It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"If This Does Not Disqualify Hillary For The Presidency, It's Hard To Know What Will"

page: 3
71
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
so....a 2-term ex-president and his wife set up a charitable foundation, and wealthy people donated to these various charities located around the world, and these charities help poor people.....how is this a criminal enterprise?.....



It's a criminal enterprise when payments made to that foundation give people preference for face time with the Secretary of State. I would venture to say that, given the thousands of entities world wide that could use face time with the US Secretary, the fact that more than 55% of them just also happened to be Clinton Donors is statistically improbable.




posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: chuck258

originally posted by: jimmyx
so....a 2-term ex-president and his wife set up a charitable foundation, and wealthy people donated to these various charities located around the world, and these charities help poor people.....how is this a criminal enterprise?.....



It's a criminal enterprise when payments made to that foundation give people preference for face time with the Secretary of State. I would venture to say that, given the thousands of entities world wide that could use face time with the US Secretary, the fact that more than 55% of them just also happened to be Clinton Donors is statistically improbable.


Just curious. What is the law against that? Is there an actual law broken?

Honestly, when it comes to Clinton, real factual information is rare.

I am trying to understand what are the real facts.




State Department officials have said they are not aware of any agency actions influenced by the Clinton Foundation. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Tuesday night that there are no prohibitions against agency contacts with "political campaigns, non-profits or foundations — including the Clinton Foundation." He added that "meeting requests, recommendations and proposals come to the department through a variety of channels, both formal and informal." elections.ap.org...

edit on 29-8-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed

originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: Sublimecraft
Very astute observation.Assange is simply the messenger.He didn't write the incriminating emails.



If WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange lives long enough to carry out his threat to release more dirt on Clinton maybe it will be the final nail in the coffin of corruption for the Clintons. I still have my doubts though ... Welcome to the US of A Banana republic.
stream.org...



I've heard this sentiment about Assange echoed many times. It seems obvious to me that it doesn't matter so much if Assange gets murdered because anyone in their right mind would have a whole support team behind them if they held such valuable information.

If Assange dies, not only will the information still surface, but he'll be martyred and even more attention will be drawn to the Clintons & co.
He just happens to be the mouthpiece.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky
Actually out of the 154 people who had face time with the USA's Secretary of state more than half were you guessed it "Clinton foundation donors !"
www.zerohedge.com...


You might want to catch up on that and fact-check?



To generate the 154 figure, the AP excluded from the denominator all employees of any government, whether US or foreign. Then when designing social media collateral, it just left out that part, because the truth is less striking and shareable.

www.vox.com...

Associated Press botches Hillary Clinton report and response



This "extraordinary" finding, as the AP put it, was deemed less extraordinary by other journalists and pundits who noted that Clinton had held thousands of meetings with government employees, foreign representatives, civil leaders, journalists and others while Secretary of State that were not accounted for in the AP's report.

money.cnn.com...

Bottom line was that the AP in order to come up with the "Half" headline..

Excluded thousands of meetings with anyone employed with a government (domestic or foreign), journalists, civil leaders etc. etc. to wittle it down to 154 meetings vs. thousands...then said half of the remainder was Clinton Foundation donors...

Hate her all you like, but facts matter...math matters...the claim was bunk



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5


They need to numbers to screw the results...

Adding in the day to day meetings between her and government employees paints a false picture.

I see no problem with having a control group that does not consider what should have been a daily part of an SoS's routine... meeting with other government employees and what not.

Please ignore all those people who received meetings and favors from Hillary after donating to her foundation.....it is just not fair not to include her daily duties because it doesn't look so bad when you throw in her normal day to day meetings because without that, well dammit it make it looks like what it was...quid pro quo and we cannot ever admit our queen was doing a little dirty business on the side.

Yes sir if we throw in those meetings that she would have done regardless, because they were part of her job, that helps us obscure those meetings with foundation donors. That's the ticket.

