• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity'

Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

That doesn't come close to answering what I asked (who donates to it, how it operates, what the Clinton's get out of their connections to it ... you get the idea.) but let's get Charity Watch out of the way.

Charity Watch noted that the C.F. doesn't grant funds to existing charities, and that's for damn sure.
I'm talking about charities that have a track record of delivering needed services around the globe.
What Charity Watch did was assume that the huuuge amount of money the C.F. collects and says it uses to deliver services, results in services at least as good as what those other, more specialized, charities deliver as a matter of course.
They don't, they spend more doing it, and they use Clinton friends to do the bad job.

That would be bad enough but the problems with the C.F. and related activities go well beyond that and it's where the corruption lies.

So what about what I asked?

Is this a finding of the Bubba's Best Charity Rating Company or do you have some other source? :roll:
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

Is this a finding of the Bubba's Best Charity Rating Company or do you have some other source? :roll:

CharityWatch said the C.F. has paid staff the perform the entire breadth of services and it's one reason Charity Navigator commented about their "atypical business model" that put them on the "Watch" list.
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

CharityWatch said the C.F. has paid staff the perform the entire breadth of services and it's one reason Charity Navigator commented about their "atypical business model" that put them on the "Watch" list.

But that's not a comment on how effectively they do those services. You claimed they do a "bad job" - Charity Watch didn't say that.
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

But that's not a comment on how effectively they do those services. You claimed they do a "bad job" - Charity Watch didn't say that.

Here you go. It has everything.
Corruption.
Cronyism.
Waste, fraud, and abuse.
IOW - The Clinton Foundation in brief.

Structurally unsafe and laced with formaldehyde, the "hurricane-proof" classroom trailers installed by the Clinton Foundation in Haiti came from the same company being sued for sickening Hurricane Katrina victims.
...
However, when Nation reporters visited the "hurricane-proof" shelters in June, six to eight months after they’d been installed, we found them to consist of twenty imported prefab trailers beset by a host of problems, from mold to sweltering heat to shoddy construction. Most disturbing, they were manufactured by the same company, Clayton Homes, that is being sued in the United States for providing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) with formaldehyde-laced trailers in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Air samples collected from twelve Haiti trailers detected worrying levels of this carcinogen in one, according to laboratory results obtained as part of a joint investigation by The Nation and The Nation Institute’s Investigative Fund.

Clayton Homes is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, the holding company run by Warren Buffett, one of the "notable" private-sector members of the Clinton Global Initiative, according to the initiative’s website. ("Members" are typically required to pay $20,000 a year to the charity, but foundation officials would not disclose whether Buffett had made such a donation.) Buffett was also a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter during the 2008 presidential race, and he co-hosted a fundraiser that brought in at least $1 million for her campaign.
...
Yet several months later, the Knoxville News Sentinel reported that Clayton Homes had been awarded a million-dollar contract to ship twenty trailers to Haiti, for use as classrooms for schoolchildren. The Clinton Foundation claims it went through a bidding process before awarding the contract to Clayton Homes, which was already embroiled in the FEMA trailer lawsuit. But despite repeated requests, the foundation has not provided The Nation with any documentation of this process.
...
The Nation made multiple attempts to reach Bill Clinton for comment. However, the former president, known for championing the role of nonprofits in global affairs ("Unlike the government, we don’t have to be quite as worried about a bad story in the newspapers," he recently said in a speech), never responded. A Clayton Homes official referred all queries regarding the contract to the Clinton Foundation.
...
While Clinton Foundation COO Laura Graham claims that the foundation has always been "very accessible" to the school and municipal officials in Léogâne, neither the school directors nor the civil protection coordinator had any way of getting in touch with the foundation, they told The Nation, and had to resort to going through intermediaries.
...
In the proposal approved by the IHRC, the Clinton Foundation said that "up to 300 local workers would be employed to build the schools." Cinéas said there were only five to eight people hired by his firm on a very temporary basis, and the foundation declined to comment on what additional jobs were created.
...

https://www.thenation.com/article/shelters-clinton-built/

And before you say,"Sure but that's only one instance.", you should take the time to explore the relationship between the Clinton donors, the Foundation and it's adjuncts, Bill & Hill's speeches, and companies with business before the Federal Government that Hillary was involved with. That's where the real action (read "corruption") is.
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

No.
The Clinton Foundation has been shown to be corrupt.
I say "shown" in the sense that a person has to be willing to look.
It has nothing to do with FOX other than they may have discussed the C.F. while no one else has. Has anyone else?

