Clinton Foundation donors have a bribery problem

[bubbabgone]

A pair of Clinton Foundation donors with financial ties to the former first family have both been at the center of major corruption cases, raising questions about why they chose to give millions to the Clintons' charity.

Nigerian businessman Gilbert Chagoury's connections to the Clintons have come under scrutiny following revelations that State Department policy may have benefited him personally while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state.

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., has repeatedly pressed the State Department for documentation of Hillary Clinton's decision not to place Boko Haram on the terrorist watch list while serving as secretary of state.

Clinton Foundation donors have a bribery problem | WashingtonExaminer.com

Hillary was heard to insist to John Podesta that she saw no reason to place Procol Harum on the terrorist watch list since she grew up with their music and was shocked to learn she had been misinformed by her staff during her State Department years.

 

[humbolt]

Clinton Foundation donors have a bribery problem | WashingtonExaminer.com

Hillary was heard to insist to John Podesta that she saw no reason to place Procol Harum on the terrorist watch list since she grew up with their music and was shocked to learn she had been misinformed by her staff during her State Department years.

And another thing. There are far too many Weiners associated with the democrats.

"Chagoury's donation was solicited by Mark Weiner, a top Democratic bundler who will co-host a fundraiser for Clinton's presidential campaign in Rhode Island Wednesday."

 

[WCH]

And another thing. There are far too many Weiners associated with the democrats.

"Chagoury's donation was solicited by Mark Weiner, a top Democratic bundler who will co-host a fundraiser for Clinton's presidential campaign in Rhode Island Wednesday."

Including this Weiner who is very close to a certain Clinton.

 

[MTAtech]

Clinton Foundation donors have a bribery problem | WashingtonExaminer.com

Hillary was heard to insist to John Podesta that she saw no reason to place Procol Harum on the terrorist watch list since she grew up with their music and was shocked to learn she had been misinformed by her staff during her State Department years.

Bribery requires quid pro quo. Unless you can show that giving money to the charity was contingent upon them getting something in return from the Secretary of State, you have nothing.

 

[bubbabgone]

Bribery requires quid pro quo.

Unless you can show that giving money to the charity was contingent upon them getting something in return from the Secretary of State, you have nothing.

And there it is, folks.
The article pretty obviously suggests a quid pro quo.
I think what you're really asking for is a Hillary/Bill confession and won't settle for anything less.

 

[MTAtech]

And there it is, folks.
The article pretty obviously suggests a quid pro quo.
I think what you're really asking for is a Hillary/Bill confession and won't settle for anything less.

Not good enough. The only quote from the Washington Examiner article was from Sen. David Vitter, (R-La.). That's his opinion of the facts and has no legal standing. It was not from any person with firsthand knowledge. Even at that, his quote "We need to know if Mr. Chagoury had any influence in the decision not to designate Boko Haram a [foreign terrorist organization], or had any other influence with Secretary Clinton's foreign policy decisions," is an admission that he doesn't know one way or the other.

For a quid pro quo to exist, one must prove that "A" took a certain official action because "B" did something for "A." Failing that, there is no bribery.

 

[MMC]

Including this Weiner who is very close to a certain Clinton.

Also Cheryl Mills.....which there are several going after all them over FOIA. Not to mention Gowdy wants them to testify before the Benghazi Committee. After they take depositions.

Then of course there is Sidney Blumenthal. Who will be doing the same.

 

[humbolt]

Not good enough. The only quote from the Washington Examiner article was from Sen. David Vitter, (R-La.). That's his opinion of the facts and has no legal standing. It was not from any person with firsthand knowledge. Even at that, his quote "We need to know if Mr. Chagoury had any influence in the decision not to designate Boko Haram a [foreign terrorist organization], or had any other influence with Secretary Clinton's foreign policy decisions," is an admission that he doesn't know one way or the other.

For a quid pro quo to exist, one must prove that "A" took a certain official action because "B" did something for "A." Failing that, there is no bribery.

Wait. What mitigating reasons can you state that would justify not designating Boko Haram a terrorist organization?

 

[MTAtech]

Wait. What mitigating reasons can you state that would justify not designating Boko Haram a terrorist organization?

Since I am not an expert in the field, I have no idea but I can assure you that the State Dept. will have a rationale.

What I do know is that a court won't presume that there must have been bribery because it disagrees with the State Dept's reasoning. In America, if one wants to convict someone of a crime, they must prove a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt. If State had a reason -- even if it wasn't one that you agree, that's the reasonable doubt.

EDIT: Boko Haram was designated a terrorist organization by the State Dept in 2013.

 

[humbolt]

Since I am not an expert in the field, I have no idea but I can assure you that the State Dept. will have a rationale.

What I do know is that a court won't presume that there must have been bribery because it disagrees with the State Dept's reasoning. In America, if one wants to convict someone of a crime, they must prove a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt. If State had a reason -- even if it wasn't one that you agree, that's the reasonable doubt.

I'm gonna go look and see if State has made a rationale public.

 

[humbolt]

Since I am not an expert in the field, I have no idea but I can assure you that the State Dept. will have a rationale.

