Reply With Quote
There was no need for CC to post a link. I posted links and Reck said he was too lazy to read them.
Lazy!
There was no need for CC to post a link. I posted links and Reck said he was too lazy to read them.
Yet another lie from Hillary. Obviously was not just "personal" emails she deleted. What was she hiding?
"In a court filing this week, the State Department admitted it had found Benghazi-related do ents among the 14,900 Clinton emails and attachments uncovered by the FBI that Mrs. Clinton deleted and withheld from the State Department."
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/court-orders-new-clinton-email-production-september-13/
At what point does our current President speak up?
Hillary State Dept. Helped Jailed Clinton Foundation Donor Get $10 Mil from U.S. for Failed Haiti Project
AUGUST 23, 2016
The new batch of emails showing that the State Department gave special access to top Clinton Foundation donors while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state brings to mind the case of a shady Miami businessman serving a 12-year prison sentence after scamming the government out of millions. His name is Claudio Osorio, a Clinton Foundation donor who got $10 million from the government after the Clinton State Department reportedly pulled some strings.
Osorio got the money from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), a federal agency that operates under the guidance of the State Department, to build houses in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake. The OPIC supposedly promotes U.S. government investments abroad to foster the development and growth of free markets. Osorio’s “Haiti project” was supposed to build 500 homes for displaced families in the aftermath of the earthquake. The project never broke ground and Osorio used the money to finance his lavish lifestyle and fund his illicit business ventures. He also ran a fraudulent international company with facilities in the U.S., United Arab Emirates, Germany, Angola and Tanzania that stole millions from investors. Some of the OPIC Haiti money was used to repay investors of his fraudulent company (Innovida), according to federal prosecutors. In September 2013, Osorio was sentenced to 150 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release.
Not surprisingly, the Department of Justice (DOJ) never mentioned Osorio’s Clinton connections and seemed to downplay the $10 million scam of taxpayer funds by focusing on the “victims” that invested in his bogus company. Among them was a beloved professional basketball star. “Osorio offered and sold shareholder interests and joint-venture partnerships in Innovida to select individuals and groups, raising more than $40,000,000 from approximately ten (10) investors and investment groups in the United States and abroad,” a DOJ statement says. “Osorio solicited and recruited investors by making materially false representations and concealing and omitting material facts regarding, among other things, the profitability of the company, the rates of return on investment funds, the use of investors’ funds and the existence of a pending lucrative contract with a third-party en y. Osorio received moneys from investors based on these misrepresentations. Osorio used investor monies for his and his co-conspirators’ personal benefit and to maintain and further the fraud scheme.”
The bigger story is that, despite Osorio’s shady history, it appears that the Clinton State Department helped him get $10 million—which will never be repaid—because he was a Clinton Foundation donor. This connection was not made until years after Osorio got sentenced. After his 2013 sentencing in Miami, the area’s largest newspaper tied him to the Clintons and President Obama as a campaign donor who held fundraisers at his waterfront home, but the foundation was not mentioned. A Washington D.C. newspaper eventually connected the dots after obtaining a do ent that shows an OPIC official recommending funding for Osorio’s Haiti project. In the do ent, the OPIC official writes that Osorio’s company had “U.S. persons of political influence that are able to assist in advancing the company’s plans.” It continues: “For instance, former President Bill Clinton is personally in contact with the Company to organize its logistical and support needs,” the do ent states. “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made available State Department resources to assist with logistical arrangements.” Additionally, the Clinton Global Initiative had “indicated that it would be willing to contract to purchase 6,500 homes in Haiti from InnoVida within the next year.”
Less than 24 hours after the OPIC official submitted the recommendation, the news report says, OPIC approved Osorio’s $10 million loan to build homes in earthquake-ravaged Haiti. Not one was ever built and no one has been held accountable for giving the crooked businessman millions of taxpayer dollars
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...haiti-project/
CC won't cite his own sources? That's the definition of arrogant and lazy.
Nice of you to white knight him, though.
Enjoy your banana republic
Hillary Clinton's calendars won't be released until after election, State Dept. says
Seven months after a federal judge ordered the State Department to begin releasing monthly batches of the detailed daily schedules showing meetings by Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, the government told The Associated Press it won't finish the job before Election Day.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/27/hilla...dept-says.html
Would you bother posting links if the poster openly said they would not read them?
