Clinton Foundation Donations & Meetings Easily Above Board, Not Corruption!

[mascale]

Anyone keeps hearing the concept, "Quid Pro Quo," without much explanation of it. That is in accounts of what goes on in charities and other donations where government access may or may not happen. "May or May Not Happen," likely best summarizes the normal act of making a donation.

If a bribe is intended, from the donation, there has to have been an explicit, written, stated, or emailed(?), promise or undertaking, by the office, to perform or not perform the specific act. Various Constitutional Amendments come into play. There are rights of speech, assembly, petition, free access, and even freedom of donations. So finding a crime is not always easy. You make a donation expecting an influential job. Probably both parties go to jail, if the outcome is the award of the job.

The High Court: When is a campaign contribution a bribe?

You make a donation to a foundation. Someone later on emails that the donor made the donation. It is noted that the donor is in fact the person asking for the appointment, phone call, or email address. All that is happening is that a case is being allowed to be presented, and that the foundation knows something about the person making the presentation. Everything else is Constitutional, even the act of not allowing the access: Unless Civil Rights or other issues come to attention.

Likely no government on earth could survive if allowing access to make a presentation of a caset is considered corruption, or a bribe. Everyone in government would be in jail. Texas was going to pass a law, providing that anyone hiring an "illegal" would have to go to jail. Clearly, the legislation was withdrawn. Everyone with any money in the state, would likely have gone to jail.

The Trump Campaign has no issue. Donald Trump gave the Clinton Foundation $100,000.00, and seems very unlikely to win a political office as the outcome(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(NRA William Tell, Child Endangerment Chapter, at least understands about the importance of getting the fruity things out of the young warriors hair(?)! The AK=47 version, maybe they think applies(?)!)

 

[Jarhead]

Anyone keeps hearing the concept, "Quid Pro Quo," without much explanation of it. That is in accounts of what goes on in charities and other donations where government access may or may not happen. "May or May Not Happen," likely best summarizes the normal act of making a donation.

If a bribe is intended, from the donation, there has to have been an explicit, written, stated, or emailed(?), promise or undertaking, by the office, to perform or not perform the specific act. Various Constitutional Amendments come into play. There are rights of speech, assembly, petition, free access, and even freedom of donations. So finding a crime is not always easy. You make a donation expecting an influential job. Probably both parties go to jail, if the outcome is the award of the job.

The High Court: When is a campaign contribution a bribe?

You make a donation to a foundation. Someone later on emails that the donor made the donation. It is noted that the donor is in fact the person asking for the appointment, phone call, or email address. All that is happening is that a case is being allowed to be presented, and that the foundation knows something about the person making the presentation. Everything else is Constitutional, even the act of not allowing the access: Unless Civil Rights or other issues come to attention.

Likely no government on earth could survive if allowing access to make a presentation of a caset is considered corruption, or a bribe. Everyone in government would be in jail. Texas was going to pass a law, providing that anyone hiring an "illegal" would have to go to jail. Clearly, the legislation was withdrawn. Everyone with any money in the state, would likely have gone to jail.

The Trump Campaign has no issue. Donald Trump gave the Clinton Foundation $100,000.00, and seems very unlikely to win a political office as the outcome(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(NRA William Tell, Child Endangerment Chapter, at least understands about the importance of getting the fruity things out of the young warriors hair(?)! The AK=47 version, maybe they think applies(?)!)

when an email from the foundation says "he is very important to us", it is a smoking gun.

How could they have not been told to NEVER SEND AN EMAIL LIKE THAT BECUASE IT IS A CONFLICT OF INTERTEST.....we do not want to hear form the foundation regarding favors>>>


Would that have been so hard for someone who had aspirations to be President?

 

[MrMike]

Anyone keeps hearing the concept, "Quid Pro Quo," without much explanation of it. That is in accounts of what goes on in charities and other donations where government access may or may not happen. "May or May Not Happen," likely best summarizes the normal act of making a donation.

