The AP in deep doo-doo for it's misleading Hillary Clinton "Clinton Foundation" Exposé.

[rdean]

Associated Press botches Hillary Clinton report and response

Hillary Clinton is surrounded by suggestions of controversy. Terms like "Clinton Foundation," "email server," and "Benghazi" hover around her like a faint smoke that hints at the existence of fire.

But finding the fire -- the lie, the misdeed, the unethical act -- is proving to be rather difficult, as evidenced this week by an inaccurate tweet and arguably misleading story from the Associated Press that were quickly rebutted by the Clinton campaign and dismissed by many media outlets

"The AP's big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess," his headline read.

------------
Oops!
------------

The AP’s defense of its bad Clinton Foundation story is also bad

But having looked into it, the reporters do not seem to have found any special favors. That in and of itself is an interesting conclusion. There has been a lot of discussion around potential conflicts of interest related to the Clinton Foundation, so the absence of any clear evidence of actual misconduct is a useful contribution to our understanding.

The story the AP wrote — full of arbitrary math, sensationalistic tweets, and strange insinuations — is not.

----------------------------------------

Trump and the GOP has put themselves into the position of needing to apologize to Hillary Clinton. Republicans say where there is smoke, there's fire. Only Republicans create the smoke and then look for the fire. 30 years of smoke and no fire.

No...it wasn't misleading....it told the truth.....the minions in the media are now covering for hilary.....they don't want the Dr. Drew treatment.....

I know you wished so hard it was the truth. But it wasn't. That's why it's been debunked.

The Clinton Foundation story is being spun out of control

But here is where the AP blew their story. In an attempt to provide an example of how this becomes an “optics” problem for Hillary Clinton, they focused much of the article on the fact that she met several times with Muhammad Yunus, a Clinton Foundation donor. In case you don’t recognize that name, he is an economist from Bangladesh who pioneered the concepts of microcredit and microfinance as a way to fight poverty, and founded Grameen Bank. For those efforts, Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006, the United States Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009 and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2010.

The connection the AP tries to make is that SoS Clinton met with Yunus because he was a Clinton Foundation donor. What they didn’t mention is that their relationship goes back over 30 years to the time Hillary (as first lady of Arkansas) heard about his work and brought him to her state to explore the possibility of implementing microfinance programs to assist the poor.

----------------------------------------

Republicans think helping the poor is some fantastic bad joke and a waste of time an money.

On the Morning Joe interview, Mrs. Clinton say she met with around 17,000 people during her four years as SOS. The AP said half of those were her donors and then gave the number of donors at 85. 85 as half of 17,000 is the new GOP "fuzzy" math.

 

[rdean]

Associated Press botches Hillary Clinton report and response

Hillary Clinton is surrounded by suggestions of controversy. Terms like "Clinton Foundation," "email server," and "Benghazi" hover around her like a faint smoke that hints at the existence of fire.

But finding the fire -- the lie, the misdeed, the unethical act -- is proving to be rather difficult, as evidenced this week by an inaccurate tweet and arguably misleading story from the Associated Press that were quickly rebutted by the Clinton campaign and dismissed by many media outlets

"The AP's big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess," his headline read.

------------
Oops!
------------

The AP’s defense of its bad Clinton Foundation story is also bad

But having looked into it, the reporters do not seem to have found any special favors. That in and of itself is an interesting conclusion. There has been a lot of discussion around potential conflicts of interest related to the Clinton Foundation, so the absence of any clear evidence of actual misconduct is a useful contribution to our understanding.

The story the AP wrote — full of arbitrary math, sensationalistic tweets, and strange insinuations — is not.

----------------------------------------

Trump and the GOP has put themselves into the position of needing to apologize to Hillary Clinton. Republicans say where there is smoke, there's fire. Only Republicans create the smoke and then look for the fire. 30 years of smoke and no fire.

All the exposes on the Clinton foundation are a mess because there is just not much to expose. The work they do is extensively documented and they have more financial information available on line than the Red Cross or most any charity. The foundation spends 88% of all donations on charitable programs in dozens of underdeveloped countries. The fact that dozens of foundations are donating tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation is a good sign that the money is being well spend. These foundations such as the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation spend a lot time and resources investigation before they donate. They not only look at the statistics that show were the money is going but they investigate how effective the programs are.

Republicans have to be getting pretty desperate to attack the Clinton Foundation in an attempt to discredit Hillary. Like most of the Clinton attacks, this one will fail.

Foreign contributions while she was SOS? Naah nothing to worry about there... Then there's Haiti....

