Number One Clinton Foundation Donor Traded With Iran While Hilary Was SOS

[Hossfly]

OP- It's a CHARITY. NO evidence of ANYTHING. Ay caramba...

Oh yes there's evidence that 15% of donations went to charity. That's legal.

bs

Not at all. The Clinton Foundation tax return has been published and has been posted on one of the forums. And it's not photo shopped.

 

[Skylar]

OP- It's a CHARITY. NO evidence of ANYTHING. Ay caramba...

Oh yes there's evidence that 15% of donations went to charity. That's legal.

bs

Not at all. The Clinton Foundation tax return has been published and has been posted on one of the forums. And it's not photo shopped.

Then make your case with the evidence. Rather than vague allusions of criminal activity backed by jack shit.

Show us. Don't tell us.

 

[Hossfly]

OP- It's a CHARITY. NO evidence of ANYTHING. Ay caramba...

Oh yes there's evidence that 15% of donations went to charity. That's legal.

bs

Not at all. The Clinton Foundation tax return has been published and has been posted on one of the forums. And it's not photo shopped.

Then make your case with the evidence. Rather than vague allusions of criminal activity backed by jack shit.

Show us. Don't tell us.

Read the forums like everybody else. Or get yer Googler out and have at it.

 

[Skylar]

OP- It's a CHARITY. NO evidence of ANYTHING. Ay caramba...

Oh yes there's evidence that 15% of donations went to charity. That's legal.

bs

Not at all. The Clinton Foundation tax return has been published and has been posted on one of the forums. And it's not photo shopped.

Then make your case with the evidence. Rather than vague allusions of criminal activity backed by jack shit.

Show us. Don't tell us.

Read the forums like everybody else. Or get yer Googler out and have at it.

Laughing.....so excuses why you can't back your claims, insisting its my responsibility to back your claims.

How did I know what was coming?

If you're going to cite a source, you'll need to actually cite it. Your paraphrases mean less than nothing.

 

[Skylar]

Hey, why not, lets have two threads on the topic. This issue deserves as much publicity as it can get.

It really doesn't. The 'violation' in question was tiny. $800k. There's no example of the State Department going after any company in any industry for such a minute violation. In fact the only sanctions that the US levied against a non-US company for violations of Iran sanctions was a Chinese oil firm that sold $500,000,000 in processed oil products like gasoline. And bought 240,000 barrels of oil from Iran, amounting to $20 million a day.

Compared to one 800k violation, once.

You're off by orders and orders and orders of magnitude. And can't demonstrate any preference, as no company anywhere was sanctioned for such tiny violations. Regardless of their association with the Clintons.

 

[Hossfly]

Oh yes there's evidence that 15% of donations went to charity. That's legal.

bs

Not at all. The Clinton Foundation tax return has been published and has been posted on one of the forums. And it's not photo shopped.

Then make your case with the evidence. Rather than vague allusions of criminal activity backed by jack shit.

Show us. Don't tell us.

Read the forums like everybody else. Or get yer Googler out and have at it.

Laughing.....so excuses why you can't back your claims, insisting its my responsibility to back your claims.

How did I know what was coming?

If you're going to cite a source, you'll need to actually cite it. Your paraphrases mean less than nothing.

We're playing by jungle rules now. The information has been posted. If you want to see it, find it.

 

[HappyJoy]

bs

Not at all. The Clinton Foundation tax return has been published and has been posted on one of the forums. And it's not photo shopped.

Then make your case with the evidence. Rather than vague allusions of criminal activity backed by jack shit.

Show us. Don't tell us.

Read the forums like everybody else. Or get yer Googler out and have at it.

Laughing.....so excuses why you can't back your claims, insisting its my responsibility to back your claims.

How did I know what was coming?

If you're going to cite a source, you'll need to actually cite it. Your paraphrases mean less than nothing.

We're playing by jungle rules now. The information has been posted. If you want to see it, find it.

Jungle rules = charity?

 

[Skylar]

bs

Not at all. The Clinton Foundation tax return has been published and has been posted on one of the forums. And it's not photo shopped.

Then make your case with the evidence. Rather than vague allusions of criminal activity backed by jack shit.

Show us. Don't tell us.

Read the forums like everybody else. Or get yer Googler out and have at it.

Laughing.....so excuses why you can't back your claims, insisting its my responsibility to back your claims.

How did I know what was coming?

If you're going to cite a source, you'll need to actually cite it. Your paraphrases mean less than nothing.

We're playing by jungle rules now. The information has been posted. If you want to see it, find it.

Nah, you just can't back up anything you're saying. Exactly as predicted.

When and if you ever manage to scrape up evidence to back your little 'scam' narrative, feel free to try again.

But I won't hold my breath. As you don't have much use for evidence.

 

[Jroc]

OP- It's a CHARITY. NO evidence of ANYTHING. Ay caramba...

Oh yes there's evidence that 15% of donations went to charity. That's legal.

bs

Not at all. The Clinton Foundation tax return has been published and has been posted on one of the forums. And it's not photo shopped.

Then make your case with the evidence. Rather than vague allusions of criminal activity backed by jack shit.

Show us. Don't tell us.

Do you have access to those deleted emails? or do you marvel at the Clinton's ability to cover their tracks?

 

[Skylar]

OP- It's a CHARITY. NO evidence of ANYTHING. Ay caramba...

Oh yes there's evidence that 15% of donations went to charity. That's legal.

bs

Not at all. The Clinton Foundation tax return has been published and has been posted on one of the forums. And it's not photo shopped.

