FBI investigating Clinton Foundation
- Thread starter ihhawk
- Start date
Good. I think HRC and Trump are both dirty.
I believe of all of the investigations, the Clinton Foundation investigation is the one most likely to produce charges being filed. It is the only one that is about using ones government position to provide favors/preferential treatment in return for $$$$$. Not due to a political position. Just by what is provable.
Lol. Going to be a fun 7 years.
If there is something to find, Trey Gowdy will find it, right?
Don't they already have the email investigation restarted? Why blow their load on another concurrent investigation? What happens if there's nothing left to investigate come 2020?
Ciggy is triggered whenever the news you post isn't a degrading piece about Trump. Ciggy is proving to b e more mentally ill than Trump! F'ing hilarious.
The goofy republicans can't help falling over themselves trying to deflect from the incompetent Trump.
I believe the E-mail and the CLinton Foundation are 2 different things are they not?
Politicians don't care, it's your money they are spending.
Certainly not for the Trump Administration and its enablers and those complicit in its illegal activities. Also, news flash. Hillary Clinton is not the President. If wrongdoing is found and she goes to jail, so be it. It will not affect the fate of our nation as will the downfall of the Trump Administration.
Well, they will make something new up, out of whole cloth.
They are 2 different ones, it seems like they're using some of their most valuable ammo at the same time. That was all I was questioning.
The dems will screw this up someone and nominate someone as bad as crooked Hillary yet again.
Please again for umteenth time. Where is the proof? The left has made defletion an art.
I'm not so sure. I agree that HRC and the Foundation reek of pay for play, but I'm not sure it's going to be so easy to prove. For example, there will be NO documents found where HRC promised something in return for a contribution to the Foundation.
The whole thing is likely to boil down to opinion, innuendo, and the "appearance" of guilt, without being able to prove anything.
It's sad. The "swamp" keeps getting bigger with no end in sight.
I sure hope we don't find out Trump did any favors for donors to his charity. Like appoint one to a cabinet post.
LOL...so you think the $$$$ in donations made to every single politician regardless of party or leaning don't come with some...understanding? How are you on public financing of elections...NO private donations at all?
All total, some $500 million has been spent trying to find some criminality against the Clintons. All all of it has come short. If there was something there seems like it would have come up by now. Idk. Maybe theres a smoking gun and if there is proper punishment should be doled out. But if the Cons think this is likely to lead to something criminal, I wouldn't get my hopes up.
You lost me. These are not political contributions, they are contributions to the Clinton Foundation.
Guessing you believe Obama and his admin did nothing illegal. Cheers.
And the difference would be? I mean...political contributions go directly to a candidate's campaign while donations to the Clinton Foundation are going to a highly rated charity...so there's that. You're claiming the mere presence of the contributions followed by a meeting presents the appearance of scandal. I'm asking if you think a political donation followed by....oh, I don't know...as a hypothetical, massive changes in tax law that saves the donor millions a year...presents the same picture to you?
The sooner Hillary and Trump are in jail, the sooner the USA will be a better place.
And we all know highly rated charities NEVER have corruption...
https://www.charitywatch.org/charitywatch-articles/charitywatch-hall-of-shame/63
That's a deflection. I'll ask again, when a donor gives $$$$ to a campaign...DIRECTLY aiding the candidate...and then sees that candidate elected and pursuing policies that directly aid the donor...does THAT set off your alarm bells like the Clinton situation does - where you can't even find evidence of a quid pro quo? Because...you know...that impacts pretty much every elected official everywhere.
Just because something points out a fact doesn't mean it is a deflection Ciggy! Oh wait you are not Ciggy but just act like him, my bad.
When you refuse to respond on point and bring up tangential issues that have absolutely nothing to do with what's being discussed...you're deflecting. Why won't you respond on point?
It is pointedly at the foundation as your assertion of a "highly rated charity" gems the idea that it cannot be corrupt - charities are not all roses and unicorns. I know you don't want to have something negative said about the Clinton's but come on and face the truth.
The difference is one is subject to Federal regulations for campaign contributions. The other is not.
"An individual may give a maximum of: $2,700 per election to a federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.2 Notice that the limit applies separately to each election. Primaries, runoffs and general elections are considered separate elections. $5,000 per calendar year to a PAC.
Connected PACs: The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibits corporations and labor unions from making direct contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections. These organizations may, however, sponsor a "separate segregated fund" (SSF), known as a "connected PAC"."
Well, exactly. There may be something to the Clinton Foundation, but Trump's is flat out fraud.
Just remember Watergate, that took over 2 years.
And also remember Watergate. It was never actually shown that Nixon knew anything about the break in until after it happened. It was the cover up and Nixon trying to block the investigation that got him in trouble.
I'm not really sure what they expect to find: the CF has fully audited records, so the kind of money laundering that's gone on w/ some of the Trumptards simply isn't possible.
Also, I believe there are records of who donated, when and how much. It'd take a few afternoons of logging those records, then comparing them against formal actions taken by HRC in her official positions to identify any correlations worthy of actual investigations. Most of that information is fully public already. If trends were identified, then you can figure out what possible emails or lines of communication to go after (which months/timeframes).
The simple fact that no one even has any correlated "donations to actions" lists anywhere that is plausible (or vetted by FBI) implies there's not much to see. Or, the Clintons are smart enough to keep things separated JUST ENOUGH to avoid legal entanglements.
I'm fine with them investigating. If they find anything the people should be prosecuted appropriately.
I'd also like to know if there are any issues with Trump and membership to his clubs. This seems like a situation just asking to be abused.
I'd also like to know if there are any issues with Trump and membership to his clubs. This seems like a situation just asking to be abused.
And, considering the CF is fully audited, and none of the Clintons actually draw salary from it, there's not really a lot to "find" to point out alleged "slush funds" used.
The audited records are filed with the IRS. So, where are they gonna hide stuff?
Actually her and the foundation being found guilty (at face value it seems pretty obvious there was some pay for play going on) and being held accountable would be very beneficial to the country bc the reason Trump won is bc so many in our country believe, rightfully, that those in DC get to play by a completely different set of rules.
Her and the foundation being held accountable for those actions will have a confidence boosting effect for conservatives in regards to a 'level playing field' being set just the same as it will for liberals when/if Trump is found guilty of any number of crimes.
They have a long way to go to reach the amount of Benghazi investigations. How did that one turn out?
I think the Clinton Foundation investigation will revolve more-so around foreign contributors to the fund and the favorable light those donations may have put them in with the state department.
First, you have to identify "illegal actions". NONE of the CF money was spent on political campaigns, from what I've seen - they have thoroughly audited financials. Whether you agree with the programs they spend donated money on is not a question of 'legality' PROVIDED those programs were properly vetted/licensed.
Still deflecting, eh. Answer the question. do you hold politicians who take direct donations and then pursue policies that directly benefit the donor to your stated standard or not.
That doesn't have anything to do with the question asked. But good job deflecting.
