AP Discovers a Lot of Clinton Foundation Donars Got Special Favors

[Fenton Lum]

And now he's gone, point?

Top Three Salaries at Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation (Based on Fiscal Year-Ended 12/31/14)
Name Title Compensation Notes
Eric Braverman Past CEO $ 532,361 --
Bruce R. Lindsey Chairman of the Board $ 395,460 --
Mark Gunton CEO, Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership $ 313,992 --

What's your point?
Is that unusual compared to charities with similar assets?

Lets see how the head of other charities with the same numbers would do in an election for President.

Gary Hart was tossed because of a friend with a boat called Monkey Business.

Dean was tossed for an excited rant when he won a primary.

Hillary can do whatever she wants and nothing.

Why is that?

Republicans start rumours about Hillary. Then they get people to investigate these rumours. The investigation finds the rumours aren't true. The Republicans say "Look, she got away with it, again".

Hillary is not guilty of doing the things Republicans says she's doing. Maybe Republicans should stop making up shit about Hillary and Bill.

you mean the republicans are the ones who set up a private server for her?
Republicans are the ones who deleted emails?
Republicans are the ones who said they set up the private server so because they did not want Hillary to carry more than one device?
Republicans are the ones who said Hillary handed over ALL work related emails when, in fact there were 15,000 others?
Republicans are the ones who said that Hillary dodged sniper fire?
Republicans are the ones who allowed foundation employees email the state department asking for favors?
Republicans are the ones who did not fire those employees that tried to get the state department to do the foundation favors?

Really? Republicans?

Republicans sure seem unable to take her on / down.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I truly think all the Clinton Foundation recriminations exist and are even possible to make for the following reasons:

• Most people are not senior executives and have no clue of what a senior executive does, what their work days are like or anything else about how they live, other than that outwardly senior execs and principals appear to live "the live of Riley."
• Senior executives and principals are not about to publicly discuss what their work days and lives are like, other than perhaps to talk about interesting places, interesting people/conversations, hobbies, vacations or their kids or some other "polite" topic that somehow intersects with their work lives.

For all the Clinton Foundation hoopla, people are forgetting (or don't know) one thing:

People don't set up 501(c) foundations, which is what the Clinton Foundation is, to collect/make money; they set them up to give it away!!! ​

Can the creator of a 501(c) earn something from the Foundation? Yes, they can if the foundation pays them a salary. They can if the foundation buys their founder's goods and services. The Clinton's don't have any goods, and their only service offerings are honoraria and government service. Do you really think the Clinton Foundation is going to engage the Clintons to give a speech to the Clinton Foundation?

There's plenty of sensationalism about the Clinton Foundation and the people who met with Mrs. Clinton.

• Meetings:
  Out of curiosity, what the heck do you think a Secretary of State or any other senior executive mostly does? Well, I'll tell you: mostly, they go from one meeting to the next. In between "big" meetings, they read stuff to get prepared for the next meeting, they sign documents that lower level staff prepared as a consequence of prior meetings, they talk to folks on the phone to get details about a meeting that already took place or that will take place.
• Money:
  What money? Who gets rich saying, "Give money to this charity that does nothing for and buys nothing from me or my friends, and maybe I'll talk to you."?

In alleged the Clinton Foundation "pay to play" scheme, what personal financial gain did Hillary or Bill Clinton get?

• 2010 Clinton Foundation Tax Return
  • Page 7: Compensation of Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, Highest Compensated Employees, and Independent Contractors
    • No Clinton received compensation of any sort.
• 2012 Clinton Foundation Tax Return
  • Page 7: Compensation of Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, Highest Compensated Employees, and Independent Contractors
    • Chelsea Clinton and Terry McAuliffe are both listed. How much did they receive? $0.00.