Because it looks bad when you have:

Meeting with donor
Meeting with donor
Meeting with donor

as opposed to:

Meeting with President
Meeting with donor
Meeting with a congress person
Meeting with Head of CIA
Meeting with donor
Meeting with Secretary of Defense
Meeting with donor

Easier to hide meetings with donors when you bury them under legit meetings.

Same ole same ole. God save the queen... if (s)he can't, then certain ATS posters will die trying.




edit on R342016-08-29T15:34:26-05:00k348Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Indigo5

I see no problem with having a control group that does not consider what should have been daily part of an SoS's routine... meeting with other government employees and what not.




LOL...They excluded not just our government officials, plus journalists, plus civic leaders etc. but OTHER government's officials from the base calculation...and meeting with people from foreign governments is in fact part of "an SoS's routine"...it's actually a HUGE part of what a SoS does..They trimmed thousands of meetings down to 154 to claim that "half" bit.

The CEO of the AP itself has called that figure "sloppy"...

Ya got your Hillary-Hate blinders on and it is messing with your common sense ..
edit on 29-8-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5




Excluded thousands of meetings with anyone employed with a government (domestic or foreign)

Correct.
The list excluded foreign government employees, which BTW included a lot of donors!



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I don't understand the attacks on Hillary. All it will do is give Trump more support. The odds of an independent candidate winning or almost null.

We're choosing the lesser of two evils. And Hillary isn't evne that bad.

And remember FACTS, people, not speculation or "I just don't like her, so don't vote for her!" I understand many of us are partisan.
edit on 8/29/2016 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

Hate her all you like, but facts matter...math matters...the claim was bunk


Thank you. Facts people, facts.

I was listening to a radio discussion on this the other day.

Conclusion was it could be questionable ethics - - - depending on who's side you're on. But, nothing illegal.

I'm trying to verify if that is correct.
edit on 29-8-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Why wouldn't they exclude other government leaders?

The point is to expose meetings with donors to the Clinton foundation... not to expose the daily normal routine of a secretary of state.


You do not want to see that Hillary Clinton met with 100 donors to the Clinton Foundation over a years time.

You NEED to see that Hilary Clinton met with 1,000 people during a years time and 100 of those donated to her foundation. Because to you, hey she only met with donors to her foundation 10% of the time... no big deal.

Save the queen at all costs.

Nothing but using number bias to prove your point. You accuse the AP of number bias, and then want to throw in a bunch of numbers that really have nothing to do with donors to the Clinton Foundation to water down the results and make the percentages more palatable to a pro Hillary point of view.




edit on R532016-08-29T15:53:49-05:00k538Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)

edit on R562016-08-29T15:56:57-05:00k568Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

This is about campaign donors, so any restriction on 'charity donors' would be even looser, I would assume.



Is It Illegal To Do Favors for Campaign Donors?

Answer: If a senator were to write a letter saying, "Dear Big Donor: Give my campaign $1,000 and I will vote to renew the tax break for your industry," and if Big Donor were to donate $1,000, that would constitute illegal bribery. But anything short of that, in terms of evidence or context, is either not illegal or impossible to prosecute. For example, a campaign donation after the fact--"Thanks for voting yes, senator. Here's $1,000 for your re-election"--is perfectly legal, even though the connection between the donation and the vote is explicit. And of course in most cases there is no evidence of an explicit connection.


Source

It's very hard for people to accept that it hasn't and will not be proven that she broke any law. The Clintons play 'by the book' and are too smart and politically savvy to do anything that could get her in real trouble with the law.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Indigo5

Why wouldn't they exclude other government leaders?

The point is to expose meetings with donors to the Clinton foundation... not to expose the daily normal routine of a secretary of state.

You do not want to see that Hillary Clinton met with 100 donors to the Clinton Foundation over a years time.




Then the article should have explained that Hillary Clinton met with 84 people while SoS who had contributed to the Clinton Foundation.

Not 100 BTW...Math matters..

But instead they examined literally 1000's of meetings and felt the 84 number to be not headline grabbing enough...

