CDZ Should the FBI release their finding of the Clinton Foundation investigation?

[shockedcanadian]

I have no problem with the investigating which must occur in the Trump campaign if they are colluding and selling influence to Russia. National Security and protection from influence by other nations is essential to America being a successful and free nation.

I would also think that the Clinton Foundation would be a paramount priority. Just because Clinton didn't win the election doesn't mean that there wasn't nefarious activity going on, as can be deduced by the fact that the International arm of the foundation basically shut down after Clintons loss. Talk about a smoking gun.

How much influence was peddled when she was Secretary of State? Were there any promises made or personal gain for her or her family from her position in the U.S government and siphoned through her fund?

The FBI have a stellar reputation for going after the biggest fish and most prominent dangers, there needs to be a message sent to politicians in the future that you cannot sell America to foreign nation states, the release of any finding, even if there are redactions would be a vital step in the pursuit of the truth and justice.

 

[Dragonlady]

There was no influence peddling. Republicans were lying, as usual.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[shockedcanadian]

There was no influence peddling. Republicans were lying, as usual.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I find it hard to believe. If so, then this needs to be explained post election:

The Clinton Foundation Shuts Down Clinton Global Initiative
The Clinton Foundation Shuts Down Clinton Global Initiative

The Clinton Foundation’s long list of wealthy donors and foreign government contributors during the 2016 elections provoked critics to allege conflicts of interests. Clinton partisans defended the organization’s charitable work, and dismissed claims that it served as a means for the Clintons to sell off access, market themselves on the paid speech circuit, and elevate their brand as Hillary Clinton campaigned for the presidency.

But as soon as Clinton lost the election, many of the criticisms directed toward the Clinton Foundation were reaffirmed. Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling the organization’s clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather than its philanthropic work. In November, the Australian government confirmed it “has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.” The government of Norway also drastically reduced their annual donations, which reached $20 million a year in 2015.

On January 12, the Clinton Foundation received more bad news: a WARN notice was filed with the New York Department of Labor. The main office of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City would be closing, laying off 22 employees. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) “offers protection to workers, their families and communities by requiring employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs. This notice must be provided to either affected workers or their representatives (e.g., a labor union); to the State dislocated worker unit; and to the appropriate unit of local government.” The reason for the filing was stated as the “discontinuation of the Clinton Global Initative,” after CGI previously announced layoffs leading up to the general election.


The Clinton Global Initiative was created in 2005 to serve as a networking platform for the Clinton Foundation. Both the initiative’s mission and its own definition of what it seeks to accomplish are vague. “Rather than directly implementing projects, CGI facilitates action by helping members connect, collaborate, and make effective and measurable Commitments to Action—plans for addressing significant global challenges,” states the CGI website. The Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation director of media relations have not responded to requests for a comment.

WikiLeaks revealed several criticisms of the Clinton Foundation were true, as pay-to-play schemes and the foundation’s corrupt management were exposed. On October 26, The Washington Post reported a memo detailed how the Clinton Foundation was used to boost Bill Clinton’s income.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Donald Trump's ties to Russia go back 30 years

 

[usmbguest5318]

I have no problem with the investigating which must occur in the Trump campaign if they are colluding and selling influence to Russia.

??? WTH? The investigation must occur to determine whether there is "colluding and selling influence to Russia." One cannot know if such collusion and sales continue to or have occurred without first investigating. How is one to know whether collusion has or is occurring without first investigating. Dude, put the "cart" behind the "horse," not in front of it.

 

[william the wie]

Yes Clinton was in bed with Putin, everyone who says different is a liar and/or totally ignorant. Amazon is your friend.

 

[yiostheoy]

Jeeze why didn't you do a yes / no poll at least.

My answer would be yes.

 

[usmbguest5318]

There was no influence peddling. Republicans were lying, as usual.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I find it hard to believe. If so, then this needs to be explained post election:

The Clinton Foundation Shuts Down Clinton Global Initiative
The Clinton Foundation Shuts Down Clinton Global Initiative

The Clinton Foundation’s long list of wealthy donors and foreign government contributors during the 2016 elections provoked critics to allege conflicts of interests. Clinton partisans defended the organization’s charitable work, and dismissed claims that it served as a means for the Clintons to sell off access, market themselves on the paid speech circuit, and elevate their brand as Hillary Clinton campaigned for the presidency.

But as soon as Clinton lost the election, many of the criticisms directed toward the Clinton Foundation were reaffirmed. Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling the organization’s clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather than its philanthropic work. In November, the Australian government confirmed it “has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.” The government of Norway also drastically reduced their annual donations, which reached $20 million a year in 2015.

