Crime Live now: Whistleblowers on #ClintonFoundation operating as an agent of foreign governments...

[splendica]

How, precisely, did Hillary Clinton relax US foreign aid restrictions on Morocco 3 years after she stopped being Secretary of State? She only served as SOS from 2009-2013.

Good catch, she was the "former" SOS, then Democrat Nominee for the presidency.

 

[Staph infection]

How many murders have the Clintons been convicted of exactly?

No one else wants to end up on the list. They have a lot of friends and associates that have had unfortunate plane mishaps and heart attacks.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Do you believe the Clinton's are clean because Trump picked the AG and FBI director?

Sigh, the argument was that the Clinton's will not be legitimately investigated, and my point was that there is nobody in the justice department who is protecting them.

 

[grizzard2bid]

All y'all can talk crap about Madame President, but she and Bill knew how to cover their tracks properly. That was a capable woman.

And where she couldn't cover the tracks, she had connections set up to cover it for her. That's called foresight.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Sigh, the argument was that the Clinton's will not be legitimately investigated, and my point was that there is nobody in the justice department who is protecting them.

And the opposing point is that they should be. Only partisans who point to Trump picking the AG thinks otherwise.

 

[cooks1]

Good catch, she was the "former" SOS, then Democrat Nominee for the presidency.

Correct. And she had resigned from the Board of the Clinton foundation in April of 2015. Almost a year earlier. So at the time of this donation, she neither worked for the Government or the Clinton Foundation.

So while this is not an example of Hillary doing anything wrong in any way, it is a very good example of the issue of money and politics. And the buying of influence. The whole 'Foundation' thing, which is becoming an increasingly popular idea, is just Bad Ju-Ju.

Leaving Hillary out of it for the moment, what precisely was the King of Morocco hoping for when he gave 28 million to the Clinton Foundation? And even if Hillary was not on the foundation at the time, that is just a horrible optic.

Ironically, HRC would probably have had a lot more explaining to do if she had won the election.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

And the opposing point is that they should be. Only partisans who point to Trump picking the AG thinks otherwise.

You don't even have a clear argument, let alone support for your argument. You have a US Attorney, John Huber, appointed to investigate the Clinton Foundation and "all things Clinton" 1 year ago, if he were to find something actionable, who is there to protect the Clintons? In fact you have people leading the justice department who have at least an ideological, if not personal, enmity for the Clintons.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Correct. And she had resigned from the Board of the Clinton foundation in April of 2015. Almost a year earlier. So at the time of this donation, she neither worked for the Government or the Clinton Foundation.

So while this is not an example of Hillary doing anything wrong in any way, it is a very good example of the issue of money and politics. And the buying of influence. The whole 'Foundation' thing, which is becoming an increasingly popular idea, is just Bad Ju-Ju.

Leaving Hillary out of it for the moment, what precisely was the King of Morocco hoping for when he gave 28 million to the Clinton Foundation? And even if Hillary was not on the foundation at the time, that is just a horrible, optic.

Ironically, HRC would probably have had a lot more explaining to do if she had won the election.

Resigning from the foundation to run for public office, which is makes sense.

Expanding on your question, I'd ask why the foundation would even accept such donations from direct foreign entities instead of redirecting them to other charities which have no connection whatsoever to the possibility of pay for play.

Innocent or not, Clinton(s) shown that a lot of decisions were definite what were you thinking moments (private servers, large speaking fees to your husband from uranium one while you're SoS, and huge donations from odd sources to the foundation) Each on their own can be rationalized as benign by her supporters but I would have to say, there's a a lot obvious wtf conflict of interest moments there

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I love that the premise of the thread is "Let's attribute Trump's misdeeds to others, that'll show em!"

Tired of winning

 

[cooks1]

Resigning from the foundation to run for public office, which is makes sense.

Expanding on your question, I'd ask why the foundation would even accept such donations from direct foreign entities instead of redirecting them to other charities which have no connection whatsoever to the possibility of pay for play.

Innocent or not, Clinton(s) shown that a lot of decisions were definite what were you thinking moments (private servers, large speaking fees to your husband from uranium one while you're SoS, and huge donations from odd sources to the foundation) Each on their own can be rationalized as benign by her supporters but I would have to say, there's a a lot obvious wtf conflict of interest moments there

Agreed. But here is the difference between HRC and Trump. All of this financial information was disclosed. This was not information that was uncovered by a subpoena. It was disclosed.

I agree that if you wanted to run for President, accepting any Government funds was just an awful idea. But HRC and the Foundation disclosed the assets and HRC divested herself from it as best she could.

Trump however has neither divested himself nor has he disclosed. Those things are going to be coming out in the wash soon I think.

 

[splendica]

Correct. And she had resigned from the Board of the Clinton foundation in April of 2015. Almost a year earlier. So at the time of this donation, she neither worked for the Government or the Clinton Foundation.

