GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Nalod wrote:Has HRC compromised the safety of the of the country? of so, was it intentional?
Motive.

Bush and Chaney deleted 22 million emails. Grow up folks, there is precedent.
Republicans with house majority abuses the power instead of governing.

I dont want to grow up!

I think it is fair to say she has. An unsecured server with classified docs is one part of it. Deleting emails after subpoena is also a violation of the law and that if that is true than she is trying to be above the law which compromises our democracy. This is how I look at it.

Additionally, she has allegedly sold access to foreign govts by accepting milliions in donations for her and WJC's personal benefit. There is no telling what promises were made or favors were done in return. This is the pay to play and CF part of it. Once you know you are getting $$ for favors it is intentional.

I know that in your opinion, there is not enough proof yet. I can understand and respect that.

There is allegedly more to come, we will see. Some are saying that Bush's and Clinton's are partners in some of the stuff that may come out. If so, the Bush's should go down too.

Please share link and any information you have on the Bush/Cheney deletions.

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Nalod wrote:Has HRC compromised the safety of the of the country? of so, was it intentional?
Motive.

Bush and Chaney deleted 22 million emails. Grow up folks, there is precedent.
Republicans with house majority abuses the power instead of governing.

I dont want to grow up!

I think it is fair to say she has. An unsecured server with classified docs is one part of it. Deleting emails after subpoena is also a violation of the law and that if that is true than she is trying to be above the law which compromises our democracy. This is how I look at it.

Additionally, she has allegedly sold access to foreign govts by accepting milliions in donations for her and WJC's personal benefit. There is no telling what promises were made or favors were done in return. This is the pay to play and CF part of it. Once you know you are getting $$ for favors it is intentional.

I know that in your opinion, there is not enough proof yet. I can understand and respect that.

There is allegedly more to come, we will see. Some are saying that Bush's and Clinton's are partners in some of the stuff that may come out. If so, the Bush's should go down too.

Please share link and any information you have on the Bush/Cheney deletions.

So this is weird part for me and I have expressed this before.

Our whole political process is built on pay for play. Corporations donate to politicians all the time. They also donate to political action parties. In turn, those politicians let corporations literally write laws for them. This is commonplace and happens all the time, no one hides this.

For example, the oil industry and the NRA owns politicians. They literally hand over written laws to the politicians they donate to; literal pay for play.

The Clintons have one of the more respected charities out there. For sure they personally meet and get money from a wide variety of US based and non US based people, as do a TON of charities and the people that are associated with them. When a charity receives money, is there an automatic assumption of pay for play?

If we feel that the Clintons or ANY political member should NOT be part of a Charity because of a whiff of pay for play, then EVERY member of our political system should be banned from charities.

Lots and lots of former presidents have received money to build libraries. Are they shady for just accepting the money?

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Nalod wrote:Has HRC compromised the safety of the of the country? of so, was it intentional?
Motive.

Bush and Chaney deleted 22 million emails. Grow up folks, there is precedent.
Republicans with house majority abuses the power instead of governing.

I dont want to grow up!

I think it is fair to say she has. An unsecured server with classified docs is one part of it. Deleting emails after subpoena is also a violation of the law and that if that is true than she is trying to be above the law which compromises our democracy. This is how I look at it.

Additionally, she has allegedly sold access to foreign govts by accepting milliions in donations for her and WJC's personal benefit. There is no telling what promises were made or favors were done in return. This is the pay to play and CF part of it. Once you know you are getting $$ for favors it is intentional.

I know that in your opinion, there is not enough proof yet. I can understand and respect that.

There is allegedly more to come, we will see. Some are saying that Bush's and Clinton's are partners in some of the stuff that may come out. If so, the Bush's should go down too.

Please share link and any information you have on the Bush/Cheney deletions.

So this is weird part for me and I have expressed this before.

Our whole political process is built on pay for play. Corporations donate to politicians all the time. They also donate to political action parties. In turn, those politicians let corporations literally write laws for them. This is commonplace and happens all the time, no one hides this.

For example, the oil industry and the NRA owns politicians. They literally hand over written laws to the politicians they donate to; literal pay for play.

The Clintons have one of the more respected charities out there. For sure they personally meet and get money from a wide variety of US based and non US based people, as do a TON of charities and the people that are associated with them. When a charity receives money, is there an automatic assumption of pay for play?