If a bribe is intended, from the donation, there has to have been an explicit, written, stated, or emailed(?), promise or undertaking, by the office, to perform or not perform the specific act. Various Constitutional Amendments come into play. There are rights of speech, assembly, petition, free access, and even freedom of donations. So finding a crime is not always easy. You make a donation expecting an influential job. Probably both parties go to jail, if the outcome is the award of the job.

The High Court: When is a campaign contribution a bribe?

You make a donation to a foundation. Someone later on emails that the donor made the donation. It is noted that the donor is in fact the person asking for the appointment, phone call, or email address. All that is happening is that a case is being allowed to be presented, and that the foundation knows something about the person making the presentation. Everything else is Constitutional, even the act of not allowing the access: Unless Civil Rights or other issues come to attention.

Likely no government on earth could survive if allowing access to make a presentation of a caset is considered corruption, or a bribe. Everyone in government would be in jail. Texas was going to pass a law, providing that anyone hiring an "illegal" would have to go to jail. Clearly, the legislation was withdrawn. Everyone with any money in the state, would likely have gone to jail.

The Trump Campaign has no issue. Donald Trump gave the Clinton Foundation $100,000.00, and seems very unlikely to win a political office as the outcome(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(NRA William Tell, Child Endangerment Chapter, at least understands about the importance of getting the fruity things out of the young warriors hair(?)! The AK=47 version, maybe they think applies(?)!)

Jeez...good try at sweeping Clinton corruption under the rug but nope!

 

[mascale]

Freedom-hating MrMike poster is clearly not on the side of U. S. Law and Tradition. "Nope" is a U. S. Freedom-Hater's response to all the decades of lobbying and legislation going on before. There are hundreds of years just swept away, with "Nope!"

That brand even supports the concept of student loan debt, to burden all the children: Burden and subjugation the brand anyone sees, "Nope!"

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Maybe Yellow-Hair of Denigration: Want to make contribution to scalp collections, instead!"

 

[Lakhota]

Anyone keeps hearing the concept, "Quid Pro Quo," without much explanation of it. That is in accounts of what goes on in charities and other donations where government access may or may not happen. "May or May Not Happen," likely best summarizes the normal act of making a donation.

If a bribe is intended, from the donation, there has to have been an explicit, written, stated, or emailed(?), promise or undertaking, by the office, to perform or not perform the specific act. Various Constitutional Amendments come into play. There are rights of speech, assembly, petition, free access, and even freedom of donations. So finding a crime is not always easy. You make a donation expecting an influential job. Probably both parties go to jail, if the outcome is the award of the job.

The High Court: When is a campaign contribution a bribe?

You make a donation to a foundation. Someone later on emails that the donor made the donation. It is noted that the donor is in fact the person asking for the appointment, phone call, or email address. All that is happening is that a case is being allowed to be presented, and that the foundation knows something about the person making the presentation. Everything else is Constitutional, even the act of not allowing the access: Unless Civil Rights or other issues come to attention.

Likely no government on earth could survive if allowing access to make a presentation of a caset is considered corruption, or a bribe. Everyone in government would be in jail. Texas was going to pass a law, providing that anyone hiring an "illegal" would have to go to jail. Clearly, the legislation was withdrawn. Everyone with any money in the state, would likely have gone to jail.

The Trump Campaign has no issue. Donald Trump gave the Clinton Foundation $100,000.00, and seems very unlikely to win a political office as the outcome(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(NRA William Tell, Child Endangerment Chapter, at least understands about the importance of getting the fruity things out of the young warriors hair(?)! The AK=47 version, maybe they think applies(?)!)

when an email from the foundation says "he is very important to us", it is a smoking gun.

How could they have not been told to NEVER SEND AN EMAIL LIKE THAT BECUASE IT IS A CONFLICT OF INTERTEST.....we do not want to hear form the foundation regarding favors>>>


Would that have been so hard for someone who had aspirations to be President?

Wow, you sound like a Trump supporter. Why does everyone but Trump have to be "politically correct"?

 

[mascale]

Trump gave $100,000.00 to the Clinton Foundation, and the Campaign Chairperson acknowledges that the organization is major helpful to nations worldwide. The Campaign Chairperson acknowledges that "Pay for Play" was not intended, or solicited.

Lawfully correct has been around for a long time, concerning rules of lobbying, presentation, and influence.