What I do know is that a court won't presume that there must have been bribery because it disagrees with the State Dept's reasoning. In America, if one wants to convict someone of a crime, they must prove a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt. If State had a reason -- even if it wasn't one that you agree, that's the reasonable doubt.

It seems the State department under Hillary didn't want to empower Boko Haram with an FTO designation. I respond further later today - after I quit laughing. I suppose that could establish doubt, but I don't think it can be described in any way as reasonable. It sounds like a load of fresh bull crap, all gushy and oozing - like maybe the bull had the scours, like, oh never mind.

 

[MTAtech]

It seems the State department under Hillary didn't want to empower Boko Haram with an FTO designation. I respond further later today - after I quit laughing. I suppose that could establish doubt, but I don't think it can be described in any way as reasonable. It sounds like a load of fresh bull crap, all gushy and oozing - like maybe the bull had the scours, like, oh never mind.

According to Wiki, "The U.S. State Department designated Boko Haram and Ansaru as terrorist organizations in November 2013"

 

[humbolt]

According to Wiki, "The U.S. State Department designated Boko Haram and Ansaru as terrorist organizations in November 2013"

Yes. This issue precedes that designation.

 

[bubbabgone]

Not good enough. The only quote from the Washington Examiner article was from Sen. David Vitter, (R-La.). That's his opinion of the facts and has no legal standing. It was not from any person with firsthand knowledge. Even at that, his quote "We need to know if Mr. Chagoury had any influence in the decision not to designate Boko Haram a [foreign terrorist organization], or had any other influence with Secretary Clinton's foreign policy decisions," is an admission that he doesn't know one way or the other.

For a quid pro quo to exist, one must prove that "A" took a certain official action because "B" did something for "A."

Failing that, there is no bribery.

There's that confession thing rearing it's ugly head again. What would you accept as proof? A thank you email to Hillary's private email account?

 

[bubbabgone]

According to Wiki,

"The U.S. State Department designated Boko Haram and Ansaru as terrorist organizations in November 2013"

... that was after Hillary left.

 

[MMC]

And there it is, folks.
The article pretty obviously suggests a quid pro quo.
I think what you're really asking for is a Hillary/Bill confession and won't settle for anything less.

This is the Clinton's we are talking about B. Deny, deny, lie, ignore and deny.


Bill Clinton: Hey, no one’s proven we’re corrupt, right?


Hasn’t this been the Clinton standard for the past 23 years, really? Former President Bill Clinton did an interview with Bloomberg in front of a live and friendly audience at the Clinton Global Initiative, and offered a response to allegations of influence-peddling and worse from the nexus of power and cash involving the family foundation and Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. “Has anybody proved that we did anything objectionable?” Clinton asked, and then provided his own answer: “No.”

Well, that settle things. Right? Er … not really, argues Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post. Cillizza calls the arrogance in that remark “a stunner”:

And it’s not just the foundation, either. Bill Clinton racked up tens of millions of dollars in speaking engagements while his wife ran the State Department, significant chunks of which came from corporations and nations who had business within State’s purview — and all of whom seemed to have done remarkably well, too. Whether those entities wanted to move control of American uranium to Russia or expand chemical-arms sales to suppress the Arab Spring protests that the Obama administration was championing, Bill and Hillary and their foundation always seemed to profit in correlation to those ambitions, both personally and in their foundation — which at that time had pass-through rates that would paint any other charity as a scam.....snip~

Bill Clinton: Hey, no one’s proven we’re corrupt, right? « Hot Air

 

[maxparrish]

What's wrong with you people? Havn't you checked your email for talking points? Why talk about covert hundred million dollar foundation operations and 30,000 destroyed emails when we can be hair-pulling over Rubio's four tickets, a car lease for a nice car, and the gall of a guy purchasing a recreational fishing boat? I mean, did the guy REALLY need TWO outboard motors, when one might suffice?

 

[bubbabgone]

Also Cheryl Mills.....which there are several going after all them over FOIA. Not to mention Gowdy wants them to testify before the Benghazi Committee. After they take depositions.

Then of course there is Sidney Blumenthal. Who will be doing the same.

Sid wants to do his private, doesn't he?

 

[MMC]

Sid wants to do his private, doesn't he?

Yeah he does.....but so to does Gowdy. Means Deposition. Either way, Hillary or Aides discussing any Classified info with him. Then the fat lady starts singing.

Which still doesn't get Hillary out of the jam with her server being breached. Then the State Dept, then WH.

 

[humbolt]

What's wrong with you people? Havn't you checked your email for talking points? Why talk about covert hundred million dollar foundation operations and 30,000 destroyed emails when we can be hair-pulling over Rubio's four tickets, a car lease for a nice car, and the gall of a guy purchasing a recreational fishing boat? I mean, did the guy REALLY need TWO outboard motors, when one might suffice?

To be perfectly honest, the second engine was thrown in for future political favors. These boat dealers have their own lobby in DC. It operates under the guise of "Boat Dealers Lobby" which sounds sinister right from the get go, and they don't operate from K Street just to stay under the radar. They have a houseboat on the Potomac, but I didn't tell you that.