If we feel that the Clintons or ANY political member should NOT be part of a Charity because of a whiff of pay for play, then EVERY member of our political system should be banned from charities.

Lots and lots of former presidents have received money to build libraries. Are they shady for just accepting the money?

The Clintons left the WH "broke", according to them. They are not worth $300M!! She was SOS and Senator so we know her salary has been for the last 12 years - approximately. No where near $300M! It's all due to speeches? Really? There has to be more to it, IMO.

I do not think all charities are pay for play. But when there are large amounts of money at play there should be vigilence.
I don't know all the laws and most of us don't. That is one way they get away with it. the other is that we as apeople do not pay attention to what is going on, we trust they will do right and unfortunately, it appears as though that is not what is happening any more. We are too busy watching the "Kardashians" to be bothered.

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Nalod wrote:Has HRC compromised the safety of the of the country? of so, was it intentional?
Motive.

Bush and Chaney deleted 22 million emails. Grow up folks, there is precedent.
Republicans with house majority abuses the power instead of governing.

I dont want to grow up!

I think it is fair to say she has. An unsecured server with classified docs is one part of it. Deleting emails after subpoena is also a violation of the law and that if that is true than she is trying to be above the law which compromises our democracy. This is how I look at it.

Additionally, she has allegedly sold access to foreign govts by accepting milliions in donations for her and WJC's personal benefit. There is no telling what promises were made or favors were done in return. This is the pay to play and CF part of it. Once you know you are getting $$ for favors it is intentional.

I know that in your opinion, there is not enough proof yet. I can understand and respect that.

There is allegedly more to come, we will see. Some are saying that Bush's and Clinton's are partners in some of the stuff that may come out. If so, the Bush's should go down too.

Please share link and any information you have on the Bush/Cheney deletions.

So this is weird part for me and I have expressed this before.

Our whole political process is built on pay for play. Corporations donate to politicians all the time. They also donate to political action parties. In turn, those politicians let corporations literally write laws for them. This is commonplace and happens all the time, no one hides this.

For example, the oil industry and the NRA owns politicians. They literally hand over written laws to the politicians they donate to; literal pay for play.

The Clintons have one of the more respected charities out there. For sure they personally meet and get money from a wide variety of US based and non US based people, as do a TON of charities and the people that are associated with them. When a charity receives money, is there an automatic assumption of pay for play?

If we feel that the Clintons or ANY political member should NOT be part of a Charity because of a whiff of pay for play, then EVERY member of our political system should be banned from charities.

Lots and lots of former presidents have received money to build libraries. Are they shady for just accepting the money?

And it's a system Donald Trump has participated in. He even gave the Clinton Foundation a 6 figure donation.

holfresh wrote:Congress wants to investigate the Clinton Foundation for pay for play..I say we put all of K-Street on the docket...Let's investigate the entire industry which influences governmental policies by donations...

Yes. Let's hold them all accountable. Easier said than done, imo.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

holfresh wrote:Congress wants to investigate the Clinton Foundation for pay for play..I say we put all of K-Street on the docket...Let's investigate the entire industry which influences governmental policies by donations...

Yes. Let's hold them all accountable. Easier said than done, imo.

holfresh wrote:Malenia Trump had a speech today saying "our culture is too mean and rough on social media..We have to find a better way to talk to each other and to disagree..To respect each other"..She can do that by taking away her husband's cell phone..Is this a joke by the way..I swear these people are mocking the process..

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Nalod wrote:Has HRC compromised the safety of the of the country? of so, was it intentional?
Motive.

Bush and Chaney deleted 22 million emails. Grow up folks, there is precedent.
Republicans with house majority abuses the power instead of governing.

I dont want to grow up!

I think it is fair to say she has. An unsecured server with classified docs is one part of it. Deleting emails after subpoena is also a violation of the law and that if that is true than she is trying to be above the law which compromises our democracy. This is how I look at it.

Additionally, she has allegedly sold access to foreign govts by accepting milliions in donations for her and WJC's personal benefit. There is no telling what promises were made or favors were done in return. This is the pay to play and CF part of it. Once you know you are getting $$ for favors it is intentional.

I know that in your opinion, there is not enough proof yet. I can understand and respect that.

