Clinton Cash - The Book!

[SassyIrishLass]

The NYT is reporting on this book, hardly a RW mouth organ.

...
The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.

“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes.

His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/u...estions-foreign-donations-to-foundation.html?

Do you really think it will make a difference? All this stuff is coming out now, 19 months before the election, and in a few months will all be forgotten and everybody will have moved on. And when Hillary's opponents try to bring it up when the campaign starts seriously heating up, it will be declared old news--beating a dead horse--and all that.

The Democrats tend to set the bar very very low in what they want re ethics and a moral center in their candidates. And most don't read books or the New York Times or any other serious publications. So the only ones who will care are those who wouldn't vote for Hillary in any case.

I hope it has an impact on the moderate independents who will decide the election. The Obama Administration is not going to prosecute the Clintons; the Dems will circle the wagons.

But, do regular Americans want to live through the inevitable unseemly sleaze of another Clinton presidency?

Of course not but regular Americans aren't too successful in electing candidates these days. Who in a million years could have dreamed that Obama would be elected to a second term? And yet the Dems were able to buy and bribe and coerce enough votes to get it done via their surrogate media who so demonized Romney people became afraid of him and via empty promises that Americans are gullible enough to keep believing.

So don't underestimate the electability of the Queen apparent. The D after her name is sufficient to make her a formidable opponent against anybody.

Hillary will automatically get 47% of the vote and the electoral votes of the moonbat coastal states. What I'm hoping is different this time, is that the GOP base is energized and the independents who were turned off by 2012 like the GOP candidate enough to vote.

Not going to happen when there are green eggs and ham candidates running the show. I think the republicans need to break away from the Koch brother puppets in order to make a strong foundation again. You all may have to loose another race to figure that out.

Why? It's worked so well with Soros and the democraps

 

[Foxfyre]

Boedicca said

Hillary will automatically get 47% of the vote and the electoral votes of the moonbat coastal states. What I'm hoping is different this time, is that the GOP base is energized and the independents who were turned off by 2012 like the GOP candidate enough to vote.

The GOP pool is really diluted though with a whopping 19 candidate potential--probably most will choose not to actually run though. But that dilutes the available cash for the myriad candidates. Clinton won't have to spend much of anything in the primaries while the GOP will be spending a lot competing with each other leaving less cash available for the general campaign.

And, if they don't keep up the good manners and start ripping each other apart as they did in previous campaigns, they will shoot themselves in the foot again. It is a huge turn off for the less partisan voter when they act like a pack of dogs fighting over scraps.

PLUS, their surrogate media, our left leaning friends on message boards like this, etc., and leftist talking heads will give Clinton a pass on all the negative stuff and will make it look like rightwingers are picking on the vulnerable woman unfairly. Right or wrong doesn't matter anymore--just the letter that follows the name.

I hate to be so negative, but I do see all of this as our reality. We have our work cut out for us and need to get some serious ducks into rows if we want to beat Clinton 19 months from now.

 

[boedicca]

The NYT is reporting on this book, hardly a RW mouth organ.

...
The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.

“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes.

His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department....

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/u...estions-foreign-donations-to-foundation.html?

Do you really think it will make a difference? All this stuff is coming out now, 19 months before the election, and in a few months will all be forgotten and everybody will have moved on. And when Hillary's opponents try to bring it up when the campaign starts seriously heating up, it will be declared old news--beating a dead horse--and all that.

The Democrats tend to set the bar very very low in what they want re ethics and a moral center in their candidates. And most don't read books or the New York Times or any other serious publications. So the only ones who will care are those who wouldn't vote for Hillary in any case.

I hope it has an impact on the moderate independents who will decide the election. The Obama Administration is not going to prosecute the Clintons; the Dems will circle the wagons.

But, do regular Americans want to live through the inevitable unseemly sleaze of another Clinton presidency?

Of course not but regular Americans aren't too successful in electing candidates these days. Who in a million years could have dreamed that Obama would be elected to a second term? And yet the Dems were able to buy and bribe and coerce enough votes to get it done via their surrogate media who so demonized Romney people became afraid of him and via empty promises that Americans are gullible enough to keep believing.

So don't underestimate the electability of the Queen apparent. The D after her name is sufficient to make her a formidable opponent against anybody.

Hillary will automatically get 47% of the vote and the electoral votes of the moonbat coastal states. What I'm hoping is different this time, is that the GOP base is energized and the independents who were turned off by 2012 like the GOP candidate enough to vote.

Not going to happen when there are green eggs and ham candidates running the show. I think the republicans need to break away from the Koch brother puppets in order to make a strong foundation again. You all may have to loose another race to figure that out.

Oh blah blah blah Koch Brothers blah blah blah.

Hi Harry!

