11 EXPLOSIVE CLINTON CASH FACTS MAINSTREAM MEDIA CONFIRM ARE ACCURATE

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh the Democrats have no choice, she's taken the money from their client's and they're little choice now but to service those accounts.

What we need to do now, is set the case before a special prosecutor, which sadly will not be available before 2016... but which should be able to track the contributions, with Democratic votes and build a case for the obvious graft and begin filing charges in the second quarter of 2017. I expect to see the bulk of the Current Administration being charged, with a majority of the Democrat Legislators. With any luck the Republicans are already setting bugs in the appropriate offices to gather the facts, as the cover up of this cult's activities enters PANIC MODE.

This should likely finish off the Democratic Party, entirely.

 

[g5000]

There is a curious silence on the part of Republican elected officials on this. Perhaps they all have something to hide, too?

Why aren't they demagoging the blazes out of this?

 

[Porker]

There is a curious silence on the part of Republican elected officials on this. Perhaps they all have something to hide, too?

Why aren't they demagoging the blazes out of this?

Maybe they believe her chances are so good to be the nominee they do not want to fuck up her chances in the primaries. After she is nominated...the SHIT WILL HIT THE PROVERBIAL FAN.

 

[boedicca]

Bill Clinton actually signed an amendment to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Based on that law, if we applied the same standards to politicians in the U.S. to how Corporations are required to behave in foreign countries, the Clintons would be judged Guilty Guilty Guilty.

Consider these facts: The chairman of a Canadian company named Uranium One reportedly donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. At the same time the company was seeking U.S. government approval to sell a 51% controlling stake to Rosatom, the state-owned Russian nuclear agency. Meanwhile, a Russian investment bank with close ties to the Kremlin paid former President Bill Clinton a half-million dollars to speak in Moscow.

Anything worth investigating here? Not according to the nation’s chief law-enforcement officer, President Barack Obama, whose spokesman announced Friday that the allegations were little more than the discredited musings of “a conservative author,” unaccompanied by “any evidence” and apparently unworthy of further discussion.

But imagine if similar payments, under similar circumstances, were made by a U.S. company to a charity closely associated with, say, the Nigerian foreign minister. The Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission would be banging on that firm’s doors, asserting serious violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

That’s the law prohibiting U.S. companies from providing anything of value to a foreign official for the purpose of obtaining a favorable action. It is invoked frequently to scrutinize the overseas operations of American businesses. When federal law-enforcement agents even suspect that it has been violated, these companies are overrun with lawyers investigating every trace of alleged wrongdoing. The investigations often end the careers of the company officials allegedly responsible and culminate in fines and payments totaling many millions. One recent settlement was for $772 million. To avoid that fate, American companies spend huge sums on compliance reviews to prevent even the appearance of impropriety.

This antibribery provision is applied to overseas charities as well. The official guide on compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act states that charitable giving cannot be “used as a vehicle to conceal payments made to corruptly influence foreign officials.”

In separate settlements with the SEC, U.S. pharmaceutical companies Schering-Plough (since merged with Merck) and Eli Lilly paid substantial civil penalties for modest contributions—$76,000 and $39,000, respectively—to the Chudow Castle Foundation, a Polish charity that restores local castles. That foundation’s president was also a government official overseeing local hospital funding, including pharmaceutical purchases. The U.S. government concluded that there was no other purpose for the castle donations than to influence his official decisions. Schering-Plough paid a $500,000 penalty in 2004. Eli Lilly agreed to pay $29.4 million in 2012, though that settlement was for a wide range of practices not only in Poland but elsewhere as well. Neither company admitted guilt.

What counts as corruption abroad is apparently viewed as good citizenship here at home. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was an effort to export our domestic anti-bribery laws. Yet no one in the Obama administration, including in the Justice Department, is looking at the conduct surrounding the Clinton Foundation with the same skepticism and drawing the same adverse inferences that have become standard in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act cases. Instead, large donations to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities with matters pending before the government are regarded as simply the result of an admirable interest in the foundation’s works of mercy....

A Double-Standard Windfall for the Clintons - WSJ

 

[boedicca]

We need a Domestic Corrupt Practices Act.

Just sayin'.