We can into details if you like but first tell me how much you know about the Clinton Foundation, who donates to it, how it operates, what the Clinton's get out of their connections to it ... you get the idea.

actually bubba, I don't get the idea. I have to chuckle that you think my knowledge/opinion of the CF is necessary for you to "show" the CF is corrupt. We'll just add that to the list of excuses conservatives make to not back up their claims. I added a great one yesterday. Yours is just "okay".

OMFG, that’s the best “I don’t have to back up my point” excuse I’ve ever heard. Cons post the most childish reasons for not backing up their claims. “I don’t have time”, “I already did” “I remember correctly so I don’t have to back up my claim” " why bother" but “its not my turn” is truly the most ridiculous and childish excuse in the history of this forum. OC, this isn't a teeter totter. this is a debate forum. You've made a false claim and posted a lying editorial. You've ignored the data provided by several posters so you have to post " you go look at something, its not my turn".

Again, when it comes time for conservatives to choose narrative or integrity, they choose narrative and ridiculous childish excuses.
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

If the foundation isn't corrupt why does Obama need to block the FBI investigation. An above board charity should hand over the books with confidence.

The Clintons haven't done anything above board for decades.

Hillary’s “Thwarted Record Requests.” On Wednesday, the Times reported that Clinton used her private email address to avoid turning over documents to Congressional committees investigating the Benghazi, Libya terror attack of September 11, 2012. According to the Times, “It was one of several instances in which records requests sent to the State Department, which had no access to Mrs. Clinton’s emails, came up empty.” The State Department did the same routine with regard to a Freedom of Information Act request asking for correspondence between Hillary and former political hit man Sidney Blumenthal; in 2010, the AP said its FOIA requests had gone unanswered by the State Department on the same grounds; the same holds true with regard to FOIA requests from conservative group Citizens United.

Hillary’s First Emailgate. According to Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, Hillary’s top woman, Cheryl Mills – you remember her from Benghazi – “helped orchestrate the cover-up of a major scandal, often referred to as ‘Email-gate.’” Over the course of years, the Clinton Administration allegedly withheld some 1.8 million email communications from Judicial Watch’s attorneys, as well as federal investigators and Congress. Judicial Watch says that when a White House computer contractor attempted to reveal the emails, White House officials “instructed her to keep her mouth shut about the hidden e-mail or face dismissal and jail time.”

Hillary’s Missing Whitewater Documents. In 1996, a special Senate Whitewater committee released a report from the FBI demonstrating that documents sought in the Whitewater investigation had been found in the personal Clinton quarters of the White House. The First Lady’s fingerprints were on them. The documents had gone mysteriously missing for two years. Mark Fabiani, special White House counsel, immediately stated that there was no problem, according to the Times: “He added that she had testified under oath that she had nothing to do with the documents during the two years they were missing and did not know how they ended up in the family quarters.” Hillary remains the only First Lady in American history to be fingerprinted by the FBI. Those weren’t the only missing Whitewater documents later found in the Clinton White House. Rose Law billing records were found years after being sought “in the storage area in the third-floor private residence at the White House where unsolicited gifts to the President and First Lady are stored before being sorted and catalogued.”

Hillary’s Missing Travelgate Documents. In 1996, just before the Whitewater documents emerged – literally the day before – a two-year-old memo emerged, according to The New York Times, showing that Hillary “had played a far greater role in the dismissal of employees of the White House travel office than the Administration has acknowledged.” Oops.

Hillary’s “Unethical Practices” During Watergate. According to Democrat Jerry Zeifman, Hillary “engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules” designed to keep Nixon in office long enough to guarantee a Democratic presidential victory in 1976. Zeifman said that Clinton – then Hillary Rodham — had worked with Teddy Kennedy’s political strategist. More specifically, Zeifman accused Rodham of writing a fraudulent legal brief and grabbing public documents. Zeifman fired her, and later claimed that he wished he had reported her to the Bar.

Hillary has a long history of this behavior. But that won’t stop her from moving forward. The media are less interested in governmental transparency than in picking the next president – and making sure the next president represents the hard, corrupt left.
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

Here you go. It has everything.
Corruption.
Cronyism.
Waste, fraud, and abuse.
IOW - The Clinton Foundation in brief.

Thanks for providing some actual evidence. It's obviously an example of ineffective delivery of promised charitable benefits and speaks to poor management of that project by the Foundation. I actually learned something, including about a company HQ'd just a few miles from me.

I will point out that that the charges of corruption and/or cronyism are pretty weak. I don't know what kind of margin Clayton would have on those units, but at $50k per unit, allegedly custom built to withstand winds, not much if any for a company with over $3b in revenue and profits of $700m or so.

