Wikileaks and "Grifters in Chief". . .

[Foxfyre]

I haven't posted much in this election for several reasons, but as we count down the days to the final vote, Wikileaks is becoming more interesting showing clearly how the Clintons have used their foundation to enrich themselves.

And now the illustrious Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have both weighed in on how they have intentionally mixed charity with acquiring massive personal wealth:

In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.

This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band, who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.

It is astonishingly detailed proof that the Clintons do not draw any lines between their “charitable” work, their political activity, their government jobs or (and most important) their personal enrichment. Every other American is expected to keep these pursuits separate, as required by tax law, anticorruption law and campaign-finance law. For the Clintons, it is all one and the same—the rules be damned.

The memo came near the end of a 2011 review by law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett into Clinton Foundation practices. Chelsea Clinton had grown concerned about the audacious mixing of public and private, and the review was designed to ensure that the foundation didn’t lose its charitable tax status. Mr. Band, Teneo boss and epicenter of what he calls “ Bill Clinton, Inc.,” clearly felt under assault and was eager to brag up the ways in which his business had concurrently benefited the foundation, Clinton political causes and the Clinton bank account. The memoed result is a remarkably candid look at the sleazy inner workings of the Clinton grifters-in-chief. . . .

Grifters-in-Chief

And from WAPO:

When top Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band wrote the memo, he was a central player at the Clinton Foundation and president of his own corporate consulting firm. Over the course of 13 pages, he made a case that his multiple roles had served the interests of the Clinton family and its charity. . .

. . . “We have dedicated ourselves to helping the President secure and engage in for-profit activities,” Band wrote. He also said he had “sought to leverage my activities, including my partner role at Teneo, to support and to raise funds how much they had paid Bill Clinton and, in some cases, how he or Kelly had personally forged the relationships that resulted in the payments.

Band wrote that Teneo partners had raised in excess of $8 million for the foundation and $3 million in paid speaking fees for Bill Clinton. He said he had secured contracts for the former president that would pay out $66 million over the subsequent nine years if the deals remained in place.

For instance, Band wrote that Kelly arranged for the former president to meet the chief executive of Coca-Cola in January 2009 at the Clintons’ home in Washington. In all, according to Band’s memo, Coke had contributed $4.33 million to the foundation between 2004 and 2010. . . .​

Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income

Does anybody seriously believe that given all this documented history that the Clintons would not use the presidency to enrich themselves and perhaps their crony friends?

And my question is, does anybody care?​

 

[OldLady]

I haven't posted much in this election for several reasons, but as we count down the days to the final vote, Wikileaks is becoming more interesting showing clearly how the Clintons have used their foundation to enrich themselves.

And now the illustrious Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have both weighed in on how they have intentionally mixed charity with acquiring massive personal wealth:

In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.

This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band, who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.

It is astonishingly detailed proof that the Clintons do not draw any lines between their “charitable” work, their political activity, their government jobs or (and most important) their personal enrichment. Every other American is expected to keep these pursuits separate, as required by tax law, anticorruption law and campaign-finance law. For the Clintons, it is all one and the same—the rules be damned.

The memo came near the end of a 2011 review by law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett into Clinton Foundation practices. Chelsea Clinton had grown concerned about the audacious mixing of public and private, and the review was designed to ensure that the foundation didn’t lose its charitable tax status. Mr. Band, Teneo boss and epicenter of what he calls “ Bill Clinton, Inc.,” clearly felt under assault and was eager to brag up the ways in which his business had concurrently benefited the foundation, Clinton political causes and the Clinton bank account. The memoed result is a remarkably candid look at the sleazy inner workings of the Clinton grifters-in-chief. . . .

Grifters-in-Chief

And from WAPO:

When top Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band wrote the memo, he was a central player at the Clinton Foundation and president of his own corporate consulting firm. Over the course of 13 pages, he made a case that his multiple roles had served the interests of the Clinton family and its charity. . .

. . . “We have dedicated ourselves to helping the President secure and engage in for-profit activities,” Band wrote. He also said he had “sought to leverage my activities, including my partner role at Teneo, to support and to raise funds how much they had paid Bill Clinton and, in some cases, how he or Kelly had personally forged the relationships that resulted in the payments.

Band wrote that Teneo partners had raised in excess of $8 million for the foundation and $3 million in paid speaking fees for Bill Clinton. He said he had secured contracts for the former president that would pay out $66 million over the subsequent nine years if the deals remained in place.

For instance, Band wrote that Kelly arranged for the former president to meet the chief executive of Coca-Cola in January 2009 at the Clintons’ home in Washington. In all, according to Band’s memo, Coke had contributed $4.33 million to the foundation between 2004 and 2010. . . .​

Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income

Does anybody seriously believe that given all this documented history that the Clintons would not use the presidency to enrich themselves and perhaps their crony friends?

