DescentBB

Grendel wrote:Meanwhile we are waiting for some more details about the Clinton Foundation.

Grendel wrote:

callmeslick wrote:such as?

Pretty much anything will be interesting.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... oundation/
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/22/news/cl ... oundation/
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index. ... zNwyBWDFHw
http://charlesortel.com/a-deep-dive-int ... d-in-haiti

Seems I'm not alone in this -- http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/11/exclu ... -underway/ (hope you got an ad-blocker running. Go here first if not.)

Curious how that will pan out.

so if Tucker Carlson's so-called journalists throw it out there, it has legs? Let's see.

Story certainly got legs -- https://www.google.com/search?q=fbi+cli ... on&tbm=nws

More entertainment from them "journalists" -- http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/12/96-pe ... oundation/

like I said, it may be getting some interweb play, but every story goes back to Daily Caller, who puts out sensationalist, generally right-leaning, stories and narratives, and gets paid by republication placements. I'll wait for the actual FBI to say something, or the US Attorney in question, and withhold judgement until that point.

callmeslick wrote:like I said, it may be getting some interweb play, but every story goes back to Daily Caller, who puts out sensationalist, generally right-leaning, stories and narratives, and gets paid by republication placements. I'll wait for the actual FBI to say something, or the US Attorney in question, and withhold judgement until that point.

Oh, but sensationalist left leaning news stories and narratives that get paid by democrat placements are OK with slick.

callmeslick wrote:like I said, it may be getting some interweb play, but every story goes back to Daily Caller, who puts out sensationalist, generally right-leaning, stories and narratives, and gets paid by republication placements. I'll wait for the actual FBI to say something, or the US Attorney in question, and withhold judgement until that point.

Where there's a lot of money, graft and corruption will always follow, because it's human nature. Especially concerning the Clintons. They've enjoyed power and the rich life way too long. All that money is bound to negatively tempt and influence those who you believe are supposedly "altruistic" people. Even the Gates Foundation has it's own "issues". I wouldn't paint them with a positive brush all the time.

callmeslick wrote:like I said, it may be getting some interweb play, but every story goes back to Daily Caller, who puts out sensationalist, generally right-leaning, stories and narratives, and gets paid by republication placements. I'll wait for the actual FBI to say something, or the US Attorney in question, and withhold judgement until that point.

You're deliberately obfuscating again. This is more than the interweb reporting it:

The Obama administration rejected requests from three FBI field offices that wanted to open public corruption probes of the Clinton Foundation, according to a report that added to headaches for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Alerted by banks to suspicious transactions, the FBI wanted to investigate conflicts of interest involving foreign donors to the foundation while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state. But the Justice Department put the kibosh on the it, CNN reported.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... -investig/

Now if this was a Bush DOJ blocking a investigation against Scooter Libby, you wouldn't need a interweb to hear the howls of indignation by the leftist news organs.

if they are(as one source, and one alone suggest) actively investigating, how come Sen Cornyn came out this AM and decried the fact that Justice has DECLINED to investigate? Which source might be likely to know what is really happening?

oh, and if we are to investigate EVERY instance of some individual attempting to leverage their employers connections to get a DC job, the town would be empty of both Dems and Repubs. Note that no one has yet suggested, or presented a hint of a suggestion, that Ms Clinton actually influenced a hiring, sought a favor, granted a meeting. Nothing. Once again, the focus of attack seems to be to broaden matters past the actual candidate and smear by inference.

Hence the need for a investigation slick or we will never know the extent. We do know Cheryl Mills was interviewing people for the CF, even tho she says it was on her own time, it still looks bad.

it may strike you as bad, strikes me as typical. Folks go from campaigns to NGOs, to charities, to thinktanks, to government and back in a constant cycle. Partly, because most normal working folks want nothing to do with that merry-go-round. I really don't(and this isn't partisan, I've said the same about similar GOP folks in the Bush era) see much past Washington business as usual. We don't have a nation of citizen civil servants, there is a professional core. Not sure I'd wish folks without a lot of experience in public service turned loose on most major issues of a large pluralistic society. The result of elections is a reshuffling of which part of the core is making policy and which is on the outs(think tanks, lobbying, etc).

Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

except, reading through those, it appears like no one's back got scratched. A lot of "Ms Clinton cannot commit" and "at best, we can perhaps get an interview", "not likely that we can do anything" there, in the JW transcripts. Given that JW has been on a decade long witchhunt, one would have expected a lot more than THOSE to be touted.

So the Clintons and their foundation are all apple pie and sunshine. If that's true, I've got a bridge to sell you......

tunnelcat wrote:So the Clintons and their foundation are all apple pie and sunshine. If that's true, I've got a bridge to sell you......

well, I've seen nothing terribly sinister. At any rate, they came out and announced what I always assumed was a given. If elected, the Foundation is out of business at least for the duration of the term. Just like putting assets into blind trusts, any potential conflicts have to be put out of touch. Once again, TC, you seem determined to focus on trivia, rather that what the woman has accomplished, what her platform focuses on, and the rather obvious fact, given your story presented here, that her administration would actually do you a fair bit of good, if allowed to move forward. Why?

callmeslick wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:So the Clintons and their foundation are all apple pie and sunshine. If that's true, I've got a bridge to sell you......

well, I've seen nothing terribly sinister. At any rate, they came out and announced what I always assumed was a given. If elected, the Foundation is out of business at least for the duration of the term. Just like putting assets into blind trusts, any potential conflicts have to be put out of touch. Once again, TC, you seem determined to focus on trivia, rather that what the woman has accomplished, what her platform focuses on, and the rather obvious fact, given your story presented here, that her administration would actually do you a fair bit of good, if allowed to move forward. Why?