And before you say,"Sure but that's only one instance.", you should take the time to explore the relationship between the Clinton donors, the Foundation and it's adjuncts, Bill & Hill's speeches, and companies with business before the Federal Government that Hillary was involved with. That's where the real action (read "corruption") is.

And I've acknowledged that as a serious problem about 10 times so far in this thread. In fact, I've explained that it's those issues that are the most serious, as you state above, which is largely why I'm not all that concerned about how the charity is run. In this case, my guess is some people meant well and failed in their jobs. I've heard numerous stories from volunteers providing aid in these kinds of places about how ineffective the big NGOs can be and it's frequently attributed to the disconnect of the NGOs and the people they're trying to help.

One more comment. From what I know, former Pres. Carter is heavily involved in lots of projects overseas. I don't know much and don't care to research how effective his efforts are on the ground, and it's largely because he's no longer wielding power in the U.S. government. If Hillary retired into the sunset with Bill, and they were getting paid to speak and hobnobbing with the world oligarchs in a vanity foundation to provide services around the world, I would also not care (much) how effective they are. Presumably ANY help is better than none, and if giving money gives some $billionaires a story to tell with cocktails to indicate how much good their wealth is doing, fine. That the money could have been more wisely spent is a problem but not one that affects any decision I'm likely to make, since I give my money to local charities, that help people hurting in my community.

Point is the ENTIRE relevant issue to me is Hillary did NOT retire, she wielded significant power as SoS and obviously will as POTUS and to the extent that these 'donations' (and speeches) are tied to official government 'favors' it's a real and serious problem. Whether the Clinton foundation built solid as a rock brick and mortar storm shelters or provided some (presumably) ineffective manufactured homes pales in comparison for any question that concerns me.
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

Thanks for providing some actual evidence. It's obviously an example of ineffective delivery of promised charitable benefits and speaks to poor management of that project by the Foundation. I actually learned something, including about a company HQ'd just a few miles from me.

I will point out that that the charges of corruption and/or cronyism are pretty weak. I don't know what kind of margin Clayton would have on those units, but at $50k per unit, allegedly custom built to withstand winds, not much if any for a company with over $3b in revenue and profits of $700m or so.



And I've acknowledged that as a serious problem about 10 times so far in this thread. In fact, I've explained that it's those issues that are the most serious, as you state above, which is largely why I'm not all that concerned about how the charity is run. In this case, my guess is some people meant well and failed in their jobs. I've heard numerous stories from volunteers providing aid in these kinds of places about how ineffective the big NGOs can be and it's frequently attributed to the disconnect of the NGOs and the people they're trying to help.

One more comment. From what I know, former Pres. Carter is heavily involved in lots of projects overseas. I don't know much and don't care to research how effective his efforts are on the ground, and it's largely because he's no longer wielding power in the U.S. government. If Hillary retired into the sunset with Bill, and they were getting paid to speak and hobnobbing with the world oligarchs in a vanity foundation to provide services around the world, I would also not care (much) how effective they are. Presumably ANY help is better than none, and if giving money gives some $billionaires a story to tell with cocktails to indicate how much good their wealth is doing, fine. That the money could have been more wisely spent is a problem but not one that affects any decision I'm likely to make, since I give my money to local charities, that help people hurting in my community.

Point is the ENTIRE relevant issue to me is Hillary did NOT retire, she wielded significant power as SoS and obviously will as POTUS and to the extent that these 'donations' (and speeches) are tied to official government 'favors' it's a real and serious problem. Whether the Clinton foundation built solid as a rock brick and mortar storm shelters or provided some (presumably) ineffective manufactured homes pales in comparison for any question that concerns me.

That's right. And the C.F. as conceived appears to be a vehicle for the Clinton's to achieve their own ends.

In brief ... the Clinton's involve themselves in various projects sought by foreign business and government entities, around the globe.
Some of those projects, being with foreign investors, require US Government sign off (sale of uranium deposits on US land, as one example).
Those foreign entities donate a LOT of money to the C.F. and various investors in the projects hire Bill to give speeches at upwards of $500,000 (and sometimes more, actually) per speech.
Hillary, in her role as SofS offers no official objection even though part of her job responsibility is to review such efforts for national security reasons.
The deal goes through.
Two things to remember are (1) Hillary had a prior record of close scrutiny of such transactions and (2) the sale of uranium deposits in the US mentioned above went to a Russian outfit.

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
 
Last edited:
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

actually bubba, I don't get the idea. I have to chuckle that you think my knowledge/opinion of the CF is necessary for you to "show" the CF is corrupt. We'll just add that to the list of excuses conservatives make to not back up their claims. I added a great one yesterday. Yours is just "okay".

