As opposed to 45’s Wash.DC hotel which kinda violates the emoluments clause in the Constitution? Or family members trading influence on their names with overseas clients? Or not putting your business interests in a blind trust?
For Pete’s sake, Mr. Santis. Your constant fake news denigration of Hillary (who testified for 11 hours without taking the fifth) is what gave us “president” skunk Trump.
I supported Bernie Sanders in the primary, but I STOOD WITH BERNIE in strongly supporting Hillary in the November general election as the only viable alternative to the Trump tyranny that we are now witnessing. The false equivalence of trying to equate a competent but flawed moderate with a pathological, tyrannical reactionary is why our nation is in the dire situation we face today.
I definitely have my issues with Hillary Clinton and I have no illusions about her representing seriously PROgressive ideological views or about her problematic corporate and Wall $treet connections, though much of the negativity about Hillary was from Russian trolls who took kernels of fact, exaggerated them and added outright lies that far too many gullible PROgressives suckered for in voting for Jill Stein, Putin’s alternative for PROgressives he knew he couldn’t get to vote for Trump.
Yeah, a true bold reformer would be preferable to a moderate or even a traditional liberal (and wouldn’t have blown an easy win against a crooked con man scam artist), but in the November general election, that was not the option, and at least a traditional liberal who is actually competent and actually knows how to run the government, would not be blowing up the EPA, education, health care, civil rights, women’s rights, international relations, the Supreme Court and possibly the world.
That’s odd; that’s what I keep wanting to say to people who persist in treating Trump as if he were serious about anything but himself: “Have you not met???”
Poor Scott. They turn on you like rabid dogs. A couple days flying high and overnight you are chopped liver.
The Clintons held and exercised substantial political power from the time Bill left office up to almost the present day. It was obvious to all the world that Hillary was being groomed as the inevitable candidate in 2008. And it was a surprise to much of the world when she lost the primary.
However, with her elevation to Sec State, the world remained confident that she would indeed run for and win the office of POTUS in 2016. The Clintons still had both current power and the almost inevitable promise of even greater future power.
It was in this environment that the Clinton Foundation flourished and grew, reaping hundreds of millions in donations from all over the world. From private, corporate and foreign government sponsors. Almost $2 BILLION in contributions.
Setting aside all the debates about legality, distribution of funds and the other alleged irregularities, we are still left with one undeniable fact.
When Hillary lost the election in November 2016, it became apparent that the political power of the Clintons was essentially broken and stripped away. Vestiges remain, but the long era of Clinton domination of the Democrat party ended on that night.
As did the flow of money to the Foundation. Donations dried up almost overnight. The wealthy and powerful simply stopped the money flow, overnight.
The fact you cannot escape is the direct correlation between the level of power held by the Clintons and the level of donations to the Foundation.
The power is gone, and the money flow has stopped. While it has to be proved in a court of law, it is undeniable that the donors believed they were buying influence. Political, legal, regulatory influence.
If they truly believed only in the “good works” of the Foundation, the donation flow would have continued unabated.
OK, so having a foundation is just a sneaky way to get rich? Do y’all put The Carter Center in that category? Just wonderin’. Maybe things like eradicating guinea worm disease or building homes for people aren’t charitable?
Cheapskate0 over 6 years ago
Three out of five wasn’t bad. But the last two days have been…
Darsan54 Premium Member over 6 years ago
As opposed to 45’s Wash.DC hotel which kinda violates the emoluments clause in the Constitution? Or family members trading influence on their names with overseas clients? Or not putting your business interests in a blind trust?
DD Wiz over 6 years ago
For Pete’s sake, Mr. Santis. Your constant fake news denigration of Hillary (who testified for 11 hours without taking the fifth) is what gave us “president” skunk Trump.
I supported Bernie Sanders in the primary, but I STOOD WITH BERNIE in strongly supporting Hillary in the November general election as the only viable alternative to the Trump tyranny that we are now witnessing. The false equivalence of trying to equate a competent but flawed moderate with a pathological, tyrannical reactionary is why our nation is in the dire situation we face today.
I definitely have my issues with Hillary Clinton and I have no illusions about her representing seriously PROgressive ideological views or about her problematic corporate and Wall $treet connections, though much of the negativity about Hillary was from Russian trolls who took kernels of fact, exaggerated them and added outright lies that far too many gullible PROgressives suckered for in voting for Jill Stein, Putin’s alternative for PROgressives he knew he couldn’t get to vote for Trump.
Yeah, a true bold reformer would be preferable to a moderate or even a traditional liberal (and wouldn’t have blown an easy win against a crooked con man scam artist), but in the November general election, that was not the option, and at least a traditional liberal who is actually competent and actually knows how to run the government, would not be blowing up the EPA, education, health care, civil rights, women’s rights, international relations, the Supreme Court and possibly the world.
Ignatz Premium Member over 6 years ago
Charity Navigator gave the Clinton foundation an A rating, and found that more than 80% of the funds went into program.
Trump used Trump Foundation funds to buy a giant picture of himself. (If Hillary had done that, the outraged coverage would have been 24/7.)
Then the Trump Foundation was ordered to cease and desist in New York State, because they never properly registered as a charity at all.
dogday Premium Member over 6 years ago
That’s odd; that’s what I keep wanting to say to people who persist in treating Trump as if he were serious about anything but himself: “Have you not met???”
Andylit Premium Member over 6 years ago
Poor Scott. They turn on you like rabid dogs. A couple days flying high and overnight you are chopped liver.
The Clintons held and exercised substantial political power from the time Bill left office up to almost the present day. It was obvious to all the world that Hillary was being groomed as the inevitable candidate in 2008. And it was a surprise to much of the world when she lost the primary.
However, with her elevation to Sec State, the world remained confident that she would indeed run for and win the office of POTUS in 2016. The Clintons still had both current power and the almost inevitable promise of even greater future power.
It was in this environment that the Clinton Foundation flourished and grew, reaping hundreds of millions in donations from all over the world. From private, corporate and foreign government sponsors. Almost $2 BILLION in contributions.
Setting aside all the debates about legality, distribution of funds and the other alleged irregularities, we are still left with one undeniable fact.
When Hillary lost the election in November 2016, it became apparent that the political power of the Clintons was essentially broken and stripped away. Vestiges remain, but the long era of Clinton domination of the Democrat party ended on that night.
As did the flow of money to the Foundation. Donations dried up almost overnight. The wealthy and powerful simply stopped the money flow, overnight.
The fact you cannot escape is the direct correlation between the level of power held by the Clintons and the level of donations to the Foundation.
The power is gone, and the money flow has stopped. While it has to be proved in a court of law, it is undeniable that the donors believed they were buying influence. Political, legal, regulatory influence.
If they truly believed only in the “good works” of the Foundation, the donation flow would have continued unabated.
martens over 6 years ago
OK, so having a foundation is just a sneaky way to get rich? Do y’all put The Carter Center in that category? Just wonderin’. Maybe things like eradicating guinea worm disease or building homes for people aren’t charitable?
martens over 6 years ago
BTW, Charity Navigator site about Clinton Foundation:
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm