11 ms·
If hundreds of pieces of direct evidence don't suffice, then I'm not sure what does. The Clinton Foundation has done countless extremely illegal and unethical t
by gragas 10y ago
If hundreds of pieces of direct evidence don't suffice, then I'm not sure what does. The Clinton Foundation has done countless extremely illegal and unethical things. Between CTR, the Bernie fiasco, the fake Craigslist ads, the "public and private" positions, I'm not sure how you can say that HRC isn't trying to create an alternate reality.
- jsutton 10y agoWhat are the countless and extremely illegal and unethical things?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- gragas 10y ago- Hillary and her team deliberately trying to trick the FBI by giving them a "slightly broader" set of emails [1]: "What that means specifically is that they are going to turn over all the Blumenthal emails to the Committee that they hav along with some other HRC emails that include a slightly broader set of search terms than the original batch. That of course includes the emails Sid turned over that HRC didn't, which will make clear to them that she didn't have them in the first place, deleted them, or didn't turn them over." - Purposefully witholding all emails that were between HRC and POTUS [2]: "Think we should hold emails to and from potus? That's the heart of his exec privilege. We could get them to ask for that. They may not care, but I seems like they will." - Evidence that the DNC purchased craigslist ads in attempt to frame Trump [3] "We’re proud to maintain a “fun” and “friendly work environment, where the boss is always available to meet with his employees. Like it or not, he may greet you with a kiss on the lips or grope you under the meeting table. Interested applicants should send resume, cover letter, and headshot to jobs@trump.com<mailto:jobs@trump.com>" - Clinton Foundation accepting $1 million from Qatar for Bill's birthday. [4] 1. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9272 2. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9545 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9545 3. https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803 4. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8396 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8396
- tonecluster 10y agoCan anyone provide any evidence of confirmed illegal activity from a source other than wikileaks? E.g., results of any official investigation, etc.
- gragas 10y agoYou can look at the newly-released FBI reports. Here's a few key parts: https://i.sli.mg/Ykms8I.jpg https://i.sli.mg/Ykms8I.jpg
- tonecluster 10y ago"...disregard for protocol" is not illegal activity. Any indictments, for example? Anything to back up the claim of illegal activity that could lead to a conviction? Again, outside of wikileaks hacked emails.
- vehementi 10y agoWhy dismiss wikileaks?
- hindsightbias 10y agoSince zero of those things are illegal or extremely so, it really wouldn't matter.
- akerro 10y ago>E.g., results of any official investigation, etc. Hahahahaha
- danielahn 10y agoIs this post satirical? I think I am being trolled, but at the risk of making myself look like a fool for falling for it: How is your reading comprehension this bad? 1. Your understanding of the comment here is miserable given the point you are trying to make. If you should find anything suspicious, it is that the 2nd set of e-mails, with a broader search, included e-mails that should have been turned over previously but weren't. If you want to go down that angle, you think the Benghazi committee would sit on those e-mails and not say anything if there was anything particularly salient in them? 2. You have an issue that State is considering whether releasing POTUS e-mails are subject to executive privilege and should be cleared first? 3. Really? I'll parrot the guys that give out free comedy show tickets - "you don't like to laugh? you don't like humor?" 4. Please point me to the illegal or unethical behavior here.
- mtberatwork 10y agoNot sure I entirely buy this, Charity Watch gives the Clinton Foundation high marks. [1] You might be able to make some arguments for crossing some ethical lines, but to say they have done "countless extremely illegal and unethical things" is pushing the conspiratorial line. [1] https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478 https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillar...
- swalsh 10y agoI am so glad the charity is doing something good, but does that justify HOW it got its money [1], and does some good mean the entire organization is built for good? [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-...
- seizethecheese 10y agoThere's very little investigative reporting on the actual charity activities of the Clinton Foundation. Here's one article: http://fusion.net/story/357169/hillary-clinton-foundation-victims-colombia/ http://fusion.net/story/357169/hillary-clinton-foundation-vi...
- suusjhd 10y agoJust more propaganda, the Clinton foundation is an illegal slush fund. http://charlesortel.com http://charlesortel.com http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/09/22/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizer-confirms-clinton-foundation-gives-only-six-percent-charity/ http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/09/22/clinton-cash-autho...