Do you mean that place in the Caribbean where her brother was awarded a literal goldmine and her friends at Walmart got a brand new duty-free sweatshop while she was Secretary of State?

Wow, I would love to read about those. Please post the links.

 

[rdean]

Associated Press botches Hillary Clinton report and response

Hillary Clinton is surrounded by suggestions of controversy. Terms like "Clinton Foundation," "email server," and "Benghazi" hover around her like a faint smoke that hints at the existence of fire.

But finding the fire -- the lie, the misdeed, the unethical act -- is proving to be rather difficult, as evidenced this week by an inaccurate tweet and arguably misleading story from the Associated Press that were quickly rebutted by the Clinton campaign and dismissed by many media outlets

"The AP's big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess," his headline read.

------------
Oops!
------------

The AP’s defense of its bad Clinton Foundation story is also bad

But having looked into it, the reporters do not seem to have found any special favors. That in and of itself is an interesting conclusion. There has been a lot of discussion around potential conflicts of interest related to the Clinton Foundation, so the absence of any clear evidence of actual misconduct is a useful contribution to our understanding.

The story the AP wrote — full of arbitrary math, sensationalistic tweets, and strange insinuations — is not.

----------------------------------------

Trump and the GOP has put themselves into the position of needing to apologize to Hillary Clinton. Republicans say where there is smoke, there's fire. Only Republicans create the smoke and then look for the fire. 30 years of smoke and no fire.

Once again a clinton is involved in a scandal and hides evidence that would be needed to ensure a successful prosecution and her sycophants claim she is innocent.
If nothing else Dweeb, you can be relied upon to amuse sentient beings the world over. Thank you.

With all the "evidence", Republicans must be the most stupid fucks in the world for not being able to convict her of anything.

Or she is so smart, that she always wins. If that's the case, then I definitely want her for president.

 

[Muhammed]

Associated Press botches Hillary Clinton report and response

Hillary Clinton is surrounded by suggestions of controversy. Terms like "Clinton Foundation," "email server," and "Benghazi" hover around her like a faint smoke that hints at the existence of fire.

But finding the fire -- the lie, the misdeed, the unethical act -- is proving to be rather difficult, as evidenced this week by an inaccurate tweet and arguably misleading story from the Associated Press that were quickly rebutted by the Clinton campaign and dismissed by many media outlets

"The AP's big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess," his headline read.

------------
Oops!
------------

The AP’s defense of its bad Clinton Foundation story is also bad

But having looked into it, the reporters do not seem to have found any special favors. That in and of itself is an interesting conclusion. There has been a lot of discussion around potential conflicts of interest related to the Clinton Foundation, so the absence of any clear evidence of actual misconduct is a useful contribution to our understanding.

The story the AP wrote — full of arbitrary math, sensationalistic tweets, and strange insinuations — is not.

----------------------------------------

Trump and the GOP has put themselves into the position of needing to apologize to Hillary Clinton. Republicans say where there is smoke, there's fire. Only Republicans create the smoke and then look for the fire. 30 years of smoke and no fire.

All the exposes on the Clinton foundation are a mess because there is just not much to expose. The work they do is extensively documented and they have more financial information available on line than the Red Cross or most any charity. The foundation spends 88% of all donations on charitable programs in dozens of underdeveloped countries. The fact that dozens of foundations are donating tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation is a good sign that the money is being well spend. These foundations such as the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation spend a lot time and resources investigation before they donate. They not only look at the statistics that show were the money is going but they investigate how effective the programs are.

Republicans have to be getting pretty desperate to attack the Clinton Foundation in an attempt to discredit Hillary. Like most of the Clinton attacks, this one will fail.

Foreign contributions while she was SOS? Naah nothing to worry about there... Then there's Haiti....

Do you mean that place in the Caribbean where her brother was awarded a literal goldmine and her friends at Walmart got a brand new duty-free sweatshop while she was Secretary of State?

Wow, I would love to read about those. Please post the links.

Are you really too fucking stupid to look them up yourself?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'The AP in deep doo-doo for it's misleading Hillary Clinton "Clinton Foundation" Exposé.'

The AP is not ‘in trouble’ with conservatives, of course – who clearly approve of the ‘story.’

 

[ClosedCaption]

Anyone that believes that t

This is what people say right before they say something they can't prove.

 

[Freewill]

As is the usual the left turns on the MSM that does not support the lie that is Hillary Clinton. The left must have been around when Capone was in charge of the Chicago mob. He was guilty of nothing but tax evasion because that is all he was convicted of. That is the logic of the out of control left wing.