There is allegedly more to come, we will see. Some are saying that Bush's and Clinton's are partners in some of the stuff that may come out. If so, the Bush's should go down too.

Please share link and any information you have on the Bush/Cheney deletions.

So this is weird part for me and I have expressed this before.

Our whole political process is built on pay for play. Corporations donate to politicians all the time. They also donate to political action parties. In turn, those politicians let corporations literally write laws for them. This is commonplace and happens all the time, no one hides this.

For example, the oil industry and the NRA owns politicians. They literally hand over written laws to the politicians they donate to; literal pay for play.

The Clintons have one of the more respected charities out there. For sure they personally meet and get money from a wide variety of US based and non US based people, as do a TON of charities and the people that are associated with them. When a charity receives money, is there an automatic assumption of pay for play?

If we feel that the Clintons or ANY political member should NOT be part of a Charity because of a whiff of pay for play, then EVERY member of our political system should be banned from charities.

Lots and lots of former presidents have received money to build libraries. Are they shady for just accepting the money?

And it's a system Donald Trump has participated in. He even gave the Clinton Foundation a 6 figure donation.

Is pay for play the real issue or is it the comingling of profit and charity? When you start using a charity as a vehicle for soliciting for profit activity you are probably breaking the law. The admission was that they went after the clients who donated to the charity for money for dear old Billy. I honestly don't know about the legality of it but it wouldn't pass an ethical smell test.

martin wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Nalod wrote:Has HRC compromised the safety of the of the country? of so, was it intentional?
Motive.

Bush and Chaney deleted 22 million emails. Grow up folks, there is precedent.
Republicans with house majority abuses the power instead of governing.

I dont want to grow up!

I think it is fair to say she has. An unsecured server with classified docs is one part of it. Deleting emails after subpoena is also a violation of the law and that if that is true than she is trying to be above the law which compromises our democracy. This is how I look at it.

Additionally, she has allegedly sold access to foreign govts by accepting milliions in donations for her and WJC's personal benefit. There is no telling what promises were made or favors were done in return. This is the pay to play and CF part of it. Once you know you are getting $$ for favors it is intentional.

I know that in your opinion, there is not enough proof yet. I can understand and respect that.

There is allegedly more to come, we will see. Some are saying that Bush's and Clinton's are partners in some of the stuff that may come out. If so, the Bush's should go down too.

Please share link and any information you have on the Bush/Cheney deletions.

So this is weird part for me and I have expressed this before.

Our whole political process is built on pay for play. Corporations donate to politicians all the time. They also donate to political action parties. In turn, those politicians let corporations literally write laws for them. This is commonplace and happens all the time, no one hides this.

For example, the oil industry and the NRA owns politicians. They literally hand over written laws to the politicians they donate to; literal pay for play.

The Clintons have one of the more respected charities out there. For sure they personally meet and get money from a wide variety of US based and non US based people, as do a TON of charities and the people that are associated with them. When a charity receives money, is there an automatic assumption of pay for play?

If we feel that the Clintons or ANY political member should NOT be part of a Charity because of a whiff of pay for play, then EVERY member of our political system should be banned from charities.

Lots and lots of former presidents have received money to build libraries. Are they shady for just accepting the money?

And it's a system Donald Trump has participated in. He even gave the Clinton Foundation a 6 figure donation.

Is pay for play the real issue or is it the comingling of profit and charity? When you start using a charity as a vehicle for soliciting for profit activity you are probably breaking the law. The admission was that they went after the clients who donated to the charity for money for dear old Billy. I honestly don't know about the legality of it but it wouldn't pass an ethical smell test.

I have to tell you, I don't at all recall that happening or that was the crux of the perceived problem.

Let's get this straight. Trump is running a fake charity that wasn't even properly registered and was there for him to launder his own money or to pay off his own corporate fines, etc. And yet this has barely raised any consideration.

This may not mount to anything but I did read at least one article that accused the Clinton's of mixing personal profit with charity work - can't find it now, it was along these lines but much more directly accusatory

Emails released on Tuesday contained a memo from Mr. Band essentially defending his work for the foundation, and for Mr. Clinton personally, even as Mr. Band was building up his corporate consulting firm, Teneo. The memo noted that some foundation donors had indeed been clients of Teneo, but also that Mr. Band and Teneo had helped raise tens of millions of dollars for the foundation from individual, foreign and corporate donors, without taking a commission.