And my question is, does anybody care?​

They will continue using their positions to enrich themselves, and if it were anyone but Trump running against her I would never support her. They have not made it an easy decision for me, but regardless of the money grubbing grifters they are, the Clintons at least have experience and knowledge of how the world runs. I think Trump would be a disaster due to his personality and his inexperience and his lack of interest in taking advice from those who know more than he.
You asked, so I'm tellin ya.

 

[TNHarley]

I haven't posted much in this election for several reasons, but as we count down the days to the final vote, Wikileaks is becoming more interesting showing clearly how the Clintons have used their foundation to enrich themselves.

And now the illustrious Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have both weighed in on how they have intentionally mixed charity with acquiring massive personal wealth:

In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.

This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band, who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.

It is astonishingly detailed proof that the Clintons do not draw any lines between their “charitable” work, their political activity, their government jobs or (and most important) their personal enrichment. Every other American is expected to keep these pursuits separate, as required by tax law, anticorruption law and campaign-finance law. For the Clintons, it is all one and the same—the rules be damned.

The memo came near the end of a 2011 review by law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett into Clinton Foundation practices. Chelsea Clinton had grown concerned about the audacious mixing of public and private, and the review was designed to ensure that the foundation didn’t lose its charitable tax status. Mr. Band, Teneo boss and epicenter of what he calls “ Bill Clinton, Inc.,” clearly felt under assault and was eager to brag up the ways in which his business had concurrently benefited the foundation, Clinton political causes and the Clinton bank account. The memoed result is a remarkably candid look at the sleazy inner workings of the Clinton grifters-in-chief. . . .

Grifters-in-Chief

And from WAPO:

When top Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band wrote the memo, he was a central player at the Clinton Foundation and president of his own corporate consulting firm. Over the course of 13 pages, he made a case that his multiple roles had served the interests of the Clinton family and its charity. . .

. . . “We have dedicated ourselves to helping the President secure and engage in for-profit activities,” Band wrote. He also said he had “sought to leverage my activities, including my partner role at Teneo, to support and to raise funds how much they had paid Bill Clinton and, in some cases, how he or Kelly had personally forged the relationships that resulted in the payments.

Band wrote that Teneo partners had raised in excess of $8 million for the foundation and $3 million in paid speaking fees for Bill Clinton. He said he had secured contracts for the former president that would pay out $66 million over the subsequent nine years if the deals remained in place.

For instance, Band wrote that Kelly arranged for the former president to meet the chief executive of Coca-Cola in January 2009 at the Clintons’ home in Washington. In all, according to Band’s memo, Coke had contributed $4.33 million to the foundation between 2004 and 2010. . . .​

Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income

Does anybody seriously believe that given all this documented history that the Clintons would not use the presidency to enrich themselves and perhaps their crony friends?

And my question is, does anybody care?​

They will continue using their positions to enrich themselves, and if it were anyone but Trump running against her I would never support her. They have not made it an easy decision for me, but regardless of the money grubbing grifters they are, the Clintons at least have experience and knowledge of how the world runs. I think Trump would be a disaster due to his personality and his inexperience and his lack of interest in taking advice from those who know more than he.
You asked, so I'm tellin ya.

So you think professional politicians are the way to go?

 

[Foxfyre]

I haven't posted much in this election for several reasons, but as we count down the days to the final vote, Wikileaks is becoming more interesting showing clearly how the Clintons have used their foundation to enrich themselves.

And now the illustrious Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have both weighed in on how they have intentionally mixed charity with acquiring massive personal wealth:

In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.

This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band, who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.

It is astonishingly detailed proof that the Clintons do not draw any lines between their “charitable” work, their political activity, their government jobs or (and most important) their personal enrichment. Every other American is expected to keep these pursuits separate, as required by tax law, anticorruption law and campaign-finance law. For the Clintons, it is all one and the same—the rules be damned.

The memo came near the end of a 2011 review by law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett into Clinton Foundation practices. Chelsea Clinton had grown concerned about the audacious mixing of public and private, and the review was designed to ensure that the foundation didn’t lose its charitable tax status. Mr. Band, Teneo boss and epicenter of what he calls “ Bill Clinton, Inc.,” clearly felt under assault and was eager to brag up the ways in which his business had concurrently benefited the foundation, Clinton political causes and the Clinton bank account. The memoed result is a remarkably candid look at the sleazy inner workings of the Clinton grifters-in-chief. . . .

Grifters-in-Chief

And from WAPO:

When top Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band wrote the memo, he was a central player at the Clinton Foundation and president of his own corporate consulting firm. Over the course of 13 pages, he made a case that his multiple roles had served the interests of the Clinton family and its charity. . .

. . . “We have dedicated ourselves to helping the President secure and engage in for-profit activities,” Band wrote. He also said he had “sought to leverage my activities, including my partner role at Teneo, to support and to raise funds how much they had paid Bill Clinton and, in some cases, how he or Kelly had personally forged the relationships that resulted in the payments.

