Posted on 09/05/2016 1:33:35 PM PDT by KMG365
If in fact the Clinton Foundation has done a lot of good, it is notable that, at the Democratic National Convention, mum was the word about it.However, let us suppose that Hillary gets credit - even deserves credit - for good works done via the Clinton Foundation, with money contributed to the foundation by Saudi Arabia and other governments.
In that case, under
Hillary was obligated to ask for, and get, prior authorization from Congress to accept the money via the foundation. She should have done so for each such donation and every such donation, since Congress might rightly see a difference between accepting money from, say, Canada on the one hand, and from North Korea, on the other.
- Article 1 Section 9:
- No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state
Hillary and Obama came to an understanding (whether Hillary abided by it or not), and the Senate subsequently confirmed her. So you can claim that the president and the Senate were on board - but the House of Representatives was never asked, and never concurred. All money from foreign governments without congressional consent is not legally possible; all such money must be divested.
The Clinton Crime Family extorts money from the rich, and they described themselves as dead broke (i.e., poor) just a few years ago. It’s at best a weak parallel when the poor Clintons pocket money from their wealthy donors.
Robin Hood WAS a thief.
Sure, and so is the Clinton’s only I think the Clintons are doing much better than Robin ever did, stealing from the rich and sharing with their followers that used to be poor, but are not now
There are 2 different Robin Hood stories. The Hollywierd versaion and the original.
In the original, the King was using all the tax money to finance the war in the middle east. Most young and/or strong men were in the army in the middle east.
The sheriff of Nottingham had no access to the king’s taxes. So the sheriff of Nottingham illegally (against the orders of the King) seized the chickens, grain, silverware and other property of the middle class. (He would have stolen from the poor also. Except they had nothing worth stealing. They were poor.)
Robin Hood, his merry men and with Friar Tuck’s/Catholic church blessing, re-captured from the sheriff of Nottingham the stuff that the sheriff had illegally seized. Robin Hood returned the property to its rightful owner.
The story of Robin Hood is the story of private property protection and the limits of what the government can do.
Consider if the ATF/DEA/DHS were to seize fancy cars and homes for the personal use of themselves from innocent people not convicted of anything. Consider if the government were to seize private property for the good of the bureaucrats.
Except Robin Hood gave away the money he stole.
Well I dont know about any of that but I do know that it is a documented fact that Bill Clinton has a severe bend in his penis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.