Because, I don't like her and I don't like her damned husband. Period. Something stinks about the Clintons and their powerful dynasty. Where there's stink, there's rot. Power by itself breeds corruption and they've both been at it for a long time, too long in fact. They're too comfortable. Why the Dems ran Hillary is beyond me, other than she was arrogant enough to think that she was the best choice we had. I've got news, she's an elitist, out-of-touch, arrogant false liberal, an animal that shouldn't even exist, because we already have enough elitist Republicans to go around. Perhaps she didn't start out that way and used to be a nice, decent person, but she's ended up that way because politics always poisons people if they surround themselves with it's corrosive embrace for any amount of time. Vote for her and you're voting for what amounts to an old style Republican of the 1960's. Why do you think so many Republicans are willing to actually vote for her? Most Republicans can't even stomach a Democrat right now they're so far to the right. When I vote for a liberal this fall, I want a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, with new blood, new attitudes and new ideas. She's not it.

let me know, if you find someone to fit that bill, and the remotest chance to carry enough states to win the election and actually enact policy.

Lol, slick...I like your new icon, but unfortunately it would seem to apply even more to Clinton than Trump.

it applies to all politicians to some extent, but no one sane can suggest that her focus or core positions change very often within the same campaign.

callmeslick wrote:it applies to all politicians to some extent, but no one sane can suggest that her focus or core positions change very often within the same campaign.

When you don't say much I guess that's true.

I'm ok with folks actually looking into the truth, Woody. The truth doesn't scare me.

callmeslick wrote:I'm ok with folks actually looking into the truth, Woody. The truth doesn't scare me.

Considering you're all for Hillary, I guess the truth doesn't scare you.

callmeslick wrote:let me know, if you find someone to fit that bill, and the remotest chance to carry enough states to win the election and actually enact policy.

No, I can't. But I'm not going to give Hillary my vote. Jill Stein is going to get it instead, Trump or no Trump. Hillary doesn't deserve my vote because she's arrogant enough to assume I have to give it to her or else, and she's unprincipled enough to slide to the left to attract Bernie's voters and yet just untrustworthy enough to not believe that she'll keep that leftward shift as part of her policy once she's elected.

Spidey wrote:Lol, slick...I like your new icon, but unfortunately it would seem to apply even more to Clinton than Trump.

I don't know Spidey. It may be a toss up, although Trump may edge her out with the recent change on his immigration stance.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-el ... ns-n547801

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/22/h ... lip-flops/

But I guess to slick, she's just "evolving".

http://theweek.com/articles/554077/hill ... t-evolving

as they used to say on final exams....Compare and Contrast:

Thrashings: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/c ... ory-227353

well, I'm not a surrogate, and haven't given one cent to her campaign, but I still don't see what is so evil about the Foundation. Sorry, I don't.
Were it being used to funnel inappropiate funds to folks who bought access, sure. Were the charity not giving funds to those intended to be helped, sure. Were Hillary involved in getting people jobs they didn't deserve, or weren't qualified for, sure. But, I see NONE of that. Once again, it's another shallow pseudo-scandal about 'appearances' with no real substance behind it other than a lot of folks don't like the Clintons.

Grendel wrote:Thrashings: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/c ... ory-227353

She's sounding like a Republican now, isn't she? Blame the media when all else fails. If she hasn't anything to hide with her foundation, why vilify the media, especially a media that most people consider to be left leaning? Unless she can't handle the scrutiny that is. Poor baby. If she think the media is bad now, wait until she becomes president. She'll be under a microscope.

Is there any reporting that shows the foundation isn't exactly what it purports to be? Which is an organization that goes out and tries to do good in the word? It's obviously a warehouse where the Clintons can stockpile acolytes, but they do seem to be doing the work they're paid for. Is there reporting that it's some sort of scam to enrich to Clintons? Is their mansion owned by the foundation or something?

If not, this is kinda funny. It's like the Disney version of a corruption scandal. The Clintons allegedly sold access and... gave it to charity?

Sure, it's a "charity". However, only those people who grease the Clinton's skids get the special "pay for play" treatment. It stinks too. If you like that type of politics and money laundering in return for charity, keep right on feeding money to powerful people like the Clintons. If you want a real charity, find one that doesn't give favors in return for a "donation".

what is being pointed out is that the access thing is just more superficial crap, while the Foundation has spent BILLIONS on helping people with a rather high efficiency rate.

Well, then perhaps they can fully open their books, all of them, to a little public scrutiny if all is so sugar and apple pie?

See, that's my major issue with the Clintons. They're cast as nefarious by default. They will forever need to prove they're not guilty otherwise "we just don't know." It's taxing to have to always demand an honest appraisal of their dealings. That's also why I find myself doing it so often, because ★■◆● those people who keep throwing sh!t at the wall to see if it sticks. They'll just do it to someone I really do support.

tunnelcat wrote:Well, then perhaps they can fully open their books, all of them, to a little public scrutiny if all is so sugar and apple pie?

I'm sure that will happen immediately after Trump shows his taxes to the public.