Clinton Foundation and Morocco - A genuine "Pay for Play" smoking gun?

[PeteB]

Among the thousands of Wikileaks emails that were posted yesterday, these represent a potential smoking gun.  Anyone who believes that Clinton participated in "pay for play" will probably look no further.  Personally, I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt but the Trump campaign will probably have a field day with this.

The article below goes into some detail but, in summary, Hillary Clinton solicited a $12 million donation for the Clinton Foundation, from the government of Morocco, that her State Department considered corrupt.  King Mohammed VI of Morocco agreed to give the money to the Clinton Foundation, provided that it hold a convention in his country in May 2015 with Clinton as the keynote speaker.  In the end, Hillary sent Bill and Chelsea to the convention, as she had already started her campaign, but the emails to Robbie Mook and John Podesta (“Just to give you some context, the condition upon which the Moroccans agreed to host the meeting was her participation. If hrc was not part if it, meeting was a non-starter,”) from Huma Abedin (who also writes "She created this mess and she knows it.”) are telling.

http://nypost.com/2016/10/21/huma-on-hillarys-12m-morocco-fiasco-she-created-this-mess-and-she-knows-it/

[BundouYMB]

Do you even know what the phrase "pay to play" means? There's no "play" here. They held a convention in Morocco. Who the  cares?

[Speed of Sound]

Foundation holds event to raise money, disagrees with donor on terms of donation. More breaking news at 11.

[Gass3268]

Polling has shown that other than ardent Trump supporters, no one cares about WikiLeaks or the Clinton Foundation. It's a non issue.

[Fusionmunster]

When you post these type of articles, could you not use a tabloid pretending to be a newspaper as a source. 

[PeteB]

Partisan defence is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't quite cut it.  This may have been just a convention in a "moderate" Arab country, and a US ally, but it is also the first time that we see correspondence with specific promises of favors being made, in exchange for cash (assuming Wikileaks is correct, and Podesta has not denied any of this). 

The predictable GOP line of attack should be quite obvious - what else has Clinton agreed to, that would potentially put her in a conflict of interest position, when she is POTUS.  Just like Trump's taxes, without info, people will be guessing and making their own suppositions.  For anyone who thinks this is just tabloid stuff or that it will go away, here is the same story on CBS and ABC:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hacked-emails-show-clinton-pushed-for-charity-meeting-in-morocco/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/hacked-emails-clinton-pushed-charity-meeting-morocco-42947113

The reason I am giving her the benefit of the doubt is simple - she left State in early 2013 and this was done on her own time, as a private citizen (albeit a potential future candidate ).  Once she realized that she would be giving the speech, that is tied to the CF donation, one month after announcing her candidacy, she backed out.  IMHO she did the right thing, realizing her mistake.  She may have already won the election, but imho she should just deal with the issue and show that she chose the right course of action, rather than avoiding the issue and letting her opponents fill in the gaps. 

[KingSweden]

If she was not SOS at this time I don't see the issue

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

If she was not SOS at this time I don't see the issue

Precisely.

[Gass3268]

If she was not SOS at this time I don't see the issue

Precisely.

Wait, she wasn't SOS at the time? Then who cares?

[Erich Maria Remarque]

Polling has shown that other than ardent Trump supporters, no one cares about WikiLeaks or the Clinton Foundation. It's a non issue.

Ehm, what?

Polling has shown that if not for Trump's scandals WikiLeaks/Emails would have killed Hillary's chances.

[Blair]

people seem to think the Clinton Foundation isn't a charity

[ag]

On a schedule of 0 to 10 this is a 0.0001. Somewhere together with revelations that she, occasionally, sleeps.

