MANY DONORS TO CLINTON FOUNDATION MET WITH HER AT STATE

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This should be posted on all of your threads.

Clinton supporters after every Clinton "scandal"

Yes. And I wonder why?

On issue, donors might have asked for stuff, very few actually met with her, and no one got anything.

[psychprofessor]

I just don't get the fascination with emails and the foundation, etc...

Not one email or correspondence indicates that she solicited for donations to the foundation. Further, there is no evidence that any person donated to the foundation for favors at the state dept.

From all accounts, Republicans and Democrats praised the work of the foundation, including Mitt Romney.

This story is misleading because it wants you to infer by Hillary meeting with people who donated to the foundation, that there was some favors exchanged at the state dept - which isn't the case - at least not presented in this article or any of the emails reviewed by the FBI and Justice Dept.

[Seriously?]

I just don't get the fascination with emails and the foundation, etc...

Not one email or correspondence indicates that she solicited for donations to the foundation. Further, there is no evidence that any person donated to the foundation for favors at the state dept.

From all accounts, Republicans and Democrats praised the work of the foundation, including Mitt Romney.

This story is misleading because it wants you to infer by Hillary meeting with people who donated to the foundation, that there was some favors exchanged at the state dept - which isn't the case - at least not presented in this article or any of the emails reviewed by the FBI and Justice Dept.

I don't think it's misleading at all. If a corruption case were ever to be proven against Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, you'd need to begin with an analysis like this, where you see all of the folks that got extraordinary treatment after donating.

Right now, there are 85 instances out of 154 where donors got access. That's a extraordinary number, especially when Obama was trying to set up a wall between State and the Foundation and Hillary made assurances that a wall would exist.

The next steps for any investigators would be twofold: 1) see what tangible results the people that donated to the Clinton Foundation received (e.g. favors from State); and 2) discern what the payment was either to the Clinton Foundation or Bill Clinton (via paid speeches) in return.

If it happened once, it's not a big deal.
If it happened a few times, it may be a coincidence, but you really have start thinking about whether things were on the up and up.
If it happened repeatedly, it's evidence of corruption. As such charges should be brought.

[ProudModerate2]

I just don't get the fascination with emails and the foundation, etc...

Not one email or correspondence indicates that she solicited for donations to the foundation. Further, there is no evidence that any person donated to the foundation for favors at the state dept.

From all accounts, Republicans and Democrats praised the work of the foundation, including Mitt Romney.

This story is misleading because it wants you to infer by Hillary meeting with people who donated to the foundation, that there was some favors exchanged at the state dept - which isn't the case - at least not presented in this article or any of the emails reviewed by the FBI and Justice Dept.

Completely agree.
Unless there is proof of some kind of illegal activity (quid pro quo, etc) it doesn't really matter if they "MET WITH HER AT STATE" or if they met and talked over the divider wall between two toilet stalls at a nearby park.

[Seriously?]

I just don't get the fascination with emails and the foundation, etc...

Not one email or correspondence indicates that she solicited for donations to the foundation. Further, there is no evidence that any person donated to the foundation for favors at the state dept.

From all accounts, Republicans and Democrats praised the work of the foundation, including Mitt Romney.

This story is misleading because it wants you to infer by Hillary meeting with people who donated to the foundation, that there was some favors exchanged at the state dept - which isn't the case - at least not presented in this article or any of the emails reviewed by the FBI and Justice Dept.

Completely agree.
Unless there is proof of some kind of illegal activity (quid pro quo, etc) it doesn't really matter if they "MET WITH HER AT STATE" or if they met and talked over the divider wall between two toilet stalls at a nearby park.

There is ample evidence of a quid pro quo between Hillary as SoS and the Clinton Foundation/Bill Clinton in the book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer. More likely than not, it's the tip of the iceberg of what went on between the Clintons, their Foundation and private donors.

[psychprofessor]

I just don't get the fascination with emails and the foundation, etc...

Not one email or correspondence indicates that she solicited for donations to the foundation. Further, there is no evidence that any person donated to the foundation for favors at the state dept.

