Posted on 11/27/2016 7:58:56 AM PST by ColdOne
Foreign governments will be encouraged to investigate the Clinton Foundation’s finances, as many are already turning off money spigots to the scandal-scarred group, The Post has learned.
A source close to President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team told The Post that the new administration plans to pressure the US ambassadors it will name to bring up the foundation with foreign governments — and suggest they probe its financial dealings.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I was looking for a little specific clarification from you. But you’re certainly not required to answer.
You could go back and read all my posts, including the one you took completely out of context. All the details are there.
When POTUS says "I have no ntention of pursuing another American who may have comitted a crime" but through back channels asks other countries to do so, well yeah, it's pleading.
False accusations are unhelpful. If you can’t be bothered to go back and read what I’ve already written, that’s your call. But don’t lie about ‘evasions.’ If the info is already there but you don’t care to read it, then no evasion has occurred.
Call it what ya want. Who gives a damn if evidence comes from inside or outside the U.S. if it’s used to prove a crime or crimes were committed by HC and or their foundation?
Supposedly the deal was that Hillary said she would concede if Trump agreed not to prosecute her.
“I have no ntention of pursuing another American who may have comitted a crime”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Okay, if you say so. But what you’ve put in quotation marks here as a statement made by Trump is one I’ve not seen quoted anywhere else. Where did you see or hear it?
BS. My very first questions to you went answered @75. Again, you've been evading specific questions since our exchange began.
#75; Wait a minute, are you suggesting the foreign governments targeted by the foundation didn’t leave anyone holding an empty bag?
You’re the one who jumped blindly into a conversation while having no idea of the context. Aren’t you supposed to read the thread before you start hurling false/misguided accusations?
Room temperature.
I stated you evaded specific questions. Nothing false about that. Anyone can read back.
That’s like skipping the first three-quarters of a novel, and then accusing the author of failing to introduce the characters.
Regardless of what you were talking about 1 minute or 4 hours prior. The fact is you still evaded clear specific questions. And there is no thread rule where questions must meet your approval first.
There’s an unwritten rule that you’re supposed to read a thread before jumping in and wholesale misinterpreting posts.
Not quite. #75 was specific and you clearly understood it and responded @76. But you failed to answer the question @75. And when asked twice to do so you declined.
There is nothing complex or misunderstood here.
The statement was a paraphrase and in quotes only to show that in the context of the sentence it was a third-party statement.
If you want to hang your hat on the semantic intricacies of Trump's, and his surrogates', statements, fine.
I don't think anyone will deny that Trump's message is that he won't be pursuing Hillary.
Maybe you can lobby for a new rule. Something like, ‘If I, Dragnet2, wish to jump into a thread half cocked and 1, misinterpret a post due to ignorance of context, and 2, demand that a poster repeat details already specified because I can’t be bothered to go back and read them for myself, the poster MUST comply, or else plead guilty to evasion.’
Trump’s message is that he’s pursuing the Clinton Foundation.
Ah, so.
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.