On January 12, the Clinton Foundation received more bad news: a WARN notice was filed with the New York Department of Labor. The main office of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City would be closing, laying off 22 employees. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) “offers protection to workers, their families and communities by requiring employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs. This notice must be provided to either affected workers or their representatives (e.g., a labor union); to the State dislocated worker unit; and to the appropriate unit of local government.” The reason for the filing was stated as the “discontinuation of the Clinton Global Initative,” after CGI previously announced layoffs leading up to the general election.


The Clinton Global Initiative was created in 2005 to serve as a networking platform for the Clinton Foundation. Both the initiative’s mission and its own definition of what it seeks to accomplish are vague. “Rather than directly implementing projects, CGI facilitates action by helping members connect, collaborate, and make effective and measurable Commitments to Action—plans for addressing significant global challenges,” states the CGI website. The Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation director of media relations have not responded to requests for a comment.

WikiLeaks revealed several criticisms of the Clinton Foundation were true, as pay-to-play schemes and the foundation’s corrupt management were exposed. On October 26, The Washington Post reported a memo detailed how the Clinton Foundation was used to boost Bill Clinton’s income.

Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling the organization’s clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather than its philanthropic work.

It equally plausible that the reduction in donations could be the result of the donors not wanting to have their name or conversations associated any longer with an organization that got hacked or with an organization that had become -- rightly or wrongly -- scandalized.

See this also.

the Clinton Foundation received more bad news: a WARN notice was filed with the New York Department of Labor.

The Clinton Foundation didn't receive bad news in connection with the filing of a WARN notice. It, or more accurately, CGI, was the filer of the notice. Organizations that are going to initiate a layoff/close, file WARN notices; they don't receive them.

WikiLeaks revealed several criticisms of the Clinton Foundation were true, as pay-to-play schemes and the foundation’s corrupt management were exposed. On October 26, The Washington Post reported a memo detailed how the Clinton Foundation was used to boost Bill Clinton’s income.

It appears that the Observer's writer/editors, along with the OP, don't understand the difference between a business and a public charity: businesses generate money for their owners; public charities collect money, goods and/or services it distributes to their beneficiaries, none of whom are the founders of the charity in question. The individuals who manage charities, like those who manage businesses, generally receive a salary for their efforts. Most importantly, the function of a charity is to give away resources, not retain them, which is what a business' function is.

Did you actually trace and then read the linked content associated the Observer articles? Hell, I can't be sure, given what the Observer wrote, that their own writers actually read what was at those links.

From the Observer:

First link -- > WikiLeaks:
There's no mention of CGI in the article. The WikiLeaked documents are, by the Observer, indicated as being emails that show Obama exchanged ambassadorships for donations to the DNC, not the CGI. Because your article is about the Clintons and CGI, not Obama and the DNC, I didn't follow the linked content in the Observer article.

Second link --> Pay-to-Play
I think someone doesn't know what pay-to-play (P2P) is. P2P is little more than a bribing scheme whereby a first party wanting something -- something that cannot ordinarily be purchased or that isn't generally offered for sale in an open market, recognizing that open markets can be readily accessed as with, say, a shopping mall, or not so readily accessed (for any number of reasons) as with an IPO or a flea market 3K miles away -- pays a second party in exchange for that something. The second party takes title to the money/goods given by the first party, and the first party receives whatever it is they wanted from the second party.

Now just what is the nature/structure of the Pinchuk deal described in the WikiLeaked email and described in the Observer article pertaining to the second link?

• Pinchuk wants Bill Clinton (BC) to appear at an event. He wants BC to appear because BC is a big draw who can attract the individuals with whom Pinchuk wants to speak about Ukrainian matters. It's essentially like having a celebrity appear at a an event or staffing a movie with a big name actor so as to generate interest. Tina Flournoy plainly states as much in the leaked email writing, "[Pinchuk] wants to bring together a few western leaders to show support for Ukraine. I sense this is so important because Pinchuk is under Putin’s heel right now, feeling a great degree of pressure and pain for his many years of nurturing stronger ties with the West."
  
• The Observer notes that Pinchuk gave millions of dollars to CGI. Okay....He has millions to give; he's a billionaire. The key, however, is that he gave them to a public charity, not to the Clintons.
• The Observer notes that Pinchuk lent his plane to the Clintons.
  
  Well, so what? People do nice things for their friends, and the "value" of favors one does for friends is merely a function of one's wealth. Have you not lent anything to your close friends/associates? Perhaps your home, car, boat, riding gear or a horse, or a buzzsaw?
  