Looking at the (as known) process of donations to the Clinton Foundation (CF) and meeting requests with HRC, the process would look as follows:

1. Donor gives "big money" to CF
2. CF spends money on needy people and various good/service providers
   • Was HRC one of those recipients of money? No.
   • The donor clearly wasn't.
3. Donor requests meeting with Hillary Clinton (HRC)
   • Meeting does not occur --> End.
   • Meeting occurs --> Go to #4.
4. Donor and HRC meet.
5. Donor ask for "something" from HRC/SecState, which by inference means U.S.
   • Donor receives what was requested --> Go to #6
   • Donor does not receive what was requested.--> Go to #6
6. Increase in HRC personal fortune?
   • Yes --> deposit is recorded and investigated
   • No --> nothing happens
7. End

So, somebody please show me some tangible proof that Hillary Clinton personally benefitted from anything having to do with the Clinton Foundation's fundraising. In other words, just what did the Clintons receive in exchange for all these donations and meetings? The CF is not like Trump Organization, which is a business. It's a charity, just like the Shawn Carter Foundation.

Seeing as Mrs. Clinton wasn't paid anything by the CF, that's not where she'd have gotten a personal financial gain. The next place to look is to see what outcomes took place subsequent to the meeting. I looked into one such donor, the first one noted in the AP's article.

What does the AP article say? (I have time right now to address only the first person noted.)

Donors who were granted time with Clinton included:An internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran.

• Bangladesh's GDP is $150B. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet could together buy and sell the whole damn country. I realize that to most Americans, the idea that a private individual can have meaningful enough influence in a country like Bangladesh is absurd. Well, it's not, not by a longshot. In countries that have only very wealthy and very poor citizens, the wealthy folks there, be they part of the government or not, have tremendous say in the governance of the place. If they have a role in government or an arm of it, they have even more.
  
  The man who for some reason went unnamed in the AP's article is Muhammad Yunus. What help did he get from Mrs. Clinton? Apparently not enough...He was forced to step down from his position on the board at the Bangladeshi nonprofit organization involved.
  
  What organization? Grameen Bank, which is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning microfinance organization and community development bank founded in Bangladesh. It makes small loans (known as microcredit or "grameencredit") to the impoverished without requiring collateral. The name Grameen is derived from the word gram which means "rural" or "village" in the Bengali Language.
  
  Now what do "Mr. and Mrs. Typical American" know about Bangladesh or the Grameen Bank? I suspect nothing for I doubt that most Americans even know where Bangladesh is, much less the name of its domestic development bank (it's essentially their version of the Small Business Administration); however, there's quite a lot to know about the bank and its role in Bangladesh governance.
  
  The first thing to know is that in countries as small and poor as Bangladesh, a single very wealthy (for that country) individual usually has a huge influence on the functioning and stability of the country. Here you'll find why Mr. Yunus and Mrs. Clinton had a U.S. government related reason to interact.
  
  There's more to Mr. Yunus and the bank than just that, however. I'll leave it to you to peruse the following and lean a bit on your own.

• Grameen Bank: Taking Capitalism to the Poor
• Yunus seeks people’s support for smooth transition of leadership in Grameen Bank
• Will the Government of Bangladesh Ruin Grameen Bank? | Grameen Foundation | Connecting the World's Poor to Their Potential

What is the value of the Grameen Bank? In addition to what you'll have found if you read the content at the links I provided, it, under Mr. Yunus, has pioneered a new approach to making the benefits of capitalism available to poor folks and has played a central role in bringing more wealth to the poorest people there.. Do you suppose there's a reason for Mrs. Clinton to want to understand?

More directly related to her role at State, are you aware of how ISIS preys on poor nations and inserts itself? Do you know where Bangladesh may fit in ISIS' designs? If ISIS were to have its way, Bangladesh could easily become a place where ISIS inserts itself. What about Myanmar right next door to Bangladesh?​

So, while it may massage one's feelings of disdain toward Mrs. Clinton for what her relationships looked like superficially, exercise just a little bit of intellectual integrity and at least look further than just what you see published in a newspaper article. Mrs. Clinton is quite like many senior execs in that she acts to do the right thing first and worries about optics later. That's hurting her right now given the acrimony over the CF. But if you read the content I've linked in this post, you'll find that at least one of the associations noted in the AP article the thread OP references is not one whereof there existed some untoward goings on.

Excersize a bit of intellectual integrity.
In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’ | New York Post

And now he's gone, point?

