Wonderful Donald mooched millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia government

[Star]

We are comparing a person in the private sector profiting from legit business deals to a SECRETARY OF STATE selling political favors?

Yea, that's the SAME THING.

Show us proof comparable to a bill of sale and that demonstrates Mrs. Clinton sold favors. While you're at it, show us how anything she did as SecState and on behalf of a charity compares to trump selling property to the very people he's equally keen to demonize -- Muslims. Isn't the "Trump Tower" story evidence plain and simple in support of the assertion, "Trump doesn't care about a damn thing about money, and most especially about the money that flows into his own pocket"?

• PressTV-Trump slams US ties with Saudi Arabia
  
• What does Donald Trump think of immigrants, Saudi Arabia and the Iran nuclear deal?

The man simply has no integrity, no backbone at all if his personal fortune is involved.

If you think the 100's of millions that Muslim countries have given to the Clinton foundation and the millions they paid Billy BJ for giving speeches were because they liked them you are a very simple minded fool.

That reply is your response to my request for actual evidence??? Really.

Next.

Perhaps you can tell me why they GAVE all of that money to the Clintons. I didn't think so.

Perhaps you can tell me what the quid pro quo is for exchanging the hundreds of millions of dollars D. Trump and terrorist supporting Middle Eastern countries are exchanging?

D. Trump has confessed he's a huge player in the -play for pay- market, which makes his financial connections to the largest exporter of terrorism in the world very troubling-----very troubling...


Why Does Trump Do So Much Business With World's #1 Exporter Of Terrorism?

By Colin Taylor
December 9, 2015

The hypocrisy is incredible. Trump regularly invokes the specters of the September 11th, 2001 terror attacks and the recent massacre in San Bernardino as an excuse to whip up anti-Muslim sentiment in America and to justify his proto-fascist and unconstitutional proposals, while continuing to do business with Saudi Arabia – the world’s leading financier of terrorism.

<snip>

Reuters reported that one of the San Bernardino terrorists, Tashfeen Malik, moved from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia as a young girl, where she was raised in an environment of Wahhabi extremism:

<snip>

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been the primary financier of the Taliban for decades; the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, and they were funded by Saudi Arabian petrodollars. Dubai and the other Arab Emirates are no less culpable; they have been using their international connections to launder money to terrorist organizations for decades. The FBI discovered that “half of the [9/11] plotters’ money — about $250,000 — was wired from banks here to operatives of Al Qaeda in the United States. In addition, American intelligence agencies have tied Qaeda money in banks here to the American Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.”

For far too long, the United States has turned a blind eye to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s role in exporting and funding terrorism throughout the world, and Donald Trump is no exception. His hypocrisy is astounding, as is his lack of understanding of basic global politics. While he criticizes President Obama for failing to denounce “radical Islamic terrorism,” he eagerly gives his money to those who started it in the first place. Algerian novelist Kamel Daoud noted in a New York Times op-ed that while “George Bush was the father of Daesh, Saudi Arabia was its mother.” That’s right; by consorting with Wahhabi Gulf nations, Donald Trump is funding terrorism.
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We are comparing a person in the private sector profiting from legit business deals to a SECRETARY OF STATE selling political favors?

Yea, that's the SAME THING.

Show us proof comparable to a bill of sale and that demonstrates Mrs. Clinton sold favors. While you're at it, show us how anything she did as SecState and on behalf of a charity compares to trump selling property to the very people he's equally keen to demonize -- Muslims. Isn't the "Trump Tower" story evidence plain and simple in support of the assertion, "Trump doesn't care about a damn thing about money, and most especially about the money that flows into his own pocket"?

• PressTV-Trump slams US ties with Saudi Arabia
  
• What does Donald Trump think of immigrants, Saudi Arabia and the Iran nuclear deal?

The man simply has no integrity, no backbone at all if his personal fortune is involved.

If you think the 100's of millions that Muslim countries have given to the Clinton foundation and the millions they paid Billy BJ for giving speeches were because they liked them you are a very simple minded fool.

That reply is your response to my request for actual evidence??? Really.

Next.

Perhaps you can tell me why they GAVE all of that money to the Clintons. I didn't think so.

Louis Joseph Freeh served as the fifth Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from September 1993 to June 2001.
Louis Freeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This piece of the puzzle may explain that relationship:

"Freeh had another reason for wanting to outlast Clinton. It was the 1996 Khobar Towers terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, where 19 U.S. servicemen died and more than 370 were wounded.

President Clinton had sent the FBI to investigate and promised Americans that those responsible would pay. "The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished. Let me say it again: we will pursue this. America takes care of our own. Those who did it must not go unpunished," the president said.

But Freeh says the President failed to keep his promise.

The FBI wanted access to the suspects the Saudis had arrested but then-Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar said the only way to get access to prisoners would be if the president personally asked the crown prince for access.

Freeh says Clinton did not help him. He writes in his book:

"Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudi's reluctance to cooperate, and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library."

"That's a fact that I'm reporting," says Freeh.

It's a strong charge. And 60 Minutes wanted Mr. Clinton's side of all this. He declined to talk to 60 Minutes, but told his spokesman to say: "The assertion that he asked the Saudis for funding for his library while he was president is absolutely false."

And Clinton's former national security advisor, Sandy Berger, told us that Mr. Clinton did press the Saudis to cooperate with the FBI.

Freeh says to get access to the Saudis' suspects, he eventually sought help from another president, the first President Bush. "Former President Bush, at my request interceded with the Saudis, spoke to Crown Prince, now King Abdullah, asked for his assistance and it happened just like that."

The FBI concluded that Iran had orchestrated the Khobar attack, but Freeh said the White House did not want to pursue the prosecution, because Iran had just elected a new president and Clinton hoped to improve relations with Iran.

"I was very disappointed that the political leadership of the United States would tell the families of these 19 heroes that we were going to leave no stone unturned and find the people who killed them, to give that order to the director, because that's the order that I got, and then to do nothing to assist and facilitate that investigation. In fact to undermine it," says Freeh."
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-923095.html




It's always about the money for this corrupt couple.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Were you drunk when you wrote the "purple" text quoted above?