  I sure have...I've allowed a few colleagues to use my beach house. A friend granted me the use of the social room in one of his buildings so I could host a small event there. I'm not well off enough to own a plane, but a guy I went to school with is. He sent his plane to pick me up in D.C. and fly me to his home out west for a party he hosted. I was the only one on the plane besides the pilot and cabin attendant.
• The Observer notes that Pinchuk and Secy. Clinton met on several occasions "to discuss the continuing political crisis in Ukraine." (Note that nobody attempted to hide or deny that the meetings occurred. The man who facilitated them duly reported them as required by U.S. law pertaining to his role as a lobbyist.) Well, the man is the billionaire son-in-law of the former president of Ukraine who held office at the same time BC did. Pinchuk is/was clearly financially and politically well connected in Ukraine and there was plenty of cause for the SecState to meet with influential and powerful Ukrainians. (Timeline; U.S.-Ukrainian Relations) It's not as though he is merely a rich "nobody" who otherwise wouldn't ever have had cause or means to meet with the SecState.

Well, doing favors for friends and making donations to charities doesn't P2P make.

Third link --> Bill Clinton
The man got paid for speaking engagements. I don't want to pay to hear the man say "whatever," obviously people do. It's quite rare that bright people who have had distinguished careers don't get paid to speak from time to time. Clinton is Rhodes Scholar, former governor, and a two term former POTUS. He's got plenty that he can talk about, and he's, obviously, well connected in his own right, so it's quite normal that lots of people are willing to pay him good money to say something. If he can get handsomely paid for talking to a room of people, more power to him. It's good money for people who can get it, though the Clintons are old now, so they likely won't be on the speaking circuit much longer.​

Quite simply, there'd be something to make of the CGI and the Clintons if it were not for the fact that the FBI investigated it and hasn't come up with a damn thing to charge them with. It's one thing to not look for wrongdoing and not find it. It's wholly another to look as hard and thoroughly as the FBI has at the CGI and still not find anything, especially when there's as much "smoke" as there as has been surrounding the CGI. Where there's smoke there's usually fire, but sometimes, it's just smoke, and that appears to be what it is with the CGI.

 

[2aguy]

There was no influence peddling. Republicans were lying, as usual.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I find it hard to believe. If so, then this needs to be explained post election:

The Clinton Foundation Shuts Down Clinton Global Initiative
The Clinton Foundation Shuts Down Clinton Global Initiative

The Clinton Foundation’s long list of wealthy donors and foreign government contributors during the 2016 elections provoked critics to allege conflicts of interests. Clinton partisans defended the organization’s charitable work, and dismissed claims that it served as a means for the Clintons to sell off access, market themselves on the paid speech circuit, and elevate their brand as Hillary Clinton campaigned for the presidency.

But as soon as Clinton lost the election, many of the criticisms directed toward the Clinton Foundation were reaffirmed. Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling the organization’s clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather than its philanthropic work. In November, the Australian government confirmed it “has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.” The government of Norway also drastically reduced their annual donations, which reached $20 million a year in 2015.

On January 12, the Clinton Foundation received more bad news: a WARN notice was filed with the New York Department of Labor. The main office of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City would be closing, laying off 22 employees. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) “offers protection to workers, their families and communities by requiring employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs. This notice must be provided to either affected workers or their representatives (e.g., a labor union); to the State dislocated worker unit; and to the appropriate unit of local government.” The reason for the filing was stated as the “discontinuation of the Clinton Global Initative,” after CGI previously announced layoffs leading up to the general election.


The Clinton Global Initiative was created in 2005 to serve as a networking platform for the Clinton Foundation. Both the initiative’s mission and its own definition of what it seeks to accomplish are vague. “Rather than directly implementing projects, CGI facilitates action by helping members connect, collaborate, and make effective and measurable Commitments to Action—plans for addressing significant global challenges,” states the CGI website. The Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation director of media relations have not responded to requests for a comment.

WikiLeaks revealed several criticisms of the Clinton Foundation were true, as pay-to-play schemes and the foundation’s corrupt management were exposed. On October 26, The Washington Post reported a memo detailed how the Clinton Foundation was used to boost Bill Clinton’s income.

Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling the organization’s clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather than its philanthropic work.

It equally plausible that the reduction in donations could be the result of the donors not wanting to have their name or conversations associated any longer with an organization that got hacked or with an organization that had become -- rightly or wrongly -- scandalized.

See this also.

the Clinton Foundation received more bad news: a WARN notice was filed with the New York Department of Labor.

The Clinton Foundation didn't receive bad news in connection with the filing of a WARN notice. It, or more accurately, CGI, was the filer of the notice. Organizations that are going to initiate a layoff/close, file WARN notices; they don't receive them.