I myself am more impressed with the Clinton Email Controversy. They are acknowledged by the Secretary to be boring. So many investigators have read them, that another glaring finding appears to be that they are also coherent. The Remnant National Committee appears to have lots of difficulty with that, tending more to a denigrating, subjugating kind of demeanor, usual for RNC.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(One dozen solid rock turquoise may be viable offer to RNC Mayor Giuliani, who also forgot about 9/11(?), happening even somewhere near where he was(?)--on top of a building, somewhere in New Jersey(?)!

 

[tyroneweaver]

To me the Clintons private trashy life (hookers'n blow) is so much like their public trashy life.

 

[bendog]

Anyone keeps hearing the concept, "Quid Pro Quo," without much explanation of it. That is in accounts of what goes on in charities and other donations where government access may or may not happen. "May or May Not Happen," likely best summarizes the normal act of making a donation.

If a bribe is intended, from the donation, there has to have been an explicit, written, stated, or emailed(?), promise or undertaking, by the office, to perform or not perform the specific act. Various Constitutional Amendments come into play. There are rights of speech, assembly, petition, free access, and even freedom of donations. So finding a crime is not always easy. You make a donation expecting an influential job. Probably both parties go to jail, if the outcome is the award of the job.

The High Court: When is a campaign contribution a bribe?

You make a donation to a foundation. Someone later on emails that the donor made the donation. It is noted that the donor is in fact the person asking for the appointment, phone call, or email address. All that is happening is that a case is being allowed to be presented, and that the foundation knows something about the person making the presentation. Everything else is Constitutional, even the act of not allowing the access: Unless Civil Rights or other issues come to attention.

Likely no government on earth could survive if allowing access to make a presentation of a caset is considered corruption, or a bribe. Everyone in government would be in jail. Texas was going to pass a law, providing that anyone hiring an "illegal" would have to go to jail. Clearly, the legislation was withdrawn. Everyone with any money in the state, would likely have gone to jail.

The Trump Campaign has no issue. Donald Trump gave the Clinton Foundation $100,000.00, and seems very unlikely to win a political office as the outcome(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(NRA William Tell, Child Endangerment Chapter, at least understands about the importance of getting the fruity things out of the young warriors hair(?)! The AK=47 version, maybe they think applies(?)!)

The Foundation itself is probably fine, and it certainly has done good things. But that isn't the issue. The issue is Hillary was using her position as SoS, and now her candidacy, to solicit money for the Foundation. That isn't just unseemly, it also illustrates how the Clintons act as they are above standards others should follow.

 

[westwall]

Anyone keeps hearing the concept, "Quid Pro Quo," without much explanation of it. That is in accounts of what goes on in charities and other donations where government access may or may not happen. "May or May Not Happen," likely best summarizes the normal act of making a donation.

If a bribe is intended, from the donation, there has to have been an explicit, written, stated, or emailed(?), promise or undertaking, by the office, to perform or not perform the specific act. Various Constitutional Amendments come into play. There are rights of speech, assembly, petition, free access, and even freedom of donations. So finding a crime is not always easy. You make a donation expecting an influential job. Probably both parties go to jail, if the outcome is the award of the job.

The High Court: When is a campaign contribution a bribe?

You make a donation to a foundation. Someone later on emails that the donor made the donation. It is noted that the donor is in fact the person asking for the appointment, phone call, or email address. All that is happening is that a case is being allowed to be presented, and that the foundation knows something about the person making the presentation. Everything else is Constitutional, even the act of not allowing the access: Unless Civil Rights or other issues come to attention.

Likely no government on earth could survive if allowing access to make a presentation of a caset is considered corruption, or a bribe. Everyone in government would be in jail. Texas was going to pass a law, providing that anyone hiring an "illegal" would have to go to jail. Clearly, the legislation was withdrawn. Everyone with any money in the state, would likely have gone to jail.

The Trump Campaign has no issue. Donald Trump gave the Clinton Foundation $100,000.00, and seems very unlikely to win a political office as the outcome(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(NRA William Tell, Child Endangerment Chapter, at least understands about the importance of getting the fruity things out of the young warriors hair(?)! The AK=47 version, maybe they think applies(?)!)