Band wrote that Teneo partners had raised in excess of $8 million for the foundation and $3 million in paid speaking fees for Bill Clinton. He said he had secured contracts for the former president that would pay out $66 million over the subsequent nine years if the deals remained in place.

For instance, Band wrote that Kelly arranged for the former president to meet the chief executive of Coca-Cola in January 2009 at the Clintons’ home in Washington. In all, according to Band’s memo, Coke had contributed $4.33 million to the foundation between 2004 and 2010. . . .​

Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income

Does anybody seriously believe that given all this documented history that the Clintons would not use the presidency to enrich themselves and perhaps their crony friends?

And my question is, does anybody care?​

They will continue using their positions to enrich themselves, and if it were anyone but Trump running against her I would never support her. They have not made it an easy decision for me, but regardless of the money grubbing grifters they are, the Clintons at least have experience and knowledge of how the world runs. I think Trump would be a disaster due to his personality and his inexperience and his lack of interest in taking advice from those who know more than he.
You asked, so I'm tellin ya.

I appreciate that though I don't see their experience and knowledge as a plus when I believe they will use it for less than noble self serving reasons and to promote even more of what I see as a dangerous and destructive progressivism. So I won't be voting for Hillary.

But lots of folks will. And my affection for folks or lack of it doesn't hinge on how they vote.

 

[OldLady]

I haven't posted much in this election for several reasons, but as we count down the days to the final vote, Wikileaks is becoming more interesting showing clearly how the Clintons have used their foundation to enrich themselves.

And now the illustrious Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have both weighed in on how they have intentionally mixed charity with acquiring massive personal wealth:

In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.

This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band, who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.

It is astonishingly detailed proof that the Clintons do not draw any lines between their “charitable” work, their political activity, their government jobs or (and most important) their personal enrichment. Every other American is expected to keep these pursuits separate, as required by tax law, anticorruption law and campaign-finance law. For the Clintons, it is all one and the same—the rules be damned.

The memo came near the end of a 2011 review by law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett into Clinton Foundation practices. Chelsea Clinton had grown concerned about the audacious mixing of public and private, and the review was designed to ensure that the foundation didn’t lose its charitable tax status. Mr. Band, Teneo boss and epicenter of what he calls “ Bill Clinton, Inc.,” clearly felt under assault and was eager to brag up the ways in which his business had concurrently benefited the foundation, Clinton political causes and the Clinton bank account. The memoed result is a remarkably candid look at the sleazy inner workings of the Clinton grifters-in-chief. . . .

Grifters-in-Chief

And from WAPO:

When top Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band wrote the memo, he was a central player at the Clinton Foundation and president of his own corporate consulting firm. Over the course of 13 pages, he made a case that his multiple roles had served the interests of the Clinton family and its charity. . .

. . . “We have dedicated ourselves to helping the President secure and engage in for-profit activities,” Band wrote. He also said he had “sought to leverage my activities, including my partner role at Teneo, to support and to raise funds how much they had paid Bill Clinton and, in some cases, how he or Kelly had personally forged the relationships that resulted in the payments.

Band wrote that Teneo partners had raised in excess of $8 million for the foundation and $3 million in paid speaking fees for Bill Clinton. He said he had secured contracts for the former president that would pay out $66 million over the subsequent nine years if the deals remained in place.

For instance, Band wrote that Kelly arranged for the former president to meet the chief executive of Coca-Cola in January 2009 at the Clintons’ home in Washington. In all, according to Band’s memo, Coke had contributed $4.33 million to the foundation between 2004 and 2010. . . .​

Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income

Does anybody seriously believe that given all this documented history that the Clintons would not use the presidency to enrich themselves and perhaps their crony friends?

And my question is, does anybody care?​

They will continue using their positions to enrich themselves, and if it were anyone but Trump running against her I would never support her. They have not made it an easy decision for me, but regardless of the money grubbing grifters they are, the Clintons at least have experience and knowledge of how the world runs. I think Trump would be a disaster due to his personality and his inexperience and his lack of interest in taking advice from those who know more than he.
You asked, so I'm tellin ya.

So you think professional politicians are the way to go?

This time, yes. No choice in my mind.

 

[OldLady]

I haven't posted much in this election for several reasons, but as we count down the days to the final vote, Wikileaks is becoming more interesting showing clearly how the Clintons have used their foundation to enrich themselves.

And now the illustrious Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have both weighed in on how they have intentionally mixed charity with acquiring massive personal wealth:

In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.

This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band, who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.

It is astonishingly detailed proof that the Clintons do not draw any lines between their “charitable” work, their political activity, their government jobs or (and most important) their personal enrichment. Every other American is expected to keep these pursuits separate, as required by tax law, anticorruption law and campaign-finance law. For the Clintons, it is all one and the same—the rules be damned.