LMAO. You are learning. It has taken a while....But sometimes you just have to snark someone who demonstrates vast ignorance. Nice job.

I am reasonably sure that IF you wanted to get down in the gutter, you'd be a real bear to deal with. A big ole grizzly.
Funny shit.

 

[TooTall]

We are comparing a person in the private sector profiting from legit business deals to a SECRETARY OF STATE selling political favors?

Yea, that's the SAME THING.

Show us proof comparable to a bill of sale and that demonstrates Mrs. Clinton sold favors. While you're at it, show us how anything she did as SecState and on behalf of a charity compares to trump selling property to the very people he's equally keen to demonize -- Muslims. Isn't the "Trump Tower" story evidence plain and simple in support of the assertion, "Trump doesn't care about a damn thing about money, and most especially about the money that flows into his own pocket"?

• PressTV-Trump slams US ties with Saudi Arabia
  
• What does Donald Trump think of immigrants, Saudi Arabia and the Iran nuclear deal?

The man simply has no integrity, no backbone at all if his personal fortune is involved.

If you think the 100's of millions that Muslim countries have given to the Clinton foundation and the millions they paid Billy BJ for giving speeches were because they liked them you are a very simple minded fool.

That reply is your response to my request for actual evidence??? Really.

Next.

Perhaps you can tell me why they GAVE all of that money to the Clintons. I didn't think so.

??? Were you drunk when you wrote the "purple" text quoted above? Expand the conversation above and look at what assertions you made (red text). Then notice what I asked of you. Did you truly not realize that I asked you to share with us credible evidence supporting your assertions' veracity? I think it must have seeing as you are now asking me for evidence that the Saudi and/or Muslim people/groups whom you claim gave money to the Clinton Foundation along with evidence of why they gave it. If I had proof of the veracity of your assertions, why the hell would I have asked you to provide evidence supporting your assertions?

I don't drink or do any mind altering drugs

This is proof that the Clintons’ got millions from ME countries.

Contributor and Grantor Information

Here are some excerpts from the linked article.

"Theoretically, one could say that these regimes — among the most repressive and regressive in the world — are donating because they deeply believe in the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation and want to help those in need. Is there a single person on the planet who actually believes this? Is Clinton loyalty really so strong that people are going to argue with a straight face that the reason the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Emirates regimes donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation is because those regimes simply want to help the foundation achieve its magnanimous goals?

All those who wish to argue that the Saudis donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation out of a magnanimous desire to aid its charitable causes, please raise your hand. Or take the newfound casting of the Clinton Foundation as a champion of LGBTs, and the smearing of its critics as indifferent to AIDS. Are the Saudis also on board with these benevolent missions? And the Qataris and Kuwaitis?

Which is actually more homophobic: questioning the Clinton Foundation’s lucrative relationship to those intensely anti-gay regimes, or cheering and defending that relationship? All the evidence points to the latter. But whatever else is true, it is a blatant insult to everyone’s intelligence to claim that the motive of these regimes in transferring millions to the Clinton Foundation is a selfless desire to help them in their noble work.

So if you want to defend the millions of dollars that went from tyrannical regimes to the Clinton Foundation as some sort of wily, pragmatic means of doing good work, go right ahead. But stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by pretending that these donations were motivated by noble ends. Beyond that, don’t dare exploit LGBT rights, AIDS, and other causes to smear those who question the propriety of receiving millions of dollars from the world’s most repressive, misogynistic, gay-hating regimes. Most important, accept that your argument in defense of all these tawdry relationships — that big-money donations do not necessarily corrupt the political process or the politicians who are their beneficiaries — has been and continues to be the primary argument used to sabotage campaign finance reform.

Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?

.

 

[Care4all]

crooked hillary, i see your nigerian and haitian and rwandan corruption and i raise you saudi corruption!

Trump made millions from Saudi government: report

A lot of American companies do business with Saudi Arabia every year. The government encourages it. Not every Secretary of State accepts millions from Saudi Arabia in donations in exchange for political favors though.

what were the political favors for saudi arabia? Did the prince get to visit the Bush ranch again????

 

[320 Years of History]

Were you drunk when you wrote the "purple" text quoted above?

LMAO. You are learning. It has taken a while....But sometimes you just have to snark someone who demonstrates vast ignorance. Nice job.

I am reasonably sure that IF you wanted to get down in the gutter, you'd be a real bear to deal with. A big ole grizzly.
Funny shit.

I wasn't aiming to be "snarky." I asked the question because truly I was hoping the answer was "yes." Were the answer "yes," I could reply, "Okay. I understand the reason for the incoherence of your reply to me." That's not at all disconcerting for we can all understand the absurd rants and raves of folks under the influence of mind altering substances. Someone who's in their so-called "right mind" responding as that member did is downright scary, not only because that one individual made the remark, but also because others may read the remark and think it makes some damn sense.

Roaches and and humans having a predilection for incoherent thought have in common the sad reality that if one finds one, there remain hidden many more. It then becomes a question of just how bad be the infestation, not whether there is one.

 

[Wilbur Right]

I don't drink or do any mind altering drugs

Well hell, there is half the problem.

If a lobbyist spends millions on a congress critters campaign, was it done out of altruism? When the Koch bros, Sheldon Addleson, Warren Buffet, any of those big money players, do they give that money to gain access. Or are they being altruistic?

Big money players give big money to gain access and favor. It's how plutocrats play the game. Trump does the same. Deal with it..it is not that big a deal.

If you can accept Citizens United, you can accept the Clinton Foundation. Or you should be able to.

 

[TooTall]

We are comparing a person in the private sector profiting from legit business deals to a SECRETARY OF STATE selling political favors?

Yea, that's the SAME THING.

Show us proof comparable to a bill of sale and that demonstrates Mrs. Clinton sold favors. While you're at it, show us how anything she did as SecState and on behalf of a charity compares to trump selling property to the very people he's equally keen to demonize -- Muslims. Isn't the "Trump Tower" story evidence plain and simple in support of the assertion, "Trump doesn't care about a damn thing about money, and most especially about the money that flows into his own pocket"?

