http://www.thompsontimeline.com/cate...on-foundation/
Everything you need to know, all articles in timeline linked.
This isn't an important topic. We need to focus on things that matter to this country like what to do when a chick gets fat after winning Miss Universe.
Staying up at night and doing coke then you get the sniffles during the week.
Took no more than the following post to prove your point.
Pretty well done. Researched, linked, and professional.http://www.thompsontimeline.com/cate...on-foundation/
Everything you need to know, all articles in timeline linked.
Still doesn't even begin to change my mind about not voting for Clinton, which says volumes about this election.
Let me know when you have watched it, what your thoughts are on his commentary.
Put aside discussing who you are voting for and let's just stick to the Clinton Foundation. After reading through all of this are you now convinced it was used as a money laundering operation?Pretty well done. Researched, linked, and professional.
Still doesn't even begin to change my mind about not voting for Clinton, which says volumes about this election.
RandomGuy when you have time check out the drop down menu on the site. Damning information in every single one on every person involved.
A legal operating machine? Why isn't the foundation shut down then?
TSA, the corruption is widespread. I had had hopes that the FBI was neutral and would do a fair job investigating the email/Foundation issues. They have handed out immunity to Hillary's people (so they can't be touched and will have no problem with security clearance in Hillary's new administration) and allowed all the evidence destroyed so that on the very small chance that Trump should win, there can be no trace/investigation carried out later.
You wanna do a Trump foundation timeline too are you just gonna play for Team Repub
You are free to find and post a Trump foundation timeline. Trying to compare the two is laughable though as Trump was not doing the same thing while being the Secretary of State.
Trump Foundation Timeline
1988 - Oct. 3, 2016
Rest In Piss
Amazing that people can passionately support these s bags.
It's hilarious that posters claim there's a bias against Shillary because she's a woman. In reality, all the focus has been put on the fat Mrs. Universe and Trump's tax returns while her shady ass foundation, refusal to release her Wall Street speech transcripts, refusal to release her emails, the DNC being biased against Bernie, etc has slowly been swept under the rug. It's as if Trump being a lunatic magically changes the fact that she's a terrible person/candidate.
No tape of Hillary interviewed by the FBI - only agents' notes. Cel phones and i-pad destroyed by hammer. Computers scrubbed clean by BleachBit. Laptop lost in the mail. Part of immunity deal - Mills' computer physically destroyed after FBI (limited dates) search. Sounds like a coverup to me.
you're excusing Trump because he wasn't holding office at the time of his misuse of foundation funds?
Lol, you're sad.
Unfortunately, the GOP's nominee is so badly flawed that the influence peddling and money laundering seem not so important.
Other than the Swiss Bank payment I am not sure what I am supposed to be worried about. The arms deals are hardly a Clinton initiative. About half of it was when neither Clinton was in office.
A 100% corrupt Hilary Clinton beats Donald Trump.
Perhaps that's as it should be: sometimes the crook is the better candidate and deserves to win.
To be fair, that timeline from the OP is damning. There is little doubt in my mind that the Clintons are corrupt as , and they used their influence to benefit people who backed them financially or otherwise.
However, IMO the Clinton Foundation itself is a sideshow - an enabler, a vehicle - and not the main story. Bill Clinton set up a charitable foundation because he wasn't running for office after 2000 and didn't have a campaign account or Super PAC to funnel money into. Trump isn't a politician so he used the Trump Foundation (an outfit pretending to be a charity but not even registered as one) to bribe people and make donations that profited him.
The politicians who are running for office - Congressmen, Senators, state legislators etc - do it via campaign donations, either to themselves or to their allied Super PACs. You need money to win elections in America, so what better way to prolong your political career than to yourself out to businessmen and companies - you legislate in their favor and they pour money into keeping you in power.
The point being - corruption is built into the fabric of American politics. Scrutinizing a couple of charitable foundations will not change the fact that money has an undue influence in who gets elected and what laws they create. There is one potential benefit from Trump's circus of a candidacy - that people keenly scrutinize their politicians' financial backers, and how the candidate's actions benefit these backers. And the resulting fury may someday grow to a point where the public can unanimously demand an end to legalized bribery by reforming campaign finance.
Hard to argue against that. Harris is one of the great rational thinkers out there. I suspect you might not like his takes on some issues, e.g. Syrian refugees and BLM.
Great take.
I'm not excusing him, I said the two aren't comparable. The amount of money into Trump's foundation is pennies compared to what Clinton brought in, and her holding office while doing so is magnitudes worse.
When FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not recommend prosecution of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for violation of the Espionage Act ( le 18, United States Code, Section 793), he made a decision based upon political considerations, not based upon principles of criminal law or justice.
