New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Hillary Clinton Ethics Update

Zam-Zam

Zam-Zam

Senator
Pay for play:

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton's help with a visa problem; and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm's corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa.


Complete text: https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state-183315225--election.html


Hillary apologists, get busy.
 
Take a June 23, 2009, email from Doug Band to Huma Abedin. In his email Mr. Band noted that the Crown Prince of Bahrain (a “good friend of ours”) was asking to see Mrs. Clinton. There are, of course, many ways to be a “good friend,” but one sure way would be to contribute between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, as the kingdom of Bahrain had done. Not to mention that the prince had also spent $32 million on a scholarship launched through the Clinton Global Initiative.


Ms. Abedin responded that the prince had sought a meeting through “normal” channels but had been shot down. Less than 48 hours after Mr. Band had asked her, Ms. Abedin reported that “we have reached out through official channels.” The meeting was on.


It isn’t the only favor Mr. Band requested. A month earlier, he had emailed Ms. Abedin to ask her help in getting an English soccer player a visa to the U.S. The player was supposed to come to Las Vegas for a team celebration, but he needed a special interview with the visa section at the American Embassy in London due to a “criminal charge” against him.


Because of this, the office of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) had refused to intervene. Mr. Band’s email made clear the request was on behalf of Casey Wasserman, a sports and entertainment exec who had contributed between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation via the Wasserman Foundation.


These are only two of the many email exchanges in which Ms. Abedin was asked to intervene on behalf of some Clinton Foundation donor. These latest emails fit the same pattern as another batch released earlier this month, which showed Mr. Band asking Ms. Abedin and longtime Clinton aide Cheryl Mills for a meeting with a U.S. ambassador on behalf of a foreign businessman, as well as seeking a job for someone he described as “important to take care of.”


Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton sums it up this way: “It looks like the State Department was outsourcing its work to the Clinton Foundation.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-and-bill-clinton-inc-1471908017

The Clintons are the Bernie Madoff of influence peddling...
 
Lukey said:
Take a June 23, 2009, email from Doug Band to Huma Abedin. In his email Mr. Band noted that the Crown Prince of Bahrain (a “good friend of ours”) was asking to see Mrs. Clinton. There are, of course, many ways to be a “good friend,” but one sure way would be to contribute between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation, as the kingdom of Bahrain had done. Not to mention that the prince had also spent $32 million on a scholarship launched through the Clinton Global Initiative.


Ms. Abedin responded that the prince had sought a meeting through “normal” channels but had been shot down. Less than 48 hours after Mr. Band had asked her, Ms. Abedin reported that “we have reached out through official channels.” The meeting was on.


It isn’t the only favor Mr. Band requested. A month earlier, he had emailed Ms. Abedin to ask her help in getting an English soccer player a visa to the U.S. The player was supposed to come to Las Vegas for a team celebration, but he needed a special interview with the visa section at the American Embassy in London due to a “criminal charge” against him.


Because of this, the office of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) had refused to intervene. Mr. Band’s email made clear the request was on behalf of Casey Wasserman, a sports and entertainment exec who had contributed between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation via the Wasserman Foundation.


These are only two of the many email exchanges in which Ms. Abedin was asked to intervene on behalf of some Clinton Foundation donor. These latest emails fit the same pattern as another batch released earlier this month, which showed Mr. Band asking Ms. Abedin and longtime Clinton aide Cheryl Mills for a meeting with a U.S. ambassador on behalf of a foreign businessman, as well as seeking a job for someone he described as “important to take care of.”


Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton sums it up this way: “It looks like the State Department was outsourcing its work to the Clinton Foundation.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-and-bill-clinton-inc-1471908017

The Clintons are the Bernie Madoff of influence peddling...
Click to expand...


The Clintons are just one scandal after another. "You Can't Prove A Thing!" must be part of the family crest.

clinton-crime-family.jpg
 
Update to the update: The Washington Post has weighed in on the AP "Pay to Play" story:

So, er, okay.