Already answered in #54 & #58 as backup.
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

Already answered in #54 & #58 as backup.

pardon my continued chuckles but you telling us what you want to believe is not you "showing" the CF is corrupt. Here, read what you posted.


No.
The Clinton Foundation has been shown to be corrupt.
I say "shown" in the sense that a person has to be willing to look.
It has nothing to do with FOX other than they may have discussed the C.F. while no one else has. Has anyone else?

We can into details if you like but first tell me how much you know about the Clinton Foundation, who donates to it, how it operates, what the Clinton's get out of their connections to it ... you get the idea.

at the very least I was expecting some details.
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity


Please know what you're talking about before you make guesses. It's been proven that the vast majority of those "Charitable Donations" actually went to '''wait for it....THE CLINTON FOUNDATION.
Most of the money "donated" went to salaries and other SLUSH fund type uses for friends, family and to pay people off.

I would stick the evidence up here where you can read it but since you'll just attack the source no matter how credible, you do your own research.
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

pardon my continued chuckles but you telling us what you want to believe is not you "showing" the CF is corrupt. Here, read what you posted.




at the very least I was expecting some details.

Your trolling is not pardonable.
How can you expect to be pardoned for the inability to read the reference to #54 & #58 and understand what it means.
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

Please know what you're talking about before you make guesses. It's been proven that the vast majority of those "Charitable Donations" actually went to '''wait for it....THE CLINTON FOUNDATION.
Most of the money "donated" went to salaries and other SLUSH fund type uses for friends, family and to pay people off.

I would stick the evidence up here where you can read it but since you'll just attack the source no matter how credible, you do your own research.


Yup. They keep it in house.
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

Please know what you're talking about before you make guesses. It's been proven that the vast majority of those "Charitable Donations" actually went to '''wait for it....THE CLINTON FOUNDATION.
Most of the money "donated" went to salaries and other SLUSH fund type uses for friends, family and to pay people off.

I would stick the evidence up here where you can read it but since you'll just attack the source no matter how credible, you do your own research.

Yeah yeah, those folks at charity watch whose only job is to evaluate charities are obviously a bunch of idiots....:roll:

Sorry their findings doesn't fit with popular right wing mythology regarding the Clintons. Don't you worry you guys can always still accuse them of being serial murders, drug runners and everything else they have been called by the rabid right over the years. Its just their charity seems to be legit.

Factcheck.org also refutes your BS claims regarding the Clinton Foundation: Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?
 
Last edited:
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

Yeah yeah, those folks at charity watch whose only job is to evaluate charities are obviously a bunch of idiots....:roll:

Sorry their findings doesn't fit with popular right wing mythology regarding the Clintons. Don't you worry you guys can always still accuse them of being serial murders, drug runners and everything else they have been called by the rabid right over the years. Its just their charity seems to be legit.

Factcheck.org also refutes your BS claims regarding the Clinton Foundation: Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?

It's embarrassing that the right is attacking a charity with an 89% rate.
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

It's embarrassing that the right is attacking a charity with an 89% rate.

There is No Low Too Low in politics, well for some anyway,
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

Please know what you're talking about before you make guesses. It's been proven that the vast majority of those "Charitable Donations" actually went to '''wait for it....THE CLINTON FOUNDATION.
Most of the money "donated" went to salaries and other SLUSH fund type uses for friends, family and to pay people off.

I would stick the evidence up here where you can read it but since you'll just attack the source no matter how credible, you do your own research.

In fact, I've come to understand that the way the Clinton Foundation operates is exactly opposite of how nearly every other charity operates, which enables the Clinton Foundation the ability to launder money and operate as a private Clinton slush fund all in the guise of being 'charitable'. Yeah, right, charitable for the Clinton's and that's about all.

Most recent report I saw was that the Clinton Foundation misdirected the charitable contributions intended for the Haiti earthquake victims, but I've not seen this more thoroughly vetted, so may be true, or may not be true.
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

It's embarrassing that the right is attacking a charity with an 89% rate.

They attack it by falsely painting it as a non-operating foundation like a grant program rather than a charity and thus build their pyramid of bull **** on that false premise. You ever noticed the irony in those that call the Clinton's liars doing nothing but lying about the Clinton's?
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

In fact, I've come to understand that the way the Clinton Foundation operates is exactly opposite of how nearly every other charity operates, which enables the Clinton Foundation the ability to launder money and operate as a private Clinton slush fund all in the guise of being 'charitable'. Yeah, right, charitable for the Clinton's and that's about all.