WikiLeaks revealed several criticisms of the Clinton Foundation were true, as pay-to-play schemes and the foundation’s corrupt management were exposed. On October 26, The Washington Post reported a memo detailed how the Clinton Foundation was used to boost Bill Clinton’s income.

It appears that the Observer's writer/editors, along with the OP, don't understand the difference between a business and a public charity: businesses generate money for their owners; public charities collect money, goods and/or services it distributes to their beneficiaries, none of whom are the founders of the charity in question. The individuals who manage charities, like those who manage businesses, generally receive a salary for their efforts. Most importantly, the function of a charity is to give away resources, not retain them, which is what a business' function is.

Did you actually trace and then read the linked content associated the Observer articles? Hell, I can't be sure, given what the Observer wrote, that their own writers actually read what was at those links.

From the Observer:

First link -- > WikiLeaks:
There's no mention of CGI in the article. The WikiLeaked documents are, by the Observer, indicated as being emails that show Obama exchanged ambassadorships for donations to the DNC, not the CGI. Because your article is about the Clintons and CGI, not Obama and the DNC, I didn't follow the linked content in the Observer article.

Second link --> Pay-to-Play
I think someone doesn't know what pay-to-play (P2P) is. P2P is little more than a bribing scheme whereby a first party wanting something -- something that cannot ordinarily be purchased or that isn't generally offered for sale in an open market, recognizing that open markets can be readily accessed as with, say, a shopping mall, or not so readily accessed (for any number of reasons) as with an IPO or a flea market 3K miles away -- pays a second party in exchange for that something. The second party takes title to the money/goods given by the first party, and the first party receives whatever it is they wanted from the second party.

Now just what is the nature/structure of the Pinchuk deal described in the WikiLeaked email and described in the Observer article pertaining to the second link?

• Pinchuk wants Bill Clinton (BC) to appear at an event. He wants BC to appear because BC is a big draw who can attract the individuals with whom Pinchuk wants to speak about Ukrainian matters. It's essentially like having a celebrity appear at a an event or staffing a movie with a big name actor so as to generate interest. Tina Flournoy plainly states as much in the leaked email writing, "[Pinchuk] wants to bring together a few western leaders to show support for Ukraine. I sense this is so important because Pinchuk is under Putin’s heel right now, feeling a great degree of pressure and pain for his many years of nurturing stronger ties with the West."
  
• The Observer notes that Pinchuk gave millions of dollars to CGI. Okay....He has millions to give; he's a billionaire. The key, however, is that he gave them to a public charity, not to the Clintons.
• The Observer notes that Pinchuk lent his plane to the Clintons.
  
  Well, so what? People do nice things for their friends, and the "value" of favors one does for friends is merely a function of one's wealth. Have you not lent anything to your close friends/associates? Perhaps your home, car, boat, riding gear or a horse, or a buzzsaw?
  
  I sure have...I've allowed a few colleagues to use my beach house. A friend granted me the use of the social room in one of his buildings so I could host a small event there. I'm not well off enough to own a plane, but a guy I went to school with is. He sent his plane to pick me up in D.C. and fly me to his home out west for a party he hosted. I was the only one on the plane besides the pilot and cabin attendant.
• The Observer notes that Pinchuk and Secy. Clinton met on several occasions "to discuss the continuing political crisis in Ukraine." (Note that nobody attempted to hide or deny that the meetings occurred. The man who facilitated them duly reported them as required by U.S. law pertaining to his role as a lobbyist.) Well, the man is the billionaire son-in-law of the former president of Ukraine who held office at the same time BC did. Pinchuk is/was clearly financially and politically well connected in Ukraine and there was plenty of cause for the SecState to meet with influential and powerful Ukrainians. (Timeline; U.S.-Ukrainian Relations) It's not as though he is merely a rich "nobody" who otherwise wouldn't ever have had cause or means to meet with the SecState.

Well, doing favors for friends and making donations to charities doesn't P2P make.

Third link --> Bill Clinton
The man got paid for speaking engagements. I don't want to pay to hear the man say "whatever," obviously people do. It's quite rare that bright people who have had distinguished careers don't get paid to speak from time to time. Clinton is Rhodes Scholar, former governor, and a two term former POTUS. He's got plenty that he can talk about, and he's, obviously, well connected in his own right, so it's quite normal that lots of people are willing to pay him good money to say something. If he can get handsomely paid for talking to a room of people, more power to him. It's good money for people who can get it, though the Clintons are old now, so they likely won't be on the speaking circuit much longer.​

Quite simply, there'd be something to make of the CGI and the Clintons if it were not for the fact that the FBI investigated it and hasn't come up with a damn thing to charge them with. It's one thing to not look for wrongdoing and not find it. It's wholly another to look as hard and thoroughly as the FBI has at the CGI and still not find anything, especially when there's as much "smoke" as there as has been surrounding the CGI. Where there's smoke there's usually fire, but sometimes, it's just smoke, and that appears to be what it is with the CGI.