So they excluded virtually every meeting that was related to her work..1000's until they whittled it down to 154 meetings ...then claimed this..

originally posted by: 727Sky

Actually out of the 154 people who had face time with the USA's Secretary of state more than half were you guessed it "Clinton foundation donors !"


When of course she had "face time" meetings with thousands of people over her time as SoS.

It's dishonest, inaccurate, mathematically false...and the fact that you pretend it isn't just for the sake of perpetuating and selling an anti-Hillary view is just kind of sad to me. Not because I like Hillary, but because I would never spend my credibility on any political nonsense. You seem like a smart and passionate poster even if our views are different, but I don't get how you defend bunk claims as truth just because they benefit your political view.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

So tell me... whats the damn difference between saying Hillary Clinton met with 100 donors or saying that Hillary Clinton met with 1000 people of which, 100 were Clinton Foundation donors.


Either freaking way... she met with 100 donors to her foundation.

It is just using number bias to perpetuate the results that you want.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickinVa
So tell me... whats the damn difference between saying Hillary Clinton met with 100 donors or saying that Hillary Clinton met with 1000 people of which, 100 were Clinton Foundation donors.


You're right, it doesn't make a difference. What DOES make a difference is if any of her work as SoS was influenced by ANY of those donation. THAT'S the only important piece of information. And no one has shown that it was.

All this talk about her meeting with donors to the foundation is meaningless, unless one can show that her work was influenced. Drawing conclusions that 'her work had to be influenced' is simply suspicion.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I look at it like this.....

AP says 85 out of 154.

Clinton Campaign cries foul, says 154 isn't a fair number....

Who cares.

What I am seeing is someone who spent 48 months as SOS... AP says in those 48 months, she met with donors AT LEAST 85 times.

85/48 = 1.77 or rounded up 2.

So I see a Government servant who wasted government time and resources meeting an average of two times a month with donors to her Foundation.


"All this talk about her meeting with donors to the foundation is meaningless, unless one can show that her work was influenced."

I almost agree... I do not think she has to be influenced to be in violation of Ethic rules....I think the mere fact that if whether or not someone was a donor to her foundation was a factor in her or her staff scheduling meetings with her, then that in itself in a violation of ethics.

Evidently, donating to the Clinton Foundation was determining factor in whether someone got a face to face with the Hillster. That I have a problem with.
edit on R072016-08-29T17:07:38-05:00k078Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: 727Sky

So the "issue" that is going to take Hillary out is the one that the FBI already investigated and found no grounds for prosecution?


Yes.


Seems like Trump supporters are continuing their desperate hope of taking down Clinton with the same old tired stories.


As that is all they have, they realise Trump is losing badly.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: 727Sky
regardless of the corruption and illegal acts she has been accused of committing the justice department will not prosecute her


They need this thing called "EVIDENCE" to bring a case for prosecution.... despite what you want!


Even if she was found guilty of half the time honored laws she has evidently broken


Care to show us this "EVIDENCE" you apparently have?



Missing E-mails are evidence. Just like blank tape. Cant erase e-mails in that capacity.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


Like wow who is going to step up first and basically confess to bribing the SOS.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

My bad. I thought there had to be a conviction before a pardon. It seemed to me that Nixon was guilty of perjury or something. I'll chalk that up to the Mandella Effect.


Thanks for setting that straight.




posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Still inerested? Still think there is hope? Maybe



The Scary TRUTH About Hillary Clinton (Hillary Clinton illuminati Witch Exposed Full Documentary)




Hillary Clinton - A TRUE STORY OF SEX, DRUGS & MURDER




And finally, if you want to see a long documentary exposing the sordid full histroy of the Clintonistas:

Hillary's America/Chronicles Shocking Documentary/Movie!!





For my own political take on the famous [or infamous] Hillary - Here is a political satire I wrote here on ATS:

The Witch Queen who took over the World !
www.abovetopsecret.com...


And if you still believe that there is hope another political satire:

The Real Estate Mogul Who Trumped the Witch and Conquered the World !
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 29-8-2016 by AlienView because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join