The memo came near the end of a 2011 review by law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett into Clinton Foundation practices. Chelsea Clinton had grown concerned about the audacious mixing of public and private, and the review was designed to ensure that the foundation didn’t lose its charitable tax status. Mr. Band, Teneo boss and epicenter of what he calls “ Bill Clinton, Inc.,” clearly felt under assault and was eager to brag up the ways in which his business had concurrently benefited the foundation, Clinton political causes and the Clinton bank account. The memoed result is a remarkably candid look at the sleazy inner workings of the Clinton grifters-in-chief. . . .

Grifters-in-Chief

And from WAPO:

When top Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band wrote the memo, he was a central player at the Clinton Foundation and president of his own corporate consulting firm. Over the course of 13 pages, he made a case that his multiple roles had served the interests of the Clinton family and its charity. . .

. . . “We have dedicated ourselves to helping the President secure and engage in for-profit activities,” Band wrote. He also said he had “sought to leverage my activities, including my partner role at Teneo, to support and to raise funds how much they had paid Bill Clinton and, in some cases, how he or Kelly had personally forged the relationships that resulted in the payments.

Band wrote that Teneo partners had raised in excess of $8 million for the foundation and $3 million in paid speaking fees for Bill Clinton. He said he had secured contracts for the former president that would pay out $66 million over the subsequent nine years if the deals remained in place.

For instance, Band wrote that Kelly arranged for the former president to meet the chief executive of Coca-Cola in January 2009 at the Clintons’ home in Washington. In all, according to Band’s memo, Coke had contributed $4.33 million to the foundation between 2004 and 2010. . . .​

Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income

Does anybody seriously believe that given all this documented history that the Clintons would not use the presidency to enrich themselves and perhaps their crony friends?

And my question is, does anybody care?​

They will continue using their positions to enrich themselves, and if it were anyone but Trump running against her I would never support her. They have not made it an easy decision for me, but regardless of the money grubbing grifters they are, the Clintons at least have experience and knowledge of how the world runs. I think Trump would be a disaster due to his personality and his inexperience and his lack of interest in taking advice from those who know more than he.
You asked, so I'm tellin ya.

I appreciate that though I don't see their experience and knowledge as a plus when I believe they will use it for less than noble self serving reasons and to promote even more of what I see as a dangerous and destructive progressivism. So I won't be voting for Hillary.

But lots of folks will. And my affection for folks or lack of it doesn't hinge on how they vote.

Well, if you're voting for Trump, you are far braver than I.

 

[TNHarley]

I haven't posted much in this election for several reasons, but as we count down the days to the final vote, Wikileaks is becoming more interesting showing clearly how the Clintons have used their foundation to enrich themselves.

And now the illustrious Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have both weighed in on how they have intentionally mixed charity with acquiring massive personal wealth:

In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.

This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band, who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.

It is astonishingly detailed proof that the Clintons do not draw any lines between their “charitable” work, their political activity, their government jobs or (and most important) their personal enrichment. Every other American is expected to keep these pursuits separate, as required by tax law, anticorruption law and campaign-finance law. For the Clintons, it is all one and the same—the rules be damned.

The memo came near the end of a 2011 review by law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett into Clinton Foundation practices. Chelsea Clinton had grown concerned about the audacious mixing of public and private, and the review was designed to ensure that the foundation didn’t lose its charitable tax status. Mr. Band, Teneo boss and epicenter of what he calls “ Bill Clinton, Inc.,” clearly felt under assault and was eager to brag up the ways in which his business had concurrently benefited the foundation, Clinton political causes and the Clinton bank account. The memoed result is a remarkably candid look at the sleazy inner workings of the Clinton grifters-in-chief. . . .

Grifters-in-Chief

And from WAPO:

When top Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band wrote the memo, he was a central player at the Clinton Foundation and president of his own corporate consulting firm. Over the course of 13 pages, he made a case that his multiple roles had served the interests of the Clinton family and its charity. . .

. . . “We have dedicated ourselves to helping the President secure and engage in for-profit activities,” Band wrote. He also said he had “sought to leverage my activities, including my partner role at Teneo, to support and to raise funds how much they had paid Bill Clinton and, in some cases, how he or Kelly had personally forged the relationships that resulted in the payments.

Band wrote that Teneo partners had raised in excess of $8 million for the foundation and $3 million in paid speaking fees for Bill Clinton. He said he had secured contracts for the former president that would pay out $66 million over the subsequent nine years if the deals remained in place.

For instance, Band wrote that Kelly arranged for the former president to meet the chief executive of Coca-Cola in January 2009 at the Clintons’ home in Washington. In all, according to Band’s memo, Coke had contributed $4.33 million to the foundation between 2004 and 2010. . . .​

Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income

Does anybody seriously believe that given all this documented history that the Clintons would not use the presidency to enrich themselves and perhaps their crony friends?