Most recent report I saw was that the Clinton Foundation misdirected the charitable contributions intended for the Haiti earthquake victims, but I've not seen this more thoroughly vetted, so may be true, or may not be true.

And the cool part is that the million dollar charitable donation claimed on their tax return was to the Clinton Foundation.
Is that not the cherry on top or what?

2016-08-17.jpg
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

They attack it by falsely painting it as a non-operating foundation like a grant program rather than a charity and thus build their pyramid of bull **** on that false premise. You ever noticed the irony in those that call the Clinton's liars doing nothing but lying about the Clinton's?

What baffles me the most is that they could be honest and give actual criticisms of Hillary, but instead we have these conspiratorial rumors being pandered as facts that we later find out to be false.

Worse yet, the pattern is decades old, but it continues unabated.
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

Your trolling is not pardonable.
How can you expect to be pardoned for the inability to read the reference to #54 & #58 and understand what it means.

My apologies bubba, I see you did provide details. I must have looked at the wrong posts. But I do understand what it means: you believe every innuendo as fact if its critical of Hillary or democrats. I would think after the last 8 years of every conservative narrative being shown to be false you would be more cautious in believing the next conservative narrative. I was wrong. (that's twice in one thread)
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

My apologies bubba, I see you did provide details. I must have looked at the wrong posts. But I do understand what it means: you believe every innuendo as fact if its critical of Hillary or democrats. I would think after the last 8 years of every conservative narrative being shown to be false you would be more cautious in believing the next conservative narrative. I was wrong. (that's twice in one thread)

One was from The Nation and the other was PoliticsBreaking.
No false Conservative narratives in either case.
I choose my links carefully because I know how things work around here.
There was enough public domain detail in each to render claims of innuendo inoperable.
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

One was from The Nation and the other was PoliticsBreaking.
No false Conservative narratives in either case.
I choose my links carefully because I know how things work around here.
There was enough public domain detail in each to render claims of innuendo inoperable.

you're in a thread titled "FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity'" Did I miss where you pointed out the massively partisan innuendo of that? Just so you know, "Warren Buffet donates to the CF, owns Clayton homes who won the bid to build 20 houses the CF bought for Haiti" just isn't the proof you think it is. Warren Buffet has given over 20 billion to charity, 2.8 billion last year alone. You just gonna need something more than "aha!!!" to make the connection that there was some kinda shenanigans involved with them winning the bid. seriously.

Again, you think the CF is corrupt because the conservative media keeps telling you its corrupt (again, see thread title). Just like with President Obama, when each lie was proven false, you simply pretended to not remember it and obediently believed the next one.
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

you're in a thread titled "FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity'" Did I miss where you pointed out the massively partisan innuendo of that? Just so you know, "Warren Buffet donates to the CF, owns Clayton homes who won the bid to build 20 houses the CF bought for Haiti" just isn't the proof you think it is. Warren Buffet has given over 20 billion to charity, 2.8 billion last year alone. You just gonna need something more than "aha!!!" to make the connection that there was some kinda shenanigans involved with them winning the bid. seriously.

Again, you think the CF is corrupt because the conservative media keeps telling you its corrupt (again, see thread title). Just like with President Obama, when each lie was proven false, you simply pretended to not remember it and obediently believed the next one.

The evidence was in The Nation link along with the PoliticsBreaking link that I guess you weren't inclined to read for understanding.
There are other examples of how the Clintons use their positions and organizations for their benefit.
But you didn't accept the ones I posted so there's really no doubt how'd you react to any others, is there.
But they're out there and maybe someday you'll choose to take a look.
Couldn't hurt.
 
Re: FOX News: Judge Jeanine: 'Clinton Foundation a Money Laundering Op, Not a Charity

The evidence was in The Nation link along with the PoliticsBreaking link that I guess you weren't inclined to read for understanding.
There are other examples of how the Clintons use their positions and organizations for their benefit.
But you didn't accept the ones I posted so there's really no doubt how'd you react to any others, is there.
But they're out there and maybe someday you'll choose to take a look.
Couldn't hurt.

I read your links. I saw no examples of how the Clintons used "their positions and organizations for their benefit". I think the key to our disagreement is you don't know what the word "evidence" really means. I didn't see "evidence" you seem to see. Just so you know, this is not evidence: "Warren Buffet donates to the CF, owns Clayton homes who won the bid to build 20 houses the CF bought for Haiti”. It would be very helpful if you could cut and paste what you consider "evidence" and then (this is critical) explain what you think its “evidence” of.
 
Back
Top Bottom