Mr. Band also noted how some of those donors he had cultivated were paying Mr. Clinton privately to make speeches or to do other work. One such donor, Laureate International Universities, a for-profit education company based in Baltimore, was paying Mr. Clinton $3.5 million annually “to provide advice” and serve as its honorary chairman, Mr. Band wrote.

meloshouldgo wrote:

martin wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Nalod wrote:Has HRC compromised the safety of the of the country? of so, was it intentional?
Motive.

Bush and Chaney deleted 22 million emails. Grow up folks, there is precedent.
Republicans with house majority abuses the power instead of governing.

I dont want to grow up!

I think it is fair to say she has. An unsecured server with classified docs is one part of it. Deleting emails after subpoena is also a violation of the law and that if that is true than she is trying to be above the law which compromises our democracy. This is how I look at it.

Additionally, she has allegedly sold access to foreign govts by accepting milliions in donations for her and WJC's personal benefit. There is no telling what promises were made or favors were done in return. This is the pay to play and CF part of it. Once you know you are getting $$ for favors it is intentional.

I know that in your opinion, there is not enough proof yet. I can understand and respect that.

There is allegedly more to come, we will see. Some are saying that Bush's and Clinton's are partners in some of the stuff that may come out. If so, the Bush's should go down too.

Please share link and any information you have on the Bush/Cheney deletions.

So this is weird part for me and I have expressed this before.

Our whole political process is built on pay for play. Corporations donate to politicians all the time. They also donate to political action parties. In turn, those politicians let corporations literally write laws for them. This is commonplace and happens all the time, no one hides this.

For example, the oil industry and the NRA owns politicians. They literally hand over written laws to the politicians they donate to; literal pay for play.

The Clintons have one of the more respected charities out there. For sure they personally meet and get money from a wide variety of US based and non US based people, as do a TON of charities and the people that are associated with them. When a charity receives money, is there an automatic assumption of pay for play?

If we feel that the Clintons or ANY political member should NOT be part of a Charity because of a whiff of pay for play, then EVERY member of our political system should be banned from charities.

Lots and lots of former presidents have received money to build libraries. Are they shady for just accepting the money?

And it's a system Donald Trump has participated in. He even gave the Clinton Foundation a 6 figure donation.

Is pay for play the real issue or is it the comingling of profit and charity? When you start using a charity as a vehicle for soliciting for profit activity you are probably breaking the law. The admission was that they went after the clients who donated to the charity for money for dear old Billy. I honestly don't know about the legality of it but it wouldn't pass an ethical smell test.

I have to tell you, I don't at all recall that happening or that was the crux of the perceived problem.

Let's get this straight. Trump is running a fake charity that wasn't even properly registered and was there for him to launder his own money or to pay off his own corporate fines, etc. And yet this has barely raised any consideration.

This may not mount to anything but I did read at least one article that accused the Clinton's of mixing personal profit with charity work - can't find it now, it was along these lines but much more directly accusatory

Emails released on Tuesday contained a memo from Mr. Band essentially defending his work for the foundation, and for Mr. Clinton personally, even as Mr. Band was building up his corporate consulting firm, Teneo. The memo noted that some foundation donors had indeed been clients of Teneo, but also that Mr. Band and Teneo had helped raise tens of millions of dollars for the foundation from individual, foreign and corporate donors, without taking a commission.

Mr. Band also noted how some of those donors he had cultivated were paying Mr. Clinton privately to make speeches or to do other work. One such donor, Laureate International Universities, a for-profit education company based in Baltimore, was paying Mr. Clinton $3.5 million annually “to provide advice” and serve as its honorary chairman, Mr. Band wrote.

This MAY not amount to anything? It is literally nothing, and yet, however innocently, you've demonstrated exactly what is so frustrating about this election cycle and Hilary.

Your first post was much more exacerbating: "Is pay for play the real issue or is it the comingling of profit and charity? When you start using a charity as a vehicle for soliciting for profit activity you are probably breaking the law."

And yet in reality we have nothing of the sort. People that give to charity also wanted Bill to make speeches and they wanted to pay him for it. Happens every day and yet there is somehow the specter of something untoward going on. It's incredible to me

martin wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

martin wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Nalod wrote:Has HRC compromised the safety of the of the country? of so, was it intentional?
Motive.