And my question is, does anybody care?​

They will continue using their positions to enrich themselves, and if it were anyone but Trump running against her I would never support her. They have not made it an easy decision for me, but regardless of the money grubbing grifters they are, the Clintons at least have experience and knowledge of how the world runs. I think Trump would be a disaster due to his personality and his inexperience and his lack of interest in taking advice from those who know more than he.
You asked, so I'm tellin ya.

So you think professional politicians are the way to go?

This time, yes. No choice in my mind.

So you think the same old corporatist wr mongering is better than a successfull businessman that has bad words and you don't REALLY know what he will do?
Im not saying you should vote for Trump, im just saying I don't think that is a good enough reason to vote for someone as BAD as she is. Im sure not voting for him.
Im also not one to believe in protest votes so I might be a bit biased. IMO, voting shows you support someone. If you don't support them, why show it?

 

[Dale Smith]

I haven't posted much in this election for several reasons, but as we count down the days to the final vote, Wikileaks is becoming more interesting showing clearly how the Clintons have used their foundation to enrich themselves.

And now the illustrious Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have both weighed in on how they have intentionally mixed charity with acquiring massive personal wealth:

In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.

This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band, who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.

It is astonishingly detailed proof that the Clintons do not draw any lines between their “charitable” work, their political activity, their government jobs or (and most important) their personal enrichment. Every other American is expected to keep these pursuits separate, as required by tax law, anticorruption law and campaign-finance law. For the Clintons, it is all one and the same—the rules be damned.

The memo came near the end of a 2011 review by law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett into Clinton Foundation practices. Chelsea Clinton had grown concerned about the audacious mixing of public and private, and the review was designed to ensure that the foundation didn’t lose its charitable tax status. Mr. Band, Teneo boss and epicenter of what he calls “ Bill Clinton, Inc.,” clearly felt under assault and was eager to brag up the ways in which his business had concurrently benefited the foundation, Clinton political causes and the Clinton bank account. The memoed result is a remarkably candid look at the sleazy inner workings of the Clinton grifters-in-chief. . . .

Grifters-in-Chief

And from WAPO:

When top Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band wrote the memo, he was a central player at the Clinton Foundation and president of his own corporate consulting firm. Over the course of 13 pages, he made a case that his multiple roles had served the interests of the Clinton family and its charity. . .

. . . “We have dedicated ourselves to helping the President secure and engage in for-profit activities,” Band wrote. He also said he had “sought to leverage my activities, including my partner role at Teneo, to support and to raise funds how much they had paid Bill Clinton and, in some cases, how he or Kelly had personally forged the relationships that resulted in the payments.

Band wrote that Teneo partners had raised in excess of $8 million for the foundation and $3 million in paid speaking fees for Bill Clinton. He said he had secured contracts for the former president that would pay out $66 million over the subsequent nine years if the deals remained in place.

For instance, Band wrote that Kelly arranged for the former president to meet the chief executive of Coca-Cola in January 2009 at the Clintons’ home in Washington. In all, according to Band’s memo, Coke had contributed $4.33 million to the foundation between 2004 and 2010. . . .​

Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income

Does anybody seriously believe that given all this documented history that the Clintons would not use the presidency to enrich themselves and perhaps their crony friends?

And my question is, does anybody care?​

They will continue using their positions to enrich themselves, and if it were anyone but Trump running against her I would never support her. They have not made it an easy decision for me, but regardless of the money grubbing grifters they are, the Clintons at least have experience and knowledge of how the world runs. I think Trump would be a disaster due to his personality and his inexperience and his lack of interest in taking advice from those who know more than he.
You asked, so I'm tellin ya.

I would cast my lot with Trump because the Clintons have cast their lot with the very ones that have put this debt slavery system in place and want to keep it that way. The Clintons and Bush crime families are in bed together and work for the Rothschillds and Rockefellers. Leftwing, rightwing....the body in then middle controls them both. Trump is not beholding to anyone....

 

[OldLady]

I haven't posted much in this election for several reasons, but as we count down the days to the final vote, Wikileaks is becoming more interesting showing clearly how the Clintons have used their foundation to enrich themselves.

And now the illustrious Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have both weighed in on how they have intentionally mixed charity with acquiring massive personal wealth:

In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.

This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band, who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.

It is astonishingly detailed proof that the Clintons do not draw any lines between their “charitable” work, their political activity, their government jobs or (and most important) their personal enrichment. Every other American is expected to keep these pursuits separate, as required by tax law, anticorruption law and campaign-finance law. For the Clintons, it is all one and the same—the rules be damned.