Sure thing. When you have over 50% of the State Dept visitors paying to see her through a "donation" to the Foundation you have official corruption. You know it. And I know it. Your defense of the indefensible merely shows you to be a political whore.

 

[bendog]

Anyone keeps hearing the concept, "Quid Pro Quo," without much explanation of it. That is in accounts of what goes on in charities and other donations where government access may or may not happen. "May or May Not Happen," likely best summarizes the normal act of making a donation.

If a bribe is intended, from the donation, there has to have been an explicit, written, stated, or emailed(?), promise or undertaking, by the office, to perform or not perform the specific act. Various Constitutional Amendments come into play. There are rights of speech, assembly, petition, free access, and even freedom of donations. So finding a crime is not always easy. You make a donation expecting an influential job. Probably both parties go to jail, if the outcome is the award of the job.

The High Court: When is a campaign contribution a bribe?

You make a donation to a foundation. Someone later on emails that the donor made the donation. It is noted that the donor is in fact the person asking for the appointment, phone call, or email address. All that is happening is that a case is being allowed to be presented, and that the foundation knows something about the person making the presentation. Everything else is Constitutional, even the act of not allowing the access: Unless Civil Rights or other issues come to attention.

Likely no government on earth could survive if allowing access to make a presentation of a caset is considered corruption, or a bribe. Everyone in government would be in jail. Texas was going to pass a law, providing that anyone hiring an "illegal" would have to go to jail. Clearly, the legislation was withdrawn. Everyone with any money in the state, would likely have gone to jail.

The Trump Campaign has no issue. Donald Trump gave the Clinton Foundation $100,000.00, and seems very unlikely to win a political office as the outcome(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(NRA William Tell, Child Endangerment Chapter, at least understands about the importance of getting the fruity things out of the young warriors hair(?)! The AK=47 version, maybe they think applies(?)!)

Sure thing. When you have over 50% of the State Dept visitors paying to see her through a "donation" to the Foundation you have official corruption. You know it. And I know it. Your defense of the indefensible merely shows you to be a political whore.

There very well might not be any corruption in that Hillary probably didn't change any policy, or if she did change policy after meeting someone, there probably is a good argument. But again that isn't the issue, and it just illustrates why anti-Clinton people consistently over play their hand.

Nobody, nobody but the Clintons would even consider using public office to raise money. If Bill wants to retire and raise money, fine. But not while his wife is a senator, SoS and potus candidate. It's absolute hubris. And under normal circumstances, it would doom a campaign.

 

[westwall]

Anyone keeps hearing the concept, "Quid Pro Quo," without much explanation of it. That is in accounts of what goes on in charities and other donations where government access may or may not happen. "May or May Not Happen," likely best summarizes the normal act of making a donation.

If a bribe is intended, from the donation, there has to have been an explicit, written, stated, or emailed(?), promise or undertaking, by the office, to perform or not perform the specific act. Various Constitutional Amendments come into play. There are rights of speech, assembly, petition, free access, and even freedom of donations. So finding a crime is not always easy. You make a donation expecting an influential job. Probably both parties go to jail, if the outcome is the award of the job.

The High Court: When is a campaign contribution a bribe?

You make a donation to a foundation. Someone later on emails that the donor made the donation. It is noted that the donor is in fact the person asking for the appointment, phone call, or email address. All that is happening is that a case is being allowed to be presented, and that the foundation knows something about the person making the presentation. Everything else is Constitutional, even the act of not allowing the access: Unless Civil Rights or other issues come to attention.

Likely no government on earth could survive if allowing access to make a presentation of a caset is considered corruption, or a bribe. Everyone in government would be in jail. Texas was going to pass a law, providing that anyone hiring an "illegal" would have to go to jail. Clearly, the legislation was withdrawn. Everyone with any money in the state, would likely have gone to jail.

The Trump Campaign has no issue. Donald Trump gave the Clinton Foundation $100,000.00, and seems very unlikely to win a political office as the outcome(?)!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(NRA William Tell, Child Endangerment Chapter, at least understands about the importance of getting the fruity things out of the young warriors hair(?)! The AK=47 version, maybe they think applies(?)!)