Now they must destroy the AP, and they will do it, no matter how much the AP has been in Hillary's corner. Shame on the AP for trying to do some real journalism.

 

[Flopper]

Associated Press botches Hillary Clinton report and response

Hillary Clinton is surrounded by suggestions of controversy. Terms like "Clinton Foundation," "email server," and "Benghazi" hover around her like a faint smoke that hints at the existence of fire.

But finding the fire -- the lie, the misdeed, the unethical act -- is proving to be rather difficult, as evidenced this week by an inaccurate tweet and arguably misleading story from the Associated Press that were quickly rebutted by the Clinton campaign and dismissed by many media outlets

"The AP's big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess," his headline read.

------------
Oops!
------------

The AP’s defense of its bad Clinton Foundation story is also bad

But having looked into it, the reporters do not seem to have found any special favors. That in and of itself is an interesting conclusion. There has been a lot of discussion around potential conflicts of interest related to the Clinton Foundation, so the absence of any clear evidence of actual misconduct is a useful contribution to our understanding.

The story the AP wrote — full of arbitrary math, sensationalistic tweets, and strange insinuations — is not.

----------------------------------------

Trump and the GOP has put themselves into the position of needing to apologize to Hillary Clinton. Republicans say where there is smoke, there's fire. Only Republicans create the smoke and then look for the fire. 30 years of smoke and no fire.

All the exposes on the Clinton foundation are a mess because there is just not much to expose. The foundation spends 88% of all donations on charitable programs in dozens of underdeveloped countries. The fact that dozens of foundations are donating tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation is a good sign that the money is being well spend. These foundations such as the Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation spend a lot time and resources investigation before they donate. They not only look at the statistics that show were the money is going but how effective the programs are.

Republicans have to be getting pretty desperate to attack the Clinton Foundation in an attempt to discredit Hillary. Like most of the Clinton attacks, this one will fail.

88 percent????? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Only if that charity is the Clinton crime family......

The Clinton Foundation is rated A by Charity Watch. The foundation spends 88% of donations on Charitable Programs.
Charity Ratings | America's Most Independent, Assertive Charity Watchdog | CharityWatch

Hillary Clinton's Clinton Foundation scandal can't be defended

There is a grain of truth in what you say. It's impossible to defend against accusations that are continually changing. At first, the Clinton Foundations was attacked because a lot money was going into programs that Republicans hated such as planned parenthood and secular non-religious charities abroad. Then the foundation was attacked because it was founded while Bill Clinton was president making it a political target. When Hillary was a Senator, Republicans were claiming she was selling her vote to foreign interest for donations to the foundation. When the records showed this was false, opponents attacked Hillary for misusing foundation funds, namely travel. This died because it was shown, the only travel she did for the foundation were fund raisers. Then the foundation was attacked with claims that it was propagating anti-American ideas. It was claimed that it wasn't a charitable foundation because it did not operate as other charitable foundations operated; that is the Clinton Foundation operated it's on programs. When Charity Navigator placed it on their watch-list because they had no way of rating a foundation which operated it's own programs, opponents had all the proof they needed to proclaim the foundation a scam. And when Charity Navigation, took the foundation off the watch-list, opponents began trying to tie the foundation to the Clinton email scandal which will die when Clinton is elected but that will not stop the accusation against the foundation and Clinton.

When there is multi-million dollar cottage industry that makes attacking Clinton or anything or anyone associated with the Clinton name a target, there will be unending accusations. As soon as one is discredited, another will take it's place.

 

[JimBowie1958]

An interesting video where a New Black Panther endorses Trump

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Clinton Foundation is rated A by Charity Watch. The foundation spends 88% of donations on Charitable Programs.
Charity Ratings | America's Most Independent, Assertive Charity Watchdog | CharityWatch

Charity Watch is basing that on filings that have been revised by the Clintons multiple times now, and in that process all the many travel expenses that the Clintons took and wrote off their Foundation accounts were counted not as overhead but as actual expenditures on charitable activity since they were in theory meeting worldleaders to advance their goals, etc.

Which is total horse shit.

And even if this fantasy number were true it does not justify Bill Clinton's speech fees that do not pass the 'Appearance of Impropriety' test by a long shot.

But you ass kissing, cock sucking Democrat drones will ignore it anyway and profess to the globe that Bill and Hillary are pure as the driven snow.

And no one outside the Democratic Party believes you.

