Last time I checked explicit pay for play is illegal, so clearly the govt cares. Hard to skirt quid pro quo when it's caught in writing.
But that isn't "explicit" Again, words have meanings. All that says is someone who donated to the campaign/foundation ended up with a job. Which is what happens all the time. It doesn't "explicitly" say they paid for a job. At the beginning of new administration, there are literally thousands of jobs to fill. And who do you think they're filling them with? Donors.
Pretty much proof Hillary was using the State Department in a pay for play scheme. People would donate the Clinton Foundation, and she would use her position to do favors for them. This is super illegal, and probably why the FBI wouldn't comment if the were doing an investigation into the Foundation during her email investigation.
I never understand the "Gays for Hillary" when her Clinton Foundation is built upon the donations from Muslim countries that torture LGBTQ and classify women as 2nd class citizens yet her campaign is built on Women and LGBTQ rights but yet she was quick to cash anti women and anti LGBT checks from multiple Muslim countries
but "Gays for Hillary's" don't know this because they don't fact check their candidate that's the tragic part in all of this
And there is a difference between giving a donor a job and foundation money being used to request favors of a govt official, but you knew that.
Hardly, because the same thing is going on with both sides No one said "Hi, I donated $40,000, I'm now calling in my favor!!". Friends of the campaign (and in this special circumstance, the foundation) will be given favors, invites to parties, jobs, etc. Everyone already knows this happens. Again, nobody actually cares.
I never understand the "Gays for Hillary" when her Clinton Foundation is built upon the donations from Muslim countries that torture LGBTQ and classify women as 2nd class citizens yet her campaign is built on Women and LGBTQ rights but yet she was quick to cash anti women and anti LGBT checks from multiple Muslim countries
but "Gays for Hillary's" don't know this because they don't fact check their candidate that's the tragic part in all of this
So what? If I run a charity, I don't care who's giving me money. It's a charity, ran off of donations
But that isn't "explicit" Again, words have meanings. All that says is someone who donated to the campaign/foundation ended up with a job. Which is what happens all the time. It doesn't "explicitly" say they paid for a job. At the beginning of new administration, there are literally thousands of jobs to fill. And who do you think they're filling them with? Donors.
Hillary signed a document saying she would not participate in any matter involving specific parties in the foundation, yet here she is granting favors and handing out jobs to unqualified individuals. If that's not blatant corruption I don't know what is.
Imagine being so ****ing brain dead and whipped by the worst candidate in US history that you defend his calls for violence (whether towards Hillary or not). Reevaluate your life. Shut the **** up and wait 4 years until a true champion for your conservative ideals is at the top of the ticket.
“No trying-to-be objective and fair journalist, no citizen who cares about the country and its future can ignore what Donald Trump said today. When he suggested that “The Second Amendment People” can stop Hillary Clinton he crossed a line with dangerous potential. By any objective analysis, this is a new low and unprecedented in the history of American presidential politics. This is no longer about policy, civility, decency or even temperament. This is a direct threat of violence against a political rival. It is not just against the norms of American politics, it raises a serious question of whether it is against the law. If any other citizen had said this about a Presidential candidate, would the Secret Service be investigating?
Candidate Trump will undoubtably issue an explanation; some of his surrogates are already engaged in trying to gloss it over, but once the words are out there they cannot be taken back. That is what inciting violence means.
To anyone who still pretends this is a normal election of Republican against Democrat, history is watching. And I suspect its verdict will be harsh. Many have tried to do a side-shuffle and issue statements saying they strongly disagree with his rhetoric but still support the candidate. That is becoming woefully insufficient. The rhetoric is the candidate.”
Last time I checked explicit pay for play is illegal, so clearly the govt cares. Hard to skirt quid pro quo when it's caught in writing.
The issue with this accusation is wether or not the person was actually given a government position, and wether it was given based on merit and career accomplishments or purely on the basis of being a donor. I'm going to lean more towards the merit option, as someone who has enough money to be a regular donor to any political campaign certainly would not work for a government wage, and the minute political influence gained would not be worth the effort and time required by the job itself.
