news outlet.

Obviously, no news organization or media has the staff or bandwidth to cover everything but when some things are rarely (never?) reported and other things are reported whether they are supported by facts in hand or not then one should start to wonder - WTF?
 
The examples given in the article are not evidence of pay-to-play. What would be evidence of pay-to-play would be someone requesting the same help, and being told "sorry, but you must donate x dollars to the Clinton Foundation," or some such. Are there any examples of that having happened?

Yeah, that's exactly how smart people do it. :roll:
 
American said:
Yeah, that's exactly how smart people do it.

I'd be satisfied if there were even any innuendo to that effect. What you have here are people making reasonable requests, who also happen to have donated to the Clinton Foundation. So long as the same help was extended to people who did not donate, it's not pay to play.
 
I'd be satisfied if there were even any innuendo to that effect. What you have here are people making reasonable requests, who also happen to have donated to the Clinton Foundation. So long as the same help was extended to people who did not donate, it's not pay to play.

Yeah, purely coincidence, :roll: but you certainly will never hold Hillary Clinton responsible for that conflict of interest. Donations that pay for access, and Bill's salary.
 
He wasn't convicted but he ADMITTED to walking in on pageant contestants naked on the Howard stern show and those pageants were open to underage girls. Sad you support a man who admitted to that, but hey that's you and other trump supporters. Is that something you like?

Actually, he did not "admit" to walking in on underage contestants. The pageant he mentioned on Stern's show was the Miss USA pageant and all the women must be over 18.
 
Back
Top Bottom