Do Liberals on this board TRULY believe...

[Juan de Fuca]

Hillary Clinton was not involved in the foundation while she was Secretary of State and did not become involved until 2013, after she had left. She left again when she announced her run for the presidency.

Of course she did.

Public record bozo.

 

[SmokeALib]

Yes, you caught her

Hillary, in fact, sold cookies on behalf of the Clinton Foundation

From the looks of those thighs and the size of those tents - er - pantsuits, she ate more than she sold.

 

[SmokeALib]

Hillary Clinton was not involved in the foundation while she was Secretary of State and did not become involved until 2013, after she had left. She left again when she announced her run for the presidency.

Of course she did.

Public record bozo.

Right.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, you caught her

Hillary, in fact, sold cookies on behalf of the Clinton Foundation

From the looks of those thighs and the size of those tents - er - pantsuits, she ate more than she sold.

It is Trump who is 40 lbs overweight

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Of course I won't mention how about 50% of her meetings AS Sect of State were reportedly with FOUNDATION DONORS, the Saudi Prince who got an audience with her after donating $32 million, or how Donors got contracts....

Oh wait, I just did....sorry.

Wrong as usual here is a copy of the memo of understanding about Clinton's role as Secretary of State and the operations of the Clinton foundation. http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/memorandum_of_understanding_clinton.pdf

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Yes, you caught her

Hillary, in fact, sold cookies on behalf of the Clinton Foundation

From the looks of those thighs and the size of those tents - er - pantsuits, she ate more than she sold.

It is Trump who is 40 lbs overweight

At least 80.

 

[easyt65]

Of course I won't mention how about 50% of her meetings AS Sect of State were reportedly with FOUNDATION DONORS, the Saudi Prince who got an audience with her after donating $32 million, or how Donors got contracts....

Oh wait, I just did....sorry.

Wrong as usual here is a copy of the memo of understanding about Clinton's role as Secretary of State and the operations of the Clinton foundation. http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/memorandum_of_understanding_clinton.pdf

So?

Donors getting govt Contracts, getting their problematic visa issues resolved, etc by the Sect of State and Cheryl Mills, a State Dept Hillary aide, is a 'no-no', Juan.

'Conflict of Interest'
'Unethical'
'Donations for Favors'
'Pay-to-Play'
Whatever you want to call it...or DON'T want to call it.

Despite the heavily documented occassions, including those the State Dept refuses to release until AFTER the election for 'some strange reason'....you think she never mixed the State Dept and Clinton Foundation

Copy all. Thanks, again, for being brave enough to give your opinion. I actually respect you for being the only one from the left to truly answer so far. We may disagree, but I respect your opinion. Kudos again.

 

[rightwinger]

Of course I won't mention how about 50% of her meetings AS Sect of State were reportedly with FOUNDATION DONORS, the Saudi Prince who got an audience with her after donating $32 million, or how Donors got contracts....

Oh wait, I just did....sorry.

Wrong as usual here is a copy of the memo of understanding about Clinton's role as Secretary of State and the operations of the Clinton foundation. http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/memorandum_of_understanding_clinton.pdf

So?

Donors getting govt Contracts, getting their problematic visa issues resolved, etc by the Sect of State and Cheryl Mills, a State Dept Hillary aide, is a 'no-no', Juan.

'Conflict of Interest'
'Unethical'
'Donations for Favors'
'Pay-to-Play'
Whatever you want to call it...or DON'T want to call it.

Despite the heavily documented occassions, including those the State Dept refuses to release until AFTER the election for 'some strange reason'....you think she never mixed the State Dept and Clinton Foundation

Copy all. Thanks, again, for being brave enough to give your opinion. I actually respect you for being the only one from the left to truly answer so far. We may disagree, but I respect your opinion. Kudos again.

Interesting....if there was pay for play

Why can't Republicans prove it rather than rant about it on rightwing radio?

 

[easyt65]

Of course I won't mention how about 50% of her meetings AS Sect of State were reportedly with FOUNDATION DONORS, the Saudi Prince who got an audience with her after donating $32 million, or how Donors got contracts....

Oh wait, I just did....sorry.

Wrong as usual here is a copy of the memo of understanding about Clinton's role as Secretary of State and the operations of the Clinton foundation. http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/memorandum_of_understanding_clinton.pdf

So?

Donors getting govt Contracts, getting their problematic visa issues resolved, etc by the Sect of State and Cheryl Mills, a State Dept Hillary aide, is a 'no-no', Juan.

'Conflict of Interest'
'Unethical'
'Donations for Favors'
'Pay-to-Play'
Whatever you want to call it...or DON'T want to call it.

Despite the heavily documented occassions, including those the State Dept refuses to release until AFTER the election for 'some strange reason'....you think she never mixed the State Dept and Clinton Foundation

Copy all. Thanks, again, for being brave enough to give your opinion. I actually respect you for being the only one from the left to truly answer so far. We may disagree, but I respect your opinion. Kudos again.

Interesting....if there was pay for play

Why can't Republicans prove it rather than rant about it on rightwing radio?

The same reason Holder walked, Castro walked, Reid walked, the 'mastermind' behind the Benghazi attack / muders walked, and why Hillary has already walked - the most lawless President in US History.

...but again you dodge the question. Duly noted. Thanks.

 

[peabody]

Hillary granted access to Clinton Foundation donors. We know that much is true. She probably made changes to government policy for donors as well, and I think the upcoming WikiLeaks will bare that out.