The obama Justice Department interfered with the FBI investigation into the clinton foundation......and the fact that bill clinton, the rapist, met with loretta lynch in secret.....says everything you need to know about obama and the clintons....

 

[jwoodie]

There was no influence peddling. Republicans were lying, as usual.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I find it hard to believe. If so, then this needs to be explained post election:

The Clinton Foundation Shuts Down Clinton Global Initiative
The Clinton Foundation Shuts Down Clinton Global Initiative

The Clinton Foundation’s long list of wealthy donors and foreign government contributors during the 2016 elections provoked critics to allege conflicts of interests. Clinton partisans defended the organization’s charitable work, and dismissed claims that it served as a means for the Clintons to sell off access, market themselves on the paid speech circuit, and elevate their brand as Hillary Clinton campaigned for the presidency.

But as soon as Clinton lost the election, many of the criticisms directed toward the Clinton Foundation were reaffirmed. Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling the organization’s clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather than its philanthropic work. In November, the Australian government confirmed it “has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.” The government of Norway also drastically reduced their annual donations, which reached $20 million a year in 2015.

On January 12, the Clinton Foundation received more bad news: a WARN notice was filed with the New York Department of Labor. The main office of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City would be closing, laying off 22 employees. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) “offers protection to workers, their families and communities by requiring employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs. This notice must be provided to either affected workers or their representatives (e.g., a labor union); to the State dislocated worker unit; and to the appropriate unit of local government.” The reason for the filing was stated as the “discontinuation of the Clinton Global Initative,” after CGI previously announced layoffs leading up to the general election.


The Clinton Global Initiative was created in 2005 to serve as a networking platform for the Clinton Foundation. Both the initiative’s mission and its own definition of what it seeks to accomplish are vague. “Rather than directly implementing projects, CGI facilitates action by helping members connect, collaborate, and make effective and measurable Commitments to Action—plans for addressing significant global challenges,” states the CGI website. The Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation director of media relations have not responded to requests for a comment.

WikiLeaks revealed several criticisms of the Clinton Foundation were true, as pay-to-play schemes and the foundation’s corrupt management were exposed. On October 26, The Washington Post reported a memo detailed how the Clinton Foundation was used to boost Bill Clinton’s income.

Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling the organization’s clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather than its philanthropic work.

It equally plausible that the reduction in donations could be the result of the donors not wanting to have their name or conversations associated any longer with an organization that got hacked or with an organization that had become -- rightly or wrongly -- scandalized.

See this also.

the Clinton Foundation received more bad news: a WARN notice was filed with the New York Department of Labor.

The Clinton Foundation didn't receive bad news in connection with the filing of a WARN notice. It, or more accurately, CGI, was the filer of the notice. Organizations that are going to initiate a layoff/close, file WARN notices; they don't receive them.

WikiLeaks revealed several criticisms of the Clinton Foundation were true, as pay-to-play schemes and the foundation’s corrupt management were exposed. On October 26, The Washington Post reported a memo detailed how the Clinton Foundation was used to boost Bill Clinton’s income.

It appears that the Observer's writer/editors, along with the OP, don't understand the difference between a business and a public charity: businesses generate money for their owners; public charities collect money, goods and/or services it distributes to their beneficiaries, none of whom are the founders of the charity in question. The individuals who manage charities, like those who manage businesses, generally receive a salary for their efforts. Most importantly, the function of a charity is to give away resources, not retain them, which is what a business' function is.

Did you actually trace and then read the linked content associated the Observer articles? Hell, I can't be sure, given what the Observer wrote, that their own writers actually read what was at those links.

From the Observer:

First link -- > WikiLeaks:
There's no mention of CGI in the article. The WikiLeaked documents are, by the Observer, indicated as being emails that show Obama exchanged ambassadorships for donations to the DNC, not the CGI. Because your article is about the Clintons and CGI, not Obama and the DNC, I didn't follow the linked content in the Observer article.