Sure thing. When you have over 50% of the State Dept visitors paying to see her through a "donation" to the Foundation you have official corruption. You know it. And I know it. Your defense of the indefensible merely shows you to be a political whore.

There very well might not be any corruption in that Hillary probably didn't change any policy, or if she did change policy after meeting someone, there probably is a good argument. But again that isn't the issue, and it just illustrates why anti-Clinton people consistently over play their hand.

Nobody, nobody but the Clintons would even consider using public office to raise money. If Bill wants to retire and raise money, fine. But not while his wife is a senator, SoS and potus candidate. It's absolute hubris. And under normal circumstances, it would doom a campaign.

The State Dept. refused a sale of uranium mines to Russian companies till AFTER the clinton foundation received a nice "donation".

 

[mascale]

People like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates were becoming famous for taking giant chunks of their fortunes, and turning them over for charitable purposes. That had happened around the turn of the 20th century. No one called that corruption then. No one calls that corruption, now. The Clinton Administration economy turned around the path from the First Bush Presidency, into Global International Great Recession. Bill Clinton was not the President in the Second Bush Administration, where a Global International Great Recession was the outcome. The Democrats had bailed the planet out again.

When you have like-minded influential people making donations, in that context--included in about half of the meetings that were reviewed--which is not all of the meetings--and that is maybe half of the investigated meetings: Even any appearance of corruption diminishes.

Then go further. There is another unspecified number of people that would have had meetings as a matter of routine and daily affairs, also making donations, anyway! There you have support for the first group. There is a concept of gratitude, not of gain, subsequent a donation. These groups are making donations out of some high regard for the projects being funded, more likely. These other people may have been inclined to donate, from a high regard for the former President. Donations happened. They further maybe happened at the suggestion of someone like a Warren Buffet, or a Bill Gates.

And then someone makes a random comment that a sale of uranium mines to Russian Companies was refused by State Department, after the Clinton Foundation received a donation. No donor is specified. The location of the mines is unclear. There are no named companies. The existence of the mines is unclear. The Concept of the State Department having any say in the matter of a uranium mine sale is unclear. Selling uranium mines to the Russians is probably a bogus level rumor, about as viable as a rumor that the United States is considering a sale of ore to North Korea, with the blessing of U. S. Department of State.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Spirit of donations can be thought to be comparable--Something ventured, something directly project-related gained!)

 

[westwall]

People like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates were becoming famous for taking giant chunks of their fortunes, and turning them over for charitable purposes. That had happened around the turn of the 20th century. No one called that corruption then. No one calls that corruption, now. The Clinton Administration economy turned around the path from the First Bush Presidency, into Global International Great Recession. Bill Clinton was not the President in the Second Bush Administration, where a Global International Great Recession was the outcome. The Democrats had bailed the planet out again.

When you have like-minded influential people making donations, in that context--included in about half of the meetings that were reviewed--which is not all of the meetings--and that is maybe half of the investigated meetings: Even any appearance of corruption diminishes.

Then go further. There is another unspecified number of people that would have had meetings as a matter of routine and daily affairs, also making donations, anyway! There you have support for the first group. There is a concept of gratitude, not of gain, subsequent a donation. These groups are making donations out of some high regard for the projects being funded, more likely. These other people may have been inclined to donate, from a high regard for the former President. Donations happened. They further maybe happened at the suggestion of someone like a Warren Buffet, or a Bill Gates.

And then someone makes a random comment that a sale of uranium mines to Russian Companies was refused by State Department, after the Clinton Foundation received a donation. No donor is specified. The location of the mines is unclear. There are no named companies. The existence of the mines is unclear. The Concept of the State Department having any say in the matter of a uranium mine sale is unclear. Selling uranium mines to the Russians is probably a bogus level rumor, about as viable as a rumor that the United States is considering a sale of ore to North Korea, with the blessing of U. S. Department of State.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Spirit of donations can be thought to be comparable--Something ventured, something directly project-related gained!)