Let's stipulate two things here before I go any further:


1. Correlation is not causation.


2. Quid pro quos are very, very, very hard to prove.


But, COME ON, MAN. It is literally impossible to look at those two paragraphs and not raise your eyebrows. Half of all of the nongovernmental people Clinton either met with or spoke to on the phone during her four years at the State Department were donors to the Clinton Foundation! HALF.


And those 85 people donated $156 million, which, according to my calculator, breaks down to an average contribution just north of $1.8 million. (Yes, I know that not everyone gave the same amount.)


It just plain looks bad. Really bad.


Complete text: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ary-has-a-big-clinton-foundation-problem-too/

Indeed.
 
Zam-Zam said:
Pay for play:

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton's help with a visa problem; and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm's corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa.


Complete text: https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state-183315225--election.html


Hillary apologists, get busy.
Click to expand...

This is a bombshell, as evidenced by the paid DNC shills' complete silence.
 
Zam-Zam said:
Pay for play:

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton's help with a visa problem; and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm's corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa.


Complete text: https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state-183315225--election.html


Hillary apologists, get busy.
Click to expand...
Get busy on what? Is there any reason to think those donations influenced her in any way? We're not talking about payments to Clinton or to anyone close to her. We're talking about the people making a donation to charity. So what?
 
Arkady said:
Get busy on what? Is there any reason to think those donations influenced her in any way? We're not talking about payments to Clinton or to anyone close to her. We're talking about the people making a donation to charity. So what?
Click to expand...

Your employers would love for this to go away as quickly and easily as you're trying to make it go away, but that's not going to happen. Hillary Clinton sold access to the State Department through her foundation, and then she lied about it.
 
Zam-Zam said:
The Clintons are just one scandal after another.
Click to expand...
What you're detecting is the Republican "scandal mode" at work. Since they know they can't win the substantive policy debate, they instead try to make everything into a personal scandal. Obama war born in Kenya! He's secretly a Muslim! Whitewater! Filegate! Kerry faked his Vietnam medals! Gore had fundraising improprieties! Travelgate! Benghazi! The Clintons have been in the GOP's sights for a quarter century, so they've accumulated a bunch of these pseudo-scandals. But, as you know, a never-ending parade of intense investigations have yet to find even a single instance of illegal behavior by the Clintons. The Republicans have really only accomplished one thing with all that sound and fury, signifying nothing: they've convinced those reasonable people who were previously skeptical about the Clintons that they're actually remarkably clean. I seriously doubt most people, much less most politicians, could come through that kind of two-decades-plus omni-investigation without someone finding SOMETHING. You'd think they'd at least have found some tax evasion or something.
 
marvin martian said:
Your employers would love for this to go away as quickly and easily as you're trying to make it go away, but that's not going to happen. Hillary Clinton sold access to the State Department through her foundation, and then she lied about it.
Click to expand...
If you ever find any evidence to support that assertion, feel free to share it. If Clinton made a habit of conditioning access to the State Department on a donation, plenty of people would have been informed of those conditions. So, why has nobody come forward with evidence?
 
marvin martian said:
No matter how obvious it becomes, you'll never acknowledge it, because you're paid specifically not to.
Click to expand...
I have no idea whether you're paid to hurl shit at the Clintons, or if you're just a bored monkey who does it for fun. I'm inclined to think the latter, because your aim is so bad that I can't imagine someone shelling out money for your pathetic efforts. But, obviously, as unlikely as you are to be a paid shill, due to your stupidity, I'm less likely still, due to my demonstrated independence. I frequently criticize Hillary Clinton in very harsh terms here, so I'm very obviously not being paid by her. You, on the other hand, only take shots at Democratic targets and others disliked by the GOP.
 
Arkady said:
I have no idea whether you're paid to hurl shit at the Clintons, or if you're just a bored monkey who does it for fun. I'm inclined to think the latter, because your aim is so bad that I can't imagine someone shelling out money for your pathetic efforts. But, obviously, as unlikely as you are to be a paid shill, due to your stupidity, I'm less likely still, due to my demonstrated independence. I frequently criticize Hillary Clinton in very harsh terms here, so I'm very obviously not being paid by her. You, on the other hand, only take shots at Democratic targets and others disliked by the GOP.
Click to expand...


Did you let @Saladin2 type that one for you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top