Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ so all of that absolves Hillary?

We can only work with the evidence we have. This isn't about Trump, despite your efforts to make it so. If his e-mails/records/whatever are leaked (like his old taxes were, which was covered by the media), we'll discuss them then.

The allegations of wrongdoing that have come out of these leaks date back before the election even started. Clinton is in the pocket of many foreign governments, including several that she herself says support terrorist groups.

Receiving money from Saudi Arabia is not a per se bad thing. Sorry.

So what about accepting tens of millions of dollars from the Saudi king and overseeing massive arms deals to them as SoS while knowing (in her own words) that they were funding and supporting ISIS? That is a bad thing. Sorry.

Every American president has been involved with Saudis and sell arms to them. Remember bush was so friendly with the saudis even though all of the 9/11 perpetrators are saudi citizens and osama is a saudi himself. Guess who finally caught Osama, the same hillary and Obama you guys say are founders of ISIS.

Clinton foundation got many for charity from many people including saudi royalty. But the same Saudi royalty is not funding ISIS. Its like implicating all Americans as racists when few racist americans contribute money to KKK or Stormfront or other supremacists. What is common, because all are American citizens. Thats what you guys are saying. If some saudis are giving money to ISIS then all saudis are responsible for it.

lol please point to where I said Obama and Hillary "founded ISIS." Are you the same poster who tried to make this argument in the other thread about Wikileaks and voter fatigue? Again...the Saudi KING (aka, the head of the government) gave tens of millions to the Clinton Foundation. That King's government is who HILLARY herself says is funding ISIS and other radical terrorist groups.

Was Hillary willing to oversee the arms deals despite knowing they were going to a government who were also supporting ISIS because of the Saudi King's *quite* generous donation?

Saudi arms deals are approved by Obama, defense secretary , Pentagon and the entire american defense establishment. Did Clinton foundation share their donation with everyone of the defense establishment? Arms sales to Saudi has been happening for decades. So is Clinton foundation sharing money with Bush?

If Clinton, in her own words, knows that SA&Qatar governments are secretly funding ISIS/other radical terrorist groups, why did she oversee the arms deals as Secretary of State? Shouldnt she have, I don't know, said something? Or is that what the donations were for...

Do you have reading comprehension issues? Hilary was not president and she is not a dictator in America. Policy decisions are made by the establishment. So UNLESS YOU CLAIM THAT THE ENTIRE AMERICAN ESTABLISHMENT took money from clinton foundation, you have no case but just blusters and conspiracies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ so all of that absolves Hillary?

We can only work with the evidence we have. This isn't about Trump, despite your efforts to make it so. If his e-mails/records/whatever are leaked (like his old taxes were, which was covered by the media), we'll discuss them then.

The allegations of wrongdoing that have come out of these leaks date back before the election even started. Clinton is in the pocket of many foreign governments, including several that she herself says support terrorist groups.

It is about Trump, no matter how much you want to pretend it isn't. You have no proof that Hillary is in anyone's pocket; we have Trump in his own words inviting Russia to hack various emails, not to mention the debt he has in Russia. Inviting them to hack a fellow candidate may not rise to official "treason," but that is not presidential behavior. This is as much about Trump and his bad decisions as it is Hillary.

Just take a look at the Clinton Foundation's donors. Why do you think the King of Morocco gave CF $12m before seeing an increase in arms deals?

So Clinton foundation takes money, shares it with Obama, Defense secretary(who oversees arms sale), defense establishment, pentagon and others. So the entire American establishment gets paid by Clinton foundation for Arms sales to Morocco. That sounds very plausible if you are a person of limited intelligence who believes in conspiracy theories and rants of a con man.

Well, you're the one who came up with that quite elaborate theory, not me. I'm asking why foreign governments are so interested in donating massive sums of money to CF. Is it just out of the kindness of their hearts? The tax write-off?

So every foundation that receives money from any party does favors? Thats why foundation are there. But in trump's case his foundation exists so he can pay legal fees and buy portraits from other people's money. Get a grip. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Did it occur to you that Clinton foundation has top rating from neutral organizations? Did it occur to you that a former American president has relationships with many global leaders who donate to his foundation as a show of friendship to a very charming man. Did it occur to you Bush foundation also enjoys close relationship with Saudis and other leaders? Infact papa bush was partnering with Bill in many of the charity drives and fight against AIDS in Africa.

But these facts are irrelevant to an addled mind that sees conspiracies in everything that goes against its limited intelligence.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ so all of that absolves Hillary?

