4 ms·

So, wasn't Hillary Clinton breaking the Constitution when she was accepting donations from Saudi Arabia at the Clinton Foundation while secretary of state?

by g00gler 10y ago

willvarfar 10y ago
So does Hillary get to spend the foundation money on herself?
- geetee 10y ago
  Didn't the leaks reveal that Chelsea's wedding was paid for by the foundation?
  - ebbv 10y ago
    No, they didn't.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    No, those were fake news headlines run by Fox and Russian news agencies.
  - 3131s 10y ago
    Here is the email in question so you all can judge for yourselves: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/52046 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/52046 For context, Doug Band is a very close Clinton associate and he's discussing an initiative apparently launched by Chelsea Clinton to investigate money within the Clinton Foundation (which is also mentioned in some of the other Podesta emails).
    - geetee 10y ago
      That's the one. Thanks for digging it up.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
rconti 10y ago
I would guess Hillary's situation would depend on the structure of the foundation. Likely she was not the one "accepting" it, and the ownership structure, such as it is, might not even include the Clintons. It might just have their name on it. This is all just speculation though.
umanwizard 10y ago
Why is anyone still talking about Hillary Clinton? Donald Trump is the man in office. Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with anything. However Clinton may or may not violated the Constitution is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether Trump is violating it now.
- flukus 10y ago
  > Why is anyone still talking about Hillary Clinton? Because we're trying to ascertain if the complainers are genuinely principled or partisan hacks. I've a feeling most of them would be turning a blind eye if it wasn't trump.
  - iamdave 10y ago
    Complainers can't prosecute and convict. Courts can. That's a difference I'd recommend coming to terms with as it's the crux of this discussion at a level that's intensely germane.
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      In this case particular, actually, it's the legislature that can prosecute and convict. Still not random people on HN, though :-P
  - umanwizard 10y ago
    Why does it matter? The complaints are either right, or they're wrong. The complainers' motives for making their complains have no bearing on that.
    - loafa 10y ago
      Maybe, but for those of us who aren't experts on constitutional law, it's difficult to ascertain exactly who is in the right, we have to decide which self-proclaimed experts to believe. For this reason it's helpful to understand the motives of those putting forth a particular argument. I have a rule, and I think it's a good one. When I hear some political rhetoric I ask myself "if the parties were reversed would this person still be saying the same thing?" If the answer is no, I ignore that person. This cuts out about 97% of all political discussion and saves a lot of time.
jakeogh 10y ago
sssh:) Nobody wants to talk about that, it's way too instructive. And definitely don't mention that her campaign manager was/is literally on the Saudi payroll[0]. [0] https://www.fara.gov/docs/5926-Exhibit-AB-20150917-67.pdf https://www.fara.gov/docs/5926-Exhibit-AB-20150917-67.pdf
mrebus 10y ago
I am willing to put money that this is being brought up so no one can set up another clinton foundation again. trumps press conference a while back he spent a considerable amount of time talking about his company and the legalities. he knew what he was talking about and they had spent some time working on it.(then he called cnn fake news). Now all this talk about nobility... This gets ruled on and he is totally inside the rules... but the real message is don't set up "Clinton Global Inititave" as it wound be outside the rules.

So, wasn't Hillary Clinton breaking the Constitution when she was accepting donations from Saudi Arabia at the Clinton Foundation while secretary of state?

by g00gler 10y ago

So, wasn't Hillary Clinton breaking the Constitution when she was accepting donations from Saudi Arabia at the Clinton Foundation while secretary of state?

willvarfar 10y ago

So does Hillary get to spend the foundation money on herself?

geetee 10y ago
Didn't the leaks reveal that Chelsea's wedding was paid for by the foundation?
- ebbv 10y ago
  No, they didn't.
- bduerst 10y ago
  No, those were fake news headlines run by Fox and Russian news agencies.
- 3131s 10y ago
  Here is the email in question so you all can judge for yourselves: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/52046 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/52046 For context, Doug Band is a very close Clinton associate and he's discussing an initiative apparently launched by Chelsea Clinton to investigate money within the Clinton Foundation (which is also mentioned in some of the other Podesta emails).
  - geetee 10y ago
    That's the one. Thanks for digging it up.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

rconti 10y ago

I would guess Hillary's situation would depend on the structure of the foundation. Likely she was not the one "accepting" it, and the ownership structure, such as it is, might not even include the Clintons. It might just have their name on it. This is all just speculation though.

umanwizard 10y ago

Why is anyone still talking about Hillary Clinton? Donald Trump is the man in office. Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with anything. However Clinton may or may not violated the Constitution is absolutely irrelevant to the question of whether Trump is violating it now.

flukus 10y ago
> Why is anyone still talking about Hillary Clinton? Because we're trying to ascertain if the complainers are genuinely principled or partisan hacks. I've a feeling most of them would be turning a blind eye if it wasn't trump.
- iamdave 10y ago
  Complainers can't prosecute and convict. Courts can. That's a difference I'd recommend coming to terms with as it's the crux of this discussion at a level that's intensely germane.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    In this case particular, actually, it's the legislature that can prosecute and convict. Still not random people on HN, though :-P
- umanwizard 10y ago
  Why does it matter? The complaints are either right, or they're wrong. The complainers' motives for making their complains have no bearing on that.
  - loafa 10y ago
    Maybe, but for those of us who aren't experts on constitutional law, it's difficult to ascertain exactly who is in the right, we have to decide which self-proclaimed experts to believe. For this reason it's helpful to understand the motives of those putting forth a particular argument. I have a rule, and I think it's a good one. When I hear some political rhetoric I ask myself "if the parties were reversed would this person still be saying the same thing?" If the answer is no, I ignore that person. This cuts out about 97% of all political discussion and saves a lot of time.

jakeogh 10y ago

sssh:) Nobody wants to talk about that, it's way too instructive. And definitely don't mention that her campaign manager was/is literally on the Saudi payroll[0]. [0] https://www.fara.gov/docs/5926-Exhibit-AB-20150917-67.pdf https://www.fara.gov/docs/5926-Exhibit-AB-20150917-67.pdf

mrebus 10y ago

I am willing to put money that this is being brought up so no one can set up another clinton foundation again. trumps press conference a while back he spent a considerable amount of time talking about his company and the legalities. he knew what he was talking about and they had spent some time working on it.(then he called cnn fake news). Now all this talk about nobility... This gets ruled on and he is totally inside the rules... but the real message is don't set up "Clinton Global Inititave" as it wound be outside the rules.