Top Three Salaries at Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation (Based on Fiscal Year-Ended 12/31/14)
Name Title Compensation Notes
Eric Braverman Past CEO $ 532,361 --
Bruce R. Lindsey Chairman of the Board $ 395,460 --
Mark Gunton CEO, Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership $ 313,992 --

What's your point?
Is that unusual compared to charities with similar assets?

Lets see how the head of other charities with the same numbers would do in an election for President.

Gary Hart was tossed because of a friend with a boat called Monkey Business.

Dean was tossed for an excited rant when he won a primary.

Hillary can do whatever she wants and nothing.

Why is that?

Your points only show why Trump should be long gone.

Stick to the point. Is that salary unusual or in line with other charities?

 

[hazlnut]

We've been operating like this in america forever. Perhaps it should be considered outrageous for all. Justa thought.

We've been operating like this in america forever. Perhaps it should be considered outrageous for all. Justa thought.

Forever? Name one other Sec of State who took hundreds of millions of dollars in exchange for political favors.
I can name a Governor who did. He is serving a 14 year term in Federal prison.

Was there a financial gain for her? Or did the money go to the charity and she and Bill took none of it for themselves?

NOTE! I haven't read the article yet!!! I will though so if these questions are answered there, please ignore them!

How many of these so called 'favors' were given...not how many asked, but how many got what they asked for and is what they asked for, reasonable?

The "favors" are in fact a "thank you" phone call or meet-and-greet with the celebrity-politician.

 

[Jarhead]

I dont know that this was in the article or not, but Bill has received millions in 'speaking fees' while Hillary was Sec of State, and the people that bought him, err, I mean paid for his speeches had cases coming up for Hillary to decide on.

It is obvious that Hillary has been engaging in Pay-to-Play bribery schemes from the time she was appoint Secretary of State.

Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State
More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

No Jim, there was no "pay for Play", there was no quid pro quo....and accusations of such is simply partisan political posturing.

ALSO the Clintons receive ZERO DOLLARS from the foundation donations, but children around the world get needed vaccinations, the needy get Malaria treatments, Aides medicines, young girls get educations etc etc etc.

Sure, that's where 5-10% of grants go, where is remaining 90-95%?

Slush fund.

By the way, are you saying they're discriminating against young boys?

88% of the money donated to the Clinton Foundation is spent on programs.

Yes, the Foundation is all about helping girls in Third World Countries because boys already get educations, vaccinations, and food. The girls get nothing.

Ecuse me...

That 88% includes the first class travel arrangements for anyone who travels for the program...it includes top of the line dinners for anyone who is involved in the program...

But, of course you will say "why cant they travel first class?

Dimple answer...because if they really cared, they would travel 3rd class and have more money for the causes.

And finally....the foundation has a program in India, and the Indian government follows up with a 500K payment to Bill for a 10 minute speech.

And finally....the foundation has a program in India, and the Indian government follows up with a 500K payment to Bill for a 10 minute speech.

A speech about the program that the Indian govt supports?

Yeah...I know....there is always a way to say "it isn't like it looks"...I get it.

But why do they always put themselves in a position to have to say that?

Like the server thing....why did they do it? I mean, who in their right mind would not think that it would look "wrong"?

And the emails from the foundation to the state department asking for favors......why on earth did she FORBID anything like that from happening? I mean....if I were her, I would have sent out a mandate saying NO ONE IS TO CONTACT THE STATE DEPARTMENT FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN NORMAL STATE DEPARTMENT BUSINESS....

Think about it.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Well, it's what you do in a Banana Republic.

News from The Associated Press

No way, she wouldn't do that. Her and slick Willie made all that money by giving dynamic and gripping speeches. Everyone loves listening to Hellary give a speech-

 

[hazlnut]

We've been operating like this in america forever. Perhaps it should be considered outrageous for all. Justa thought.

We've been operating like this in america forever. Perhaps it should be considered outrageous for all. Justa thought.

Forever? Name one other Sec of State who took hundreds of millions of dollars in exchange for political favors.
I can name a Governor who did. He is serving a 14 year term in Federal prison.

Um... she didn't take any money.

What favors?

NOTE - a phone call or a meet-and-greet don't constitute a violation according to SCOTUS.

