• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Clinton foundation email release

Guurn

Senior member
Dec 29, 2012
319
30
91
"The Clinton Foundation swore off donations from foreign governments when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. That didn’t stop the foundation from raising millions of dollars from foreigners with connections to their home governments, a review of foundation disclosures shows. Some donors have direct ties to foreign governments. One is a member of the Saudi royal family. Another is a Ukrainian oligarch and former parliamentarian. Others are individuals with close connections to foreign governments that stem from their business activities." For those with a WSJ subscription.

This appears to be very bad assuming there is a criminal investigation going on...oh wait, there is.

One tidbit "Then-Senator Clinton helped shape the work of the Clinton foundation AND then recruited donors from the foundation as donors and bundlers for her presidential campaign…"

This should show who actually cares about crime and corruption and who is covering their ears and yelling lalalla.
 

Guurn

Senior member
Dec 29, 2012
319
30
91
Same thing with no paywall.

What it seems to be is the DNC compiled research on all of HRC's ethical problems to prepare for a possible attack, and instead had that research released to the public without any possible defense.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
"Ties to foreign governments".... Is that like Saddam's links to Al Qaeda?
 

Guurn

Senior member
Dec 29, 2012
319
30
91
"Ties to foreign governments".... Is that like Saddam's links to Al Qaeda?

Funny you bring this up. It clearly shows that she accepted "donations" directly from Saudi during her time as SoS, while she just so happened to also be approving weapons for them, and should be kept out of the oval office. What it will do; probably nothing. Her supporters do not care what she's done.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Funny you bring this up. It clearly shows that she accepted "donations" directly from Saudi during her time as SoS, while she just so happened to also be approving weapons for them, and should be kept out of the oval office. What it will do; probably nothing. Her supporters do not care what she's done.
Unfortunately, the alternative is a Trump who on multiple occasions, made bribesdonations to attorney generals just before investigations of him for fraud were dropped.
(/this post made to demonstrate to certain P&N posters what they look like when they attempt to divert a thread to discussing things the other candidate did wrong.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,984
55,389
136
Funny you bring this up. It clearly shows that she accepted "donations" directly from Saudi during her time as SoS, while she just so happened to also be approving weapons for them, and should be kept out of the oval office. What it will do; probably nothing. Her supporters do not care what she's done.

Can you quote the specific parts of the document that you are referring to?
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
Funny you bring this up. It clearly shows that she accepted "donations" directly from Saudi during her time as SoS, while she just so happened to also be approving weapons for them, and should be kept out of the oval office. What it will do; probably nothing. Her supporters do not care what she's done.
Hillary supporters are like, "if she can get away with it, then it is perfectly fine by them."
 

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
Unfortunately, the alternative is a person who on multiple occasions, made bribesdonations to attorney generals just before investigations of him for fraud were dropped.
Would you like a person who buys influence or somebody who sells it as president?
 

Guurn

Senior member
Dec 29, 2012
319
30
91
Can you quote the specific parts of the document that you are referring to?

Did you read the first link? It mentions it in the second paragraph. I'll try to get more specific info later after some disc golf.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,984
55,389
136
Did you read the first link? It mentions it in the second paragraph. I'll try to get more specific info later after some disc golf.

I did, and the article does not say what you claimed. It says the foundation accepted donations from a member of the Saudi royal family, of which more than 10,000 people are a direct part of, most of whom have little to nothing to do with the Saudi government.

Again, if you want to look at the source yourself and look up exactly what you're trying to accuse her of I'd be happy to talk it over further. It seems like you've made a bunch of unsupportable statements.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Guccifer 2.0, another member of the vast right wing conspiracy after poor Hillary who is but a mere victim.

This is going to be the best presidential election of my lifetime! More historic firsts! The first female candidate and the first candidate under investigation by the FBI!
 

Artdeco

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,682
1
0
Hillary could shoot Trump on live TV and still be elected in an orange prison jumpsuit.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Funny you bring this up. It clearly shows that she accepted "donations" directly from Saudi during her time as SoS, while she just so happened to also be approving weapons for them, and should be kept out of the oval office. What it will do; probably nothing. Her supporters do not care what she's done.
The Clinton Family Foundation came clean months ago after investigations showed that they did not stop soliciting and accepting tens of millions in donations from foreign governments, corporations and powerful individuals. They revised their filings for her entire tenure as SecState to go from zero to tens of millions in such donations. (Note: This was purely a mistake, they caught it themselves, and they independently changed it. Hillary's promise to stop taking such funds actually meant to not stop taking such funds, and the investigation revealing that the foundation had not stopped taking such funds had nothing to do with this purely spontaneous orgy of refiling; it was purely coincidental. They all had drunk a lot of iced tea that day and were urinating when that story ran, so they didn't even see it.)

Obviously when President Obama demanded that she avoid "even the appearance" of corruption he meant ONLY the appearance of corruption, 'cause he's fine with it too.

As far as keeping her out of the Oval Office, that would be more compelling if the alternative was not Trump. (Or Cruz, or Rubio . . .)

Hillary could shoot Trump on live TV and still be elected in an orange prison jumpsuit.
Well . . . At least she would have finally done something "for the people."

Well she would color match Trump's corpse then.
lol +1

Orange is the new dead.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,112
930
126
The foundation got hacked.... Shit hits the fan will the media report it???
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...ment-leaked-after-foundation-says-it-was-hack

How much more evidence do we need that the Clintons are dirty rats and she has no business being POTUS? The fact that she even has a chance at being elected points to a larger problem....the low ethics bar that Americans are willing to accept. We are to blame for people like her and Trump as the two choices for Pres.

Not enough people give a damn about our country anymore. :(
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136