- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,598
- Reaction score
- 29,972
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
I believe that the discussion about Clinton's e-mail scandal is, in large part, missing the point. Specifically, why would "the smartest woman in the world" use a private e-mail server for official government business, much of it involving classified information??
The answer is this: Clinton was using her office as Secretary of State to ***** out the United States government and sell her services to those willing to pay the necessary price to the Clinton Foundation. This is not speculation, or supposition - it is a proven fact. Clinton knew that if her e-mail communications were kept on the government server, then those communications would be subject to the FOIA, and would be available when the next administration takes over.
That could not happen, because Clinton was flouting the law and the order from the Obama administration that she report every foreign donation to the Clinton foundation. She failed to do so, and in fact this article in the National Review explains the scope of the Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton, and Secretary of State corruption:
In 2009, the incoming Obama administration had been deeply concerned about the potential for corruption were Hillary to run the State Department while Bill and their family foundation were hauling in huge payments from foreign governments, businesses, and entrepreneurs. For precisely this reason, the White House required Mrs. Clinton to agree in writing that the Clinton Foundation would annually disclose its major donors and seek pre-approval from the White House before the foundation accepted foreign contributions. This agreement was repeated flouted — for example, by concealing the contributions from Telfer. Indeed, the foundation was recently forced to refile its tax returns for the years that Secretary Clinton ran the State Department after media reports that it failed to disclose foreign donations — approximately $20 million worth.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441573/hillary-clinton-corruption-foundation
The reference to the Telfer donation involves money - tens of millions of dollars - invested by a corrupt dictator, leading to the sale of Canadian mining interests and uranium deposits to the dictator, and the subsequent take-over of those mining interests by Russia and Putin - with Clinton's knowledge and approval.
If you have not read about these transactions, please refer to this NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
Here is one small tidbit from that article:
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
That is why Clinton so desperately wanted to control (i.e., hide) her government e-mails. Those e-mails depict regular communications with world leaders, very often corrupt despots, who gained access to the Secretary of State while not coincidentally "donating" tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton foundation.
Further, no sentient being believes that the Clinton Foundation is a legitimate charitable endeavor. The "charity" spends 10% of its contributions on actual charitable contributions, or as much as it spends on travel. The charity also spends 33% of revenue on salaries, and 47% on "other" expenses, such as rent, entertainment, etc.
So the "charity" spends three times as much on salaries as it does on actual charity. That is embarrassing.
And it's run by a woman who used the charity to sell access to her position as Secretary of State. Pathetic.
For the love of all that is holy, can Democrats admit that Clinton is a scam artist and thief? That she is no better - no, she is worse - than some low-life who invents a fake charity after the death of a police officer and raises money in the dead cop's name "for his family," while actually just stealing the goddamn money?
Jesus, who would vote for some disgusting douche who tries to capitalize on somebody else's misfortune to raise tens of millions of dollars for their own benefit??
The Haitian protesters noticed an interesting pattern involving the Clintons and the designation of how aid funds were used. They observed that a number of companies that received contracts in Haiti happened to be entities that made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Haitian contracts appeared less tailored to the needs of Haiti than to the needs of the companies that were performing the services. In sum, Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of the Clintons.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...cratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation
So please, for the love of all that is holy, don't claim that voting for Clinton is a vote for somebody "qualified" to be anything other than a lying, scheming, self-serving low-life.
The answer is this: Clinton was using her office as Secretary of State to ***** out the United States government and sell her services to those willing to pay the necessary price to the Clinton Foundation. This is not speculation, or supposition - it is a proven fact. Clinton knew that if her e-mail communications were kept on the government server, then those communications would be subject to the FOIA, and would be available when the next administration takes over.
That could not happen, because Clinton was flouting the law and the order from the Obama administration that she report every foreign donation to the Clinton foundation. She failed to do so, and in fact this article in the National Review explains the scope of the Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton, and Secretary of State corruption:
In 2009, the incoming Obama administration had been deeply concerned about the potential for corruption were Hillary to run the State Department while Bill and their family foundation were hauling in huge payments from foreign governments, businesses, and entrepreneurs. For precisely this reason, the White House required Mrs. Clinton to agree in writing that the Clinton Foundation would annually disclose its major donors and seek pre-approval from the White House before the foundation accepted foreign contributions. This agreement was repeated flouted — for example, by concealing the contributions from Telfer. Indeed, the foundation was recently forced to refile its tax returns for the years that Secretary Clinton ran the State Department after media reports that it failed to disclose foreign donations — approximately $20 million worth.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441573/hillary-clinton-corruption-foundation
The reference to the Telfer donation involves money - tens of millions of dollars - invested by a corrupt dictator, leading to the sale of Canadian mining interests and uranium deposits to the dictator, and the subsequent take-over of those mining interests by Russia and Putin - with Clinton's knowledge and approval.
If you have not read about these transactions, please refer to this NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
Here is one small tidbit from that article:
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
That is why Clinton so desperately wanted to control (i.e., hide) her government e-mails. Those e-mails depict regular communications with world leaders, very often corrupt despots, who gained access to the Secretary of State while not coincidentally "donating" tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton foundation.
Further, no sentient being believes that the Clinton Foundation is a legitimate charitable endeavor. The "charity" spends 10% of its contributions on actual charitable contributions, or as much as it spends on travel. The charity also spends 33% of revenue on salaries, and 47% on "other" expenses, such as rent, entertainment, etc.
So the "charity" spends three times as much on salaries as it does on actual charity. That is embarrassing.
And it's run by a woman who used the charity to sell access to her position as Secretary of State. Pathetic.
For the love of all that is holy, can Democrats admit that Clinton is a scam artist and thief? That she is no better - no, she is worse - than some low-life who invents a fake charity after the death of a police officer and raises money in the dead cop's name "for his family," while actually just stealing the goddamn money?
Jesus, who would vote for some disgusting douche who tries to capitalize on somebody else's misfortune to raise tens of millions of dollars for their own benefit??
The Haitian protesters noticed an interesting pattern involving the Clintons and the designation of how aid funds were used. They observed that a number of companies that received contracts in Haiti happened to be entities that made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Haitian contracts appeared less tailored to the needs of Haiti than to the needs of the companies that were performing the services. In sum, Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of the Clintons.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...cratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation
So please, for the love of all that is holy, don't claim that voting for Clinton is a vote for somebody "qualified" to be anything other than a lying, scheming, self-serving low-life.