There are five key points to be made in analyzing the director’s very flawed recommendation:
1. There was a disregard for criminal negligence
After ignoring a wealth of evidence that would have met the intent prong of the statute, Mr. Comey essentially wrote subsection 793(f), the gross negligence section, out of the applicable statute in the Clinton email investigation. The director’s explanation that he had worked all his life to “decriminalize negligence” and thereby would not recommend prosecution was nothing short of ridiculous. It should be first noted that Mr. Comey offered no such examples of his “life’s work,” and it is doubtful that there are any.
There has always been prosecution of criminal negligence at every level of our legal system, and with good reason. Negligent homicide by reckless driving is one common example that should come readily to mind. Starting a fire in a fireworks stand, resulting in an explosion and death of a customer or employee, would be another. Intent to kill is not required for conviction of reckless homicide in either case for obvious reasons. The negligent actions taken are inherently reckless as to endanger human life, and are therefore included in virtually every state and federal criminal code as punishable offenses.
It must also be noted that Mrs. Clinton’s unguarded emails may have similarly resulted in at least one death — that of an Iranian scientist who was executed by Iran as a spy after his name surfaced in one of the emails on her unprotected private server.
2. Comey was not a prosecutor at the time of the scandal, and could not, therefore, exercise prosecutorial discretion
While Mr. Comey may have exercised prosecutorial "discretion" in some of his prior posts as an assistant United States attorney or deputy attorney general, Mr. Comey was not a prosecutor at the time of the email scandal investigation. He was and remains the nation’s chief investigator, sworn to uphold the laws of the country as written by Congress, and he was neither sworn nor en led to re-write those statutes to his own satisfaction.
While there are undoubtedly some examples of investigative discretion in our system, most are relegated to petty offenses, such as warning tickets for minor speeding violations. At the offense level where Mrs. Clinton’s offenses are found, such decisions are reserved to a prosecuting authority; they are not left to investigators.
3. Comey revealed proof of guilt and then pardoned it without authority
When Mr. Comey took the unprecedented step of revealing the conclusions of his investigation prior to submitting those findings to the Department of Justice, and of delivering an excoriation of Mrs. Clinton’s negligence to the public, he characterized her actions as “extremely careless,” words used in trial jury instructions to explain the very meaning of the phrase “gross negligence” used in the statute. He thereby confirmed that his investigation had revealed proof of guilt, but chose to issue a pardon instead — another action he had no authority to take.
4. Comey lacks any substantive argument to support his actions
In defending his action, Mr. Comey fell back on a bad habit of his, one for which he has actually been congratulated in the past. While acting as deputy attorney general, when he didn’t like a memo he received supporting parts of a terrorist surveillance program, he referred to it dismissively as “fatally flawed,” saying “no lawyer reading that could reasonably rely on it.” When another seasoned attorney replied that he had relied on the memo, Comey’s response was, “No good lawyer” — a remark that earned him praise from those opposing the program under scrutiny.
Similarly, when Comey presented his findings in the Clinton investigation, he preemptively declared that “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict on such evidence, a claim subsequently challenged by those as credentialed as Rudy Giuliani and Joseph diGenova, former United States attorneys for, respectively, the Southern District of New York and Washington, D.C. In both instances, Comey put nothing on the table to substantively defend his decisions. He resorted instead to insulting, ad hominem attacks on anyone who would dare to disagree with his imperial decisions — decisions that could NOT, after thorough review, be defended in any other fashion.
5. Comey abrogated his responsibility to the law and the nation
Some have theorized that this was a conscious decision by Comey to take no action because he believed that the decision to be made — in essence, to disqualify Mrs. Clinton from the presidency — was one properly reserved for the voters. In so deciding, if in fact such was his decision, his action was much more in line with the hand-washing of Pontius Pilate than with the wisdom of Solomon. The Cons ution’s system of checks and balances inherently recognizes that there are times when voters, being human, will make mistakes, and elect public officers who — also being human — will violate the laws of the nation or the Cons ution itself.
Here, Comey was not even dealing with an elected official, just one on her way to a nomination. If our system falters or ultimately collapses, those such as Mr. Comey (and, arguably, Chief Justice Roberts in the Supreme Court's ObamaCare decision) who are charged with providing the checks and balances contemplated by the Cons ution — but who could not find the courage to apply them — will have to answer to history.
Proof of intent is generally established by evaluating the actions of the suspect. Here those actions included Clinton’s unlawful establishment of a private email server, numerous “false exculpatory statements” (lies about her actions), destruction of evidence, and further lies about her lies and destruction of evidence.
Comey ignored such evidence in order to reach his negligence analysis, which, as previously discussed, is “fatally flawed.” His final justification — that no one had ever been prosecuted for a violation of subsection 793(f) — is similarly absurd. Indictment precedents are not required if the elements of a statutory violation are satisfied by the misconduct of the offender.
By definition, there always has to be a first time. By any neutral and competent analysis, Mr. Comey, this was that time. Having demonstrated that you were not up to the task of performing that analysis, you have shown America that it is time for you to go.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...ons-indictment
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