The memo came near the end of a 2011 review by law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett into Clinton Foundation practices. Chelsea Clinton had grown concerned about the audacious mixing of public and private, and the review was designed to ensure that the foundation didn’t lose its charitable tax status. Mr. Band, Teneo boss and epicenter of what he calls “ Bill Clinton, Inc.,” clearly felt under assault and was eager to brag up the ways in which his business had concurrently benefited the foundation, Clinton political causes and the Clinton bank account. The memoed result is a remarkably candid look at the sleazy inner workings of the Clinton grifters-in-chief. . . .

Grifters-in-Chief

And from WAPO:

When top Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band wrote the memo, he was a central player at the Clinton Foundation and president of his own corporate consulting firm. Over the course of 13 pages, he made a case that his multiple roles had served the interests of the Clinton family and its charity. . .

. . . “We have dedicated ourselves to helping the President secure and engage in for-profit activities,” Band wrote. He also said he had “sought to leverage my activities, including my partner role at Teneo, to support and to raise funds how much they had paid Bill Clinton and, in some cases, how he or Kelly had personally forged the relationships that resulted in the payments.

Band wrote that Teneo partners had raised in excess of $8 million for the foundation and $3 million in paid speaking fees for Bill Clinton. He said he had secured contracts for the former president that would pay out $66 million over the subsequent nine years if the deals remained in place.

For instance, Band wrote that Kelly arranged for the former president to meet the chief executive of Coca-Cola in January 2009 at the Clintons’ home in Washington. In all, according to Band’s memo, Coke had contributed $4.33 million to the foundation between 2004 and 2010. . . .​

Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income

Does anybody seriously believe that given all this documented history that the Clintons would not use the presidency to enrich themselves and perhaps their crony friends?

And my question is, does anybody care?​

They will continue using their positions to enrich themselves, and if it were anyone but Trump running against her I would never support her. They have not made it an easy decision for me, but regardless of the money grubbing grifters they are, the Clintons at least have experience and knowledge of how the world runs. I think Trump would be a disaster due to his personality and his inexperience and his lack of interest in taking advice from those who know more than he.
You asked, so I'm tellin ya.

So you think professional politicians are the way to go?

This time, yes. No choice in my mind.

So you think the same old corporatist wr mongering is better than a successfull businessman that has bad words and you don't REALLY know what he will do?
Im not saying you should vote for Trump, im just saying I don't think that is a good enough reason to vote for someone as BAD as she is. Im sure not voting for him.
Im also not one to believe in protest votes so I might be a bit biased. IMO, voting shows you support someone. If you don't support them, why show it?

Yeah, in this case, I think my dreams for change will be on hold for four years. But I know narcissists and I've seen Trump during this campaign and I think he will be too much of a loose cannon for anyone to control. I don't know what a corporatist is or why you think Hillary is a war monger, but whatever it is, it can't be worse than Trump.
I really really wish that the powers that be, whether in elected office or the major parties, would actually take seriously the bedlam and frustration of this election. The people ARE speaking and I hope some things will actually change because the pols know we are watching and we do care. Trump, imo, is a symptom, not a cure.

 

[Foxfyre]

I haven't posted much in this election for several reasons, but as we count down the days to the final vote, Wikileaks is becoming more interesting showing clearly how the Clintons have used their foundation to enrich themselves.

And now the illustrious Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have both weighed in on how they have intentionally mixed charity with acquiring massive personal wealth:

In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.

This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band, who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.

It is astonishingly detailed proof that the Clintons do not draw any lines between their “charitable” work, their political activity, their government jobs or (and most important) their personal enrichment. Every other American is expected to keep these pursuits separate, as required by tax law, anticorruption law and campaign-finance law. For the Clintons, it is all one and the same—the rules be damned.

The memo came near the end of a 2011 review by law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett into Clinton Foundation practices. Chelsea Clinton had grown concerned about the audacious mixing of public and private, and the review was designed to ensure that the foundation didn’t lose its charitable tax status. Mr. Band, Teneo boss and epicenter of what he calls “ Bill Clinton, Inc.,” clearly felt under assault and was eager to brag up the ways in which his business had concurrently benefited the foundation, Clinton political causes and the Clinton bank account. The memoed result is a remarkably candid look at the sleazy inner workings of the Clinton grifters-in-chief. . . .

Grifters-in-Chief

And from WAPO:

When top Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band wrote the memo, he was a central player at the Clinton Foundation and president of his own corporate consulting firm. Over the course of 13 pages, he made a case that his multiple roles had served the interests of the Clinton family and its charity. . .

. . . “We have dedicated ourselves to helping the President secure and engage in for-profit activities,” Band wrote. He also said he had “sought to leverage my activities, including my partner role at Teneo, to support and to raise funds how much they had paid Bill Clinton and, in some cases, how he or Kelly had personally forged the relationships that resulted in the payments.

Band wrote that Teneo partners had raised in excess of $8 million for the foundation and $3 million in paid speaking fees for Bill Clinton. He said he had secured contracts for the former president that would pay out $66 million over the subsequent nine years if the deals remained in place.