• PressTV-Trump slams US ties with Saudi Arabia
  
• What does Donald Trump think of immigrants, Saudi Arabia and the Iran nuclear deal?

The man simply has no integrity, no backbone at all if his personal fortune is involved.

If you think the 100's of millions that Muslim countries have given to the Clinton foundation and the millions they paid Billy BJ for giving speeches were because they liked them you are a very simple minded fool.

That reply is your response to my request for actual evidence??? Really.

Next.

Perhaps you can tell me why they GAVE all of that money to the Clintons. I didn't think so.

Perhaps you can tell me what the quid pro quo is for exchanging the hundreds of millions of dollars D. Trump and terrorist supporting Middle Eastern countries are exchanging?

D. Trump has confessed he's a huge player in the -play for pay- market, which makes his financial connections to the largest exporter of terrorism in the world very troubling-----very troubling...


Why Does Trump Do So Much Business With World's #1 Exporter Of Terrorism?

By Colin Taylor
December 9, 2015

The hypocrisy is incredible. Trump regularly invokes the specters of the September 11th, 2001 terror attacks and the recent massacre in San Bernardino as an excuse to whip up anti-Muslim sentiment in America and to justify his proto-fascist and unconstitutional proposals, while continuing to do business with Saudi Arabia – the world’s leading financier of terrorism.

<snip>

Reuters reported that one of the San Bernardino terrorists, Tashfeen Malik, moved from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia as a young girl, where she was raised in an environment of Wahhabi extremism:

<snip>

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been the primary financier of the Taliban for decades; the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian, and they were funded by Saudi Arabian petrodollars. Dubai and the other Arab Emirates are no less culpable; they have been using their international connections to launder money to terrorist organizations for decades. The FBI discovered that “half of the [9/11] plotters’ money — about $250,000 — was wired from banks here to operatives of Al Qaeda in the United States. In addition, American intelligence agencies have tied Qaeda money in banks here to the American Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.”

For far too long, the United States has turned a blind eye to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s role in exporting and funding terrorism throughout the world, and Donald Trump is no exception. His hypocrisy is astounding, as is his lack of understanding of basic global politics. While he criticizes President Obama for failing to denounce “radical Islamic terrorism,” he eagerly gives his money to those who started it in the first place. Algerian novelist Kamel Daoud noted in a New York Times op-ed that while “George Bush was the father of Daesh, Saudi Arabia was its mother.” That’s right; by consorting with Wahhabi Gulf nations, Donald Trump is funding terrorism.
.

A lot of businessmen do business in Saudi Arabia, Dubai and the Arab Emirates and other oil producing countries in the middle east. Somewhere I heard they even sell us some oil.
They do business with Trump and they give millions of dollars to the Clinton's.
I posted this excerpt from an article earlier and will do it again for you.

"So if you want to defend the millions of dollars that went from tyrannical regimes to the Clinton Foundation as some sort of wily, pragmatic means of doing good work, go right ahead. But stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by pretending that these donations were motivated by noble ends. Beyond that, don’t dare exploit LGBT rights, AIDS, and other causes to smear those who question the propriety of receiving millions of dollars from the world’s most repressive, misogynistic, gay-hating regimes."

 

[320 Years of History]

Show us proof comparable to a bill of sale and that demonstrates Mrs. Clinton sold favors. While you're at it, show us how anything she did as SecState and on behalf of a charity compares to trump selling property to the very people he's equally keen to demonize -- Muslims. Isn't the "Trump Tower" story evidence plain and simple in support of the assertion, "Trump doesn't care about a damn thing about money, and most especially about the money that flows into his own pocket"?

• PressTV-Trump slams US ties with Saudi Arabia
  
• What does Donald Trump think of immigrants, Saudi Arabia and the Iran nuclear deal?

The man simply has no integrity, no backbone at all if his personal fortune is involved.

If you think the 100's of millions that Muslim countries have given to the Clinton foundation and the millions they paid Billy BJ for giving speeches were because they liked them you are a very simple minded fool.

That reply is your response to my request for actual evidence??? Really.

Next.

Perhaps you can tell me why they GAVE all of that money to the Clintons. I didn't think so.

??? Were you drunk when you wrote the "purple" text quoted above? Expand the conversation above and look at what assertions you made (red text). Then notice what I asked of you. Did you truly not realize that I asked you to share with us credible evidence supporting your assertions' veracity? I think it must have seeing as you are now asking me for evidence that the Saudi and/or Muslim people/groups whom you claim gave money to the Clinton Foundation along with evidence of why they gave it. If I had proof of the veracity of your assertions, why the hell would I have asked you to provide evidence supporting your assertions?

I don't drink or do any mind altering drugs

This is proof that the Clintons’ got millions from ME countries.

Contributor and Grantor Information

Here are some excerpts from the linked article.

"Theoretically, one could say that these regimes — among the most repressive and regressive in the world — are donating because they deeply believe in the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation and want to help those in need. Is there a single person on the planet who actually believes this? Is Clinton loyalty really so strong that people are going to argue with a straight face that the reason the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Emirates regimes donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation is because those regimes simply want to help the foundation achieve its magnanimous goals?

All those who wish to argue that the Saudis donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation out of a magnanimous desire to aid its charitable causes, please raise your hand. Or take the newfound casting of the Clinton Foundation as a champion of LGBTs, and the smearing of its critics as indifferent to AIDS. Are the Saudis also on board with these benevolent missions? And the Qataris and Kuwaitis?

Which is actually more homophobic: questioning the Clinton Foundation’s lucrative relationship to those intensely anti-gay regimes, or cheering and defending that relationship? All the evidence points to the latter. But whatever else is true, it is a blatant insult to everyone’s intelligence to claim that the motive of these regimes in transferring millions to the Clinton Foundation is a selfless desire to help them in their noble work.

