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.
Anonymous wrote:A lot of the money donated to Clinton Foundation goes to exorbitant salaries and travel expenses.
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.)
Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence of the corruption you're suggesting.
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.
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.)
Anonymous wrote:And the money Trump got by not paying his contractors the agreed-upon amount for their work?