5 ms·

> Already now we have had memes with misattributed quotes and photos edited to associate Clinton with the devil, satanic rituals and so on Right, like my favo

by Zecar 8y ago

> Already now we have had memes with misattributed quotes and photos edited to associate Clinton with the devil, satanic rituals and so on Right, like my favorite one is the idea that she took $150 million from Russia in exchange for a shipment of our uranium. Those funds went to the Clinton Foundation a _charity_. Sheesh.

arcticfox 8y ago
> Those funds went to the Clinton Foundation a _charity_. Sheesh While independent investigations have concluded there was no wrongdoing, the reason above is really no defense. The Trump Foundation, for example, has shown how nonprofits can be manipulated to the benefit of the founders.
- travisoneill1 8y ago
  No _proof_ of wrongdoing. They also failed to come up with any plausible reason for the payment other than wrongdoing.
Cthulhu_ 8y ago
Don't all rich people stash their billions in charities to avoid taxes anyway?
Chris_Chambers 8y ago
Wow, you typed "sheesh" with such conviction that you finally persuaded me to believe that the "charity" is not essentially her family's personal slush fund. Pack it up my fellow alt-right neo-Nazis, looks like we got dunked on by an exasperated use of an exclamation yet again.
bacondude3 8y ago
I don't know the details of this Clinton-uranium-$$ story, but I can think of a few questions to ask... 1. If you were going to give somebody an illegal bribe, would you write "bribe" in the For: line on the check? (no, you would hide or disguise your bribe) 2. What plausible, legitimate reasons are there for Russia to donate to the Clinton Foundation? 3. Is charitable giving to anybody, especially in quantities exceeding $25-50 million, normal for Russia? Cthulhu_ and arcticfox are definitely both right that charities are used by many rich people to avoid taxes and just because it's a charity doesn't mean the owner isn't benefiting from it. I'd appreciate hearing your response. Not saying it happened one way or the other, just making some observations based on the tiny bit I've heard about this. Edit: Regarding #2, a quick search turned up [1]. I don't know anything about the Borgen Project, but a quick glance at the page doesn't look too suspicious. So, assuming that page is correct and that Russia donated similar quantities in 2013 as they did the same year the uranium incident happened, they donated over 50% to the Clinton Foundation. If those assumptions are fair and that actually is the case, it sure sounds suspicious to me. [1]: https://borgenproject.org/russias-charitable-giving/ https://borgenproject.org/russias-charitable-giving/

by Zecar 8y ago

arcticfox 8y ago

> Those funds went to the Clinton Foundation a _charity_. Sheesh While independent investigations have concluded there was no wrongdoing, the reason above is really no defense. The Trump Foundation, for example, has shown how nonprofits can be manipulated to the benefit of the founders.

travisoneill1 8y ago
No _proof_ of wrongdoing. They also failed to come up with any plausible reason for the payment other than wrongdoing.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago

Don't all rich people stash their billions in charities to avoid taxes anyway?

Chris_Chambers 8y ago

Wow, you typed "sheesh" with such conviction that you finally persuaded me to believe that the "charity" is not essentially her family's personal slush fund. Pack it up my fellow alt-right neo-Nazis, looks like we got dunked on by an exasperated use of an exclamation yet again.

bacondude3 8y ago

I don't know the details of this Clinton-uranium-$$ story, but I can think of a few questions to ask... 1. If you were going to give somebody an illegal bribe, would you write "bribe" in the For: line on the check? (no, you would hide or disguise your bribe) 2. What plausible, legitimate reasons are there for Russia to donate to the Clinton Foundation? 3. Is charitable giving to anybody, especially in quantities exceeding $25-50 million, normal for Russia? Cthulhu_ and arcticfox are definitely both right that charities are used by many rich people to avoid taxes and just because it's a charity doesn't mean the owner isn't benefiting from it. I'd appreciate hearing your response. Not saying it happened one way or the other, just making some observations based on the tiny bit I've heard about this. Edit: Regarding #2, a quick search turned up [1]. I don't know anything about the Borgen Project, but a quick glance at the page doesn't look too suspicious. So, assuming that page is correct and that Russia donated similar quantities in 2013 as they did the same year the uranium incident happened, they donated over 50% to the Clinton Foundation. If those assumptions are fair and that actually is the case, it sure sounds suspicious to me. [1]: https://borgenproject.org/russias-charitable-giving/ https://borgenproject.org/russias-charitable-giving/