Big whoop. They give the money to THEMSELVES. Clearly you have no idea how Foundations are run. They control the money, and how it is spent, thus it is still theirs. It is a legal fiction designed to confuse unsophisticated people.

 

[mascale]

Ignorant and Uncaring--just like Trump--poster westwall would note that Warren Buffet actually gives Billions to the Gates Foundation, which in turn actually encourages donations directly to still other charities and organizations. In fact, it too lobbies governments and organizations. Gates is worth about $90.0 bil. this year. No one accuses the internet, however, of being corrupt. No one accuses The Gates Foundation of being corrupt, though likely it knows more government, and government officials, than most people--and with lots more money.

Foundation FAQ

The comparison and contrast has yet to surface. The Democrats and the nominee personally are known to influential people worldwide. That access capability is a part of the package. The Trump campaign showcases people belching, standing in lines for hours, wasting time waiting. The Trump campaign showcase fighting, biting, punching, kicking, eye gouging, and probably an occasional: Spinning Toe Hold(?). The campaign itself has no credible policy assessment, long-lasting organization, any concept of a ground organization. It denigrates, disparages, and promises nuclear war. It can't stand to be involved with trading partners. Instead it wants plunder, rape and steal--even stuff like Iraqi Oil.

The Clinton approach to national and international affairs is on its face: The more viable, national showcase brand.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(National Monument to AK-47 not really viable as a National Brand--except to replace the one to The Great Subjugator, Abe Llincoln. . .Maybe(?)! The William Tell Child Endangerment Chapter of NRA--likely has something else in mind entirely(?)--if anyone believes Trump making a speech about NRA members!)

 

[westwall]

Ignorant and Uncaring--just like Trump--poster westwall would note that Warren Buffet actually gives Billions to the Gates Foundation, which in turn actually encourages donations directly to still other charities and organizations. In fact, it too lobbies governments and organizations. Gates is worth about $90.0 bil. this year. No one accuses the internet, however, of being corrupt. No one accuses The Gates Foundation of being corrupt, though likely it knows more government, and government officials, than most people--and with lots more money.

Foundation FAQ

The comparison and contrast has yet to surface. The Democrats and the nominee personally are known to influential people worldwide. That access capability is a part of the package. The Trump campaign showcases people belching, standing in lines for hours, wasting time waiting. The Trump campaign showcase fighting, biting, punching, kicking, eye gouging, and probably an occasional: Spinning Toe Hold(?). The campaign itself has no credible policy assessment, long-lasting organization, any concept of a ground organization. It denigrates, disparages, and promises nuclear war. It can't stand to be involved with trading partners. Instead it wants plunder, rape and steal--even stuff like Iraqi Oil.

The Clinton approach to national and international affairs is on its face: The more viable, national showcase brand.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(National Monument to AK-47 not really viable as a National Brand--except to replace the one to The Great Subjugator, Abe Llincoln. . .Maybe(?)! The William Tell Child Endangerment Chapter of NRA--likely has something else in mind entirely(?)--if anyone believes Trump making a speech about NRA members!)

Wow. Imagine that, the rich giving to the rich. Next thing you're going to tell me is the gates Foundation gave money the Buffet Foundation. HOLY SHIT! Them boys sure is generous massa! You're one of the unsophisticated ones I was telling you about, I see.

 

[mascale]

Ignorant and Uncaring--Just Like Trump--westwall poster appears unaware even of the famous annual Warren Buffet contributions. The rich Buffet gives money to the foundation, which in turn has set up viable project funding lines. The rich do not profiteer from the foundations, like Trump, CNN, ABC, Fox, and likely others appear to want all people to believe. The Remnant National Committee clearly wants all people to believe that. Mostly, all of its own influential have found all the exists in the building: And are long since gone.

The compare and contrast between the policy actual implementers at Democratic National Committee, and the Denigrating, Disparaging, clawing and gouging at The Remnant National Committee: Has yet to be highlighted anywhere in any analysis or reporting--Donald Trump, CNN, ABC, Fox and likely others.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!)
(New priorities maybe back in place now! Highway 15 between Los Angeles and Las Vegas has reopened--more rich giving to even more rich!)