I understand it's apples and oranges, and almost stated that when I wrote the quoted post. But they are both fruit. My point was that I will take an "ordinarily successful businessman" over a proven kleptocrat. He made his money in business. She made her money selling political influence. That's not supposed to happen.
I don't blame her specifically for the Benghazi attack. She didn't increase security because of budgets (although, that's what you get when you have security-weak Democrats in charge...they spend huge money on re-chargeable cars for the embassy's instead of on important things like SECURITY). However she blatantly LIED to us, and to the families of the Benghazi four, about what happened that night and who did it. She knew full well it was an organized terror attack (she sent an email to Chelsea stating so), but then she went on the morning news shows and said it was a "spontaneous" reaction to a ridiculous video nobody ever saw before.
She lied. Blatantly. There is no argument against this.
Pay to play for donations to her foundation is still panning out. No, I don't think we will ever find proof of a specific pay for play, but there is too much smoke there for to not be fire. She was the sitting Secretary of State when foreign interests donated HUNDREDS of MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to her foundation.
Think about that, and then remember that we can't accept a pen from a drug rep because it MIGHT influence our decision making when we are writing prescriptions.
There's no evidence that you holding a pen that says Carvedilol ever made you write for more Carvedilol, but because of ETHICS rules, we don't get the good pens anymore.
Think about that and consider that a Russian company donated tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation at about the same time that Secretary Clinton approved the sale of Uranium rights to that company.
Here's a well-written summary of the corruption at the Clinton Foundation:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/pay-play-clinton-foundation/
However, Guccifer 2.0 recently announced he hacked the Clinton Foundation's server, so maybe we WILL find a direct link of pay-for-play.
She IS the most corrupt politician EVER to run for the office of the Presidency. And the damnest thing is....she's going to win.
They both are proven kleptocrats (or technically Trump will be officially a kleptocrat if he's part of the 'ruling class' - but he's still corrupt). Let's just throw that out there. He's actually the one who has been found guilty of an illegal donation to Bondi's FL campaign. With ton's of stories of him stiffing the little guy out payments and multiple lawsuits against him, it's not like she's the only one who has some mud on her face. But her's is a lot of smoke, and his is actually mud. She (nor her foundation) have been charged or convicted, unlike him. So she has the Fox News propaganda saying she's guilty. He's actually guilty.
You are right about her claim about the video vs. terrorist. She probably should have waited until the dust settled and there was official cause instead of speculation. But is it really a lie if she didn't have all the facts? Or a benign political mis-speak. Outside of that, there isn't evidence she specifically lied to any of the family member's of the Behghazi 4. I know that many times Mrs. Smith, even at the RNC Convention, has claimed to have been lied to by Mrs. Clinton, but none of the other family members hold this view (
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ng-patricia-smiths-claims-about-clinton-and-/). Oh, and the Republicans controlled the House from 2011-2013. So blame both sides across the aisle if you want to, instead of the "security-weak Democrats."
Her foundation does charity work around the world. Sure, she could have been more transparent based on her memorandum of understanding when she started of Sec of State. But non-profits don't have to report the specifics you want, so she was under no legal obligation to disclose. Sneaky, sure. Illegal, not so much.
Money to the foundation doesn't go to the Clintons.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...at-pundit-clintons-get-no-personal-benefit-f/
But let's say you are correct and pay for play happened. Did conversations go like this: "Ma'am, if I help farmers in Africa or help give money to dispense HIV medication, can I have a meeting with you?"
You know what? I'm totally for that kind 'pay for play'! (a bit of sarcasm font)
Also, the Foundation started in 1997, well before I'm sure she planned on becoming Sec of State, so the assumption it was there to only shield their income is false, or you think the Clintons are a modern day Nostradamus. But, see politifact link above - they don't get money from the foundation.
From your link: “There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, [Clinton Foundation board member Frank] Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents. ‘All of the money flowed through to the Clinton Foundation –every penny — and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,’ he says.”
Gasp! You mean, money for a charity . . . went to charity! Oh, the humanity!
Saying 10% of it went to charitable donations, like the link does, is just Fox News speak. The charity does it own work, not funnel money to another source. Don't let that 10% number scare you. It's closer to 10% overhead and the rest goes to "boots on the ground" charity work. From a recent AP news article: "The Clinton Foundation received four out of four stars — the highest rating that Charity Navigator gives after a close look at a charity's finances. The
rating is based on annual federal tax documents and an objective algorithm." (
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ea32...-watchdog-gives-clinton-foundation-high-marks)
That Western Journalism article makes a lot of claims that just don't pan out to prove anything. It's not a "well written summary"; it is a bunch of poorly supported conjecture. And, straight from the first paragraph of the Western Journalism wikipedia article, it brags that it produces a popular conservative newsletter. Sorry, but I'll take my supporting documents from a Pulitzer winning source like Politifact, not a proudly right leaning one. (Don't worry, I'd still be skeptical if it proudly bragged it produced a liberal newsletter)
Let's go back to your first paragraph. You said "He made his money in business. She made her money selling political influence. That's not supposed to happen." Again, why does she have to make something. Is this some new argument about a subset of the 1%-ers? You seem to think: If you don't make anything, then eff-you, you can't be President! Ok, sure, that makes sense. But if you think 'selling political influence' (or giving policy speeches) isn't supposed to happen, well a) welcome to capitalism and b) I think your full of bull$hit. What do you think most presidents do after they leave office? Some build houses. Most give speeches (in addition to building houses) and make more money as former presidents. She was a lawyer, first lady, senator, and then sec of state. If she's got anything, it's connections and "political influence."
Still, you also want to go back to his business record again? He took over the business that his father built, after getting a YUGE loan/gift in the 1970s. He made his money by being born with a silver foot in his mouth. If he invested the money his father loaned him, he'd be richer today than even his most ridiculous claims of his wealth. Sure, investing and sipping mai-tais (well, virgin mai-tais since he reportedly doesn't drink alcohol) doesn't employ people but it also doesn't stiff them out of their paychecks that was promised to them. All he's missing from kleptocracy is being part of government.
I'll wait til Guccifer 2.0 releases what ever he/she has. Snowden said we'd get an October surprise, and that hasn't happened. So just keep waiting . . .