Then make your case with the evidence. Rather than vague allusions of criminal activity backed by jack shit.

Show us. Don't tell us.

Do you have access to those deleted emails? or do you marvel at the Clinton's ability to cover their tracks?

And is there anything in those deleted emails that supports anything that Hossfly has said?

If so, prove it. If you can't...then you're offering us either a red herring or baseless speculation. Neither of which amounts to much.

 

[HUGGY]

You Hillary haters are wasting your time. There is no one announced that stands a chance to beat her and this donation angle will fly like my boat's anchor. Not that anyone expects you fools from doing anything less. She will have a much bigger war chest than even the Kochs can put behind the RW extremist you eventually hoist up on the podium. In the end you will just look like what you are...hysterical boobs.

 

[Jroc]

Oh yes there's evidence that 15% of donations went to charity. That's legal.

bs

Not at all. The Clinton Foundation tax return has been published and has been posted on one of the forums. And it's not photo shopped.

Then make your case with the evidence. Rather than vague allusions of criminal activity backed by jack shit.

Show us. Don't tell us.

Do you have access to those deleted emails? or do you marvel at the Clinton's ability to cover their tracks?

And is there anything in those deleted emails that supports anything that Hossfly has said?

If so, prove it. If you can't...then you're offering us either a red herring or baseless speculation. Neither of which amounts to much.

Willful ignorance is useful for the Clinton's. I'm not really sure if you'd want to know whats in those emails.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Oh yes there's evidence that 15% of donations went to charity. That's legal.

bs

Not at all. The Clinton Foundation tax return has been published and has been posted on one of the forums. And it's not photo shopped.

Then make your case with the evidence. Rather than vague allusions of criminal activity backed by jack shit.

Show us. Don't tell us.

Do you have access to those deleted emails? or do you marvel at the Clinton's ability to cover their tracks?

And is there anything in those deleted emails that supports anything that Hossfly has said?

If so, prove it. If you can't...then you're offering us either a red herring or baseless speculation. Neither of which amounts to much.

It amounts only to desperation.

 

[Skylar]

bs

Not at all. The Clinton Foundation tax return has been published and has been posted on one of the forums. And it's not photo shopped.

Then make your case with the evidence. Rather than vague allusions of criminal activity backed by jack shit.

Show us. Don't tell us.

Do you have access to those deleted emails? or do you marvel at the Clinton's ability to cover their tracks?

And is there anything in those deleted emails that supports anything that Hossfly has said?

If so, prove it. If you can't...then you're offering us either a red herring or baseless speculation. Neither of which amounts to much.

Willful ignorance is useful for the Clinton's. I'm not really sure if you'd want to know whats in those emails.

I don't' think 'willful ignorance' means what you think it means. As asking you to back your accusation with evidence isn't it.

Remember, accusations alone may be evidence inside the right wing echo chamber. But outside it, accusations are just noise without something verifiable to back them.

And so far you've presented exactly jack shit to back any of your noise.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You'll have to forgive me, I'm a little thick. What was your point? What crime was committed?

A material breach of Article 2 Section IV of the United States Constitution, and violation of

18 USC §201(b)

(b)Whoever—

(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;

(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;

(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;

shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

 

[HappyJoy]

You'll have to forgive me, I'm a little thick. What was your point? What crime was committed?

A material breach of Article 2 Section IV of the United States Constitution, and violation of

18 USC §201(b)

(b)Whoever—

(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;

(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;

(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;

shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

I think I made my point already and it appears we agree. Ronald Reagan is guilty. I still am not seeing how Hillary is guilty in this case.

 

[Skylar]

You'll have to forgive me, I'm a little thick. What was your point? What crime was committed?

A material breach of Article 2 Section IV of the United States Constitution, and violation of

18 USC §201(b)

(b)Whoever—

(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;

(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;

(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;

shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Exactly. And that's why your argument doesn't work; there's no evidence of any preferential treatment. The State department never sought sanctions against a non-US company for anything less than half a BILLION in Iran sanction violations. In any industry. Regardless of donations to the CLinton foundation.

The Interpipe violation was a mere 800k. Orders and orders and orders of magnitude beneath the focus of the State Department held non-US corps.

Again, this is a beltway 'scandal'. Folks outside the belt really don't a shit. As there's simply nothing to the claims.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think I made my point already and it appears we agree. Ronald Reagan is guilty. I still am not seeing how Hillary is guilty in this case.

I don't agree with you. Why do you consistently default to Reagan?

Let's recap

While as Secretary of State, she refused to enforce oil and rail sanctions against Iran, which enabled Pinchuk to sell steel pipes to the Iranians in exchange for donations to her foundation.

That is bribery. And a federal offense.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ronald Reagan is guilty.

Of what?

 

[Skylar]

I think I made my point already and it appears we agree. Ronald Reagan is guilty. I still am not seeing how Hillary is guilty in this case.

I don't agree with you. Why do you consistently default to Reagan?

Let's recap

While as Secretary of State, she refused to enforce oil and rail sanctions against Iran, which enabled Pinchuk to sell steel pipes to the Iranians in exchange for donations to her foundation.

That is bribery. And a federal offense.

Save there's no evidence that happened. As the State Department didn't apply sanctions to ANY non-US company for such tiny violations. In fact the smallest violation that the State Department every applied sanctions for was half a BILLION dollars.

While Interpipe's violation was a mere 800k.

You can't claim preferential treatment when Interpipe was treated the same as all the other non-US corps. Which, of course, it was.