So if you want to defend the millions of dollars that went from tyrannical regimes to the Clinton Foundation as some sort of wily, pragmatic means of doing good work, go right ahead. But stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by pretending that these donations were motivated by noble ends. Beyond that, don’t dare exploit LGBT rights, AIDS, and other causes to smear those who question the propriety of receiving millions of dollars from the world’s most repressive, misogynistic, gay-hating regimes. Most important, accept that your argument in defense of all these tawdry relationships — that big-money donations do not necessarily corrupt the political process or the politicians who are their beneficiaries — has been and continues to be the primary argument used to sabotage campaign finance reform.

Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?

.

Red:
I'm glad to learn that. I'm a bit dismayed to learn it as well. Keep reading to learn why.

Blue:
From the "Why Did the Saudi Regime" article you linked:

• "Although it did not give while she was secretary of state, the Saudi regime by itself has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation."
  
  How the writer even came by the temporal element is unclear to me for the link he provides doesn't show specific dates. Nevertheless, because he does make that temporal assertion, one cannot cite his editorial analysis as evidence that Mrs. Clinton peddled influence/access or anything else to Saudis/Arab leaders or nations while she was SecState.

Now having read that, take a look at my initial post in this thread.

• What did I remark upon?
  I responded to another member who wrote, "We are comparing a person in the private sector profiting from legit business deals to a SECRETARY OF STATE selling political favors? Yea, that's the SAME THING."
  
  
• What did I request?
  I requested evidence that Mrs. Clinton "sold" favors to rich Arabs/Muslims or Arab states as SecState in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.
  
  
• What have you provided, ostensibly (?) on behalf of the other member, thus presumably as the evidence of Mrs. Clinton having peddled "anything" to Saudis/Arabs/Muslims in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation?
  
  You provided the editorial: Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?
  
  
• What's wrong with that?
  The passage I cited above and that is found in the third paragraph of the editorial.

Have you some sort evidence (or even a sound inductive case) that actually supports the claim that Mrs. Clinton peddled "something" to Arabs, Saudis, or Muslims while she was SecState and in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation? Do you have some evidence that clearly (soundly and preponderantly -- i.e., not argument by imagination/incredulity and not jumping to a conclusion, or any other fallacious means of character assassination) shows the woman dispensed favors in exchange for future donations to the Clinton Foundation?

I'm not of a mind to deny soundly developed conclusions, and certainly not deductive proof, about that having happened. I'm simply asking for someone to provide such a case. I've read quite a bit about it in the past few weeks, but I have yet to see something that soundly makes the connection between Mrs. Clinton's activities as SecState and the Saudi/Arab/Muslim donations to the Clinton Foundation.

If Mrs. Clinton did that and one/we can show she did, fine. I'm unwilling, however, to accept unsubstantiated (or weakly substantiated) claims about what she did or didn't do as SecState.

 

[Care4all]

Show us proof comparable to a bill of sale and that demonstrates Mrs. Clinton sold favors. While you're at it, show us how anything she did as SecState and on behalf of a charity compares to trump selling property to the very people he's equally keen to demonize -- Muslims. Isn't the "Trump Tower" story evidence plain and simple in support of the assertion, "Trump doesn't care about a damn thing about money, and most especially about the money that flows into his own pocket"?

• PressTV-Trump slams US ties with Saudi Arabia
  
• What does Donald Trump think of immigrants, Saudi Arabia and the Iran nuclear deal?

The man simply has no integrity, no backbone at all if his personal fortune is involved.

If you think the 100's of millions that Muslim countries have given to the Clinton foundation and the millions they paid Billy BJ for giving speeches were because they liked them you are a very simple minded fool.

That reply is your response to my request for actual evidence??? Really.

Next.

Perhaps you can tell me why they GAVE all of that money to the Clintons. I didn't think so.

??? Were you drunk when you wrote the "purple" text quoted above? Expand the conversation above and look at what assertions you made (red text). Then notice what I asked of you. Did you truly not realize that I asked you to share with us credible evidence supporting your assertions' veracity? I think it must have seeing as you are now asking me for evidence that the Saudi and/or Muslim people/groups whom you claim gave money to the Clinton Foundation along with evidence of why they gave it. If I had proof of the veracity of your assertions, why the hell would I have asked you to provide evidence supporting your assertions?

I don't drink or do any mind altering drugs

This is proof that the Clintons’ got millions from ME countries.

Contributor and Grantor Information

Here are some excerpts from the linked article.

"Theoretically, one could say that these regimes — among the most repressive and regressive in the world — are donating because they deeply believe in the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation and want to help those in need. Is there a single person on the planet who actually believes this? Is Clinton loyalty really so strong that people are going to argue with a straight face that the reason the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Emirates regimes donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation is because those regimes simply want to help the foundation achieve its magnanimous goals?

All those who wish to argue that the Saudis donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation out of a magnanimous desire to aid its charitable causes, please raise your hand. Or take the newfound casting of the Clinton Foundation as a champion of LGBTs, and the smearing of its critics as indifferent to AIDS. Are the Saudis also on board with these benevolent missions? And the Qataris and Kuwaitis?

Which is actually more homophobic: questioning the Clinton Foundation’s lucrative relationship to those intensely anti-gay regimes, or cheering and defending that relationship? All the evidence points to the latter. But whatever else is true, it is a blatant insult to everyone’s intelligence to claim that the motive of these regimes in transferring millions to the Clinton Foundation is a selfless desire to help them in their noble work.

So if you want to defend the millions of dollars that went from tyrannical regimes to the Clinton Foundation as some sort of wily, pragmatic means of doing good work, go right ahead. But stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by pretending that these donations were motivated by noble ends. Beyond that, don’t dare exploit LGBT rights, AIDS, and other causes to smear those who question the propriety of receiving millions of dollars from the world’s most repressive, misogynistic, gay-hating regimes. Most important, accept that your argument in defense of all these tawdry relationships — that big-money donations do not necessarily corrupt the political process or the politicians who are their beneficiaries — has been and continues to be the primary argument used to sabotage campaign finance reform.

Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?

.

So what FAVOR did the Saudis expect from President Clinton when they donated $10 million to the Clinton Foundation (for his Library) when he first left office? What could Bill do for him, in return for the donation that would equal the donation, AFTER he was no longer President???

