California is currently being subjected to TV advertising hoping to prevent Oil Companies from benefiting from a ballot proposition that allows them to run off with the school milk money funds, or some such thing(?)! (Probably the ads can also be accessed on a hand-held device, anymore(?).) Lobbying happens. One group got a proposal onto the California ballot. Other groups oppose the ballot proposition. Money changes hands. In California, this is even the year of the drug. . . well. . . business as usual(?). Liberal Money happens, even in California. And, even Real Clear Politics creates the understanding of the lack of demonstrated "Quid Pro Quo" involving the donations at the Clinton Foundation. The concept, "Wealth Redistribution" is not directly used. But amounts in relatively Biblical proportions appear to have been noted. And noted, even real Clinton political fundraisers are noted to be like that--Epic, as in "Rhymes with Hollywood(?)!" Fantasy Planet exists at the Trump Campaign. Fantasy worlds exist among liberals.
Obliging a Donor Is Not Necessarily Criminal | RealClearPolitics
Compare the opening remarks with the funding of the projects at the Clinton Foundation. All kinds of international dignitaries, in the Spirit of the Bill Clinton Administration, were forking over kazillions for underserved parts of earth, where there are nonetheless people. Recently, there used to be people in some in parts of Central Italy, and in Myanamar, for example. There used to be housing in some parts of California, and State of Washington. Project Funding actually provides assistance.
In Trump Campaign, USA, the analysts and opinionated-haters(?): Appear to find something wrong with the fact of voluntary Wealth Redistribution. They find it is no different from being for Hillary Clinton--which they contend is wrong. So both concepts "wrong" is the inference apparently anyone is supposed to take away.
The problem arises when the inference-making is not corroborated. The Foundation Projects are not wrong.
Even the Trump Campaign Manager acknowledged that the Trump donation was actually not pay-for-play, and that actually the Foundation is well-regarded.
Making the Clinton's Now Looking "Great Again," is more likely how the attack by the Remnant National Committee, devoid of high-profile luminaries: Plays out. The Republicans even avoided their own Convention, by comparison.
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Not Many even showing up on Lands of Many Nations, easily able to find beneficial gaming, in play!)
Obliging a Donor Is Not Necessarily Criminal | RealClearPolitics
Compare the opening remarks with the funding of the projects at the Clinton Foundation. All kinds of international dignitaries, in the Spirit of the Bill Clinton Administration, were forking over kazillions for underserved parts of earth, where there are nonetheless people. Recently, there used to be people in some in parts of Central Italy, and in Myanamar, for example. There used to be housing in some parts of California, and State of Washington. Project Funding actually provides assistance.
In Trump Campaign, USA, the analysts and opinionated-haters(?): Appear to find something wrong with the fact of voluntary Wealth Redistribution. They find it is no different from being for Hillary Clinton--which they contend is wrong. So both concepts "wrong" is the inference apparently anyone is supposed to take away.
The problem arises when the inference-making is not corroborated. The Foundation Projects are not wrong.
Even the Trump Campaign Manager acknowledged that the Trump donation was actually not pay-for-play, and that actually the Foundation is well-regarded.
Making the Clinton's Now Looking "Great Again," is more likely how the attack by the Remnant National Committee, devoid of high-profile luminaries: Plays out. The Republicans even avoided their own Convention, by comparison.
"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Not Many even showing up on Lands of Many Nations, easily able to find beneficial gaming, in play!)