We can only work with the evidence we have. This isn't about Trump, despite your efforts to make it so. If his e-mails/records/whatever are leaked (like his old taxes were, which was covered by the media), we'll discuss them then.

The allegations of wrongdoing that have come out of these leaks date back before the election even started. Clinton is in the pocket of many foreign governments, including several that she herself says support terrorist groups.

Receiving money from Saudi Arabia is not a per se bad thing. Sorry.

So what about accepting tens of millions of dollars from the Saudi king and overseeing massive arms deals to them as SoS while knowing (in her own words) that they were funding and supporting ISIS? That is a bad thing. Sorry.

Every American president has been involved with Saudis and sell arms to them. Remember bush was so friendly with the saudis even though all of the 9/11 perpetrators are saudi citizens and osama is a saudi himself. Guess who finally caught Osama, the same hillary and Obama you guys say are founders of ISIS.

Clinton foundation got many for charity from many people including saudi royalty. But the same Saudi royalty is not funding ISIS. Its like implicating all Americans as racists when few racist americans contribute money to KKK or Stormfront or other supremacists. What is common, because all are American citizens. Thats what you guys are saying. If some saudis are giving money to ISIS then all saudis are responsible for it.

lol please point to where I said Obama and Hillary "founded ISIS." Are you the same poster who tried to make this argument in the other thread about Wikileaks and voter fatigue? Again...the Saudi KING (aka, the head of the government) gave tens of millions to the Clinton Foundation. That King's government is who HILLARY herself says is funding ISIS and other radical terrorist groups.

Was Hillary willing to oversee the arms deals despite knowing they were going to a government who were also supporting ISIS because of the Saudi King's *quite* generous donation?

Saudi arms deals are approved by Obama, defense secretary , Pentagon and the entire american defense establishment. Did Clinton foundation share their donation with everyone of the defense establishment? Arms sales to Saudi has been happening for decades. So is Clinton foundation sharing money with Bush?

If Clinton, in her own words, knows that SA&Qatar governments are secretly funding ISIS/other radical terrorist groups, why did she oversee the arms deals as Secretary of State? Shouldnt she have, I don't know, said something? Or is that what the donations were for...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ so all of that absolves Hillary?

We can only work with the evidence we have. This isn't about Trump, despite your efforts to make it so. If his e-mails/records/whatever are leaked (like his old taxes were, which was covered by the media), we'll discuss them then.

The allegations of wrongdoing that have come out of these leaks date back before the election even started. Clinton is in the pocket of many foreign governments, including several that she herself says support terrorist groups.

It is about Trump, no matter how much you want to pretend it isn't. You have no proof that Hillary is in anyone's pocket; we have Trump in his own words inviting Russia to hack various emails, not to mention the debt he has in Russia. Inviting them to hack a fellow candidate may not rise to official "treason," but that is not presidential behavior. This is as much about Trump and his bad decisions as it is Hillary.

Just take a look at the Clinton Foundation's donors. Why do you think the King of Morocco gave CF $12m before seeing an increase in arms deals?

So Clinton foundation takes money, shares it with Obama, Defense secretary(who oversees arms sale), defense establishment, pentagon and others. So the entire American establishment gets paid by Clinton foundation for Arms sales to Morocco. That sounds very plausible if you are a person of limited intelligence who believes in conspiracy theories and rants of a con man.

Well, you're the one who came up with that quite elaborate theory, not me. I'm asking why foreign governments are so interested in donating massive sums of money to CF. Is it just out of the kindness of their hearts? The tax write-off?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ so all of that absolves Hillary?

We can only work with the evidence we have. This isn't about Trump, despite your efforts to make it so. If his e-mails/records/whatever are leaked (like his old taxes were, which was covered by the media), we'll discuss them then.

The allegations of wrongdoing that have come out of these leaks date back before the election even started. Clinton is in the pocket of many foreign governments, including several that she herself says support terrorist groups.

Receiving money from Saudi Arabia is not a per se bad thing. Sorry.

So what about accepting tens of millions of dollars from the Saudi king and overseeing massive arms deals to them as SoS while knowing (in her own words) that they were funding and supporting ISIS? That is a bad thing. Sorry.

Every American president has been involved with Saudis and sell arms to them. Remember bush was so friendly with the saudis even though all of the 9/11 perpetrators are saudi citizens and osama is a saudi himself. Guess who finally caught Osama, the same hillary and Obama you guys say are founders of ISIS.