For instance, Band wrote that Kelly arranged for the former president to meet the chief executive of Coca-Cola in January 2009 at the Clintons’ home in Washington. In all, according to Band’s memo, Coke had contributed $4.33 million to the foundation between 2004 and 2010. . . .​

Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income

Does anybody seriously believe that given all this documented history that the Clintons would not use the presidency to enrich themselves and perhaps their crony friends?

And my question is, does anybody care?​

They will continue using their positions to enrich themselves, and if it were anyone but Trump running against her I would never support her. They have not made it an easy decision for me, but regardless of the money grubbing grifters they are, the Clintons at least have experience and knowledge of how the world runs. I think Trump would be a disaster due to his personality and his inexperience and his lack of interest in taking advice from those who know more than he.
You asked, so I'm tellin ya.

I appreciate that though I don't see their experience and knowledge as a plus when I believe they will use it for less than noble self serving reasons and to promote even more of what I see as a dangerous and destructive progressivism. So I won't be voting for Hillary.

But lots of folks will. And my affection for folks or lack of it doesn't hinge on how they vote.

Well, if you're voting for Trump, you are far braver than I.

You think I'm brave? I don't see it as brave at all. I see it as common sense self defense against what I believe will be a disastrous Clinton presidency. Hillary is not Bill nor will she be blessed with the ethical Congress that Bill was blessed with on both sides of the aisle. And once she can stack the courts in her favor there will be essentially no restraints on her power whatsover.

I don't like Trump and wish he was not the only viable alternative we have. But I vote for him with a clear conscience in the belief he'll make mistakes and get it wrong much of the time, but he will not intentionally do any harm and his ego will drive him to do his best to make things better. I see nothing in Hillary other than her likelihood of using the office in the most self serving way possible no matter who gets hurt.

But thank you so much for offering a reasoned and civil argument against mine. I appreciate that a lot.

 

[OldLady]

I haven't posted much in this election for several reasons, but as we count down the days to the final vote, Wikileaks is becoming more interesting showing clearly how the Clintons have used their foundation to enrich themselves.

And now the illustrious Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have both weighed in on how they have intentionally mixed charity with acquiring massive personal wealth:

In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.

This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band, who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.

It is astonishingly detailed proof that the Clintons do not draw any lines between their “charitable” work, their political activity, their government jobs or (and most important) their personal enrichment. Every other American is expected to keep these pursuits separate, as required by tax law, anticorruption law and campaign-finance law. For the Clintons, it is all one and the same—the rules be damned.

The memo came near the end of a 2011 review by law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett into Clinton Foundation practices. Chelsea Clinton had grown concerned about the audacious mixing of public and private, and the review was designed to ensure that the foundation didn’t lose its charitable tax status. Mr. Band, Teneo boss and epicenter of what he calls “ Bill Clinton, Inc.,” clearly felt under assault and was eager to brag up the ways in which his business had concurrently benefited the foundation, Clinton political causes and the Clinton bank account. The memoed result is a remarkably candid look at the sleazy inner workings of the Clinton grifters-in-chief. . . .

Grifters-in-Chief

And from WAPO:

When top Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band wrote the memo, he was a central player at the Clinton Foundation and president of his own corporate consulting firm. Over the course of 13 pages, he made a case that his multiple roles had served the interests of the Clinton family and its charity. . .

. . . “We have dedicated ourselves to helping the President secure and engage in for-profit activities,” Band wrote. He also said he had “sought to leverage my activities, including my partner role at Teneo, to support and to raise funds how much they had paid Bill Clinton and, in some cases, how he or Kelly had personally forged the relationships that resulted in the payments.

Band wrote that Teneo partners had raised in excess of $8 million for the foundation and $3 million in paid speaking fees for Bill Clinton. He said he had secured contracts for the former president that would pay out $66 million over the subsequent nine years if the deals remained in place.

For instance, Band wrote that Kelly arranged for the former president to meet the chief executive of Coca-Cola in January 2009 at the Clintons’ home in Washington. In all, according to Band’s memo, Coke had contributed $4.33 million to the foundation between 2004 and 2010. . . .​

Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income

Does anybody seriously believe that given all this documented history that the Clintons would not use the presidency to enrich themselves and perhaps their crony friends?

And my question is, does anybody care?​

They will continue using their positions to enrich themselves, and if it were anyone but Trump running against her I would never support her. They have not made it an easy decision for me, but regardless of the money grubbing grifters they are, the Clintons at least have experience and knowledge of how the world runs. I think Trump would be a disaster due to his personality and his inexperience and his lack of interest in taking advice from those who know more than he.
You asked, so I'm tellin ya.

I appreciate that though I don't see their experience and knowledge as a plus when I believe they will use it for less than noble self serving reasons and to promote even more of what I see as a dangerous and destructive progressivism. So I won't be voting for Hillary.