From all accounts, Republicans and Democrats praised the work of the foundation, including Mitt Romney.

This story is misleading because it wants you to infer by Hillary meeting with people who donated to the foundation, that there was some favors exchanged at the state dept - which isn't the case - at least not presented in this article or any of the emails reviewed by the FBI and Justice Dept.

I don't think it's misleading at all. If a corruption case were ever to be proven against Hillary and the Clinton Foundation, you'd need to begin with an analysis like this, where you see all of the folks that got extraordinary treatment after donating.

Right now, there are 85 instances out of 154 where donors got access. That's a extraordinary number, especially when Obama was trying to set up a wall between State and the Foundation and Hillary made assurances that a wall would exist.

The next steps for any investigators would be twofold: 1) see what tangible results the people that donated to the Clinton Foundation received (e.g. favors from State); and 2) discern what the payment was either to the Clinton Foundation or Bill Clinton (via paid speeches) in return.

If it happened once, it's not a big deal.
If it happened a few times, it may be a coincidence, but you really have start thinking about whether things were on the up and up.
If it happened repeatedly, it's evidence of corruption. As such charges should be brought.

I can agree with this - but it wasn't unknown that Hillary would be meeting with people as SOS who also donated to the foundation. Thus far, however, there has been no evidence of Hillary specifically meeting with people as SOS to solicit money for the foundation nor has there been evidence that people who donated were granted favors at the State Dept.

There was that one email from last week that asked Huma Abedin about a possible opening at the State Dept but supposedly it didn't reach Hillary and nothing happened for that person.

If you want my honest opinion, I just don't think Hillary is corrupt. I mean, she had thousands of emails released, thousands more reviewed by the Justice Dept and FBI and the big issue was that three of them contained classified info in the body - however, they weren't marked classified in the header. To me, 3 out of over 30,000 doesn't seem careless or reckless, it just seems like human error.

You can try and understand the motives for the privater server - which I don't agree with, but it wasn't illegal.

Colin Powell deleted ALL of this emails. Same for Condi Rice. However, the focus is never ending on what Clinton did and didn't do. The double standard applied to her versus everyone else astounds me sometimes.

[psychprofessor]

I just don't get the fascination with emails and the foundation, etc...

Not one email or correspondence indicates that she solicited for donations to the foundation. Further, there is no evidence that any person donated to the foundation for favors at the state dept.

From all accounts, Republicans and Democrats praised the work of the foundation, including Mitt Romney.

This story is misleading because it wants you to infer by Hillary meeting with people who donated to the foundation, that there was some favors exchanged at the state dept - which isn't the case - at least not presented in this article or any of the emails reviewed by the FBI and Justice Dept.

Completely agree.
Unless there is proof of some kind of illegal activity (quid pro quo, etc) it doesn't really matter if they "MET WITH HER AT STATE" or if they met and talked over the divider wall between two toilet stalls at a nearby park.

There is ample evidence of a quid pro quo between Hillary as SoS and the Clinton Foundation/Bill Clinton in the book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer. More likely than not, it's the tip of the iceberg of what went on between the Clintons, their Foundation and private donors.

I actually think there is more evidence that Trump paid off Pam Bondi in Florida to dismiss the fraud case against Trump U than there is in anything that has been released thus far with Clinton. But that doesn't mean I don't thinks something corrupt could have occurred - it just means that so far, what tax information and public documents that foundation has released coupled with her emails so far, nothing seems fishy to me. Not yet, anyways.

[ProudModerate2]

I just don't get the fascination with emails and the foundation, etc...

Not one email or correspondence indicates that she solicited for donations to the foundation. Further, there is no evidence that any person donated to the foundation for favors at the state dept.

From all accounts, Republicans and Democrats praised the work of the foundation, including Mitt Romney.

This story is misleading because it wants you to infer by Hillary meeting with people who donated to the foundation, that there was some favors exchanged at the state dept - which isn't the case - at least not presented in this article or any of the emails reviewed by the FBI and Justice Dept.

Completely agree.
Unless there is proof of some kind of illegal activity (quid pro quo, etc) it doesn't really matter if they "MET WITH HER AT STATE" or if they met and talked over the divider wall between two toilet stalls at a nearby park.