- whamlastxmas 10y agoThat website is frankly misleading. Their classifications of "overhead" are ridiculous. Look at the actual filing from the Clinton Foundation itself: https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_2014.pdf https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinto... Page 18 and 19. Out of a budget of $217 million, they spent $34 million on direct program expenditures. That's about 16%, not 88% as your link would lead us to believe. Additionally, what is this money spent on? Clinton Global Initiative, Clinton Presidential Center, Clinton Development Initiative, Clinton Health Matters Initiative, Clinton Giustra Sustaninable Growth Initiative A little self-serving, don't you think? And what percentage of the money going to those initiatives do you think are spent on directly charitable causes? No one should be under the illusion that the Clinton Foundation is a charity. It isn't. It's a slush fund for political purposes. Look at how mismanaged the billions of dollars for Haiti has been if you want to see how charitable the Clintons are (spoiler: nearly none of the money has actually been spent on Haiti, and virtually none of it on direct relief).
- the_duke 10y agoEvery politician has public and private positions. That's just how politics works. The view the plebs demands often don't align with either the politicians vision for the country, what's possible near or long term, or the people you are indebted to (donors, etc). In many cases it's acceptable and even advisable, in my opinion. A head of state has insight into facts and knowledge of others about realities and facts that most will / can / not understand (and SOMETIMES shouldn't even be known publicly). What's not acceptable is if a politician is a puppet for donors. The amount of money and network it takes to become president in the US is ridiculous, and basically necessitates being dirty and indebted. --- Also, Clinton is most likely no worse than most previous presidents. There's just considerably more information about her. But if you have the choice between that and Trump, I cannot imagine how you could choose the latter.
- Mikeb85 10y ago> But if you have the choice between that and Trump, I cannot imagine how you could choose the latter. Status quo vs. something different. The status quo is that Obama/Hillary have destabilised countless countries, and are sabre rattling against Russia, possibly leading to an eventual nuclear war. By contrast, Trump is promising less wars, less interventionism, and otherwise is a relative wildcard with a penchant towards pragmatism and deal-making. I'm not American, but on paper, it looks like Trump would be an improvement as far as world stability goes, I'd vote for him based on his policy concerning Russia alone. The Clinton/Bush/Obama dynasties have not made the world a better place, have not contributed to anything positive IMO, and judging by all the leaked emails, they're all corrupt as well.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- zzleeper 10y agoGiven his attitude, Trump seems way more likely to invade other countries and n general sable rattle. Also, I wouldn't call what Obama did sable rattling. Russia did invade several countries in the last years (Georgia, Ukraine, and maybe I'm missing one more?). If you don't have a good response for that, then how can you be trusted to defend your other allies (Poland, etc.)
- darawk 10y agoCan you name an example of an 'extremely illegal' thing they have done?
- dragonwriter 10y agoWell, there was the illegal campaign contribution to a state AG involved in investigating wrongdoing another Clinton-controlled entity. No, wait, that was the Trump Foundation protecting the fraudulent Trump University.
- smsm42 10y agoI must agree with the parent post - Trump and HRC operate in entirely different way. HRC is basically the avatar of corruption, if corruption were personified it would look and act like her. She doesn't need alternative reality, the current reality of the government is completely fine, she feels in it like fish in the water. She knows all the levers, and she knows how to abuse the system and how get away with things. Of course, this requires lying, violating laws and so on - but it's all accounted for in the corrupt system, and all is already part of what they are doing. The only worry is that not too much is publicly revealed and enough power is there to make what is revealed go away. So far it worked fine. For Trump, it's completely different. His strategy is built on two pillars - exposing the existence of the corrupt system and presenting himself as somebody who can fix it. The second part, unfortunately, is completely false and that's where alternative reality comes in - he needs to paint himself as somebody capable of doing a thing he has no idea how to do and no capability to do. That's why he always proposes over the top things - to capture one's imagination and paint himself as somebody who can do things. The proposal itself does not matter, neither the facts he claims to base it on - what matters is the image of somebody who knows how to do things, and has the guts to do them. Since the reality of his capabilities is rather modest, constant stream of fiction is required to keep this idea alive.
- alistproducer2 10y agoI agree with your assessment. HRC represents the "devil you know" to many people vs. "the one you don't" (Trump). A lot of how people feel is fueled by our hyperbolic, news-as-entertainment industry, but not all of it. It's not irrational paranoia to believe your government operates as a separate entity, one that is not subject to the rule of law. From the Iraq war, to torture, to retroactively legal bulk collection, to immunity granted to telecoms for doing illegal surveillance, to no one going to jail in response to 2008, the list goes on and on. We have a government all too happy to throw millions of us in jail for the most minor of offenses, yet the same rules don't appear to apply to the people constantly on our TV screens or ones that aren't with enough connections. HRC is not the devil, but she represents something deeply unsavory to a lot of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum. Trump is an obvious mad man. The fact that so many people are willing to give such a man the ability to unilaterally destroy humanity speaks volumes about where western civilization is at right now.