Is Corruption OK if Money is Donated to Charity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence of the corruption you're suggesting.

Sure this is, but the DOJ squashed the investigation. The FBI wanted to pursue it.

No, the FBI was required to investigate and the DOJ refused to pursue, because there was nothing to pursue.

Puh....lease. The DOJ is in bed with the Clintons, and that's why they they squashed the investigation.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/fbi-wanted-doj-probe-clinton-foundation-doj-refused-report-article-1.2747593

[Anonymous]

Many people say that Clinton Derangement Syndrome can be treated with ECT. Many people. That's what I'm hearing everywhere I go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many people say that Clinton Derangement Syndrome can be treated with ECT. Many people. That's what I'm hearing everywhere I go.

LOL. You're funny!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence of the corruption you're suggesting.

Sure this is, but the DOJ squashed the investigation. The FBI wanted to pursue it.

No, the FBI was required to investigate and the DOJ refused to pursue, because there was nothing to pursue.

Puh....lease. The DOJ is in bed with the Clintons, and that's why they they squashed the investigation.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/fbi-wanted-doj-probe-clinton-foundation-doj-refused-report-article-1.2747593

Oooookay. The Clintons are corrupt and control everything, along with the liberal media. If that's your answer to everything, why do you even bother? Arguing all day on Internet forums isn't going to help anything. Go take a walk or hug your dog or something.

[Anonymous]

So, I've read the emails that are described as "influence peddling" and I struggle to understand how a forum based on DC and presumably mostly made up of folks living in DC can have so many people who don't understand that's just how things work.

This guy knows that guy, and this person's on our board and recommends this kid for an internship, or that person for a job. Have you never needed to deal with political realities, if you think this is some sort of giant scandal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence of the corruption you're suggesting.

Sure this is, but the DOJ squashed the investigation. The FBI wanted to pursue it.

No, the FBI was required to investigate and the DOJ refused to pursue, because there was nothing to pursue.

Puh....lease. The DOJ is in bed with the Clintons, and that's why they they squashed the investigation.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/fbi-wanted-doj-probe-clinton-foundation-doj-refused-report-article-1.2747593

Oooookay. The Clintons are corrupt and control everything, along with the liberal media. If that's your answer to everything, why do you even bother? Arguing all day on Internet forums isn't going to help anything. Go take a walk or hug your dog or something.

You seem to think there's only one poster arguing the point. There seem to be several.

And I don't have a dog. But I do have a cat. Hey....that could be a other poll. Liberals prefer dogs, and conservatives like cats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence of the corruption you're suggesting.

Sure this is, but the DOJ squashed the investigation. The FBI wanted to pursue it.

No, the FBI was required to investigate and the DOJ refused to pursue, because there was nothing to pursue.

That's not what the FBI thinks. They're going to NY now and asking the AG there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, I've read the emails that are described as "influence peddling" and I struggle to understand how a forum based on DC and presumably mostly made up of folks living in DC can have so many people who don't understand that's just how things work.

This guy knows that guy, and this person's on our board and recommends this kid for an internship, or that person for a job. Have you never needed to deal with political realities, if you think this is some sort of giant scandal?

No. It's not a big scandal. But that's a big part of the problem. It should be a huge scandal and those who participate, left, right or anywhere else, should be tarred and feathered. Then flayed. If this is an ok state of affairs for you, then you are a big part of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence of the corruption you're suggesting.

Sure this is, but the DOJ squashed the investigation. The FBI wanted to pursue it.

No, the FBI was required to investigate and the DOJ refused to pursue, because there was nothing to pursue.

Puh....lease. The DOJ is in bed with the Clintons, and that's why they they squashed the investigation.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/fbi-wanted-doj-probe-clinton-foundation-doj-refused-report-article-1.2747593

Oooookay. The Clintons are corrupt and control everything, along with the liberal media. If that's your answer to everything, why do you even bother? Arguing all day on Internet forums isn't going to help anything. Go take a walk or hug your dog or something.

You seem to think there's only one poster arguing the point. There seem to be several.

And I don't have a dog. But I do have a cat. Hey....that could be a other poll. Liberals prefer dogs, and conservatives like cats.

And everyone knows cats suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence of the corruption you're suggesting.

Sure this is, but the DOJ squashed the investigation. The FBI wanted to pursue it.

No, the FBI was required to investigate and the DOJ refused to pursue, because there was nothing to pursue.

Puh....lease. The DOJ is in bed with the Clintons, and that's why they they squashed the investigation.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/fbi-wanted-doj-probe-clinton-foundation-doj-refused-report-article-1.2747593

Do you get a significant discount by buying tin foil in bulk?

[Anonymous]

No. There isn't even a question

[Anonymous]

I am not very convinced by this "evidence of corruption". Like here's one example:

A CNN investigation found that Clinton aide Cheryl Mills was involved in the Clinton Foudnation while she was also employed as Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State.

That sounds nefarious. What actually happened?

On a trip to New York in 2012, Mills interviewed two executives for a top position at the Clinton foundation. The State Department said she was on personal time. Mills' attorney says she was, doing "volunteer work for a charitable foundation. She was not paid."

So big deal.

Are all the allegations this miniscule? If she's done something criminal -- what is it?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/hillary-clinton-state-department-clinton-foundation/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence of the corruption you're suggesting.

Sure this is, but the DOJ squashed the investigation. The FBI wanted to pursue it.

No, the FBI was required to investigate and the DOJ refused to pursue, because there was nothing to pursue.

Puh....lease. The DOJ is in bed with the Clintons, and that's why they they squashed the investigation.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/fbi-wanted-doj-probe-clinton-foundation-doj-refused-report-article-1.2747593

Oooookay. The Clintons are corrupt and control everything, along with the liberal media. If that's your answer to everything, why do you even bother? Arguing all day on Internet forums isn't going to help anything. Go take a walk or hug your dog or something.

You seem to think there's only one poster arguing the point. There seem to be several.

And I don't have a dog. But I do have a cat. Hey....that could be a other poll. Liberals prefer dogs, and conservatives like cats.

And everyone knows cats suck.

Are you a liberal who doesn't like cats? I'm guessing yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've heard people say that even if Hillary did use her influence at the State Department (making favorable decisions for foreign governments, etc.) in exchange for Foundation contributions, it's OK because the money she got in return went to charity. (Forget about Bill's astronomical speaking fees for a minute.) Some people have said, but....only 10% of the CF money goes to charity, so it's wrong. Others have said, no....the CF donates in other ways that Charity Navigator can't analyze, but they definitely are a good charity. But whatever. Let's say that the Clinton Foundation does give the vast majority away for charitable purposes. Does that make Hillary's influence peddling legal - or even acceptable?

To bring it down to a more commonplace level, let's say that I am working in the government and awarding contracts to a certain provider, and he in exchange makes a million dollar donation to the charity of my choosing. I pick ASPCA. That's a great charity. Now, I might have cost the taxpayers unnecessary money by choosing a less-qualified provider, but.....ASPCA is getting the a great donation. So, it's sort of stealing....but for a good cause.

But t's still corruption. (And if I personally profited from the payoffs, it's racketeering.)

If she did this she should be prosecuted. It's illegal. Signed- Clinton Supporter.

+1 (Another Clinton supporter....who works for the feds)

[Anonymous]

Ugh. Of course corruption isn't ok. But there needs to be proof of corruption before people start frothing at the mouth.

- Supporter of neither, just tired of the pettiness