There is ample evidence of a quid pro quo between Hillary as SoS and the Clinton Foundation/Bill Clinton in the book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer. More likely than not, it's the tip of the iceberg of what went on between the Clintons, their Foundation and private donors.

"There is ample evidence ...."
" ... in the book Clinton Cash by Peter Schwiezer."
"More likely than not, it's the tip of the iceberg ...."
In conclusion .... Seriously started yet another junk thread.

[Doimper]

Reddit, of all places, debunked this nicely:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So yeah, this is another case of Seriously grasping at straws.

[Seriously?]

So yeah, this is another case of Seriously grasping at straws.

I am grasping at nothing. This is a report by the Associated Press, for crying out loud. Ignore it at your peril.

[ProudModerate2]

Reddit, of all places, debunked this nicely:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So yeah, this is another case of Seriously grasping at straws.

LOL !
Of course .... if its coming from Seriously, take it with a grain-of-salt.
Love it ... thanks for posting this.

PS: I looks like you double posted the entire reading in your quote. I fixed it here, to just include the story once, but you might want to correct it (use the modify button) in your original post.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The media's desperate need for a tight race makes them behave like a junkie in search for his next shot.

[ProudModerate2]

So yeah, this is another case of Seriously grasping at straws.

I am grasping at nothing. This is a report by the Associated Press, for crying out loud. Ignore it at your peril.

Sorry Mr Seriously ....
It's just Another Junk Thread ..... again!

[Lyin' Steve]

Posting this in all caps definitely crosses a line.

Stop trashing up the forum.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It doesn't look good, but that is likely just about all it is, something benign that doesn't look good.

That's the remarkable thing with Hillary, though. She seems completely incapable of understanding how her decisions and actions will be perceived by others, and thus we end up with crap like this. I can just see her saying, "oh no, this is fine. they are just donating to charity. it won't really matter", and that is assuming she even thought of it at all. I wonder if Bill or any of her aides ever brought up how bad some of the things she decided to do will look. How can they not have seen this? It doesn't matter if none of those donations were bribes. Perception is too important, especially when she knows she is going to run for freakin president again.

Maybe Breitbart-level conservatives are right, she does have a brain disease - one that, sometime in college or after, completely ate away at the part of her brain that allows her to understand how others might perceive something she wants to do.

When Bill left office, the Clintons were not far removed from having a negative net worth.  Today, they're worth $111 million.  What, besides influence, do they have to sell?

Hint:  America, including pro-Clinton America, has figured this out.

[Virginiá]

When Bill left office, the Clintons were not far removed from having a negative net worth.  Today, they're worth $111 million.  What, besides influence, do they have to sell?

Hint:  America, including pro-Clinton America, has figured this out.

So they sold hundreds of millions of dollars in influence of government affairs? Surely there is indisputable proof of this.

[Beet]

They made $153 million on speaking fees.

[Trapsy]

LOL @ THIS FOUNDATION STORY.

[IceSpear]

THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOUT AT US.

[IceSpear]

The media's desperate need for a tight race makes them behave like a junkie in search for his next shot.

Yep. The media needs their horse race. Anybody that thought they were going to let Hillary glide to the finish line unscathed is very naive.

That said, she does benefit since even though they want a horse race, they also want her to win. Against Rubio or Kasich, she would not have had that luxury. So thanks again GOP.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Per the AP. More than 1/2 of the donors to the Clinton Foundation met with Hillary Clinton when she was SoS, which according to the news organization is "extraordinary proportion."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_CLINTON_FOUNDATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-08-23-14-35-04

Note: Caps are from AP article title. Not mine.

I think it's funny that your paraphrase is hilariously wrong. You say that more than half of the donors to the Clinton Foundation met with Clinton. That is insanely, mind-numbingly wrong. What it says is almost exactly the opposite: that more than half of (a subset of) people who met with Clinton donated to the Foundation.

[whanztastic]

If you think that Clinton only met with 154 non-government people during her time as SoS, you need to really work on your critical thinking skills.