 

[Jarhead]

Excersize a bit of intellectual integrity.
In July 2013, Eric Braverman, a friend of Chelsea Clinton from when they both worked at McKinsey & Co., took over as CEO of the Clinton Foundation. He took home nearly $275,000 in salary, benefits and a housing allowance from the nonprofit for just five months’ work in 2013, tax filings show. Less than a year later, his salary increased to $395,000, according to a report in Politico.

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’ | New York Post

And now he's gone, point?

Top Three Salaries at Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation (Based on Fiscal Year-Ended 12/31/14)
Name Title Compensation Notes
Eric Braverman Past CEO $ 532,361 --
Bruce R. Lindsey Chairman of the Board $ 395,460 --
Mark Gunton CEO, Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership $ 313,992 --

What's your point?
Is that unusual compared to charities with similar assets?

Lets see how the head of other charities with the same numbers would do in an election for President.

Gary Hart was tossed because of a friend with a boat called Monkey Business.

Dean was tossed for an excited rant when he won a primary.

Hillary can do whatever she wants and nothing.

Why is that?

Your points only show why Trump should be long gone.

Stick to the point. Is that salary unusual or in line with other charities?

It is in line with other charities. I did not bring those figures up. I don't agree with that part of the post. The salaries are normal.

But I believe the overall expenses of the foundation are ludicrous and there are way too many "coincidences" as it pertains to charity work and Clinton paid speeches.

 

[Fueri]

Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State

And so..........what were the results of those meetings?

I imagine they just talked about their grandkids...

 

[BuckToothMoron]

We've been operating like this in america forever. Perhaps it should be considered outrageous for all. Justa thought.

Can't agree. When the federal gov was small, as was intended, pols did not have this opportunity for corruption open to them.

..the federal government imposes an infinite number of rules and regulations purposely to make it difficult to do things, so that pols can get big money people to give them money to navigate through the maze. Its great for pols like Cankles and Bubba.

And when would you say that started exactly?

It really exploded after 1913 with the passage of the 17th amendment.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Well, it's what you do in a Banana Republic.

News from The Associated Press

SCOTUS has already ruled that granting a phone or meet and greet meeting doesn't meet the definite of quid pro quo.


Name one specific policy change via State Dept granted specifically in exchange for the money to the charity.

A phone call, a meet and greet....

Let's look at ever committee chairman in the house and senate and the direct donations to their campaign war chests.

Exactly.
If Clinton is guilty for having a meeting with a donor of her charity then every member of Congress who took campaign contributions from lobbyists or anyone for that matter and then later had a meeting with them is equally guilty.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

We've been operating like this in america forever. Perhaps it should be considered outrageous for all. Justa thought.

We've been operating like this in america forever. Perhaps it should be considered outrageous for all. Justa thought.

Forever? Name one other Sec of State who took hundreds of millions of dollars in exchange for political favors.
I can name a Governor who did. He is serving a 14 year term in Federal prison.

Was there a financial gain for her? Or did the money go to the charity and she and Bill took none of it for themselves?

NOTE! I haven't read the article yet!!! I will though so if these questions are answered there, please ignore them!

How many of these so called 'favors' were given...not how many asked, but how many got what they asked for and is what they asked for, reasonable?

There is a rule called "the appearance of impropriety " and she buthchers it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No Jim, there was no "pay for Play", there was no quid pro quo....and accusations of such is simply partisan political posturing.

ALSO the Clintons receive ZERO DOLLARS from the foundation donations, but children around the world get needed vaccinations, the needy get Malaria treatments, Aides medicines, young girls get educations etc etc etc.

Sure, that's where 5-10% of grants go, where is remaining 90-95%?

Slush fund.

By the way, are you saying they're discriminating against young boys?

88% of the money donated to the Clinton Foundation is spent on programs.

Yes, the Foundation is all about helping girls in Third World Countries because boys already get educations, vaccinations, and food. The girls get nothing.

Ecuse me...

That 88% includes the first class travel arrangements for anyone who travels for the program...it includes top of the line dinners for anyone who is involved in the program...

But, of course you will say "why cant they travel first class?

Dimple answer...because if they really cared, they would travel 3rd class and have more money for the causes.

And finally....the foundation has a program in India, and the Indian government follows up with a 500K payment to Bill for a 10 minute speech.

