Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

USA Today Just Dropped a BOMB on Hillary and the Clinton Foundation – BREAKING NEWS


Recommended Posts

The Clinton Foundation scandal is getting worse by the hour.

First focused on by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), progressive groups and Huffington Post writers are calling for the criminal foundation to be shut down.

Now, USA Today, a liberal newspaper, is also sick and tired of Hillary Clinton’s foundation, as it was set up solely to accept bribes from foreign governments and to buy access to the Secretary of State.

 

 

It’s not just Trump and the Republicans who are noticing the ethical dilemmas Clinton faces with her family’s foundation. Even members of the media are saying it’s time to shut it down to avoid any further pay-to-play allegations that could hamper her presidency should she win in November. The power couple has already said that they will sever their official ties with the Foundation should they win the election (Hillary has already resigned from the board), and they would stop accepting money from foreign and corporate interests. That still doesn’t shield them from paid access accusations, as we’ve seen from her time at State.

USA Today’s editorial board wrote this week that should Clinton win, she would have to shut down the Foundation in order to be successful in her long-term campaign to build trust with voters, among squashing other ethical questions that will certainly zap her political capital (not saying that this would be a bad thing—as it could soften her up for 2020…maybe?):

Ending foreign and corporate contributions is a good step, but allowing them to continue at least through the first week of November looks more like an influence-peddling fire sale (Give while you still can!) than a newfound commitment to clean government.And the complex plan for allowing donations from U.S. citizens and permanent residents, keeping some parts of the Clinton Foundation alive, and maintaining scores of Clinton-family allies on the payroll is less an opportunity for a clean slate than a guarantee of new controversy.

http://endingthefed.com/usa-today-just-dropped-a-bomb-on-hillary-and-the-clinton-foundation-breaking-news.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member

Shut it down but still vote for her to be President!  Bet any money the USA Today Ed. board endorses her for the Presidency.  

Clinton foundation is genius when you think about it.  Give money to my foundation so I can pay friends and cronies all the while you giving me what is essentially a tax deductible campaign contribution that will multiply upon return thru govt favors.

Best part is people who claimed to have backed Sanders because of money in politics now backing her.  :lmao: 

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

Shut it down but still vote for her to be President!  Bet any money the USA Today Ed. board endorses her for the Presidency.  

Clinton foundation is genius when you think about it.  Give money to my foundation so I can pay friends and cronies all the while you giving me what is essentially a tax deductible campaign contribution.  

With a 90% management cost :guzzle: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

Shut it down but still vote for her to be President!  Bet any money the USA Today Ed. board endorses her for the Presidency.  

Clinton foundation is genius when you think about it.  Give money to my foundation so I can pay friends and cronies all the while you giving me what is essentially a tax deductible campaign contribution.  

yeah..but there is transparency there..it's shockingly clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
8 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Shut it down but still vote for her to be President!  Bet any money the USA Today Ed. board endorses her for the Presidency.  

Clinton foundation is genius when you think about it.  Give money to my foundation so I can pay friends and cronies all the while you giving me what is essentially a tax deductible campaign contribution that will multiply upon return thru govt favors.

Best part is people who claimed to have backed Sanders because of money in politics now backing her.  :lmao: 

 

6 minutes ago, Momorider said:

With a 90% management cost :guzzle: 

Pointed that out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

you caught that eh?

I guess it was legal right?

Well look how much money they made when she was SOS, imagine what that could be as POTUS, the CUNT could basically charge anything for favours and grant them all :nuts: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Momorider said:

Well look how much money they made when she was SOS, imagine what that could be as POTUS, the CUNT could basically charge anything for favours and grant them all :nuts: 

yeah and back when barry took her on he knew about the foundation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member

A few things have to happen in order for someone to operate like the Clinton's do.

1. You are simply stupid and do things without thinking them thru.

2. You know what you are doing is wrong but feel with the MSM on your side and stupidity of the American people it simply won't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Capt.Storm said:

number 2 and most likely all was legal.

It's a loophole cuz it's not legal to accept foreign political donations but when you disguise it as a charity that actually uses 10% or the money in charitable endeavours it all good :flush: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Momorider said:

It's a loophole cuz it's not legal to accept foreign political donations but when you disguise it as a charity that actually uses 10% or the money in charitable endeavours it all good :flush: 

yep..they are that smart and they just figure we are just that dumb not see through it...and look how long they were doing it..the whole time she was SOS..can you believe it..well you better believe it cause it happened.