Hillary made millions of dollars as a public servant and the only thing she seems to like better than money is power. That she is a known liar is indisputable when you watch the Bosnia sniper fire video. She also seems to change her positions at random if it will benefit her (ie, gay marriage and the TPP)

Hillary Clinton will be a disaster for America but Trump will probably be even worse. Therefore, I've decided to not vote at all for anyone. Maybe Jill Stein. I don't know. I love Bernie Sanders.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Those are mostly empty accusations. The involvement those people had with the state department would have occurred whether or not Clinton or her aides were there or not. I admit some of this doesn't appear above board but that doesn't mean for a moment that it isn't. All things considered, the Clinton foundation is revealing far more than they have to and certainly far more than like charities like the Bush Foundation has.

 

[Auld Phart]

Of course I won't mention how about 50% of her meetings AS Sect of State were reportedly with FOUNDATION DONORS, the Saudi Prince who got an audience with her after donating $32 million, or how Donors got contracts....

Oh wait, I just did....sorry.

Wrong as usual here is a copy of the memo of understanding about Clinton's role as Secretary of State and the operations of the Clinton foundation. http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/memorandum_of_understanding_clinton.pdf

and that proves....?

 

[easyt65]

Those are mostly empty accusations. The involvement those people had with the state department would have occurred whether or not Clinton or her aides were there or not. I admit some of this doesn't appear above board but that doesn't mean for a moment that it isn't. All things considered, the Clinton foundation is revealing far more than they have to and certainly far more than like charities like the Bush Foundation has.

'MOSTLY empty allegations'...which means partially TRUE. So are you changing your 'No' to a 'Yes' now?

More than she has to? According to Comey AND the State Dept she didn't totally release ALL of what she was required to by law as Sect of State. Mr. 'Most Transparent Administration Evuh' failed to legally comply with 70% of all FOIA requests. I don't think either one has released 'more than they have had to' at all. Just MY opinion, though.

Thank you for your candid answer, though! Good talk.

 

[hazlnut]

That Hillary conducted absolutely NO - ZERO - Clinton Foundation business from the State Department as Secretary of State?

A simple 'Yes' or 'No' will do.

No.

Of course the two overlapped. As do for-profit businesses, lobbyists, and congress do business all the freakin' time.

Do I care? somewhat. These things need to be monitored, but the Clinton Foundation is nonprofit that provides medicine for millions, so compared to the bullshit that goes on in congress...

Do I think Donald Trump as President is a non-starter, unthinkable, unacceptable abomination of our country? Every sane person does.

 

[blackhawk]

Blind partisans from both sides never believe their side does anything wrong the truth is there is shady, unethetical, and possibily even illegal stuff in the past of both Trump and Clinton but there die hard supporters could not care less.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Those are mostly empty accusations. The involvement those people had with the state department would have occurred whether or not Clinton or her aides were there or not. I admit some of this doesn't appear above board but that doesn't mean for a moment that it isn't. All things considered, the Clinton foundation is revealing far more than they have to and certainly far more than like charities like the Bush Foundation has.

'MOSTLY empty allegations'...which means partially TRUE. So are you changing your 'No' to a 'Yes' now?

More than she has to? According to Comey AND the State Dept she didn't totally release ALL of what she was required to by law as Sect of State. Mr. 'Most Transparent Administration Evuh' failed to legally comply with 70% of all FOIA requests. I don't think either one has released 'more than they have had to' at all. Just MY opinion, though.

Thank you for your candid answer, though! Good talk.

When did the meaning of empty allegations come to mean partially true? I have to chuckle at your weak attempts to make something out of nothing.

 

[easyt65]

Hazel...you said NO, Hillary 'condicted NO - ZERO - Clinton Foundation business from the State Department as Secretary of State', and then you immediately said 'of course they overlapped'. One seems to contradict the other.

It concerns me, too, when Hillary is not concerned about the perception of impropriety, especially when donors were being awarded lucrative contracts.

 

[easyt65]

Those are mostly empty accusations. The involvement those people had with the state department would have occurred whether or not Clinton or her aides were there or not. I admit some of this doesn't appear above board but that doesn't mean for a moment that it isn't. All things considered, the Clinton foundation is revealing far more than they have to and certainly far more than like charities like the Bush Foundation has.

'MOSTLY empty allegations'...which means partially TRUE. So are you changing your 'No' to a 'Yes' now?

More than she has to? According to Comey AND the State Dept she didn't totally release ALL of what she was required to by law as Sect of State. Mr. 'Most Transparent Administration Evuh' failed to legally comply with 70% of all FOIA requests. I don't think either one has released 'more than they have had to' at all. Just MY opinion, though.

Thank you for your candid answer, though! Good talk.

When did the meaning of empty allegations come to mean partially true? I have to chuckle at your weak attempts to make something out of nothing.

You did not say 'EMPTY allegations' - you said MOSTLY empty' - that's why.

'MOSTLY' empty is not 'completely' empty. Words have meanings.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

From the MUI:

"Should Senator Clinton be confirmed as Secretary of State, the Foundation incorporates CGI as a separate entity from the Foundation. President Clinton will continue in his role as principal host and be identified as CGrs Founding Chairman, but he will not serve as an officer or director of the newly established entity or otherwise serve as a fiduciary on behalf of it. President Clinton personally will not solicit funds. President Clinton will continue to send invitation letters to potential attendees and guests CGI. He will no longer send sponsorship letters (which seek contributions to C(1). Apart from attendance feesCGI wiII not accept contributions from foreign governments. CGl also will suspend plans for CGI International events outside the United States during any service by Senator Clinton at the State Dept."

 

[Nosmo King]

That Hillary conducted absolutely NO - ZERO - Clinton Foundation business from the State Department as Secretary of State?

A simple 'Yes' or 'No' will do.

You're asking a specious question. You are assuming that corruption was the case without proof. Therefore, you are ASSUMNG corruption was the case.

What are you asking? To believe the facts, or an assumption.

Of course we believe in facts. Believing in assumptions is called faith, not factual.