But lots of folks will. And my affection for folks or lack of it doesn't hinge on how they vote.

Well, if you're voting for Trump, you are far braver than I.

You think I'm brave? I don't see it as brave at all. I see it as common sense self defense against what I believe will be a disastrous Clinton presidency. Hillary is not Bill nor will she be blessed with the ethical Congress that Bill was blessed with on both sides of the aisle. And once she can stack the courts in her favor there will be essentially no restraints on her power whatsover.

I don't like Trump and wish he was not the only viable alternative we have. But I vote for him with a clear conscience in the belief he'll make mistakes and get it wrong much of the time, but he will not intentionally do any harm and his ego will drive him to do his best to make things better. I see nothing in Hillary other than her likelihood of using the office in the most self serving way possible no matter who gets hurt.

But thank you so much for offering a reasoned and civil argument against mine. I appreciate that a lot.

If he wins, which he certainly could, I hope you're right.

 

[Foxfyre]

I haven't posted much in this election for several reasons, but as we count down the days to the final vote, Wikileaks is becoming more interesting showing clearly how the Clintons have used their foundation to enrich themselves.

And now the illustrious Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have both weighed in on how they have intentionally mixed charity with acquiring massive personal wealth:

In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.

This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band, who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.

It is astonishingly detailed proof that the Clintons do not draw any lines between their “charitable” work, their political activity, their government jobs or (and most important) their personal enrichment. Every other American is expected to keep these pursuits separate, as required by tax law, anticorruption law and campaign-finance law. For the Clintons, it is all one and the same—the rules be damned.

The memo came near the end of a 2011 review by law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett into Clinton Foundation practices. Chelsea Clinton had grown concerned about the audacious mixing of public and private, and the review was designed to ensure that the foundation didn’t lose its charitable tax status. Mr. Band, Teneo boss and epicenter of what he calls “ Bill Clinton, Inc.,” clearly felt under assault and was eager to brag up the ways in which his business had concurrently benefited the foundation, Clinton political causes and the Clinton bank account. The memoed result is a remarkably candid look at the sleazy inner workings of the Clinton grifters-in-chief. . . .

Grifters-in-Chief

And from WAPO:

When top Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band wrote the memo, he was a central player at the Clinton Foundation and president of his own corporate consulting firm. Over the course of 13 pages, he made a case that his multiple roles had served the interests of the Clinton family and its charity. . .

. . . “We have dedicated ourselves to helping the President secure and engage in for-profit activities,” Band wrote. He also said he had “sought to leverage my activities, including my partner role at Teneo, to support and to raise funds how much they had paid Bill Clinton and, in some cases, how he or Kelly had personally forged the relationships that resulted in the payments.

Band wrote that Teneo partners had raised in excess of $8 million for the foundation and $3 million in paid speaking fees for Bill Clinton. He said he had secured contracts for the former president that would pay out $66 million over the subsequent nine years if the deals remained in place.

For instance, Band wrote that Kelly arranged for the former president to meet the chief executive of Coca-Cola in January 2009 at the Clintons’ home in Washington. In all, according to Band’s memo, Coke had contributed $4.33 million to the foundation between 2004 and 2010. . . .​

Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income

Does anybody seriously believe that given all this documented history that the Clintons would not use the presidency to enrich themselves and perhaps their crony friends?

And my question is, does anybody care?​

They will continue using their positions to enrich themselves, and if it were anyone but Trump running against her I would never support her. They have not made it an easy decision for me, but regardless of the money grubbing grifters they are, the Clintons at least have experience and knowledge of how the world runs. I think Trump would be a disaster due to his personality and his inexperience and his lack of interest in taking advice from those who know more than he.
You asked, so I'm tellin ya.

I appreciate that though I don't see their experience and knowledge as a plus when I believe they will use it for less than noble self serving reasons and to promote even more of what I see as a dangerous and destructive progressivism. So I won't be voting for Hillary.

But lots of folks will. And my affection for folks or lack of it doesn't hinge on how they vote.

Well, if you're voting for Trump, you are far braver than I.

You think I'm brave? I don't see it as brave at all. I see it as common sense self defense against what I believe will be a disastrous Clinton presidency. Hillary is not Bill nor will she be blessed with the ethical Congress that Bill was blessed with on both sides of the aisle. And once she can stack the courts in her favor there will be essentially no restraints on her power whatsover.

I don't like Trump and wish he was not the only viable alternative we have. But I vote for him with a clear conscience in the belief he'll make mistakes and get it wrong much of the time, but he will not intentionally do any harm and his ego will drive him to do his best to make things better. I see nothing in Hillary other than her likelihood of using the office in the most self serving way possible no matter who gets hurt.

But thank you so much for offering a reasoned and civil argument against mine. I appreciate that a lot.

If he wins, which he certainly could, I hope you're right.

Me too.