YOu mean Reck?
CC was talking to Fuzzy, who asked him for his sources.
CC, as usual, assumed himself correct and refused to back up his own claims.
it's understandable: CC's serial exaggerations tend to disintegrate when he reveals what they're based on.
No. Read it again. This is about Reck, Fuzzy just jumped in. Reck already stated he didn't want to read the provided links.
you're stuck on Reck for some reason. CC and Fuzzy did have an exchange.
In one telling argument in defense of the Clinton Foundation, Media Matters, another group run by David Brock, argued this week that there was “no evidence of ethics breaches” because there was no explicit quid pro quo cited by the AP. The Media Matters piece mocked press figures for focusing on the “optics” of corruption surrounding the foundation.
Such a standard is quite a reversal for the group. In a piece published by Media Matters only two years ago, the organization criticized conservatives for focusing only on quid pro quo corruption — the legal standard used to decide the Citizens United and McCutcheon Supreme Court decisions — calling such a narrow focus a “new perspective of campaign finance” that dismisses “concerns about ins utional corruption in politics.” The piece notes that ethics laws concerning the role of money in politics follow a standard, set forth since the Watergate scandal, in which even the appearance, or in other words, the “optics” of corruption, is cause for concern.
CC and Fuzzy's exchange was about CC telling Reck to google it. Anyways...
boutons
- Vox writer Matthew Yglesias argued that “however many times they take a run” at the Clinton Foundation, journalists “don’t come up with anything more scandalous than the revelation that maybe billionaire philanthropists have an easier time getting the State Department to look into their visa problems than an ordinary person would.” The Vox piece was circulated widely by the Clinton campaign.
- ThinkProgress editor Adam Peck wrote that “aside from an occasional assist with acquiring a visa, or meeting with executives from a cosmetics company to talk about ways to curb gender-based violence in South Africa,” there were no “shady dealings” conducted by the Clinton Foundation. He added, “If Hillary Clinton was abusing the power of her office by running an international multi-million dollar pay-for-play scheme, she did a lousy job of it.”
- DailyKos writer Mark Sumner, in a piece shared by Blue Nation Review, a website owned by Clinton campaign operative David Brock, claimed that “extensive reviews haven’t found any evidence — any evidence — that [the Clinton Foundation] affected a single action at the State Department.”
You posted two links that were too long to read. I said condense it. You didn't.
How hard is it to say The Clintons did this or that in Haiti and this is what I mean by that without having a crutch?
You asked for my opinion and didn't articulate what you were even talking about. You just asked me for an opinion of something I have no clue of.
TSA doesn't like giving takes in his own words because he's too lazy to master the material. Same goes for CC.
Motivated reasoning par excellence.
ask them for their own takes, they get all huffy and handwavy.
sock puppets can't speak for themselves.
I literally condensed it immediately following your request
Here's how this site plays out
TSA: the Clinton Foundation is corrupt and helped facilitate pay for play while Clinton was SOS
Libs: Lies! Conspiracy! Show me proof! Show me links!
TSA: here are the links
Its the same bull day in day out. Might as well just open up with the links to start.
Reck Post #40: condense it broI literally condensed it immediately following your request
TSA Post #41: condensed
Reck Post #66: you never condensed it bro
You did that much later. It took you half the day to do it.Reck Post #40: condense it bro
TSA Post #41: condensed
Reck Post #66: you never condensed it bro
And while it is much shorter, its still a copy and paste. lol
not everyone who disagrees with you is a lib, TSA.
to be fair, it usually doesn't occur to so-called conservatives and libertarians that they're susceptible to criticism from any other direction -- or that their philosophical underpinnings are classically liberal.
The below describes exactly how Hillary thinks. What can I get away with instead of what is the right thing to do while governing in a democratic society.
And the Republicans send us Trump.
Jesus...
“[Clinton] seems not to recognize that while a good lawyer focuses on what the law allows, a good politician focuses on what the people want. Her dismal trustworthiness ratings strongly suggest the people want to see stricter ethical standards from her. She ignores that at her own peril.”
can making sure on home page ap report is wrong by media
CNN CLINTON NETWORK!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
