Hillary the B...witch...lining her own pockets.

[Nightshade]

Over Half Of Hillary's Private Meetings As Secretary Were With Donors Who Paid $156 Million

In the latest confirmation that Hillary's receipt of donations while Secretary of State was a conflict of interest at best and criminal cronyism and "favor peddling" at worst (it would be ideal if the DOJ could chime in here, however the just as conflicted Department of Justice, which is headed by a 1999 Bill Clinton appointee, has decided to avoid the topic of the Clinton Foundation for obvious reasons), AP reports that more than half, or at least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or spoke to Clinton while she led the State Department, donated to her family charity or pledged commitments.

Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

The 154 number did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives: separately, Hillary met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP's calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties, but most likely resulted in such "quid pro quo" as the fast-tracking of weapons deliveries to countries such as Saudi Arabia.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-2 ... 56-million

[callmeslick]

how did ONE ★■◆●ing CENT go to her? Explain.

[Spidey]

…that strawman has more than the usual amount of righteous indignation.

[Ferno]

Slick asked a valid question.

how does money that is:

donated to her family charity or pledged commitments

end up going to her?


Because it seems that this story is implying that somehow she uses the charity and commitments as a form of money laundering.

[woodchip]

how did ONE ★■◆●ing CENT go to her? Explain.

I could explain quite easily if I could look at the foundations check book. But even Bill was concerned enough:

Bill Clinton was worried enough about potential conflicts of interest and legal troubles at the foundation that he ordered an internal review of the organization’s practices. After a fortnight of interviews with Clinton Foundation executives and ex-employees, lawyers arrived at disturbing conclusions. “The review echoed criticism of Mr. Clinton’s early years in the White House: for all its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.” (New York Times, Aug. 13, 2013)

Of course slick you can make your statement as nobody made public all the ways money was spent. So unless a special prosecutor is named to look into it we'll never know.

[Ferno]

Hey look, he's almost repeating what trump said word-for-word.

Want a cracker?

[callmeslick]

he's been doing that for weeks. Are we the only ones who noticed?

[woodchip]

I'd say what you notice is your fear that as more becomes exposed the less likely Hillary would be voted in as dog catcher.

[callmeslick]

[Nightshade]

Brave face by slick, having to defend a witch that would make Nixon look like Jesus.

[callmeslick]

better than having to take the dosage of acid or mescaline that would get me to your level of disconnect from reality.

[callmeslick]

[snoopy]

It appears that about 6% of the donations actually make it charity... so while maybe you can legally call it charity, I call it the Clinton's personal spending fund.

[vision]

It appears that about 6% of the donations actually make it charity...

I checked that article's sources. If you believe anything on that site, I'm sorry, but you've been had. It's typical of conspiracy sites. It's an propaganda piece with lot of circular links either linking directly to itself or other conspiracy blogs.

Nothing to see here.

[woodchip]

It appears that about 6% of the donations actually make it charity...

I checked that article's sources. If you believe anything on that site, I'm sorry, but you've been had. It's typical of conspiracy sites. It's an propaganda piece with lot of circular links either linking directly to itself or other conspiracy blogs.

Nothing to see here.

Sorry vision, you'll have to do better than make your own nebulous claims of conspiracy.

[callmeslick]

AP is publicly walking that article in the OP back.

[woodchip]

AP is publicly walking that article in the OP back.

You'll have to link that as all I see is CNN (Clinton News Network) walking it back by reporting how bad AP was at reporting it

[callmeslick]

not just CNN, but I just counted 35 news outlets from Business Week to Washington Post to CNN reporting it, and AP starting to walk it back in the past 24 hours.

[woodchip]

When I see a link where AP is walking it back, I'll give it credence. As it stands it looks like the Hillary rah rah networks are doing their job to protect her.

[snoopy]

It appears that about 6% of the donations actually make it charity...

I checked that article's sources. If you believe anything on that site, I'm sorry, but you've been had. It's typical of conspiracy sites. It's an propaganda piece with lot of circular links either linking directly to itself or other conspiracy blogs.

Nothing to see here.

Link

Doing your work for you... factcheck thinks you're right.

[vision]

Link

Doing your work for you... factcheck thinks you're right.

Thanks for that interesting evaluation!