 

[boedicca]

This is an excellent representation of the data. In quite a few threads, the Obama apologists claim that the decline in the LFPR is due to Boomer Retirement. Yes, that is part, but only part, of the story. The alarming aspect is the drop in the rate of employment of younger cohorts. This is especially egregious among minority youth.

 

[Foxfyre]

The only thing the GOP has going for it right now is that folks like Clinton's logo the least.

Americans Really Love Ted Cruz s Burning Flag Logo

 

[Eaglewings]

 

[Moonglow]

The only thing the GOP has going for it right now is that folks like Clinton's logo the least.

Americans Really Love Ted Cruz s Burning Flag Logo

It's a start....

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The only thing the GOP has going for it right now is that folks like Clinton's logo the least.

Americans Really Love Ted Cruz s Burning Flag Logo

Maybe it's not the logo

 

[Moonglow]

I'd never trust anyone whose Grandad developed fracking in the USSR during Stalin....

 

[Foxfyre]

This is an excellent representation of the data. In quite a few threads, the Obama apologists claim that the decline in the LFPR is due to Boomer Retirement. Yes, that is part, but only part, of the story. The alarming aspect is the drop in the rate of employment of younger cohorts. This is especially egregious among minority youth.

I inadvertently posted that and then deleted it via edit as it didn't fit the discussion at the moment. But yes, it is instructive. Unfortunately only the GOP side will point to that kind of data while those on the left will shrug it off or keep repeating the lie that things are better under Obama and therefore we should vote for hillary. (My capital h isn't working on my keyboard and my new keyboard won't arrive until Wednesday )

 

[Foxfyre]

The only thing the GOP has going for it right now is that folks like Clinton's logo the least.

Americans Really Love Ted Cruz s Burning Flag Logo

Maybe it's not the logo

Well we could always hope. (But in this case I think they were just asking for opinions about the logos.)

 

[Freewill]

The best Secretary of State money could buy.

The Clintonistas will attack the source and dodge the facts.

The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.

“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes.

And this is done on a regular basis.....by other politicians......by other lobby groups...

And here I thought Obama and the liberal left was going to end the buying of influence. But once again the opposite has occurred from the stated intent.

 

[Moonglow]

The best Secretary of State money could buy.

The Clintonistas will attack the source and dodge the facts.

The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.

“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes.

And this is done on a regular basis.....by other politicians......by other lobby groups...

And here I thought Obama and the liberal left was going to end the buying of influence. But once again the opposite has occurred from the stated intent.

It would be nice if they would, but addicts of cash always need more...

 

[Foxfyre]

Mr. Clinton would routinely fetch half-a-million dollar honorariums for speeches while Mrs. Clinton was Secretary of State

nothing wrong with that...it's done by politicians all the time...

When they're slamming CEO pay and running around the country whipping up divisive, class warfare arguments there absolutely is something wrong with that.

Furthermore, I'm not aware of too many politicians getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to give one speech.

Ex-politicians with name recognition rake in major big bucks on the speech circuit. And nobody has capitalized on it more than the Clintons who can command anywhere from $200k to $700+k for just showing up to make a speech.

And for somebody running for President, especially if she has a husband who really REALLY wants to be back in the White House with all the perks that provides, it is a splendid way to get around campaign finance laws limiting what amounts they can accept.

. . .The Washington Post reported that (Hillary) has received as much as $200,000 for lecturing a group of real estate developers in Dallas, adding another lucrative check from a crowd of deep-pocketed private equity managers in Los Angeles. The New York Times (usually a big supporter of liberal Democrats) slammed Hilary not only for taking big money for her speaking engagements but also for the lame quality of her canned deliveries. “For about $200,000, Mrs. Clinton will offer pithy reflections and Mitch Albom-style lessons from her time as the nation’s top diplomat,” the Times scoffed, adding examples of her bon mots: “leadership is a team sport,” “you can’t win if you don’t show up,” and the immortal “a whisper can be louder than a shout.”

But Hillary Clinton is a minor-leaguer compared to her husband. . . .​

. . .CNN reported that Bill Clinton averages about $189,000 per speech – somewhat less than his annual salary as president in the 1990s. In 2011 alone, the 42nd president took home about $13.4 million from 54 speeches (averaging out to almost a quarter-million dollars per event). His earning capacity has been escalating ever upwards – he made $10.7 million in 2010, and $7.5 million in 2009. The magnitude of Clinton’s enormous wealth came to light only because his wife’s status as a federal official required her to disclose her family's income statements. . .​

Talk Is Not Cheap Why Do Ex-Politicians Earn Huge Money From Making Speeches

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Ahhh.. the Clintons... they have amassed a fortune nearing $100+ million.. most of it payola, and they bitch about the rich... and the moonbat left laps it up.

Irony at its finest.