James Carville: People will die if the Clinton Foundation is shut down (1 Viewer)

Mr. Sparkle

Disrespectful to dirt
Joined
Mar 5, 2002
Messages
12,168
Reaction score
10,725
Offline
Yes, also, Bahraini princes and movie stars will have to find another way to grease the US govt.
 

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,524
Reaction score
18,507
Offline
Yes, also, Bahraini princes and movie stars will have to find another way to grease the US govt.

"At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million."

Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State - Chicago Tribune
Where do you think the money they donate ends up?
 

J-Donk

Hall-of-Famer
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
3,389
Reaction score
3,688
Offline
I have no idea why Carville would bring this up now. Besides the emails, the foundation is the sleaziest thing they operate. It's well understood it's a pay-to-play scheme.

Vanity Fair of all people has a decent write up. It's focus isn't even the corruption of the Foundation, but instead Chelsea. This article was written a year ago.

Chelsea Clinton

While these donations raise questions about foreign influence, the Clintons’ lucrative speaking careers have raised questions of simple good taste. Since 2001 the family has made more than $130 million in speaking engagements. Bill puts roughly a tenth of his fees into the foundation; Hillary, somewhat more. More than $11 million in speaking and appearance engagements have come from relatively small charities—the Happy Hearts Foundation, the Boys and Girls Club of Long Beach, among others—which have discovered that having a Clinton in the house comes at a hefty price. Consider the case of model Petra Nemcova’s Happy Hearts Foundation, which rebuilds schools hit by natural disasters. Sue Veres Royal, the former executive director, recalls trying, at Nemcova’s behest, to book the president for the annual gala—it took more than a year. “Petra was told by the foundation that they don’t look at anything unless there’s money involved,” recalls Royal. The cost was $500,000 in the form of a donation to the Clinton Foundation for use in Haiti—a big chunk of Happy Hearts’ overall net assets of $3.9 million. But in this case the bet didn’t pay off—in part, says Royal, because “no attempt was made from anyone at the Clinton Foundation to invite anyone,” and she was asked to comp Clinton friends, such as billionaire Marc Lasry, who, according to Royal, never made a donation. (Lasry declined to comment.)
Hearts of GOLD

P.S. I'm not even going to go into what appeared to be soft corruption as her time at SoS using the foundation. I do wonder if Carville was asked to speak about this? We already know the Clintons have a very strong relationship with CNN based on the leaked emails.
 

SaintStephen

Devine Obliteration
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
4,274
Reaction score
2,137
Location
Duson, LA
Offline
I have no idea why Carville would bring this up now. Besides the emails, the foundation is the sleaziest thing they operate. It's well understood it's a pay-to-play scheme.



Vanity Fair of all people has a decent write up. It's focus isn't even the corruption of the Foundation, but instead Chelsea. This article was written a year ago.



Chelsea Clinton







Hearts of GOLD



P.S. I'm not even going to go into what appeared to be soft corruption as her time at SoS using the foundation. I do wonder if Carville was asked to speak about this? We already know the Clintons have a very strong relationship with CNN based on the leaked emails.

CIANN...right up Carville's alley...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

WhoDatPhan78

Definitely not part of the deep state.
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
9,524
Reaction score
18,507
Offline
I have no idea why Carville would bring this up now. Besides the emails, the foundation is the sleaziest thing they operate. It's well understood it's a pay-to-play scheme.

Vanity Fair of all people has a decent write up. It's focus isn't even the corruption of the Foundation, but instead Chelsea. This article was written a year ago.

Chelsea Clinton



Hearts of GOLD

P.S. I'm not even going to go into what appeared to be soft corruption as her time at SoS using the foundation. I do wonder if Carville was asked to speak about this? We already know the Clintons have a very strong relationship with CNN based on the leaked emails.
What do you think the clintons do with the money that is donated?
 

lapaz

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
6,951
Reaction score
4,009
Age
57
Online
The foundation serves good causes, irrespective of whether the donations bought access. If the foundation shut down without transferring its work, then Carville would probably be right, but I hear they may transfer their work to the Gates Foundation.

Clinton's private server has caused all her emails to become public and get scrutinized, but I believe that if we had access and scrutinized the emails of 99.9% of the congressmen, then we'd find that people that donated to them also bought access. Buying access is wrong because it gives the powerful more say in the operation of democracy than they should, but it is part of the system we have. Many that have bought access to congressmen have directly led to legislation that hurt the U.S. That's when I become outraged. Show me where her acts hurt America, and then I'll be outraged. Is there any evidence that the access led to anything detrimental to the U.S.?
 

lapaz

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 15, 2002
Messages
6,951
Reaction score
4,009
Age
57
Online
Because corruption is ok if it's for a worthy cause.

This is what they are apparently trying get out in front of:

MANY DONORS TO CLINTON FOUNDATION MET WITH HER AT STATE
Buying access is the way of the world, especially congress. It is a very mild form of corruption. Most large donators to anything expect something in return. So trying to hold a hard moral line against a mild transgression such as getting access to a meeting doesn't make sense if that donation can have great benefits to the needy. If Clinton had refused to provide access, many people would not have been helped. We can be lily pure, or accept the real world operates this way.
 

J-Donk

Hall-of-Famer
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
3,389
Reaction score
3,688
Offline
Buying access is the way of the world, especially congress. It is a very mild form of corruption. Most large donators to anything expect something in return. So trying to hold a hard moral line against a mild transgression such as getting access to a meeting doesn't make sense if that donation can have great benefits to the needy. If Clinton had refused to provide access, many people would not have been helped. We can be lily pure, or accept the real world operates this way.
We could always go into Bush's corruption . Start with Enron's Kenneth Lay.
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russia pressed for Uranium Company

The real story here is that none of this is a surprise. This is how the Clintons roll. They’re a political version of the old Peanuts cartoon character who was always surrounded by a cloud of dirt. Ethical shortcuts and controversies are standard operating procedure.
 

Denzien

May contain 10% Ethanol
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
22,326
Reaction score
32,922
Location
Round Rock, TX
Offline
Buying access is the way of the world, especially congress. It is a very mild form of corruption. Most large donators to anything expect something in return. So trying to hold a hard moral line against a mild transgression such as getting access to a meeting doesn't make sense if that donation can have great benefits to the needy. If Clinton had refused to provide access, many people would not have been helped. We can be lily pure, or accept the real world operates this way.
There was a Star Trek : Voyager episode vaguely related to this.

A crew member needed some kind of surgery, but when she discovered that the source of the knowledge/procedure to be used was developed by a doctor who obtained the experience through unethical medical experiments against her species, she refused the procedure.

The counter argument was that because the information was already there, it may as well have been used - which was my reaction - but the opposite view did provoke some interesting thought.


Should we allow a private citizen to sell our democratic process in an effort to save lives? Is it OK for this person to do this simply because others apparently also engage in similar activities or should all of them be punished?
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Similar threads



Headlines

Top Bottom