Is Corruption OK if Money is Donated to Charity?

[Anonymous]

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.)

[Anonymous]

Worked for Robin Hood.

[Anonymous]

And the money Trump got by not paying his contractors the agreed-upon amount for their work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the money Trump got by not paying his contractors the agreed-upon amount for their work?

That wasn't the question. And besides - we are talking about public corruption.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

A lot of the money donated to Clinton Foundation goes to exorbitant salaries and travel expenses.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Here is another "Many people say" bullshit allegation. Nobody said what the OP says they said.

[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.

OP here - and thank you. I'm hearing so much blind defense of her that it's nice to know that some Hillary supporters do not find corruption acceptable. (If of course she did this.)

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Obviously yes, as it happens all the time, every day and no one is willing to take a stand and stop it.

[Anonymous]

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.)

Alinsky 8 and 13. But, again, refer to 7.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of the money donated to Clinton Foundation goes to exorbitant salaries and travel expenses.

It's another way they pay back people for favors. They have quite the scam going.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

The Clintons are attorneys, what did you expect?