1. Why have you yet to answer my question about what "second amendment people" could do once she's already elected and picking judges?
2. Those literally are not "facts". Words have meanings.
I did answer it, they can stand up for any rights she or they try to strip. Protest, vote, How exactly, I don't know I'm not a fortune teller. What I did say is that your assertion that assassination was implied is wrong. Point is people concerned about the second amendment have a right to be concerned.
Obviously we wouldn't have proof of a bribe but the sequence of events is entirely accurate and much can be deduced. literal corruption right in front of your face yet you're obsessing over a throwaway comment made live that was highly vague and did nothing but reiterate part of our constitution. She really has y'all fooled, I'm sorry.
Hillary signed a document saying she would not participate in any matter involving specific parties in the foundation, yet here she granting favors and handing out jobs to unqualified individuals. If that's not blatant corruption I don't know what is.
That's 46 pages, you're going to have to tell me which. And you must not know what "explicit" means. Unless someone said "This person donated lots of money to the foundation, this means they get a job" then it isn't explicit and it doesn't break the terms of her agreement (which I'm pretty sure didn't say people who donated to the Foundation couldn't work at State). Sorry.
The issue with this accusation is wether or not the person was actually given a government position, and wether it was given based on merit and career accomplishments or purely on the basis of being a donor. I'm going to lean more towards the merit option, as someone who has enough money to be a regular donor to any political campaign certainly would not work for a government wage, and the minute political influence gained would not be worth the effort and time required by the job itself.
We already have proof she handed out one to someone who was not qualified to be on the board.
So what? If I run a charity, I don't care who's giving me money. It's a charity, ran off of donations
That's the point good sis, Anti Women and Anti LGBTQ money isn't being used to benefit the oppressed people in those Muslim countries its being used to benefit American charities
It's beyond debate at this point that Hillary and her influence are for sale to the highest bidder. This "everybody does it" BS doesn't fly, sorry. Especially when some of these people aren't even Dem donors, but donors to her private foundation.
That's the point good sis, Anti Women and Anti LGBTQ money isn't being used to benefit the oppressed people in those Muslim countries its being used to benefit American charities
While they suffer, we benefit
The Clinton Foundation does amazing work, most of which is not in/for the United States. That money is being used greatly to benefit people in the developing world, with women and girls being Hillary's top priority when she was at the foundation.
It's beyond debate at this point that Hillary and her influence are for sale to the highest bidder. This "everybody does it" BS doesn't fly, sorry. Especially when some of these people aren't even Dem donors, but donors to her private foundation.
The current administration is FILLED with donors. Everyone does do it, and it DOES fly, because it DOES happen and NOBODY cares It's not about being a "dem donor", it's about being a "friend" of the family (whether that's of the campaign, administration, foundation or whatever).
Also on that "everybody does it" excuse, what other govt official has their top aide working in both a govt role and working at the foundation where she signed a agreement she would not be involved in? I mean, hello conflict of interest. This emails just seal the deal.
The current administration is FILLED with donors. Everyone does do it, and it DOES fly, because it DOES happen and NOBODY cares It's not about being a "dem donor", it's about being a "friend" of the family (whether that's of the campaign, administration, foundation or whatever).
#CrookedHillary16
Who? Please name these unqualified people you claim are all over the administration.
I mean, I really don't care. The point is: everyone gives favors to donors.
As for Huma, I would need to see the terms of Hillary's agreement. Most top government officials don't have Presidents for spouses so obviously there's no precedent
Again, words have meanings. All that says is someone who donated to the campaign/foundation ended up with a job. Which is what happens all the time. It doesn't "explicitly" say they paid for a job. At the beginning of new administration, there are literally thousands of jobs to fill. And who do you think they're filling them with? Donors.
It's not about being a "dem donor", it's about being a "friend" of the family (whether that's of the campaign, administration, foundation or whatever).