Bush and Chaney deleted 22 million emails. Grow up folks, there is precedent.
Republicans with house majority abuses the power instead of governing.

I dont want to grow up!

I think it is fair to say she has. An unsecured server with classified docs is one part of it. Deleting emails after subpoena is also a violation of the law and that if that is true than she is trying to be above the law which compromises our democracy. This is how I look at it.

Additionally, she has allegedly sold access to foreign govts by accepting milliions in donations for her and WJC's personal benefit. There is no telling what promises were made or favors were done in return. This is the pay to play and CF part of it. Once you know you are getting $$ for favors it is intentional.

I know that in your opinion, there is not enough proof yet. I can understand and respect that.

There is allegedly more to come, we will see. Some are saying that Bush's and Clinton's are partners in some of the stuff that may come out. If so, the Bush's should go down too.

Please share link and any information you have on the Bush/Cheney deletions.

So this is weird part for me and I have expressed this before.

Our whole political process is built on pay for play. Corporations donate to politicians all the time. They also donate to political action parties. In turn, those politicians let corporations literally write laws for them. This is commonplace and happens all the time, no one hides this.

For example, the oil industry and the NRA owns politicians. They literally hand over written laws to the politicians they donate to; literal pay for play.

The Clintons have one of the more respected charities out there. For sure they personally meet and get money from a wide variety of US based and non US based people, as do a TON of charities and the people that are associated with them. When a charity receives money, is there an automatic assumption of pay for play?

If we feel that the Clintons or ANY political member should NOT be part of a Charity because of a whiff of pay for play, then EVERY member of our political system should be banned from charities.

Lots and lots of former presidents have received money to build libraries. Are they shady for just accepting the money?

And it's a system Donald Trump has participated in. He even gave the Clinton Foundation a 6 figure donation.

Is pay for play the real issue or is it the comingling of profit and charity? When you start using a charity as a vehicle for soliciting for profit activity you are probably breaking the law. The admission was that they went after the clients who donated to the charity for money for dear old Billy. I honestly don't know about the legality of it but it wouldn't pass an ethical smell test.

I have to tell you, I don't at all recall that happening or that was the crux of the perceived problem.

Let's get this straight. Trump is running a fake charity that wasn't even properly registered and was there for him to launder his own money or to pay off his own corporate fines, etc. And yet this has barely raised any consideration.

This may not mount to anything but I did read at least one article that accused the Clinton's of mixing personal profit with charity work - can't find it now, it was along these lines but much more directly accusatory

Emails released on Tuesday contained a memo from Mr. Band essentially defending his work for the foundation, and for Mr. Clinton personally, even as Mr. Band was building up his corporate consulting firm, Teneo. The memo noted that some foundation donors had indeed been clients of Teneo, but also that Mr. Band and Teneo had helped raise tens of millions of dollars for the foundation from individual, foreign and corporate donors, without taking a commission.

Mr. Band also noted how some of those donors he had cultivated were paying Mr. Clinton privately to make speeches or to do other work. One such donor, Laureate International Universities, a for-profit education company based in Baltimore, was paying Mr. Clinton $3.5 million annually “to provide advice” and serve as its honorary chairman, Mr. Band wrote.

This MAY not amount to anything? It is literally nothing, and yet, however innocently, you've demonstrated exactly what is so frustrating about this election cycle and Hilary.

Your first post was much more exacerbating: "Is pay for play the real issue or is it the comingling of profit and charity? When you start using a charity as a vehicle for soliciting for profit activity you are probably breaking the law."

And yet in reality we have nothing of the sort. People that give to charity also wanted Bill to make speeches and they wanted to pay him for it. Happens every day and yet there is somehow the specter of something untoward going on. It's incredible to me

IDK it seems like splitting hairs. The people were cultivated as donors their interest was the charity, then he starts taking money for speeches. How is that not using charity as the vehicle to attract donors and then soliciting profit from them? It all comes down to whether these people were already going to pay Bill for his speeches (if they had not been cultivated as charity donors) or not. Again I am not deliering a verdict, I pointed out that I thought this was one of the issues being investigated. This can result in their foundation losing the non profit status, that's about it.