Posted on 08/25/2016 8:40:46 AM PDT by Semper911
Key excerpts:
All those who wish to argue that the Saudis donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation out of a magnanimous desire to aid its charitable causes, please raise your hand. Or take the newfound casting of the Clinton Foundation as a champion of LGBTs, and the smearing of its critics as indifferent to AIDS. Are the Saudis also on board with these benevolent missions? And the Qataris and Kuwaitis?
...
The reality is that there is ample evidence uncovered by journalists suggesting that regimes donating money to the Clinton Foundation received special access to and even highly favorable treatment from the Clinton State Department. But it’s also true that nobody can dispositively prove the quid pro quo. Put another way, one cannot prove what was going on inside Hillary Clinton’s head at the time that she gave access to or otherwise acted in the interests of these donor-regimes: was she doing it as a favor in return for those donations, or simply because she has a proven affinity for Gulf State and Arab dictators, or because she was merely continuing decades of U.S. policy of propping up pro-U.S. tyrants in the region?
While this “no quid pro quo proof” may be true as far as it goes, it’s extremely ironic that Democrats have embraced it as a defense of Hillary Clinton. After all, this has long been the primary argument of Republicans who oppose campaign finance reform, and indeed, it was the primary argument of the Citizens United majority, once depicted by Democrats as the root of all evil. But now, Democrats have to line up behind a politician who, along with her husband, specializes in uniting political power with vast private wealth, in constantly exploiting the latter to gain the former, and vice-versa. So Democrats are forced to jettison all the good-government principles they previously claimed to believe, and instead are now advocating the crux of the right-wing case against campaign finance reform: that large donations from vested factions are not inherently corrupting of politics or politicians.
What is being described here is treason.
Because they understand how corruption works, and have for millenia....................
Anybody want to make a bet that if Hillary loses in November, she suddenly decides that she needs to move to a really warm and dry climate ‘for health’ reasons.................
Better question: Why didn’t they form their own charities?
It charity was genuinely what they wanted.
Wasn’t the State Department holding up the XXL pipeline deal from Canada into the US? For four years?
We all know now that foreign governments gave many millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation for special access and preferential deals. But, I want to know when some intrepid investigator will compare the foreign “charitable” contributions to those made by the same countries to OTHER American charities like Red Cross, United Way, etc. during her time as Secretary of State. I suspect that number is 0,
The don’t expect anything in return/sarc.
For bribes. They call it “access”, which is still a bribe if someone gets something from you in return for cash.
This is also why I like Trump. He is richer than most Saudis he will encounter and wont be impressed with a briefcase full of cash. Trump ain’t working on his retirement fund.
Bahrain got BILLIONS in ARMS!!!!
Bahrain got BILLIONS in ARMS!!!!
I understand that Oman, Qatar, and Djibouti fall into that category. Oh, also that they have no extradition treaty with the United States.
Co-inky-dinky, I'm sure.
Although I didn’t read the article at the link, my guess would be to keep placing tighter controls and regulations on our domestic oil and gas to keep their economies propped up.
BINGO!!
The article discusses that. Why the Clinton Foundation and not other charities that do similar work? The answer is obvious.
BINGO!!
....and she ‘suddenly’ converts to Islam, on Huma’s ‘advice’...............
One of the Five Pillars of Islam, Charity, seems to be the least ‘popular’ one.................
Just dawned on me that if Gaddafi had donated millions he might still be alive. If Assad had donated he might not be fighting a civil war.
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.