 

[HenryBHough]

AP is in serious danger of accidentally becoming a credible source!

 

[Flopper]

The Clinton Foundation is rated A by Charity Watch. The foundation spends 88% of donations on Charitable Programs.
Charity Ratings | America's Most Independent, Assertive Charity Watchdog | CharityWatch

Charity Watch is basing that on filings that have been revised by the Clintons multiple times now, and in that process all the many travel expenses that the Clintons took and wrote off their Foundation accounts were counted not as overhead but as actual expenditures on charitable activity since they were in theory meeting worldleaders to advance their goals, etc.

Which is total horse shit.

And even if this fantasy number were true it does not justify Bill Clinton's speech fees that do not pass the 'Appearance of Impropriety' test by a long shot.

But you ass kissing, cock sucking Democrat drones will ignore it anyway and profess to the globe that Bill and Hillary are pure as the driven snow.

And no one outside the Democratic Party believes you.

Take a look at the Clinton Foundation Annual Reports that go back to the founding and include all tax returns. Charity Watch bases their rating primarily on IRS form 990 and attachments which are all available on line at the foundation website. If you look at the documents, you will see exactly where travel money goes and it's not to Hillary.

Clinton speaking fees are in keeping with what celebrates charge. For the Clinton's $220,000 is the average. By comparison a few other high earners include: Tim Geithner, $200,000 per speech; Ben Bernanke, $200,000 to $400,000; George W. Bush, $150,000; Paris Hilton, $110,000, Chelsea Clinton and Dick Cheney, both $75,000; and Newt Gingrich, and Trump 1.5 million.

 

[Sherry]

Associated Press botches Hillary Clinton report and response

Hillary Clinton is surrounded by suggestions of controversy. Terms like "Clinton Foundation," "email server," and "Benghazi" hover around her like a faint smoke that hints at the existence of fire.

But finding the fire -- the lie, the misdeed, the unethical act -- is proving to be rather difficult, as evidenced this week by an inaccurate tweet and arguably misleading story from the Associated Press that were quickly rebutted by the Clinton campaign and dismissed by many media outlets

"The AP's big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess," his headline read.

------------
Oops!
------------

The AP’s defense of its bad Clinton Foundation story is also bad

But having looked into it, the reporters do not seem to have found any special favors. That in and of itself is an interesting conclusion. There has been a lot of discussion around potential conflicts of interest related to the Clinton Foundation, so the absence of any clear evidence of actual misconduct is a useful contribution to our understanding.

The story the AP wrote — full of arbitrary math, sensationalistic tweets, and strange insinuations — is not.

----------------------------------------

Trump and the GOP has put themselves into the position of needing to apologize to Hillary Clinton. Republicans say where there is smoke, there's fire. Only Republicans create the smoke and then look for the fire. 30 years of smoke and no fire.

Poor thing...your arms must be so tired.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Clinton Foundation is rated A by Charity Watch. The foundation spends 88% of donations on Charitable Programs.
Charity Ratings | America's Most Independent, Assertive Charity Watchdog | CharityWatch

Charity Watch is basing that on filings that have been revised by the Clintons multiple times now, and in that process all the many travel expenses that the Clintons took and wrote off their Foundation accounts were counted not as overhead but as actual expenditures on charitable activity since they were in theory meeting worldleaders to advance their goals, etc.

Which is total horse shit.

And even if this fantasy number were true it does not justify Bill Clinton's speech fees that do not pass the 'Appearance of Impropriety' test by a long shot.

But you ass kissing, cock sucking Democrat drones will ignore it anyway and profess to the globe that Bill and Hillary are pure as the driven snow.

And no one outside the Democratic Party believes you.

Take a look at the Clinton Foundation Annual Reports that go back to the founding and include all tax returns. Charity Watch bases their rating primarily on IRS form 990 and attachments which are all available on line at the foundation website. If you look at the documents, you will see exactly where travel money goes and it's not to Hillary.

Clinton speaking fees are in keeping with what celebrates charge. For the Clinton's $220,000 is the average. By comparison a few other high earners include: Tim Geithner, $200,000 per speech; Ben Bernanke, $200,000 to $400,000; George W. Bush, $150,000; Paris Hilton, $110,000, Chelsea Clinton and Dick Cheney, both $75,000; and Newt Gingrich, and Trump 1.5 million.

Again, using the numbers the Clintons gave the report should be really good; since you can only get more bullshit out of bullshit.

Putting down airplane trips as a charitable work is simply bullshit and everyone knows it.