 

[TooTall]

If you think the 100's of millions that Muslim countries have given to the Clinton foundation and the millions they paid Billy BJ for giving speeches were because they liked them you are a very simple minded fool.

That reply is your response to my request for actual evidence??? Really.

Next.

Perhaps you can tell me why they GAVE all of that money to the Clintons. I didn't think so.

??? Were you drunk when you wrote the "purple" text quoted above? Expand the conversation above and look at what assertions you made (red text). Then notice what I asked of you. Did you truly not realize that I asked you to share with us credible evidence supporting your assertions' veracity? I think it must have seeing as you are now asking me for evidence that the Saudi and/or Muslim people/groups whom you claim gave money to the Clinton Foundation along with evidence of why they gave it. If I had proof of the veracity of your assertions, why the hell would I have asked you to provide evidence supporting your assertions?

I don't drink or do any mind altering drugs

This is proof that the Clintons’ got millions from ME countries.

Contributor and Grantor Information

Here are some excerpts from the linked article.

"Theoretically, one could say that these regimes — among the most repressive and regressive in the world — are donating because they deeply believe in the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation and want to help those in need. Is there a single person on the planet who actually believes this? Is Clinton loyalty really so strong that people are going to argue with a straight face that the reason the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Emirates regimes donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation is because those regimes simply want to help the foundation achieve its magnanimous goals?

All those who wish to argue that the Saudis donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation out of a magnanimous desire to aid its charitable causes, please raise your hand. Or take the newfound casting of the Clinton Foundation as a champion of LGBTs, and the smearing of its critics as indifferent to AIDS. Are the Saudis also on board with these benevolent missions? And the Qataris and Kuwaitis?

Which is actually more homophobic: questioning the Clinton Foundation’s lucrative relationship to those intensely anti-gay regimes, or cheering and defending that relationship? All the evidence points to the latter. But whatever else is true, it is a blatant insult to everyone’s intelligence to claim that the motive of these regimes in transferring millions to the Clinton Foundation is a selfless desire to help them in their noble work.

So if you want to defend the millions of dollars that went from tyrannical regimes to the Clinton Foundation as some sort of wily, pragmatic means of doing good work, go right ahead. But stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by pretending that these donations were motivated by noble ends. Beyond that, don’t dare exploit LGBT rights, AIDS, and other causes to smear those who question the propriety of receiving millions of dollars from the world’s most repressive, misogynistic, gay-hating regimes. Most important, accept that your argument in defense of all these tawdry relationships — that big-money donations do not necessarily corrupt the political process or the politicians who are their beneficiaries — has been and continues to be the primary argument used to sabotage campaign finance reform.

Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?

.

Red:
I'm glad to learn that. I'm a bit dismayed to learn it as well. Keep reading to learn why.

Blue:
From the "Why Did the Saudi Regime" article you linked:

• "Although it did not give while she was secretary of state, the Saudi regime by itself has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation."
  
  How the writer even came by the temporal element is unclear to me for the link he provides doesn't show specific dates. Nevertheless, because he does make that temporal assertion, one cannot cite his editorial analysis as evidence that Mrs. Clinton peddled influence/access or anything else to Saudis/Arab leaders or nations while she was SecState.

Now having read that, take a look at my initial post in this thread.

• What did I remark upon?
  I responded to another member who wrote, "We are comparing a person in the private sector profiting from legit business deals to a SECRETARY OF STATE selling political favors? Yea, that's the SAME THING."
  
  
• What did I request?
  I requested evidence that Mrs. Clinton "sold" favors to rich Arabs/Muslims or Arab states as SecState in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.
  
  
• What have you provided, ostensibly (?) on behalf of the other member, thus presumably as the evidence of Mrs. Clinton having peddled "anything" to Saudis/Arabs/Muslims in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation?
  
  You provided the editorial: Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?
  
  
• What's wrong with that?
  The passage I cited above and that is found in the third paragraph of the editorial.

Have you some sort evidence (or even a sound inductive case) that actually supports the claim that Mrs. Clinton peddled "something" to Arabs, Saudis, or Muslims while she was SecState and in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation? Do you have some evidence that clearly (soundly and preponderantly -- i.e., not argument by imagination/incredulity and not jumping to a conclusion, or any other fallacious means of character assassination) shows the woman dispensed favors in exchange for future donations to the Clinton Foundation?

I'm not of a mind to deny soundly developed conclusions, and certainly not deductive proof, about that having happened. I'm simply asking for someone to provide such a case. I've read quite a bit about it in the past few weeks, but I have yet to see something that soundly makes the connection between Mrs. Clinton's activities as SecState and the Saudi/Arab/Muslim donations to the Clinton Foundation.

If Mrs. Clinton did that and one/we can show she did, fine. I'm unwilling, however, to accept unsubstantiated (or weakly substantiated) claims about what she did or didn't do as SecState.

I can understand your position. After all, in your mind, Hillary is and always has been an honest and trustworthy person.

 

[TooTall]

If you think the 100's of millions that Muslim countries have given to the Clinton foundation and the millions they paid Billy BJ for giving speeches were because they liked them you are a very simple minded fool.

That reply is your response to my request for actual evidence??? Really.

Next.

Perhaps you can tell me why they GAVE all of that money to the Clintons. I didn't think so.

??? Were you drunk when you wrote the "purple" text quoted above? Expand the conversation above and look at what assertions you made (red text). Then notice what I asked of you. Did you truly not realize that I asked you to share with us credible evidence supporting your assertions' veracity? I think it must have seeing as you are now asking me for evidence that the Saudi and/or Muslim people/groups whom you claim gave money to the Clinton Foundation along with evidence of why they gave it. If I had proof of the veracity of your assertions, why the hell would I have asked you to provide evidence supporting your assertions?

I don't drink or do any mind altering drugs

This is proof that the Clintons’ got millions from ME countries.

Contributor and Grantor Information

Here are some excerpts from the linked article.

"Theoretically, one could say that these regimes — among the most repressive and regressive in the world — are donating because they deeply believe in the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation and want to help those in need. Is there a single person on the planet who actually believes this? Is Clinton loyalty really so strong that people are going to argue with a straight face that the reason the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Emirates regimes donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation is because those regimes simply want to help the foundation achieve its magnanimous goals?

