- Joined
- May 25, 2008
- Messages
- 18,464
- Reaction score
- 0
Have to run, I edited it last time so you didn’t need to read the whole thing.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/...entities-of-donors-to-clinton-foundation.html
They promised donor transparency. What actually happened?
They lied about who gave the money. Claiming that one donor of 30 million, was multiple donors.
They lied about the entire reason they set it up. They claimed it was for tax breaks for donors, but Canadian tax experts called BS.
Again, the Clintons have been accepting money and favors in return for the Clintons political influence for a LONG time.
If any of you liberals had an ounce of dignity, you would admit they’ve been doing the same type of shit dirtbags like Paul Manafort and Tony Podesta have been doing, and are just now being held accountable for.
FFS, at least feign a little outrage.
1. About the transparency thing, the Clinton foundation stated "the foundation maintains that the Canadian partnership is not bound by that agreement and that under Canadian law contributors’ names cannot be made public." The article stated: "it is not at all clear that privacy laws prohibit the partnership from disclosing its donors, the tax lawyers and officials in Canada said."
I don't know what to make of that other than it is unclear what to make of that.
2. From an article in 2007 about the one donor verses multiple donor issue: "The foundation has closely guarded the identities of its donors — including one who gave $31.3 million last year."
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20clinton.html?pagewanted=all&referrer=
3. About the tax break thing the article stated that the foundation was founded in 2007, but then makes the argument "since 2010, Canadians could have donated to the foundation directly and received the same tax break." Telfar made donations after that, but "Hillary didn't have to power to make that deal, and there is no evidence that any uranium ended up in Russia."
4. You still have not demonstrated that there has been any "favors in return" for donations to the Clinton Foundation (which does humanitarian work around the world), and your argument for how Hillary could have made the uranium one thing work is against reality. What are the favors in return you are talking about?
5. Bill had his own special counsel, why didn't Ken Starr find any evidence of the Clintons "accepting money and favors in return for the Clintons political influence for a LONG time?" Is Mueller just that much better than Starr that he has been able to nail so many folks close to Trump, are the Clintons just that much smarter than Trump, or is there just no there there? For them to achieve what they have politically I am sure that there is a lot of shady shit in their past that is part and parcel of that game, but the right wing mythology about Hillary (as evidenced by the whole Seth Rich thing and Pizza Gate) is insane. I am all for cleaning up politics, if Sessions wants to open an investigation on something legitimate about Hillary then cool, but it is Trump's DOJ and still nothing despite the "you would be in jail" talk.
6. We don't know yet all that Manafort has done, but for you to compare the Clintons to Manafort shows how far off the deep end you are. Honest question, do you think she was involved in Rich's murder?