Clinton charity quid pro quo

She’s not going to lose because of this. It is more of a concern because she is going to win and we can expect more of her transparency policy that consists of putting up blackout curtains.

Here’s another question while you’re thinking. Shouldn’t accusations of lawbreaking among public officials be held to legal standards rather than your personal beliefs of right and wrong?

And one more question, really the most important one. You keep defining the Foundation as Hillary’s private interests. Upon what legal foundation (pun deliberate) do you base that? If the Foundation is functioning as a proper charity, which it appears to be, then by definition it is not serving Hillary’s private interests. Whether you think that in your head is irrelevant.

Are you calling the AP a right wing source of information?


Nowhere did I say that, the point I made was that TriPolar claimed that there had been no release, there was. Forced, but it was nevertheless done already and the problem was that the AP did not report on the whole picture and the Washington Post did agree that the AP did cherry pick to make it sound worse.

Again, what I see is that while I do not quite agree, I can see why some has the right to not release something just because some outfit thinks they need it.

The whole thing IMHO fits with the point I had made many times before, by hook or by crook the mainstream media will have a horse race. It is crucial for them to give Trump hope so he will be willing to spend money with the media corporations in advertisement. If he remained really low in the polls that would not take place.

So what we’re talking about here is that we need to implement dramatic changes to campaign finance laws. And extend those laws to appointed political positions as well.

I whole-heartedly agree with that proposal.

But until such time as that is accomplished, should we not refrain from cherry picking, particularly in cases where no actual evidence of wrong-doing has been identified?

Except when you run a charitable foundation and/or work for the gubment.

IMO in which case, you ARE under a serious obligation to release the major details of your actions.

Don’t like that?

Don’t run a foundation or work for the Gubment.

Well, the letter P is kinda toward the right end of the alphabet.


Again, as you miss it, the AP also does not allege that any of those meetings were improper.

The spin comes indeed form other sources that are not telling their readers or viewers about that simple point and the big picture. IIRC there were also leaked emails that showed the Clinton people telling several of those big contributors that they would not get meetings with Clinton, but thanked them any way for their contributions to the foundation.

That’s not even the issue, IMO. It’s not a stretch to make the assertion that HRC has a personal interest in the Clinton Foundation. It would be ridiculous to suggest that she does not.

What the critics need to establish is that HRC, in her capacity as SoS, was demonstrably influenced by her interest in the Clinton Foundation, which led to decisions which were in direct conflict with US policies and laws.

And they did release it, the point you are painfully missing is that it is a moot point the one you made here.

I do not consider that the only wrongful acts are those that result in criminal convictions.

Well, you’ve got me there. I never considered that Hillary doesn’t care at all about the Clinton Foundation on which her husband and daughter serve as board members.

Are we discussing matters of law or a matters of opinion with respect to wrong doing?

Has the Foundation released all the donors names? Particularly the FOREIGN donors?

Has the State Department released all of Hillary’s meetings (or at least the large majority)?

I’m in favor of public financing of elections.

But I’m also puzzled by why you’re so outraged by meetings having to do with charitable donations. My opinion would be different if the Clintons had a pecuniary interest in the foundation – that would be a very serious matter.

However, this pseudo-scandal strikes me as very much the same as the email mess: yes, there was a poor decision, but ultimately there’s no issue of integrity. (Unless something new pops up on either investigation, of course.)

Still looking forward to your more detailed explanation of your views on my questions – not being snarky, just reminding you that I’m interested in your forthcoming comments.

We are discussing ethics and conflict of interest. Whether or not they rise to the level of criminality is irrelevant to me as far as this discussion is concerned.

Ah. So matters of personal moral outrage.

I’ll leave you to your inquisition, Friar de Torquemada.

So, since such things obviously are not of interest to you…being personal and such…one supposes you will not be back?

I’m opposed to public financing of elections. I believe that the elected and appointed officials of the US government should not be allowed to take a penny from anyone while in office except for their government compensation, or as the return from previous investments which must be disclosed, and even in that case would require them to abstain from any matters which would serve those interests as a conflict of interest.

I am opposed to public financing because my tax dollars should not be used to finance politician’s job hunts.

I think you can understand from my position that I do not believe in any leeway for any impropriety or appearance of impropriety. While that is not the law now it should still be the concern of every citizen and it is the growing atmosphere of dismissal of such problems on the grounds that they don’t rise to the level of a criminal conviction or that they can be explained away by “Everyone does it”, “It was for a good cause”, or unsubstantiated claims of cherry picking data.

That’s enough of this for now, I don’t want to get side tracked from this issue right now. You could open your own thread about comparative wrongs or wait until I have time to answer your question in greater detail.


Your position is that public servants should not be financed by tax dollars but by private interests instead?

How does that make them more accountable to the very people they are supposed to represent and not beholden to the private interests of wealthy donors? Isn’t this what you’re objecting to with respect to HRC’s meetings?

Can you read? I said they should not be financed by anything but their salary or disclosed personal wealth obtained before taking office. And such personal wealth would automatically disqualify them in matters concerning that wealth as a conflict of interest.