And Bill Clinton has been paid literally millions for a couple of speeches, and often right before Hillary would make a decision as Secretary of State that would impact those hiring Bill for his speech. That is corruption and at best the appearance of corruption which you Clintonistas are totally oK with as long as it is from a Democrat.

 

[rdean]

The Clinton Foundation is rated A by Charity Watch. The foundation spends 88% of donations on Charitable Programs.
Charity Ratings | America's Most Independent, Assertive Charity Watchdog | CharityWatch

Charity Watch is basing that on filings that have been revised by the Clintons multiple times now, and in that process all the many travel expenses that the Clintons took and wrote off their Foundation accounts were counted not as overhead but as actual expenditures on charitable activity since they were in theory meeting worldleaders to advance their goals, etc.

Which is total horse shit.

And even if this fantasy number were true it does not justify Bill Clinton's speech fees that do not pass the 'Appearance of Impropriety' test by a long shot.

But you ass kissing, cock sucking Democrat drones will ignore it anyway and profess to the globe that Bill and Hillary are pure as the driven snow.

And no one outside the Democratic Party believes you.

Take a look at the Clinton Foundation Annual Reports that go back to the founding and include all tax returns. Charity Watch bases their rating primarily on IRS form 990 and attachments which are all available on line at the foundation website. If you look at the documents, you will see exactly where travel money goes and it's not to Hillary.

Clinton speaking fees are in keeping with what celebrates charge. For the Clinton's $220,000 is the average. By comparison a few other high earners include: Tim Geithner, $200,000 per speech; Ben Bernanke, $200,000 to $400,000; George W. Bush, $150,000; Paris Hilton, $110,000, Chelsea Clinton and Dick Cheney, both $75,000; and Newt Gingrich, and Trump 1.5 million.

Again, using the numbers the Clintons gave the report should be really good; since you can only get more bullshit out of bullshit.

Putting down airplane trips as a charitable work is simply bullshit and everyone knows it.

And Bill Clinton has been paid literally millions for a couple of speeches, and often right before Hillary would make a decision as Secretary of State that would impact those hiring Bill for his speech. That is corruption and at best the appearance of corruption which you Clintonistas are totally oK with as long as it is from a Democrat.

Millions for only a couple of speeches? Wow, I wouldn't ever call you a fucking liar, so could you post links to where he gets millions for only a couple of speeches? I would appreciate it.

 

[rdean]

AP is in serious danger of accidentally becoming a credible source!

The have to vett their stories first, obviously.

 

[oreo]

Associated Press botches Hillary Clinton report and response

Hillary Clinton is surrounded by suggestions of controversy. Terms like "Clinton Foundation," "email server," and "Benghazi" hover around her like a faint smoke that hints at the existence of fire.

But finding the fire -- the lie, the misdeed, the unethical act -- is proving to be rather difficult, as evidenced this week by an inaccurate tweet and arguably misleading story from the Associated Press that were quickly rebutted by the Clinton campaign and dismissed by many media outlets

"The AP's big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess," his headline read.

------------
Oops!
------------

The AP’s defense of its bad Clinton Foundation story is also bad

But having looked into it, the reporters do not seem to have found any special favors. That in and of itself is an interesting conclusion. There has been a lot of discussion around potential conflicts of interest related to the Clinton Foundation, so the absence of any clear evidence of actual misconduct is a useful contribution to our understanding.

The story the AP wrote — full of arbitrary math, sensationalistic tweets, and strange insinuations — is not.

----------------------------------------

Trump and the GOP has put themselves into the position of needing to apologize to Hillary Clinton. Republicans say where there is smoke, there's fire. Only Republicans create the smoke and then look for the fire. 30 years of smoke and no fire.

It's just another in a long list of Reich wing attacks on Hillary Clinton. If they blow lots of smoke maybe a fire will start--LOL That's the Reich wing strategy and it's collapsed on them. Republicans really should be required to pay back 500 million dollars to the taxpayers of this country for all their political dog & pony shows over Hillary Clinton. The 8th Benghazi investigation cost the taxpayers 7 million dollars.

New Email information that is very interesting. It appears that Hillary Clinton was just following her Predecessor (Colin Powell).
The shocking truth: Colin Powell’s emails don’t matter

As best stated:
Herein lies a lesson for Republicans who are perpetually trying to appease the far right: It’s a fool’s errand.They went to the tea party – and now they’re taking Donald Trump to the prom. Likewise, then-House Speaker John Boehner named the Benghazi committee because activists were dissatisfied that seven previous congressional investigations had failed to uncover major scandal material. Now an eighth has produced more of the same – and the agitators are as agitated as ever.
With Clinton exonerated, conspiracy theorists turn on Trey Gowdy

Dear Hillary: How Very Dare You!

