The part of your general description of a conflict of interest involves the possible corruption of a motivation. I can’t see anything so far that makes me think that there’s anything possibly corrupting here. Your assertion that a meeting is the corruption is frankly ridiculous – you want me to believe that a discussion, leading to no apparent action, is corruption of motivations? And that what seem to be chit-chats among two people lead to a perception that US foreign policy is “for sale?” Are you fucking kidding me? Sure, maaaybe a meeting is for sale, but US foreign policy?
Unless you have more to add, or more comes out from this story, I think this is tinfoil hat time.
I’m right. You have no idea of what public financing is.
Denunciations are not facts. The numbers still stand as reported and have not been refuted. More than half the meetings with private individuals that can be factually established were with donors to the Clinton Foundation. If you have evidence that is not the case then present it, and I will retract that statement.
Aren’t foreign donations to campaign funds illegal?
If so, and now showing she mixes what happens with the Foundation with her role as SoS, would anyone be surprised if those money were being channeled from the Foundation to her campaign fund?
Yes, AFAIK. And that is (as you probably know) my point. She/they reached a whole nuther level of TriPolar’s hell noes.
PS. The money doesn’t even need to be channeled. At all. If FOREIGN contributions are hella illegal…then FOREIGN influence are ALSO hella conflict of interest/wrong.
Actually I can ask the same from the AP, there is no direct link to the list they used. good grief. :rolleyes:
Unless the AP makes the point that the WP does not have the full list I have to go with logic. The AP would had a beef if they had not been confronted with what they missed and they did agree that they missed items in their report, but they stand by the original report even if the WP is correct, once again that is because they also did not claim that what Clinton did was anything illegal or improper. Only that it is kinda gross, but as others pointed out that is what is going all for everyone, and Trump also gave money to the foundation.
And I did indeed restated the point, it is clear that you do not want to deal with it so the red herrings you have will do.
I agree. But your statement is based on a misinterpretation of the AP article, which itself got the facts wrong. It is not true that 50% of big Clinton Foundation donors met with Secretary Clinton, nor is it true that 50% of her meetings were with Clinton donors.
I love it when people put conditions on elected officials and their spouses which they would find unconstitutional if applying the same conditions towards private jobs.
" Hillary’s husband has left his job! She must now retire because he was elected to the Presidency! She doesn’t need a career of her own"
( this has nothing to do with the foundation but it seems where the conversation is going)
What an odd post. What do you mean by “in your own words”? It’s not enough for me to cite to you the article you’re supposedly relying on, or to post a link to the article debunking it? I need to paraphrase them for you?
You want us to believe that the mere fact that she took meetings with wealthy philanthropists is a scandal, then the onus is on you to show that this is something more than recreational outrage.
Speaking of onus - the onus is on you to explain why the Clinton Foundation is a problem for you but the Donald J. Trump Foundation is not. Donald’s Foundation straight up bilks charities for money:
At least the Clinton Foundation is actually helping people by providing AIDS medicine and other things. All of Donald’s kids have dodgy Foundations too. Eric claims that his dad donates money to his (Eric’s) Foundation, but they both refuse to back it up.
At it’s not just the Clinton Foundation. The Bushes have the Carlyle Group, that was connected to the Bin Laden family prior to 9/11. As I said elsewhere recently - think about that and then think about the Bush admin helping the Saudis to flee the US on 9/14.
I know - you say you hate all Foundations. The onus is on you to explain why the Clinton Foundation gets your ire but the Trump Foundation doesn’t.
Finally - the title of this thread is “Clinton Charity quid pro quo”.
And yet - you have not supplied any evidence of a quid pro quo. Yes, some of her donors got meetings. Who cares? That’s called “networking”. People are doing it all around the world just as we speak.
If you want to allege that there was something more than run of the mill networking going on - the onus is on you to poly up the cites.
So - cite that Hillary Clinton did anything more than have tea and say, “thanks for the donation!”.
There’s no interpretation at work here. Your statement was very clear, and so was the AP’s.
Your statement was “Fifty percent (give or take) of people (that donated big assed amounts of money IMO) got a meeting.” The AP’s statement was “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.”
But, in fact, we do not know either the overall number of big Clinton Foundation donors nor the overall number of meetings. And we have every reason to suspect that both numbers are quite a bit larger than 85 and 154, respectively.
Everyone from the president on down has meetings with donors and non-donors alike. It is the rare politician who does not feel obligated to meet with a generous donor, including such nasty characters as NRA officials and oil company executives. To single out Clinton for this is hubris in the extreme.
They’re not even donors to her! They were giving money to fight HIV, and the like.
We should be so blessed that politicians grant access to people who give millions to fight diseases. I think it would still be an issue, but they haven’t even established that that happened yet.