And finally....the foundation has a program in India, and the Indian government follows up with a 500K payment to Bill for a 10 minute speech.

A speech about the program that the Indian govt supports?

Yeah...I know....there is always a way to say "it isn't like it looks"...I get it.

But why do they always put themselves in a position to have to say that?

Like the server thing....why did they do it? I mean, who in their right mind would not think that it would look "wrong"?

And the emails from the foundation to the state department asking for favors......why on earth did she FORBID anything like that from happening? I mean....if I were her, I would have sent out a mandate saying NO ONE IS TO CONTACT THE STATE DEPARTMENT FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN NORMAL STATE DEPARTMENT BUSINESS....

Think about it.

But why do they always put themselves in a position to have to say that?

They don't. They find themselves in that position because republicans put them in that position.

Think about this latest "outrage".
The Clinton's have a charity and as SOS, Hillary met with donors. So what. No money went to her personally or her campaign.

On the other hand, a member of Congress can accept campaign contributions from an organization or an individual and meet with them at any time. Is that a "scandal" as well?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

And now he's gone, point?

Top Three Salaries at Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation (Based on Fiscal Year-Ended 12/31/14)
Name Title Compensation Notes
Eric Braverman Past CEO $ 532,361 --
Bruce R. Lindsey Chairman of the Board $ 395,460 --
Mark Gunton CEO, Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership $ 313,992 --

What's your point?
Is that unusual compared to charities with similar assets?

Lets see how the head of other charities with the same numbers would do in an election for President.

Gary Hart was tossed because of a friend with a boat called Monkey Business.

Dean was tossed for an excited rant when he won a primary.

Hillary can do whatever she wants and nothing.

Why is that?

Your points only show why Trump should be long gone.

Stick to the point. Is that salary unusual or in line with other charities?

It is in line with other charities. I did not bring those figures up. I don't agree with that part of the post. The salaries are normal.

But I believe the overall expenses of the foundation are ludicrous and there are way too many "coincidences" as it pertains to charity work and Clinton paid speeches.

In the end it all needs to be accounted for and it has. The foundation's financial records are publicly available. The Clinton's have released 30+ years of taxes including last year. There obviously isn't anything nefarious in those that require an investigation. If you could earn a pile of cash for speaking wouldn't you do it? The only impropriety I see is what comes out of others imaginations.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State

And so..........what were the results of those meetings?

I imagine they just talked about their grandkids...

Fortunately, what you and others imagine is irrelevant

 

[Fueri]

Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State

And so..........what were the results of those meetings?

I imagine they just talked about their grandkids...

Fortunately, what you and others imagine is irrelevant

regardless of what the clintons do it's irrelevant to a fairly substantial portion of the population.

 

[toxicmedia]

I could see this morning that Fox News was thrilled about this story today.

Scarborough seemed worried, and the MSNBC folks were treating it like it was a noteworthy development.

So I'm jumping into this thread without having read any of it...but as always, I want to check my understanding.

Are we supposed to be outraged because the Clintons invited Foundation donors to State Department functions?

Is that not allowed? by something? or some State Department rule about who you invite to functions?

I guess I'm trying to figure out if righties are just once again....mad, but not really sure why, other than someone described the situation in a way where it sounds like we should be mad.

No one is surprised that you're too fucking stupid to understand the significance of what Hillary has been caught doing.

Sure we do. Charge her, convict her, incarcerate her. I support that, carry on. Please.

I think you know if it were up to me, she would be in Supermax long ago.

So get er done, what's the hold up, damn. The media protects her? C'mon mang.

The mainstream media doesn't protect Hillary...they just don't promote the unproven hysterical electioneering that Fox News creates

 

[Care4all]

Was there a financial gain for her? Or did the money go to the charity and she and Bill took none of it for themselves?

I dont know that this was in the article or not, but Bill has received millions in 'speaking fees' while Hillary was Sec of State, and the people that bought him, err, I mean paid for his speeches had cases coming up for Hillary to decide on.

It is obvious that Hillary has been engaging in Pay-to-Play bribery schemes from the time she was appoint Secretary of State.

Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State
More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

No Jim, there was no "pay for Play", there was no quid pro quo....and accusations of such is simply partisan political posturing.

ALSO the Clintons receive ZERO DOLLARS from the foundation donations, but children around the world get needed vaccinations, the needy get Malaria treatments, Aides medicines, young girls get educations etc etc etc.

Sure, that's where 5-10% of grants go, where is remaining 90-95%?

Slush fund.

By the way, are you saying they're discriminating against young boys?

88% of the money donated to the Clinton Foundation is spent on programs.

Yes, the Foundation is all about helping girls in Third World Countries because boys already get educations, vaccinations, and food. The girls get nothing.

Ecuse me...

That 88% includes the first class travel arrangements for anyone who travels for the program...it includes top of the line dinners for anyone who is involved in the program...

But, of course you will say "why cant they travel first class?

Dimple answer...because if they really cared, they would travel 3rd class and have more money for the causes.

And finally....the foundation has a program in India, and the Indian government follows up with a 500K payment to Bill for a 10 minute speech.

FYI- It was in their financials that Clinton and corporate travel, corporate salaries, corporate expenses are not included in that 88% for programs, those expenses fall in to the 12% overhead costs.

Charity Ratings | America's Most Independent, Assertive Charity Watchdog | CharityWatch

 

[Care4all]

But you would be able to vote for a woman who has been a proven liar?

You consider that a smart move on your part?

Even the idea that Hillary is a proven Republican lie. ALL POLITICIANS LIE. Say it again - ALL POLITICIANS LIE.

Hillary has been proven to be much less a liar than Donald Trump. Trump doesn't even have a passing acquaintance with the truth. You cannot say you're voting for Donald Trump because Hillary lies, and expect anyone to do anything but laugh in your face.

Rhetoric.

When you decide to actually debate, get back to me.

But saying "all politicians lie" is rhetoric.

And I am curious....when did Trump lie to Congress?

She DID NOT commit perjury before Congress, that's just a another dog and pony show of your congress critters.

They KNOW they will NEVER EVER get any kind of perjury charge against her, perjury has legal meaning and she did NOT commit perjury.

This is merely to try to influence an election. You know it, I know it, congress critters know it.

 

[gipper]

I could see this morning that Fox News was thrilled about this story today.

Scarborough seemed worried, and the MSNBC folks were treating it like it was a noteworthy development.

So I'm jumping into this thread without having read any of it...but as always, I want to check my understanding.

Are we supposed to be outraged because the Clintons invited Foundation donors to State Department functions?

Is that not allowed? by something? or some State Department rule about who you invite to functions?

I guess I'm trying to figure out if righties are just once again....mad, but not really sure why, other than someone described the situation in a way where it sounds like we should be mad.

No one is surprised that you're too fucking stupid to understand the significance of what Hillary has been caught doing.

Sure we do. Charge her, convict her, incarcerate her. I support that, carry on. Please.

I think you know if it were up to me, she would be in Supermax long ago.

So get er done, what's the hold up, damn. The media protects her? C'mon mang.

The mainstream media doesn't protect Hillary...they just don't promote the unproven hysterical electioneering that Fox News creates

Do you think Hillary will resign this week or next?

 

[bripat9643]

But you would be able to vote for a woman who has been a proven liar?

You consider that a smart move on your part?

Even the idea that Hillary is a proven Republican lie. ALL POLITICIANS LIE. Say it again - ALL POLITICIANS LIE.

Hillary has been proven to be much less a liar than Donald Trump. Trump doesn't even have a passing acquaintance with the truth. You cannot say you're voting for Donald Trump because Hillary lies, and expect anyone to do anything but laugh in your face.

Rhetoric.

When you decide to actually debate, get back to me.

But saying "all politicians lie" is rhetoric.

And I am curious....when did Trump lie to Congress?

She DID NOT commit perjury before Congress, that's just a another dog and pony show of your congress critters.

They KNOW they will NEVER EVER get any kind of perjury charge against her, perjury has legal meaning and she did NOT commit perjury.

This is merely to try to influence an election. You know it, I know it, congress critters know it.

Of course she did. She was sworn in and she lied her ass off. Commy says just about everything she said was a lie.