Second link --> Pay-to-Play
I think someone doesn't know what pay-to-play (P2P) is. P2P is little more than a bribing scheme whereby a first party wanting something -- something that cannot ordinarily be purchased or that isn't generally offered for sale in an open market, recognizing that open markets can be readily accessed as with, say, a shopping mall, or not so readily accessed (for any number of reasons) as with an IPO or a flea market 3K miles away -- pays a second party in exchange for that something. The second party takes title to the money/goods given by the first party, and the first party receives whatever it is they wanted from the second party.

Now just what is the nature/structure of the Pinchuk deal described in the WikiLeaked email and described in the Observer article pertaining to the second link?

• Pinchuk wants Bill Clinton (BC) to appear at an event. He wants BC to appear because BC is a big draw who can attract the individuals with whom Pinchuk wants to speak about Ukrainian matters. It's essentially like having a celebrity appear at a an event or staffing a movie with a big name actor so as to generate interest. Tina Flournoy plainly states as much in the leaked email writing, "[Pinchuk] wants to bring together a few western leaders to show support for Ukraine. I sense this is so important because Pinchuk is under Putin’s heel right now, feeling a great degree of pressure and pain for his many years of nurturing stronger ties with the West."
  
• The Observer notes that Pinchuk gave millions of dollars to CGI. Okay....He has millions to give; he's a billionaire. The key, however, is that he gave them to a public charity, not to the Clintons.
• The Observer notes that Pinchuk lent his plane to the Clintons.
  
  Well, so what? People do nice things for their friends, and the "value" of favors one does for friends is merely a function of one's wealth. Have you not lent anything to your close friends/associates? Perhaps your home, car, boat, riding gear or a horse, or a buzzsaw?
  
  I sure have...I've allowed a few colleagues to use my beach house. A friend granted me the use of the social room in one of his buildings so I could host a small event there. I'm not well off enough to own a plane, but a guy I went to school with is. He sent his plane to pick me up in D.C. and fly me to his home out west for a party he hosted. I was the only one on the plane besides the pilot and cabin attendant.
• The Observer notes that Pinchuk and Secy. Clinton met on several occasions "to discuss the continuing political crisis in Ukraine." (Note that nobody attempted to hide or deny that the meetings occurred. The man who facilitated them duly reported them as required by U.S. law pertaining to his role as a lobbyist.) Well, the man is the billionaire son-in-law of the former president of Ukraine who held office at the same time BC did. Pinchuk is/was clearly financially and politically well connected in Ukraine and there was plenty of cause for the SecState to meet with influential and powerful Ukrainians. (Timeline; U.S.-Ukrainian Relations) It's not as though he is merely a rich "nobody" who otherwise wouldn't ever have had cause or means to meet with the SecState.

Well, doing favors for friends and making donations to charities doesn't P2P make.

Third link --> Bill Clinton
The man got paid for speaking engagements. I don't want to pay to hear the man say "whatever," obviously people do. It's quite rare that bright people who have had distinguished careers don't get paid to speak from time to time. Clinton is Rhodes Scholar, former governor, and a two term former POTUS. He's got plenty that he can talk about, and he's, obviously, well connected in his own right, so it's quite normal that lots of people are willing to pay him good money to say something. If he can get handsomely paid for talking to a room of people, more power to him. It's good money for people who can get it, though the Clintons are old now, so they likely won't be on the speaking circuit much longer.​

Quite simply, there'd be something to make of the CGI and the Clintons if it were not for the fact that the FBI investigated it and hasn't come up with a damn thing to charge them with. It's one thing to not look for wrongdoing and not find it. It's wholly another to look as hard and thoroughly as the FBI has at the CGI and still not find anything, especially when there's as much "smoke" as there as has been surrounding the CGI. Where there's smoke there's usually fire, but sometimes, it's just smoke, and that appears to be what it is with the CGI.

The length of the excuse is inversely proportional to the innocence of the accused.

 

[oldsoul]

There was no influence peddling. Republicans were lying, as usual.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Then there should be nothing to hide. Why doesn't the foundation pressure the FBI to release their findings, if it would prove there was no influence peddling? Or better yet, release the proof they must have, assuming you are correct, that you are correct. See, generally speaking, when a well known organisation/person is accused of something, and has evidence that the accusations are unfounded, they will usually provide such evidence publicly. If only to clear their name in the public eye. Has the Clinton Foundation done this? I am unaware of such a move. If they, indeed, have not peddled influence, why not release the evidence that exonerates them?

 

[jasonnfree]

There was no influence peddling. Republicans were lying, as usual.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I find it hard to believe. If so, then this needs to be explained post election:

The Clinton Foundation Shuts Down Clinton Global Initiative
The Clinton Foundation Shuts Down Clinton Global Initiative

The Clinton Foundation’s long list of wealthy donors and foreign government contributors during the 2016 elections provoked critics to allege conflicts of interests. Clinton partisans defended the organization’s charitable work, and dismissed claims that it served as a means for the Clintons to sell off access, market themselves on the paid speech circuit, and elevate their brand as Hillary Clinton campaigned for the presidency.

