NY Times Breaking: AG Lynch solicited & Clinton Foundation paid donation during Hillary probe

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Robisan, Sep 4, 2016.

  1. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #1
    Oh, wait. It was the Attorney General Bondi of Florida soliciting and the Trump Foundation paying the donation just four days after the AG started an investigation of Trump University, which she dropped after getting the donation.

    And what is broken is the New York Times, which has never published a word about it:

    [​IMG]

    H/T and more from Josh Marshall @TPM:

    Yesterday I pressed the point of the wildly dissimilar campaign coverage of Trump and Clinton, particularly the continuing saturation coverage of Clinton 'scandals' in which she's actually being exonerated and virtually no coverage of a pretty cut and dry pay-for-play story with Trump, his foundation and his efforts to protect himself legally from the fallout of the exposure of his real estate seminar scam business, 'Trump University'. But the case with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi is more serious than that. We usually use the phrase 'pay-to-play' when talking about money for access, money for government contracts or friendly interventions in the legislative process. The Trump-Bondi case looks like money in exchange for killing an investigation and possible lawsuit against Trump. It would be like Hillary Clinton making a cash payment to Loretta Lynch or James Comey during the email probe.

    First, a small point: In the context of chatting about this on Twitter and with colleagues, I took the step of searching The New York Times website to see how much they'd written on the Trump-Bondi story. It first got attention in March and then again in June. So I figured at least a couple short mentions. It turns out the Times, at least according to a full search of "Trump University" and "Pam Bondi", has literally never published anything on the topic at all.

    That seems like a real problem.

    But let's go to the actual story. The Post's David Fahrenthold late last week came up with substantially more information about Trump's efforts to conceal the money to Bondi. But I want to go back to what's actually been known for months.

    Here's the AP's story from early June. I'm quoting the first four paragraphs with emphasis added ...

    Florida's attorney general personally solicited a political contribution from Donald Trump around the same time her office deliberated joining an investigation of alleged fraud at Trump University and its affiliates.

    The new disclosure from Attorney General Pam Bondi's spokesman to The Associated Press on Monday provides additional details around the unusual circumstances of Trump's $25,000 donation to Bondi.

    The money came from a Trump family foundation in apparent violation of rules surrounding political activities by charities. A political group backing Bondi's re-election, called And Justice for All, reported receiving the check Sept. 17, 2013 — four days after Bondi's office publicly announced she was considering joining a New York state probe of Trump University's activities, according to a 2013 report in the Orlando Sentinel.

    After the check came in, Bondi's office nixed suing Trump, citing insufficient grounds to proceed.​


    One can only imagine the full-on feeding frenzy at the Times, the Beltway press and here if my thread headline was actually true. Yet there it is with Trump - Bondi and *crickets.*

    Clearly the New York Times has earned and deserves a Clinton press conference...:rolleyes:
     
  2. Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #2
    Based on the currently available information we can't say for sure it's corrupt. But the publicly available information would normally be more than enough to trigger an investigation or at least intense press scrutiny.


    TPM is Hill-bot central, go to their home page and scan the stories. Almost all Trump-related/bashing, few pro-Hillary/defending. Story on Fox News’ Ailes. Hill-bot central.
     
  3. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #3
    Facts don't matter, just what you want to believe. An appearance of impropriety by Clinton, she's immediately called corrupt. That same appearance of impropriety is discovered for Trump, we don't have enough information to say for sure he's corrupt. The level of dishonestly among Trump supporters is mind-boggling.
     
  4. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #4
    Investigate it then.

    1) Is there a record of Trump donating to these positions in the past, invalidating these claims that it was a one time pay for play?

    2) It says that Trump was solicited, not the other way around, was he blackmailed?

    3) Did Melania meet Bondi in a private plane to fix the situation I mean talk about grandchildren.
     
  5. skunk, Sep 5, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2016

    skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    Whatever you do, don't respond to the allegations. Just keep deflecting.
     
  6. Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #6
    Hillary is corrupt, Trump probably is corrupt too. Whose corruption’s worse? Killary’s. That quote above is from the TPM article. Go to the TPM home page and see what I said above about Hill-bot central.
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    Sad but not surprising that trump would act corruptly.
     
  8. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #8
    I'm under no delusions that Hillary is a saint. If you have any proof of actual corruption please produce it. At worse, the Clintons have enriched themselves while helping other people. What's interesting is that this type of behavior is consistent with just about every other politician after they leave office. What's different here, is that the Clintons are now seeking office again. Trump on the other hand is a monster who has enriched himself by ripping off people with all of his scams. Trump doesn't even measure on the scale of morality.
     
  9. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #9
    Maybe. I guess we'll see. But it is funny how Clinton gets dinged for the mere whiff of something, but an actual problem for Trump rates just a big ol' meh.

    More like a mutually beneficial "arrangement". :D

    There's an example of what I talking about in point #1. A mere appearance of Clinton doing something wrong = guilty. Trump actually doing something wrong = a shrug and a "what about that corrupt Clinton!"
     
  10. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #10

    You, of all people, have zero right to question any source given the piles of tripe you've posted.
     
  11. Jess13, Sep 5, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2016

    Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #11
    Piles of tripe? List anything I have posted that is such.