All those who wish to argue that the Saudis donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation out of a magnanimous desire to aid its charitable causes, please raise your hand. Or take the newfound casting of the Clinton Foundation as a champion of LGBTs, and the smearing of its critics as indifferent to AIDS. Are the Saudis also on board with these benevolent missions? And the Qataris and Kuwaitis?

Which is actually more homophobic: questioning the Clinton Foundation’s lucrative relationship to those intensely anti-gay regimes, or cheering and defending that relationship? All the evidence points to the latter. But whatever else is true, it is a blatant insult to everyone’s intelligence to claim that the motive of these regimes in transferring millions to the Clinton Foundation is a selfless desire to help them in their noble work.

So if you want to defend the millions of dollars that went from tyrannical regimes to the Clinton Foundation as some sort of wily, pragmatic means of doing good work, go right ahead. But stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by pretending that these donations were motivated by noble ends. Beyond that, don’t dare exploit LGBT rights, AIDS, and other causes to smear those who question the propriety of receiving millions of dollars from the world’s most repressive, misogynistic, gay-hating regimes. Most important, accept that your argument in defense of all these tawdry relationships — that big-money donations do not necessarily corrupt the political process or the politicians who are their beneficiaries — has been and continues to be the primary argument used to sabotage campaign finance reform.

Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?

.

So what FAVOR did the Saudis expect from President Clinton when they donated $10 million to the Clinton Foundation (for his Library) when he first left office? What could Bill do for him, in return for the donation that would equal the donation, AFTER he was no longer President???

It was payback for what he did while he was President.

 

[Dragonlady]

not same, but similar....

Not similar. One is illegal. The other is encouraged.

One really happened, and the other is a figment of Republicans' imaginations.

 

[Dragonlady]

I can understand your position. After all, in your mind, Hillary is and always has been an honest and trustworthy person.

According to every standard, yes she is. According to multiple Republican and FBI investigations, she is honest and trustworthy. Only Republicans, who have lied about the Clintons for years, forcing multiple investigations which found the Clintons to be honest and trustworthy, but still Republicans continue to claim otherwise

 

[320 Years of History]

That reply is your response to my request for actual evidence??? Really.

Next.

Perhaps you can tell me why they GAVE all of that money to the Clintons. I didn't think so.

??? Were you drunk when you wrote the "purple" text quoted above? Expand the conversation above and look at what assertions you made (red text). Then notice what I asked of you. Did you truly not realize that I asked you to share with us credible evidence supporting your assertions' veracity? I think it must have seeing as you are now asking me for evidence that the Saudi and/or Muslim people/groups whom you claim gave money to the Clinton Foundation along with evidence of why they gave it. If I had proof of the veracity of your assertions, why the hell would I have asked you to provide evidence supporting your assertions?

I don't drink or do any mind altering drugs

This is proof that the Clintons’ got millions from ME countries.

Contributor and Grantor Information

Here are some excerpts from the linked article.

"Theoretically, one could say that these regimes — among the most repressive and regressive in the world — are donating because they deeply believe in the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation and want to help those in need. Is there a single person on the planet who actually believes this? Is Clinton loyalty really so strong that people are going to argue with a straight face that the reason the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Emirates regimes donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation is because those regimes simply want to help the foundation achieve its magnanimous goals?

All those who wish to argue that the Saudis donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation out of a magnanimous desire to aid its charitable causes, please raise your hand. Or take the newfound casting of the Clinton Foundation as a champion of LGBTs, and the smearing of its critics as indifferent to AIDS. Are the Saudis also on board with these benevolent missions? And the Qataris and Kuwaitis?

Which is actually more homophobic: questioning the Clinton Foundation’s lucrative relationship to those intensely anti-gay regimes, or cheering and defending that relationship? All the evidence points to the latter. But whatever else is true, it is a blatant insult to everyone’s intelligence to claim that the motive of these regimes in transferring millions to the Clinton Foundation is a selfless desire to help them in their noble work.

So if you want to defend the millions of dollars that went from tyrannical regimes to the Clinton Foundation as some sort of wily, pragmatic means of doing good work, go right ahead. But stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by pretending that these donations were motivated by noble ends. Beyond that, don’t dare exploit LGBT rights, AIDS, and other causes to smear those who question the propriety of receiving millions of dollars from the world’s most repressive, misogynistic, gay-hating regimes. Most important, accept that your argument in defense of all these tawdry relationships — that big-money donations do not necessarily corrupt the political process or the politicians who are their beneficiaries — has been and continues to be the primary argument used to sabotage campaign finance reform.

Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?

.

Red:
I'm glad to learn that. I'm a bit dismayed to learn it as well. Keep reading to learn why.

Blue:
From the "Why Did the Saudi Regime" article you linked:

• "Although it did not give while she was secretary of state, the Saudi regime by itself has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation."
  
  How the writer even came by the temporal element is unclear to me for the link he provides doesn't show specific dates. Nevertheless, because he does make that temporal assertion, one cannot cite his editorial analysis as evidence that Mrs. Clinton peddled influence/access or anything else to Saudis/Arab leaders or nations while she was SecState.

Now having read that, take a look at my initial post in this thread.

• What did I remark upon?
  I responded to another member who wrote, "We are comparing a person in the private sector profiting from legit business deals to a SECRETARY OF STATE selling political favors? Yea, that's the SAME THING."
  
  
• What did I request?
  I requested evidence that Mrs. Clinton "sold" favors to rich Arabs/Muslims or Arab states as SecState in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.
  
  
• What have you provided, ostensibly (?) on behalf of the other member, thus presumably as the evidence of Mrs. Clinton having peddled "anything" to Saudis/Arabs/Muslims in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation?
  
  You provided the editorial: Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?
  
  
• What's wrong with that?
  The passage I cited above and that is found in the third paragraph of the editorial.