But as soon as Clinton lost the election, many of the criticisms directed toward the Clinton Foundation were reaffirmed. Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling the organization’s clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather than its philanthropic work. In November, the Australian government confirmed it “has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.” The government of Norway also drastically reduced their annual donations, which reached $20 million a year in 2015.

On January 12, the Clinton Foundation received more bad news: a WARN notice was filed with the New York Department of Labor. The main office of the Clinton Global Initiative in New York City would be closing, laying off 22 employees. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) “offers protection to workers, their families and communities by requiring employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs. This notice must be provided to either affected workers or their representatives (e.g., a labor union); to the State dislocated worker unit; and to the appropriate unit of local government.” The reason for the filing was stated as the “discontinuation of the Clinton Global Initative,” after CGI previously announced layoffs leading up to the general election.


The Clinton Global Initiative was created in 2005 to serve as a networking platform for the Clinton Foundation. Both the initiative’s mission and its own definition of what it seeks to accomplish are vague. “Rather than directly implementing projects, CGI facilitates action by helping members connect, collaborate, and make effective and measurable Commitments to Action—plans for addressing significant global challenges,” states the CGI website. The Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation director of media relations have not responded to requests for a comment.

WikiLeaks revealed several criticisms of the Clinton Foundation were true, as pay-to-play schemes and the foundation’s corrupt management were exposed. On October 26, The Washington Post reported a memo detailed how the Clinton Foundation was used to boost Bill Clinton’s income.

Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling the organization’s clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather than its philanthropic work.

It equally plausible that the reduction in donations could be the result of the donors not wanting to have their name or conversations associated any longer with an organization that got hacked or with an organization that had become -- rightly or wrongly -- scandalized.

See this also.

the Clinton Foundation received more bad news: a WARN notice was filed with the New York Department of Labor.

The Clinton Foundation didn't receive bad news in connection with the filing of a WARN notice. It, or more accurately, CGI, was the filer of the notice. Organizations that are going to initiate a layoff/close, file WARN notices; they don't receive them.

WikiLeaks revealed several criticisms of the Clinton Foundation were true, as pay-to-play schemes and the foundation’s corrupt management were exposed. On October 26, The Washington Post reported a memo detailed how the Clinton Foundation was used to boost Bill Clinton’s income.

It appears that the Observer's writer/editors, along with the OP, don't understand the difference between a business and a public charity: businesses generate money for their owners; public charities collect money, goods and/or services it distributes to their beneficiaries, none of whom are the founders of the charity in question. The individuals who manage charities, like those who manage businesses, generally receive a salary for their efforts. Most importantly, the function of a charity is to give away resources, not retain them, which is what a business' function is.

Did you actually trace and then read the linked content associated the Observer articles? Hell, I can't be sure, given what the Observer wrote, that their own writers actually read what was at those links.

From the Observer:

First link -- > WikiLeaks:
There's no mention of CGI in the article. The WikiLeaked documents are, by the Observer, indicated as being emails that show Obama exchanged ambassadorships for donations to the DNC, not the CGI. Because your article is about the Clintons and CGI, not Obama and the DNC, I didn't follow the linked content in the Observer article.

Second link --> Pay-to-Play
I think someone doesn't know what pay-to-play (P2P) is. P2P is little more than a bribing scheme whereby a first party wanting something -- something that cannot ordinarily be purchased or that isn't generally offered for sale in an open market, recognizing that open markets can be readily accessed as with, say, a shopping mall, or not so readily accessed (for any number of reasons) as with an IPO or a flea market 3K miles away -- pays a second party in exchange for that something. The second party takes title to the money/goods given by the first party, and the first party receives whatever it is they wanted from the second party.

Now just what is the nature/structure of the Pinchuk deal described in the WikiLeaked email and described in the Observer article pertaining to the second link?

• Pinchuk wants Bill Clinton (BC) to appear at an event. He wants BC to appear because BC is a big draw who can attract the individuals with whom Pinchuk wants to speak about Ukrainian matters. It's essentially like having a celebrity appear at a an event or staffing a movie with a big name actor so as to generate interest. Tina Flournoy plainly states as much in the leaked email writing, "[Pinchuk] wants to bring together a few western leaders to show support for Ukraine. I sense this is so important because Pinchuk is under Putin’s heel right now, feeling a great degree of pressure and pain for his many years of nurturing stronger ties with the West."
  