So while this is not an example of Hillary doing anything wrong in any way, it is a very good example of the issue of money and politics. And the buying of influence. The whole 'Foundation' thing, which is becoming an increasingly popular idea, is just Bad Ju-Ju.

Leaving Hillary out of it for the moment, what precisely was the King of Morocco hoping for when he gave 28 million to the Clinton Foundation? And even if Hillary was not on the foundation at the time, that is just a horrible optic.

Ironically, HRC would probably have had a lot more explaining to do if she had won the election.

One could also argue that the plan was in place all along for her to be the Dem nomination. This is one of my contentions, particularly when you look at how she was given questions from CNN before to the primary debate against Sanders. Anyway.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Agreed. But here is the difference between HRC and Trump. All of this financial information was disclosed. This was not information that was uncovered by a subpoena. It was disclosed.

I agree that if you wanted to run for President, accepting any Government funds was just an awful idea. But HRC and the Foundation disclosed the assets and HRC divested herself from it as best she could.

Trump however has neither divested himself nor has he disclosed. Those things are going to be coming out in the wash soon I think.

I obviously agree that trump is overtly egregious in his duplicities, I am just pointing out that there is a lot of WTH moments with Hilary as you pointed out.

 

[cooks1]

I obviously agree that trump is overtly egregious in his duplicities, I am just pointing out that there is a lot of WTH moments with Hilary as you pointed out.

Oh Yeah, plenty of them. I get that. What I don't get is why anyone gives a shit. She's not President. She is not running for President. She is not holding a Government position. The amount of menstruation going on over a woman that did not get elected just baffles me.

 

[TheComebackKid]

You don't even have a clear argument, let alone support for your argument. You have a US Attorney, John Huber, appointed to investigate the Clinton Foundation and "all things Clinton" 1 year ago, if he were to find something actionable, who is there to protect the Clintons? In fact you have people leading the justice department who have at least an ideological, if not personal, enmity for the Clintons.

Do the things you've listed here lead you to believe the Clinton's are clean?

Also, it doesn't matter what investigations have been done on the Clinton's or whose cleared. We can all see their crimes for ourselves. Unlike the things Trump has been accused of we dnt have to wait for secret investigatons and secret evidence to see if they're guilty. And of course I'm not suggesting they be prosecuted for anything without due process.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Oh Yeah, plenty of them. I get that. What I don't get is why anyone gives a shit. She's not President. She is not running for President. She is not holding a Government position. The amount of menstruation going on over a woman that did not get elected just baffles me.

How many people outside political forums give a shit? I'd say the vast, vast majority of people do not care; small number of politics followers are interested and we live in a 24/7 media coverage cycle, they need to fill that time with something - mainly conservative outlets with her. I guess the main reason is fox news is using this as a "see, she potentially, possibly, someway/somehow could be bad, so this gives us justification in siding with someone who is obviously, definitely, overtly, egregiously is bad."

 

[Quipling]

Of course they are making money out of it, it's the first thing they stated, it's what they do. They are not whistleblowers as stated by the OP.

If the IRS slams down the hammer they will rack in 10%. They refused to turn over the documents because they believe that congress will not take it anywhere, that is why they turned it over to law-enforcement.

All this is clearly stated during the hearing.

This exchange below was the most dramatic one and tells quite a lot of the hearing in general. In case timestamp fails it's at 2:35:44 where Chairman begins.

Imo, even if the IRS does hammerdrop, they're going to have a rough time getting much out of them. Relators are usually only entitled to a cut if the info isn't public record or they're an original source of something that is. Most of the docs these guys are relying on were apparently publicly disclosed. The only dangerous allegation is from the CFO, but that's not dispositive (even if it was, that might entitle him to recover, but not them).

 

[badascan]

I demand justice but only for as long as I can remain undistracted by some meaningless and inaccurate yellow journalism...

 

[cooks1]

How many people outside political forums give a shit? I'd say the vast, vast majority of people do not care; small number of politics followers are interested and we live in a 24/7 media coverage cycle, they need to fill that time with something - mainly conservative outlets with her. I guess the main reason is fox news is using this as a "see, she potentially, possibly, someway/somehow could be bad, so this gives us justification in siding with someone who is obviously, definitely, overtly, egregiously is bad."

Well.......Congress is still holding hearings and meetings on the shit 2 years later. I mean at this point it's like digging up Billy Batts in Goodfellas.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Well.......Congress is still holding hearings and meetings on the shit 2 years later. I mean at this point it's like digging up Billy Batts in Goodfellas.

Aren't they obligated to? Not sure how the ball gets rolling on that

 

[lifelessheap]

I'm just waiting for the "BUT HER EMAILS!" chants to start. I'm surprised I haven't read one in this entire thread.

Do we need to hammer out the details about her emails...?