Have you some sort evidence (or even a sound inductive case) that actually supports the claim that Mrs. Clinton peddled "something" to Arabs, Saudis, or Muslims while she was SecState and in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation? Do you have some evidence that clearly (soundly and preponderantly -- i.e., not argument by imagination/incredulity and not jumping to a conclusion, or any other fallacious means of character assassination) shows the woman dispensed favors in exchange for future donations to the Clinton Foundation?

I'm not of a mind to deny soundly developed conclusions, and certainly not deductive proof, about that having happened. I'm simply asking for someone to provide such a case. I've read quite a bit about it in the past few weeks, but I have yet to see something that soundly makes the connection between Mrs. Clinton's activities as SecState and the Saudi/Arab/Muslim donations to the Clinton Foundation.

If Mrs. Clinton did that and one/we can show she did, fine. I'm unwilling, however, to accept unsubstantiated (or weakly substantiated) claims about what she did or didn't do as SecState.

I can understand your position. After all, in your mind, Hillary is and always has been an honest and trustworthy person.

Pink:
You obviously have not read many of my posts, and certainly none in which I discuss Mrs. Clinton.

You can discuss me with others as you see fit. If you are of a mind to represent to me what I think, you'd best be right and know what you are talking about. That "pink" remark indicates to me that insofar as what you think I think about Mrs. Clinton, you do not know what you are talking about. I bid you avail yourself of USMB's search feature and find out.

 

[TooTall]

I can understand your position. After all, in your mind, Hillary is and always has been an honest and trustworthy person.

According to every standard, yes she is. According to multiple Republican and FBI investigations, she is honest and trustworthy. Only Republicans, who have lied about the Clintons for years, forcing multiple investigations which found the Clintons to be honest and trustworthy, but still Republicans continue to claim otherwise

The FBI couldn't catch her in a lie because she didn't remember anything.
According to everyone with an ounce of common sense she is a lying sack of dog squeeze. And that includes a lot of Democrats.

 

[TooTall]

Perhaps you can tell me why they GAVE all of that money to the Clintons. I didn't think so.

??? Were you drunk when you wrote the "purple" text quoted above? Expand the conversation above and look at what assertions you made (red text). Then notice what I asked of you. Did you truly not realize that I asked you to share with us credible evidence supporting your assertions' veracity? I think it must have seeing as you are now asking me for evidence that the Saudi and/or Muslim people/groups whom you claim gave money to the Clinton Foundation along with evidence of why they gave it. If I had proof of the veracity of your assertions, why the hell would I have asked you to provide evidence supporting your assertions?

I don't drink or do any mind altering drugs

This is proof that the Clintons’ got millions from ME countries.

Contributor and Grantor Information

Here are some excerpts from the linked article.

"Theoretically, one could say that these regimes — among the most repressive and regressive in the world — are donating because they deeply believe in the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation and want to help those in need. Is there a single person on the planet who actually believes this? Is Clinton loyalty really so strong that people are going to argue with a straight face that the reason the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Emirates regimes donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation is because those regimes simply want to help the foundation achieve its magnanimous goals?

All those who wish to argue that the Saudis donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation out of a magnanimous desire to aid its charitable causes, please raise your hand. Or take the newfound casting of the Clinton Foundation as a champion of LGBTs, and the smearing of its critics as indifferent to AIDS. Are the Saudis also on board with these benevolent missions? And the Qataris and Kuwaitis?

Which is actually more homophobic: questioning the Clinton Foundation’s lucrative relationship to those intensely anti-gay regimes, or cheering and defending that relationship? All the evidence points to the latter. But whatever else is true, it is a blatant insult to everyone’s intelligence to claim that the motive of these regimes in transferring millions to the Clinton Foundation is a selfless desire to help them in their noble work.

So if you want to defend the millions of dollars that went from tyrannical regimes to the Clinton Foundation as some sort of wily, pragmatic means of doing good work, go right ahead. But stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by pretending that these donations were motivated by noble ends. Beyond that, don’t dare exploit LGBT rights, AIDS, and other causes to smear those who question the propriety of receiving millions of dollars from the world’s most repressive, misogynistic, gay-hating regimes. Most important, accept that your argument in defense of all these tawdry relationships — that big-money donations do not necessarily corrupt the political process or the politicians who are their beneficiaries — has been and continues to be the primary argument used to sabotage campaign finance reform.

Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?

.

Red:
I'm glad to learn that. I'm a bit dismayed to learn it as well. Keep reading to learn why.

Blue:
From the "Why Did the Saudi Regime" article you linked:

• "Although it did not give while she was secretary of state, the Saudi regime by itself has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation."
  
  How the writer even came by the temporal element is unclear to me for the link he provides doesn't show specific dates. Nevertheless, because he does make that temporal assertion, one cannot cite his editorial analysis as evidence that Mrs. Clinton peddled influence/access or anything else to Saudis/Arab leaders or nations while she was SecState.

Now having read that, take a look at my initial post in this thread.

• What did I remark upon?
  I responded to another member who wrote, "We are comparing a person in the private sector profiting from legit business deals to a SECRETARY OF STATE selling political favors? Yea, that's the SAME THING."
  
  
• What did I request?
  I requested evidence that Mrs. Clinton "sold" favors to rich Arabs/Muslims or Arab states as SecState in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.
  
  
• What have you provided, ostensibly (?) on behalf of the other member, thus presumably as the evidence of Mrs. Clinton having peddled "anything" to Saudis/Arabs/Muslims in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation?
  
  You provided the editorial: Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?
  
  
• What's wrong with that?
  The passage I cited above and that is found in the third paragraph of the editorial.

Have you some sort evidence (or even a sound inductive case) that actually supports the claim that Mrs. Clinton peddled "something" to Arabs, Saudis, or Muslims while she was SecState and in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation? Do you have some evidence that clearly (soundly and preponderantly -- i.e., not argument by imagination/incredulity and not jumping to a conclusion, or any other fallacious means of character assassination) shows the woman dispensed favors in exchange for future donations to the Clinton Foundation?

I'm not of a mind to deny soundly developed conclusions, and certainly not deductive proof, about that having happened. I'm simply asking for someone to provide such a case. I've read quite a bit about it in the past few weeks, but I have yet to see something that soundly makes the connection between Mrs. Clinton's activities as SecState and the Saudi/Arab/Muslim donations to the Clinton Foundation.