[Lyin' Steve]

It gets worse, I heard one time she herself agreed to donate several thousand dollars to charity on the condition that she be allowed to attend some dinner with a bunch of Catholic 1%-ers where speakers roast each other.  Even more damning, a bunch of people agreed to donate millions of dollars, collectively, to hear her give a speech!  #PayForPlay #MostCorruptCandidateEver #ReleaseTheAlSmithDinnerTranscripts #FollowTheMoney

[HagridOfTheDeep]

wtf

It's the bullshyt like this that people always try to tarnish her with that makes me like her even more. She's been withstanding this type of baseless, nonsensical trash for decades.

[PeteB]

Not unexpected, although he couldn't even get the facts straight :

...Trump unleashed a new line, saying Clinton "tried to get 12 million (dollars) from the king of Morocco for an appearance. More pay to play."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-it-s-full-steam-ahead-final-stretch-campaign-n670866

[JerryArkansas]

Wow you are stupid if you think this was pay to play.  Get out of here until you have something.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

If she was not SOS at this time I don't see the issue

Precisely.

Wait, she wasn't SOS at the time? Then who cares?

[Person Man]

It gets worse, I heard one time she herself agreed to donate several thousand dollars to charity on the condition that she be allowed to attend some dinner with a bunch of Catholic 1%-ers where speakers roast each other.  Even more damning, a bunch of people agreed to donate millions of dollars, collectively, to hear her give a speech!  #PayForPlay #MostCorruptCandidateEver #ReleaseTheAlSmithDinnerTranscripts #FollowTheMoney

I wish Trump would stump against this...

[ProudModerate2]

If she was not SOS at this time I don't see the issue

Precisely.

Wait, she wasn't SOS at the time? Then who cares?

"BZZZZZZZZ !" (Buzzer sounds very loud.)
FAIL !
trump and his supporters attempts to gain traction using "damn emails," fails again !
Try again tomorrow.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Taking Algeria off the terror watch list for a Clinton Foundation donation is another:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-hillary-took-algeria-off-terror-watch-list-donation-clinton-foundation/

[PeteB]

Wow you are stupid if you think this was pay to play.  Get out of here until you have something.

Before you degenerate to adolescent name calling, please read my posts carefully.

And, if for some reason you still do not like them, either reply with facts and arguments or refrain from shooting the messanger, just because you may not like the message.

[JerryArkansas]

Wow you are stupid if you think this was pay to play.  Get out of here until you have something.

Before you degenerate to adolescent name calling, please read my posts carefully.

And, if for some reason you still do not like them, either reply with facts and arguments or refrain from shooting the messanger, just because you may not like the message.

You are calling this pay to play, when it is in fact nothing of the sort.  I read your posts.  I just find no value in what you have posted.

[Person Man]

Should this just be merged into the wikileaks thread that we already have?

[HisGrace]

Do you even know what the phrase "pay to play" means? There's no "play" here. They held a convention in Morocco. Who the  cares?

Doesn't it just mean paying for access? In which case this would fit the bill. But I've never had a problem with public figures making people pay for access so this is no big deal to me.

[PeteB]

Wow you are stupid if you think this was pay to play.  Get out of here until you have something.

Before you degenerate to adolescent name calling, please read my posts carefully.

And, if for some reason you still do not like them, either reply with facts and arguments or refrain from shooting the messanger, just because you may not like the message.

You are calling this pay to play, when it is in fact nothing of the sort.  I read your posts.  I just find no value in what you have posted.

Once more, read my posts carefully. Not everything is black or white; shades of gray usually predominate. You will then see that:

1. I was careful to put "pay for play" in brackets and a question mark, indicating that this a legitimate issue, but not necessarily a "scandal".

2. I clearly indicated that because Clinton was a private citizen, at the time she procured the money from the Moroccan King, and she then cancelled her appearance, because by then she was running for President, she acted correctly and legally.

3. Last but not least, I said that she should NOT be sweeping this under the rug but addressing it now, before it does become an electoral issue. If she won't address it, others will - have a look at the WSJ video below:

http://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-journal-hillary-clintons-morocco-mess/192D1791-0D79-4C4B-AB3F-545F2AF2EF0E.html