11–20 of 171 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that not the same thing?
Well, it's confusing because both include the word "Clinton," but one is a human being who, amongst other things, ran for President in 2016. The other is a non-profit humanitarian organization. Two different things.
Out of curiosity, are there any laws on the books right now which are meant to prevent this sort of thing? For example, let's assume a foreign government decided to purchase ads either backing or attacking a US political candidate, and they were completely overt about it. (No hiding behind shell companies or transferring funds anonymously; completely out in the open.) Are there any laws or systems currently in place…
And, as a related question - should there be? What about a foreign corporation? A foreign corporation with a domestic presence? A domestic corporation? None of these groups are beholden to the public interest.
I'm a foreign individual who went around making comments on the US election... what's the difference between me doing it privately and a company doing it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. You're probably thinking of the $25m the Saudis gave to the Clinton Foundation, a non-profit humanitarian organization.
...that spent significantly more money on luxury travel costs than it did on charitable grants. [1] [1] http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-3115...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that not the same thing?
Well, it's confusing because both include the word "Clinton," but one is a human being who, amongst other things, ran for President in 2016. The other is a non-profit humanitarian organization. Two different things.
Which just happens to pay the Clintons' bills every time they feel like travelling anywhere, and direct money to whoever the Clintons want to do favours for.
The election is over, we can all admit that the Clinton Foundation is pretty stinky.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. You're probably thinking of the $25m the Saudis gave to the Clinton Foundation, a non-profit humanitarian organization.
...that spent significantly more money on luxury travel costs than it did on charitable grants. [1] [1] http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-3115...
Charitable grants are not a major focus
of the Clinton Foundation, which instead
uses most of its money to carry out its
own humanitarian programs.
"Luxury" sounds like editorializing given the data you provide to back up your claim, which simply lists travel as being a $7.8mm cost and grants as a $4.1mm cost (page 10 of your linked PDF).
Out of curiosity, are there any laws on the books right now which are meant to prevent this sort of thing? For example, let's assume a foreign government decided to purchase ads either backing or attacking a US political candidate, and they were completely overt about it. (No hiding behind shell companies or transferring funds anonymously; completely out in the open.) Are there any laws or systems currently in place…
The fundamental question then is: was this intentional on behalf of the foreign agent to provide a "thing of value" to a US political campaign, and/or did a political candidate or campaign solicit this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it's confusing because both include the word "Clinton," but one is a human being who, amongst other things, ran for President in 2016. The other is a non-profit humanitarian organization. Two different things.
> non-profit humanitarian organization Which just happens to pay the Clintons' bills every time they feel like travelling anywhere, and direct money to whoever the Clintons want to do favours for. The election is over, we can all admit that the Clinton Foundation is pretty stinky.
http://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/jun/15...
Didn't Hillary take some 25 million dollars from the Saudis? I thought this witch hunt was put to rest months ago.
Nope. You're probably thinking of the $25m the Saudis gave to the Clinton Foundation, a non-profit humanitarian organization.
"Nonetheless. looking at the Clinton Foundation’s donor list, Saudi Arabia gave between $10 million and $25 million. But the foundation reported the Saudi money in December 2008, and the amount hasn’t changed since. Clinton Foundation spokesman Brian Cookstra pointed out that Saudi Arabia did not give to the foundation while Secretary Clinton was at the State Department."
Why people genuinely believe we should focus on this, rather than Donald Trump's ongoing business ties to Russia—and all of the blatant lies about it—I'll never know.