If Mrs. Clinton did that and one/we can show she did, fine. I'm unwilling, however, to accept unsubstantiated (or weakly substantiated) claims about what she did or didn't do as SecState.

I can understand your position. After all, in your mind, Hillary is and always has been an honest and trustworthy person.

Pink:
You obviously have not read many of my posts, and certainly none in which I discuss Mrs. Clinton.

You can discuss me with others as you see fit. If you are of a mind to represent to me what I think, you'd best be right and know what you are talking about. That "pink" remark indicates to me that insofar as what you think I think about Mrs. Clinton, you do not know what you are talking about. I bid you avail yourself of USMB's search feature and find out.

I did jump to a conclusion about your mindset and that was wrong. My apologies.

 

[320 Years of History]

??? Were you drunk when you wrote the "purple" text quoted above? Expand the conversation above and look at what assertions you made (red text). Then notice what I asked of you. Did you truly not realize that I asked you to share with us credible evidence supporting your assertions' veracity? I think it must have seeing as you are now asking me for evidence that the Saudi and/or Muslim people/groups whom you claim gave money to the Clinton Foundation along with evidence of why they gave it. If I had proof of the veracity of your assertions, why the hell would I have asked you to provide evidence supporting your assertions?

I don't drink or do any mind altering drugs

This is proof that the Clintons’ got millions from ME countries.

Contributor and Grantor Information

Here are some excerpts from the linked article.

"Theoretically, one could say that these regimes — among the most repressive and regressive in the world — are donating because they deeply believe in the charitable work of the Clinton Foundation and want to help those in need. Is there a single person on the planet who actually believes this? Is Clinton loyalty really so strong that people are going to argue with a straight face that the reason the Saudi, Qatari, Kuwaiti and Emirates regimes donated large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation is because those regimes simply want to help the foundation achieve its magnanimous goals?

All those who wish to argue that the Saudis donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation out of a magnanimous desire to aid its charitable causes, please raise your hand. Or take the newfound casting of the Clinton Foundation as a champion of LGBTs, and the smearing of its critics as indifferent to AIDS. Are the Saudis also on board with these benevolent missions? And the Qataris and Kuwaitis?

Which is actually more homophobic: questioning the Clinton Foundation’s lucrative relationship to those intensely anti-gay regimes, or cheering and defending that relationship? All the evidence points to the latter. But whatever else is true, it is a blatant insult to everyone’s intelligence to claim that the motive of these regimes in transferring millions to the Clinton Foundation is a selfless desire to help them in their noble work.

So if you want to defend the millions of dollars that went from tyrannical regimes to the Clinton Foundation as some sort of wily, pragmatic means of doing good work, go right ahead. But stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by pretending that these donations were motivated by noble ends. Beyond that, don’t dare exploit LGBT rights, AIDS, and other causes to smear those who question the propriety of receiving millions of dollars from the world’s most repressive, misogynistic, gay-hating regimes. Most important, accept that your argument in defense of all these tawdry relationships — that big-money donations do not necessarily corrupt the political process or the politicians who are their beneficiaries — has been and continues to be the primary argument used to sabotage campaign finance reform.

Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?

.

Red:
I'm glad to learn that. I'm a bit dismayed to learn it as well. Keep reading to learn why.

Blue:
From the "Why Did the Saudi Regime" article you linked:

• "Although it did not give while she was secretary of state, the Saudi regime by itself has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation."
  
  How the writer even came by the temporal element is unclear to me for the link he provides doesn't show specific dates. Nevertheless, because he does make that temporal assertion, one cannot cite his editorial analysis as evidence that Mrs. Clinton peddled influence/access or anything else to Saudis/Arab leaders or nations while she was SecState.

Now having read that, take a look at my initial post in this thread.

• What did I remark upon?
  I responded to another member who wrote, "We are comparing a person in the private sector profiting from legit business deals to a SECRETARY OF STATE selling political favors? Yea, that's the SAME THING."
  
  
• What did I request?
  I requested evidence that Mrs. Clinton "sold" favors to rich Arabs/Muslims or Arab states as SecState in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.
  
  
• What have you provided, ostensibly (?) on behalf of the other member, thus presumably as the evidence of Mrs. Clinton having peddled "anything" to Saudis/Arabs/Muslims in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation?
  
  You provided the editorial: Why Did the Saudi Regime and Other Gulf Tyrannies Donate Millions to the Clinton Foundation?
  
  
• What's wrong with that?
  The passage I cited above and that is found in the third paragraph of the editorial.

Have you some sort evidence (or even a sound inductive case) that actually supports the claim that Mrs. Clinton peddled "something" to Arabs, Saudis, or Muslims while she was SecState and in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation? Do you have some evidence that clearly (soundly and preponderantly -- i.e., not argument by imagination/incredulity and not jumping to a conclusion, or any other fallacious means of character assassination) shows the woman dispensed favors in exchange for future donations to the Clinton Foundation?

I'm not of a mind to deny soundly developed conclusions, and certainly not deductive proof, about that having happened. I'm simply asking for someone to provide such a case. I've read quite a bit about it in the past few weeks, but I have yet to see something that soundly makes the connection between Mrs. Clinton's activities as SecState and the Saudi/Arab/Muslim donations to the Clinton Foundation.

If Mrs. Clinton did that and one/we can show she did, fine. I'm unwilling, however, to accept unsubstantiated (or weakly substantiated) claims about what she did or didn't do as SecState.

I can understand your position. After all, in your mind, Hillary is and always has been an honest and trustworthy person.

Pink:
You obviously have not read many of my posts, and certainly none in which I discuss Mrs. Clinton.

You can discuss me with others as you see fit. If you are of a mind to represent to me what I think, you'd best be right and know what you are talking about. That "pink" remark indicates to me that insofar as what you think I think about Mrs. Clinton, you do not know what you are talking about. I bid you avail yourself of USMB's search feature and find out.

I did jump to a conclusion about your mindset and that was wrong. My apologies.

Accepted.