    Talking to Obama-bots and Hill-bots is an exercise in [blank stare]. Hillary is horribly corrupt.


    Washington Post tries to play defense for their queen, but let’s this factoid be told.


    Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State Dept.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

    The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.​


    Journalist with integrity details Hillary corruption.


    Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department

    http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foun...als-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

    Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States' oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

    Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region's fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

    But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At press conferences in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

    These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

    [read the entire piece]​


    I could post more, but why bother. You don’t care that the bitch is corrupt.
     
  12. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #12
    So you're voting 3rd party right?
     
  13. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #13
    Bondi's office never opened a case or investigated Trump. The AP article doesn't even say that. The Talking Points Memo article is the page that says that.
     
  14. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #14
    I said proof of corruption not the appearance of impropriety.
     
  15. Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #15
    It is clear-cut, but perhaps not to Hill-bots. And circumstantial evidence has put men and women into prison for life no parole. Hillary is a corrupt bitch. Hillary is totally criminal. Hillary is the worst 2016 candidate.
     
  16. Robisan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #16
    Interesting that nobody has commented on the central point of this thread - that despite hundreds of column inches devoted to "raising questions" on little direct evidence about Clinton, the New York Times has literally not reported on what by clear appearances could be direct pay-for-play by Trump.

    Good question. So why are the New York Times, Judicial Watch, Citizens United not doing just that?

    ...adding, your question clearly "invalidates" pay-for-play for anyone who donated to the Clinton Foundation before Hillary became Secretary of State. Of course, I doubt you'll in fact extend that same logic to her, because Clinton.

    Is that the power of what a properly timed "donation"? Funny how when it's not a Clinton it doesn't "raise questions" for the New York Times.
     
  17. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #17
    How can the political committee accept a donation and then the AG proceed to close an investigation that never existed? From the Talking Points Memo article you cited (and emphasised):

     
  18. Robisan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #18
    When a state AG considers joining another state's investigation what, exactly, do you think they do? Flip a coin? Rock, paper, scissors?
     
  19. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #19
    If you are willing to overlook what Hillary has done why can't they overlook trump?
     
  20. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #20
    I noticed you didn't answer my question. So you think Hillary is the most corrupt of all which keeps you from voting for her, admit that Trump is "probably" corrupt too, but it would seem that corruption isn't driving you to a third party candidate. I find that interesting.
     
  21. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #21
    If they had few complaints and the NY lawsuit was already on behalf of consumers nationwide, then rightfully no action needs to be taken.
     
  22. Robisan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #22
    The NY AG has no jurisdiction to sue on behalf of anyone outside the state of NY. That's why AGs from other states join together. It was the duty of the Florida AG - and only the Florida AG - to determine whether Florida citizens were similarly defrauded by Trump University and then either take action on her own or join with the other state Attorneys General.
     
  23. Jess13 Suspended

    Jess13

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2013
    #23
    That’s because I just saw your comment. I support both third-party candidates.

    Jill Stein’s the only candidate who is real enough to say they’d let Edward Snowden return home as the hero he is. Gary Johnson has intimated he’d be open to doing the same, but hasn’t straight up said it like Stein has. Publicly, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have said—and implied—that Snowden’s a “traitor,” and both Trump and Hillary are wrong. With Trump it is possible that he is only saying what he *believes* the general Fox News-type audience wants to hear on Snowden, and doesn’t genuinely have the belief that Snowden’s a “traitor.” With Hillary, she hates whistleblowers and truth tellers just as much as Obama does [1][2][3], her hatred of Snowden clearly is sincere.
     
  24. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #24
    That's wrong. The suit in NY seeks restitution on behalf of consumers nationwide.
     
  25. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #25
    I don't overlook what she has done. There is a formula here:

    • I look at not only the corruption and lies both candidates are accused of, but how many times they actually have lied as well.
    • Then I look at their lifetime record. How much have they helped others vs. themselves? Have they addressed human rights in speeches, or were they off doing other things?
    • Then I look at financial successes and failures. (Or if they hide things in this regard)
    • Then I look at policies. Which I think are more detailed and complete and which are best.
    • Then I look at what a candidate says and does and if actions match words. For instance, if they claim they only hire the best people, but fire person after person or have people with big issues surrounding them, then that doesn't really line up. Or if they say they want to bring back jobs to America, but have a history of farming them out overseas themselves, then that doesn't really line up. Or if they say they are for black rights, but once discrimated against them, then that doesn't line up. Or if one claims they have seen videos that don't exist. Or if one claims they ducked sniper fire that didn't exist. It all goes into the mix.
    • Next I look at what their campaigns have been like. Have they tried to give a hopeful uplifting message, or have they mocked disabled reporters? Do they seem sincere or are they only pandering? Do they stereotype a group calling them rapist, or do they understand that different people are different and that you can't stereotype an entire group of people? Which communities have they addressed? Did they address them before the campaign or only recently and if so, how much? Do they talk to the press or avoid the press?
    • Finally I look at which one has more experience relevant to the job at hand and which has the best temperament for the job.
    Those things will continue to be an ongoing process right up to Election Day. And both candidates have done some things better than the other and some things worse. There is no perfect candidate here, I think we that is something we can all agree on.
    --- Post Merged, Sep 5, 2016 ---
    Both? But they have different policies. And you can only vote for one.
     

Share This Page