Edited by Capt.Storm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Capt.Storm said:

yep..they are that smart and they just figure we are just that dumb not see through it...ad look how long they were doing it..the whole time she was SOS..can you believe it..well you better believe it cause it happened.

They were broke when they left the Whitehouse, Thrillery tried to steal the silver wear :flush: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Momorider said:

They were broke when they left the Whitehouse, Thrillery tried to steal the silver wear :flush: 

The story said the donations to the Clinton Foundation amounted to roughly $156 million, not counting 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-clinton-foundation-scandal-defended-article-1.2765590

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
22 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said:

number 2 and most likely all was legal...they ain't dumb..arrogant maybe.

Not so sure about not illegal.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 8

Article VI of the Articles of Confederation was the source of the Constitution's prohibition on federal titles of nobility and the so-called Emoluments Clause. The clause sought to shield the republican character of the United States against corrupting foreign influences.

The prohibition on federal titles of nobility—reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility in Article I, Section 10, and more generally by the republican Guarantee Clause in Article IV, Section 4—was designed to underpin the republican character of the American government. In the ample sense James Madison gave the term in The Federalist No. 39, a republic was "a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during good behavior."

Republicanism so understood was the ground of the constitutional edifice. The prohibition on titles of nobility buttressed the structure by precluding the possibility of an aristocracy, whether hereditary or personal, whose members would inevitably assert a right to occupy the leading positions in the state.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/68/emoluments-clause

In other words foreign money should not influence our policies.   That was clearly not the case with Clinton.

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well of course it's all convoluted.

The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.

Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.

The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.

The new disclosures, provided in response to questions from The Washington Post, make clear that the 2008 agreement did not prohibit foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government from giving money to the charity closely linked to the secretary of state.

In one instance, foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member

If found to have broken the law or any wrongdoing they simply will say well it was for a good cause and the MSM and public will give them ANOTHER pass.  

 

Govt ethics webpage.

http://ethics.house.gov/gifts/gift-exceptions-0/gifts-foreign-governments-and-international-organizations

Gifts From Foreign Governments and International Organizations

 
 

   Members, officers, and employees may accept “[a]n item, the receipt of which is authorized by the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act, or any other statute” (House Rule 25, clause 5(a)(3)(N)).

    Special rules apply to gifts from foreign governments.  The Constitution prohibits federal government officials, including Members and employees of Congress, from receiving “any present  .  .  .  of any kind whatever” from a foreign state or a representative of a foreign government without the consent of the Congress.46  Congress has consented, through the vehicles of the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act (“FGDA”)47 and the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act (“MECEA”)48, to the acceptance of certain gifts from foreign governments.  The FGDA defines “foreign government” to include not only foreign governments per se, but also international or multinational organizations whose membership is composed of units of foreign governments, and any agent or representative of such a government or organization while acting as such.49  That Act also covers gifts from “quasi-governmental” organizations closely affiliated with, or funded by, a foreign government.

   MECEA and the FGDA provisions concerning the acceptance of travel and travel expenses are addressed in the Committee’s guidance on the travel provisions of the gift rule.

   In addition to its travel provisions, however, the FGDA authorizes House Members, officers, and employees to accept “a gift of minimal value tendered and received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy.”50  Under implementing regulations issued by this Committee,51 the term “minimal value” as used in the Act is currently defined, by reference to a statutory formula, as $375.

Edited by Highmark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Highmark said:

If found to have broken the law or any wrongdoing they simply will say well it was for a good cause and the MSM and public will give them ANOTHER pass.  

yep..judge us for our intentions thing. Plus the story like always will be so confusing that the people will just say fuck it..they count on that also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 minute ago, Capt.Storm said:

yep..judge us for our intentions thing. Plus the story like always will be so confusing that the people will just say fuck it..they count on that also.

Same thing happened to Gore when he got caught fund raising from the office of the VP.   Simply shrugged it off as it was for a good cause even though very illegal.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
1 minute ago, Capt.Storm said:

But hey..the lib news media is getting pissed about this ..so that is bad for hillary.

I doubt they will take it very far especially to the point of looking into and reporting on her like they do the GOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Highmark said:

I doubt they will take it very far especially to the point of looking into and reporting on her like they do the GOP.

yeah.

They say the debates don't sway many voters but maybe this time around it will be diff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member

Was there intent for hillary to give special favors for the money given to her from foreign governments.  Come on guys lets give her the benefit of the doubt that she didnt know what she was doing as SOS was wrong and illegal.  Cant we just move on from these illegal activities by the clintons and focus on how melania took pictures in bathing suit on a work visa for profit and how that is horrible for this country!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...