Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by yaxomoxay, Nov 4, 2016.
Qatar is one of the countries that also got clearance from Hillary's State Department for arms deals, despite also being singled out for human rights abuses (by the same department).
First sale: the State Department.
Up next: the White House.
Keep Crooked Out.
Impeach the witch.
I'd expect Qatar to be sold weapons regardless so...
I'd just like to say by the way this article reads, it sounds like the U.S. Govt essentially gave Hillary the benefit of the doubt to self assess and report the CF charitable contributions with zero oversight. Funny how like 5 years later people are just starting to review these donations? Wouldn't you expect the Federal Govt to monitor this in the first place?
While the Clinton foundation has done lots of great work I'm sure, it's interesting how the article states "The foundation has declined to describe what sort of increase in funding by a foreign government would have triggered notification of the State Department for review. Cookstra said the agreement was designed to "allow foreign funding for critical Clinton Foundation programs" to continue without disruption." suggesting no clear definition of what a donation increase looks like. Also "funding critical programs" makes it sound like the Clinton Foundation is the only charity on earth that does what they do.
Anyone see anything wrong with our government's way of handling this conflict of interest in the first place? Or maybe the people reviewing the conflict of interests are a conflict of interest themselves. Idk...
It looks like the issue is she didn't report it to the State Department, in violation of the agreement reached when she became Secretary of State...and that she declined to confirm it as recently as last month. The fact it's a $1 million gift isn't really unusual.
Finish the thought.
So it's ok that she violated her ethics agreement?
Exactly how many free passes are you willing to give this woman?
Look my honest opinion of the whole thing is that the Clinton foundation shouldn't have accepted any donations from foreign governments while she was secretary of state. I also certainly agree that it is highly unethical for her to accept donations and not appropriately declare them.
On the other hand I'm sure Qatar would have been sold weapons anyway so...
Look my personal belief is that Clintons have a very serious issue with appearance of ethics, and there are plenty of real scandals to discuss. So why make a mountain out of a molehill by pretending these donations were bribes?
It might be helpful to step back from this discussion for just a moment and consider what was really going on here.
The Government of Qatar had given large sums to the Clinton Foundation in the past. And the 2012 announcement was in no way significantly different to its prior contributions. Was it "materially" different to the contributions it had made in 2005 or 2001, at a time when Hillary Clinton was not US Secretary of State? I think you'd have a hard time arguing that it was.
But, big picture, so what? Qatar made these contributions because it wished to improve its international prestige. By giving to the Clinton Foundation, an organization with a reputation for using the personal international appeal of Bill Clinton to raise large amounts of money that were used, by all accounts, highly effectively in tackling a wide variety of international problems.
This wasn't money that flowed into Hillary Clinton's personal bank accounts. It certainly wasn't used to buy large portraits of Bill and Hillary Clinton. It wasn't used to settle lawsuits filed against the Clintons.
The Clinton Foundation was set up to use the immense international personal prestige and respect that Bill Clinton had created during his time as President. That despite Monica Lewinsky and Whitewater, hundreds of millions of people around the world best remembered Bill Clinton as being behind the Good Friday accords. Behind the Dayton agreement that brought peace to former Yugoslavia.
Did Hillary Clinton benefit from being associated with the Clinton Foundation? Probably, yes. But only in the sense that it increased her personal prestige on the international stage. And I struggle mightily to understand why the prospect of having a US President who is widely admired and respected around the world is somehow considered to be a bad thing.
Appearance of ethics issues? They are starting to make Bernie Madoff look like Santa.
Sorry for the delay in responding, but I was laughing so hard after reading this I needed time to recompose myself.
Are you really that out of touch? Hillary commodified the State Department, accepting "donations" from anti-woman, anti-gay nations in exchange for US govt favors. And in the OP's one example: Qatar gave Bill a million dollar check for his birthday (!) and suddenly the US opened up weapons sales to Qatar by 1400 per cent. Hello? If that doesn't raise any eyebrows with people, then those people should really start questioning their own ethics.
As I've posted elsewhere, the Foundation may have done some good here and there, but it also enriched Bill and Hill with lavish expense accounts and travel in addition to political access to them. Anyone who believes otherwise is either delusional or intentionally sticking their fingers in their ears and singing la-la-la. It's a malodorous sewer over there.
Hillary defined "Pay to Play" and should be in jail. Plain and simple.
I don't see how this is "cool" but Trump's wife's immigration issues (whatever they are) is a big deal. That's insane. I care a lot more about the US selling weapons to oppressive countries than I do some circus side-show about immigration in a country that has ****ed up immigration stuff going on all the time.
I just don't understand.
Kindly state the Federal or State law you believe Hillary Clinton has violated with your assertions of "pay for play". Links to specifics actions on the part of Secretary Clinton as well as applicable Federal Statutes would be helpful.
I won't wait up.
Political corruption ends her. Then she can face the perjury charges over the emails. It's not that complex. Bye now.
Meh. The law doesn't always reflect what's moral. Maybe she didn't break any laws (like people avoiding paying taxes or something through legal loopholes) but it's still immoral. Defending her is disgusting and small-minded.
Libs will do anything to defend her corruption. It's shocking really.
Well, partisans on both sides do this, to be fair. It just makes me sad when people have become so blinded by partisanship.
This is really an extreme case of it. The Trump **** reached a point where I simply can't vote for him. For libs to sit there and continue to support this criminal Hillary, and some go so far as to try and justify it, is really beyond my comprehension. These people are scum and have no moral ground to stand on.
OK. Fine. I agree with you. The law doesn't always reflect what is moral.
So please explain to me why raising money to make HIV medications affordable to millions of people is immoral.
On the surface it isn't. But if that money comes from bad people, and it enables them to then do things like buy arms, or get political access that is not otherwise attainable, I think it's immoral.
How about when starting a new thread, you step up to the plate and express an opinion about this?
How you go about raising that money matters. You may think it doesn't, but it does.
These people seem to confuse TCF for TTF. The pay to play accusation reveals ignorance or simply politically convienent accusations to win an election. There have been no favors revealed by anyone that Hillary as SOS gave in return for a donation to her foundation, have there?