These are people that suffer from OCDD (Obsessive Clinton Derangement Disorder). Those that are attached at the hip to Reich wing talk show hosts, that fill their veins with 3 or more daily hours of Reich wing hyperbole, 1/2 truths, misconceptions, and enough conspiracy theories to fill the capital building from floor to ceiling. They are also responsible for shattering the Republican party into pieces. They do it for political entertainment--ratings and those obscene profit breaks.

 

[Ernie S.]

Associated Press botches Hillary Clinton report and response

Hillary Clinton is surrounded by suggestions of controversy. Terms like "Clinton Foundation," "email server," and "Benghazi" hover around her like a faint smoke that hints at the existence of fire.

But finding the fire -- the lie, the misdeed, the unethical act -- is proving to be rather difficult, as evidenced this week by an inaccurate tweet and arguably misleading story from the Associated Press that were quickly rebutted by the Clinton campaign and dismissed by many media outlets

"The AP's big exposé on Hillary meeting with Clinton Foundation donors is a mess," his headline read.

------------
Oops!
------------

The AP’s defense of its bad Clinton Foundation story is also bad

But having looked into it, the reporters do not seem to have found any special favors. That in and of itself is an interesting conclusion. There has been a lot of discussion around potential conflicts of interest related to the Clinton Foundation, so the absence of any clear evidence of actual misconduct is a useful contribution to our understanding.

The story the AP wrote — full of arbitrary math, sensationalistic tweets, and strange insinuations — is not.

----------------------------------------

Trump and the GOP has put themselves into the position of needing to apologize to Hillary Clinton. Republicans say where there is smoke, there's fire. Only Republicans create the smoke and then look for the fire. 30 years of smoke and no fire.

Once again a clinton is involved in a scandal and hides evidence that would be needed to ensure a successful prosecution and her sycophants claim she is innocent.
If nothing else Dweeb, you can be relied upon to amuse sentient beings the world over. Thank you.

With all the "evidence", Republicans must be the most stupid fucks in the world for not being able to convict her of anything.

Or she is so smart, that she always wins. If that's the case, then I definitely want her for president.

Look, idiot. She has had court orders and subpoenas to provide information that she can't find, eventually finds in a desk on the second floor of the White House, or has been erased or can't be provided before election day, and it's the GOP's fault we can't nail her corrupt ass to the wall?
So you'd rather have Adolf Hitler (IQ 150) or Richard Nixon (IQ 147) than John Kennedy (IQ 119) as POTUS. Or do ethics only matter when you dislike someone's politics? You are WAY too easy, Dweeb.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Millions for only a couple of speeches? Wow, I wouldn't ever call you a fucking liar, so could you post links to where he gets millions for only a couple of speeches? I would appreciate it.

Here you go cock sucker, but I know you really dont give a shit.

Clinton surpasses $75 million in speech income after lucrative 2010

Helping to propel the former president to his most lucrative year were two events for which he received a combined $1 million. The first was a June 2010 event in Moscow organized by Renaissance Capital. The other was a December speech delivered in the United Arab Emirates for Novo Nordisk, a global health care company. Clinton received $500,000 for each event, which tie for the second-largest payments he has received for a single event. In June 2008, he received $525,000 for a speech at a motivational speaking conference in Edmonton, Canada.

Altogether the Clintons have made over $153 million from speaking fees, most of it from foreign corporations and governments.

$153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented - CNNPolitics.com

And the speaking fees aligne with decisions Hillary made as Secretary of Stae.

Hillary's speaking fees tied to actions her State Department took

Bill Clinton's speaking fees draw new attention as they line up with actions his wife's State Department took between 2009 and 2013

• New report says two dozen different organizations paid former president for speeches while they had issues pending before the State Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state
• Clinton campaign, newspaper both say there is no evidence the speeches are linked to the department's actions
• Some of Clinton's speeches were given overseas, such as the city of Abu Dhabi

 

[Jantje_Smit]

The Clinton Foundation is rated A by Charity Watch. The foundation spends 88% of donations on Charitable Programs.
Charity Ratings | America's Most Independent, Assertive Charity Watchdog | CharityWatch

Lehman Brothers was rated A by Moody's until a day before they went bankrupt

Lehman Brothers collapse: was capitalism to blame?