• The Observer notes that Pinchuk gave millions of dollars to CGI. Okay....He has millions to give; he's a billionaire. The key, however, is that he gave them to a public charity, not to the Clintons.
• The Observer notes that Pinchuk lent his plane to the Clintons.
  
  Well, so what? People do nice things for their friends, and the "value" of favors one does for friends is merely a function of one's wealth. Have you not lent anything to your close friends/associates? Perhaps your home, car, boat, riding gear or a horse, or a buzzsaw?
  
  I sure have...I've allowed a few colleagues to use my beach house. A friend granted me the use of the social room in one of his buildings so I could host a small event there. I'm not well off enough to own a plane, but a guy I went to school with is. He sent his plane to pick me up in D.C. and fly me to his home out west for a party he hosted. I was the only one on the plane besides the pilot and cabin attendant.
• The Observer notes that Pinchuk and Secy. Clinton met on several occasions "to discuss the continuing political crisis in Ukraine." (Note that nobody attempted to hide or deny that the meetings occurred. The man who facilitated them duly reported them as required by U.S. law pertaining to his role as a lobbyist.) Well, the man is the billionaire son-in-law of the former president of Ukraine who held office at the same time BC did. Pinchuk is/was clearly financially and politically well connected in Ukraine and there was plenty of cause for the SecState to meet with influential and powerful Ukrainians. (Timeline; U.S.-Ukrainian Relations) It's not as though he is merely a rich "nobody" who otherwise wouldn't ever have had cause or means to meet with the SecState.

Well, doing favors for friends and making donations to charities doesn't P2P make.

Third link --> Bill Clinton
The man got paid for speaking engagements. I don't want to pay to hear the man say "whatever," obviously people do. It's quite rare that bright people who have had distinguished careers don't get paid to speak from time to time. Clinton is Rhodes Scholar, former governor, and a two term former POTUS. He's got plenty that he can talk about, and he's, obviously, well connected in his own right, so it's quite normal that lots of people are willing to pay him good money to say something. If he can get handsomely paid for talking to a room of people, more power to him. It's good money for people who can get it, though the Clintons are old now, so they likely won't be on the speaking circuit much longer.​

Quite simply, there'd be something to make of the CGI and the Clintons if it were not for the fact that the FBI investigated it and hasn't come up with a damn thing to charge them with. It's one thing to not look for wrongdoing and not find it. It's wholly another to look as hard and thoroughly as the FBI has at the CGI and still not find anything, especially when there's as much "smoke" as there as has been surrounding the CGI. Where there's smoke there's usually fire, but sometimes, it's just smoke, and that appears to be what it is with the CGI.

The donations dried up immediately after the clintons lost the election. Timing too good to be a coincidence.

 

[Toronado3800]

I have no problem with the investigating which must occur in the Trump campaign if they are colluding and selling influence to Russia. National Security and protection from influence by other nations is essential to America being a successful and free nation.

I would also think that the Clinton Foundation would be a paramount priority. Just because Clinton didn't win the election doesn't mean that there wasn't nefarious activity going on, as can be deduced by the fact that the International arm of the foundation basically shut down after Clintons loss. Talk about a smoking gun.

How much influence was peddled when she was Secretary of State? Were there any promises made or personal gain for her or her family from her position in the U.S government and siphoned through her fund?

The FBI have a stellar reputation for going after the biggest fish and most prominent dangers, there needs to be a message sent to politicians in the future that you cannot sell America to foreign nation states, the release of any finding, even if there are redactions would be a vital step in the pursuit of the truth and justice.

If this is a running poll I say, "sure the FBI should release their findings".

Let's throw in the usual, "if it doesn't hurt continuing investigations" or whatever.

 

[Dragonlady]

There was no influence peddling. Republicans were lying, as usual.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Then there should be nothing to hide. Why doesn't the foundation pressure the FBI to release their findings, if it would prove there was no influence peddling? Or better yet, release the proof they must have, assuming you are correct, that you are correct. See, generally speaking, when a well known organisation/person is accused of something, and has evidence that the accusations are unfounded, they will usually provide such evidence publicly. If only to clear their name in the public eye. Has the Clinton Foundation done this? I am unaware of such a move. If they, indeed, have not peddled influence, why not release the evidence that exonerates them?

There was no FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation. There was an IRS investigation of the Foundation made after an allegation was filed by Judicial Watch (the Koch Bros.) of Pay for Play. No word on the result. The Clintons have been harassed by Republicans for 35 years. I seriously doubt they would be so stupid as to openly accept bribes from foreign governments. Even Trump, dumb as he is, was smart enough to cover his tracks on that one.