Clinton foundation got many for charity from many people including saudi royalty. But the same Saudi royalty is not funding ISIS. Its like implicating all Americans as racists when few racist americans contribute money to KKK or Stormfront or other supremacists. What is common, because all are American citizens. Thats what you guys are saying. If some saudis are giving money to ISIS then all saudis are responsible for it.

lol please point to where I said Obama and Hillary "founded ISIS." Are you the same poster who tried to make this argument in the other thread about Wikileaks and voter fatigue? Again...the Saudi KING (aka, the head of the government) gave tens of millions to the Clinton Foundation. That King's government is who HILLARY herself says is funding ISIS and other radical terrorist groups.

Was Hillary willing to oversee the arms deals despite knowing they were going to a government who were also supporting ISIS because of the Saudi King's *quite* generous donation?

Saudi arms deals are approved by Obama, defense secretary , Pentagon and the entire american defense establishment. Did Clinton foundation share their donation with everyone of the defense establishment? Arms sales to Saudi has been happening for decades. So is Clinton foundation sharing money with Bush?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ so all of that absolves Hillary?

We can only work with the evidence we have. This isn't about Trump, despite your efforts to make it so. If his e-mails/records/whatever are leaked (like his old taxes were, which was covered by the media), we'll discuss them then.

The allegations of wrongdoing that have come out of these leaks date back before the election even started. Clinton is in the pocket of many foreign governments, including several that she herself says support terrorist groups.

It is about Trump, no matter how much you want to pretend it isn't. You have no proof that Hillary is in anyone's pocket; we have Trump in his own words inviting Russia to hack various emails, not to mention the debt he has in Russia. Inviting them to hack a fellow candidate may not rise to official "treason," but that is not presidential behavior. This is as much about Trump and his bad decisions as it is Hillary.

Just take a look at the Clinton Foundation's donors. Why do you think the King of Morocco gave CF $12m before seeing an increase in arms deals?

So Clinton foundation takes money, shares it with Obama, Defense secretary(who oversees arms sale), defense establishment, pentagon and others. So the entire American establishment gets paid by Clinton foundation for Arms sales to Morocco. That sounds very plausible if you are a person of limited intelligence who believes in conspiracy theories and rants of a con man.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ so all of that absolves Hillary?

We can only work with the evidence we have. This isn't about Trump, despite your efforts to make it so. If his e-mails/records/whatever are leaked (like his old taxes were, which was covered by the media), we'll discuss them then.

The allegations of wrongdoing that have come out of these leaks date back before the election even started. Clinton is in the pocket of many foreign governments, including several that she herself says support terrorist groups.

It is about Trump, no matter how much you want to pretend it isn't. You have no proof that Hillary is in anyone's pocket; we have Trump in his own words inviting Russia to hack various emails, not to mention the debt he has in Russia. Inviting them to hack a fellow candidate may not rise to official "treason," but that is not presidential behavior. This is as much about Trump and his bad decisions as it is Hillary.

Just take a look at the Clinton Foundation's donors. Why do you think the King of Morocco gave CF $12m before seeing an increase in arms deals?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ so all of that absolves Hillary?

We can only work with the evidence we have. This isn't about Trump, despite your efforts to make it so. If his e-mails/records/whatever are leaked (like his old taxes were, which was covered by the media), we'll discuss them then.

The allegations of wrongdoing that have come out of these leaks date back before the election even started. Clinton is in the pocket of many foreign governments, including several that she herself says support terrorist groups.

Receiving money from Saudi Arabia is not a per se bad thing. Sorry.

Receiving money from Saudi Arabia and in the mean time writing they are "providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL" is a very bad thing. Was that treasonous?

Anonymous wrote:^^ so all of that absolves Hillary?

We can only work with the evidence we have. This isn't about Trump, despite your efforts to make it so. If his e-mails/records/whatever are leaked (like his old taxes were, which was covered by the media), we'll discuss them then.

The allegations of wrongdoing that have come out of these leaks date back before the election even started. Clinton is in the pocket of many foreign governments, including several that she herself says support terrorist groups.

It is about Trump, no matter how much you want to pretend it isn't. You have no proof that Hillary is in anyone's pocket; we have Trump in his own words inviting Russia to hack various emails, not to mention the debt he has in Russia. Inviting them to hack a fellow candidate may not rise to official "treason," but that is not presidential behavior. This is as much about Trump and his bad decisions as it is Hillary.