Clinton struggles to defend 'pay-to-play' criticism during final debate

The Chicago Tribune ^ | October 20, 2016 | John Wagner

[Beautiful_Gracious_Skies]

Hillary Clinton received a pointed question during the final debate that echoed a criticism she has faced for months: Was her family's global charity a "pay-to-play" arrangement in which donors got special favors from her State Department?

She did not initially respond with a direct yes or no.

"Well, everything I did as secretary of state was in furtherance of our country's interests and our values," she said as she went on to list a number of Clinton Foundation achievements such as distributing HIV medication.

When moderator Chris Wallace asked her again, Clinton responded that "there's no evidence" - but was cut off as Wallace turned to Republican nominee Donald Trump, who railed against the foundation for taking money from foreign countries hostile to women and gays.

"It's a criminal enterprise," Trump said, adding later: "Why don't you give back the money?"

[Gasshog]

Some of them Morocco women aint half bad

I would have taught them for room and board and save the taxpayers 100 mil.

Oh wait. It was just another money LAUNDERING operation. Silly me.

Bushes, Clintons and Obamas and ALL their assorted flunkies like Syd, Podesta, etc etc have robbed this country blind

LOCK THEM ALL UP!

[justiceseeker93]

IIRC, perhaps HRC’s biggest whopper of her multiple lies last night was her claim that 90% of donations to the Clinton Foundation go to charitable causes. The true %, from what I hear, is more like 10%.

[silverleaf]

Yeah she got the numbers reversed, the Clintons KEEP 90%

WTH - Trump stayed pretty silent about the Clinton Foundation and he could have fact-checked her right there on that because the tax returns have been published

[JimRed]

Pay to play is bribery, pure and simple. It is a crime and should be treated as such. The cure is to require all political donations to be ANONYMOUS. American citizens should be permitted to donate to any candidate or party they choose, any amount they wish. That is FREEDOM. But exchanging the donation for an outcome is criminal.

Make it a felony to disclose a donor or to attempt to identify a donor, frogmarch a few violators off to jail on the six o’clock news, and the problem mostly goes away.

[silverleaf]

That $12 million was a wise investment

No “Rabat Spring” happened, did it?
No “civil war” to kill hundreds of thousands of Moroccans

Geez, Assad should have had a better investment advisor

[beaversmom]

I like that...Sickly Sow. :)

[The Sons of Liberty]

Clinton struggles to defend 'pay-to-play' criticism during final debate

Well there really is no good response to clear cut bribery and TREASON, but Wallace let her off the hook too easily.

[jazminerose]

It’s 5.7% that actually goes to charitable work.

[jazminerose]

Uh, about that HIV medication she mentioned. She left out the part about it being watered down and causing serious problems including premature deaths.

[left that other site]

I heard 5.7%.

and that’s probably an exaggeration!

[Sun]

Months ago, or maybe even a year ago, I checked to see what rating the respected Charity Navigator gave to the Clinton Crime Foundation. They gave it NO RATING.

So I was reading that since then, they realized that could harm Hillary in an election, so the Clinton Crime Foundation aggresively tried to change the rating, and now have a top rating from them.

Hmmmmmm. Something does not smell right.