Which is another name for The Family.
Attacking the source is cheap and intended to assuage those who want to believe. Schweizer is not the lone source and other media outlets have followed up on his allegations.
I’m guessing the next talking point will be “we did nothing illegal so there’s nothing to see here!” as if skating the line of bribery but not crossing it is okay.
The next talking point will probably be “what actual evidence is there that Clinton or the foundation broke the law?”. It’s my question too.
Very amused to see the same people who were utterly convinced that publishing an open letter disagreeing with the President’s Iran policy is “treason” because “only the President may make foreign policy” asking where the violation of the law is in selling Russia policy to the highest bidder.
In less dramatic areas, filing a false tax return is a crime that will get a normal person prosecuted. Hillary is very used to ignoring laws, so she just gets to skip past that and argue about the particulars of the uranium deal.
Already explained. Pointing out the lack of supporting evidence is defending against an attack. If the attack continues nonetheless, as this one has it is personal. Capisce?
Acting legally is generally thought to be a *good *thing, yes. :rolleyes:
Please proceed.
Breaking the law goes way past fitness for office. If she did break the law, we wouldn’t even be debating whether she should be President. We’d be debating if she’d fare better than Martha Stewart did in prison.
The standard for rejecting a candidate falls well short of lawbreaking. We expect more from our candidates than merely not breaking the law.
“We”? You do too? Really wanna go there, do ya?
So what evidence exists that Hillary Clinton has behaved unethically or unsuitably in this regard? It better me more than something like “she hasn’t responded to questions about the scandal”.
She broke her agreement with the President that the Clinton Foundation would not take foreign donations. THe companies that donated wanted something, and got it. Proving quid pro quo, not easy, but she has no right to run for office, so we don’t have to prove quid pro quo. If we could, she’d be in cuffs right now.
Cite this – the agreement she made with the President and that the Clinton Foundation took foreign donations with her knowledge.
Cite what they wanted, and cite what they got.
Boy, you sure lawyer things. It’s THEIR foundation. Have they punished anyone? Then they are accountable.
And please stop playing dumb. Don’t accuse me of laziness when you fail to come into this thread with even the most basic facts, gleaned from stories that people a lot less informed than you all over the country have read or heard reporting on:
Boy, you sure make a lot of uncited assertions. And when you do cite, they often don’t support your point.
This probably sounded like it made a point in your mind, but I can’t tell what these sentences and rhetorical unanswered question are supposed to say together.
I’ve read the article, and it doesn’t say that the Clinton donation took foreign donations with her knowledge, and it doesn’t say that the companies “wanted something, and got it”. It cites events that may or may not be related to each other but provides no evidence that they are related. It’s high-level JAQing off.
True, it does not say that the foundation took foreign donations with her knowledge, however, she is accountable for it regardless. Especially since there’s no evidence anyone was punished. No one has yet been punished for the foundation’s reporting screwups that Reuters found either.
But you’re wrong that companies didn’t get what they wanted:
Now maybe you don’t have a problem with the fact that the Clintons got rich primarily because companies that wanted to make powerful friends gave them money. I suspect a majority of voters will be a little more leery of a couple that made their money that way. And as we saw with Romney, how one makes their money can be a pretty big deal. This looks much worse than what Romney did. The Clintons actually would be nearly dead broke if they hadn’t been able to leverage their influence into a heck of a lot of cash.
More importantly, here’s why I said the Clinton campaign thinks you’re stupid:
The Clinton campaign, rather than answering the allegations, wants to make this all about Schweizer. It’s their standard playbook. But as the NY Times points out, they did their own digging. I wondered earlier why the Times would take a book by a right-wing author seriously. That would be because they did their own checking and found that there is actually something there.
By trying to make this about the author, they are playing the voters for fools.
That’s a non-existent piece of evidence. Whether or not they throw someone under the bus tells us nothing about whether there was actual wrongdoing. Organizations that did something wrong often “punish” someone to deflect blame, and organizations that did nothing wrong (or did nothing wrong beyond honest mistakes) often don’t punish anyone publicly because no one (in the instance) deserves to be publicly chastised.
Your quote doesn’t have anything to say about this. “Big company has business success” and “big company donated to Clinton Foundation” tell us nothing that we don’t already know about what the company wants. It’s trivial to say that a company wants business success – if you think they wanted something specific, and got that something, than provide a cite.
Are you saying the Clinton’s built their personal wealth from companies’ donations, or their foundation got a lot of money? Those are awfully different assertions.
They are doing standard scandal-response. You can’t read minds. Stop trying to dig out what Democrats are thinking – you’re terrible at it.
Are any of their assertions about Schweizer false? Has Schweizer actually provided support for the link between Hillary as SoS and this deal? What is the actual evidence, including some sort of semblance of a link, for wrongdoing?
The foundation continued to take foreign donations. Someone messed up, or it was done intentionally. The media will still be digging, so we’ll find out more soon enough.
They wanted approval to make the deal. A committee Mrs. Clinton sat on had the power to nix it.
Their wealth was built primarily from Bill Clinton’s speaking fees, which often coincided with foundation donations. As in the Uranium One case, where he earned $500,000 to give a speech. I’m sure they just wanted to hear his thoughts, experienced businessman and investor that he was.
Schweizer is a right-wing author. It is true that his book does not prove illegality. Those facts are not nearly as relevant as the NY Times, Washington Post, and Reuters’ reporting, which the Clinton campaign has so far refused to address.
They came out of their bunker just long enough for an ad hominem, then retreated back in again. They won’t be able to actually campaign for President forever that way.
Huh? Media outlets and book-flogging writers with no evidence don’t campaign for President.
I was referring to the Clinton campaign, which has been hiding on the issue other than to attack the author.
I’m trying to help you identify just who has facts on their side and who is making baseless, insinuating personal attacks. You’re more than a bit unclear on those points.
The problem with Bill Clinton being paid $500,000 for a speaking engagement in the former USSR (was that cash by the way) has been resolved.
Win one lose one:http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.528460