HUFFPO says "Shut it down"

[TheBlueVue 177]

for all you Clinton lovers who stubbornly insist there simply isn't a shred of evidence that proves Clinton Foundation is corrupt, HuffPo seems to disagree.

.

"The Huffington Post is just the latest outlet to acknowledge that the explosive research, found first in Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer’s New York Times bestselling book Clinton Cash, has inspired a massive movement of journalists and political figures — on the left, right, and center — calling on the Clintons to dismantle their problematic nonprofit.

The Times piece shines the spotlight on “a deal involving the sale of American uranium holdings to a Russian state-owned enterprise” — another revelation first revealed inClinton Cash — “… which involved major Clinton charitable backers from Canada …” as “another example of the foundation intersecting with Mrs. Clinton’s official role in the Obama administration.....

In a staggering sign of vulnerability, Bill Clinton told a room full of the foundation’s staff on Thursday that he will resign from the Clinton Foundation board if Hillary Clinton wins the White House in November. The former president also pledged to stop giving paid speeches, regardless of the outcome of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. ..

“The new pledge is a stunning tacit admission of wrongdoing,” Schweizer wrote on Thursday, adding that “it comes too little too late and raises the obvious question: If it would be wrong for Hillary’s foundation to accept foreign cash as president, why wasn’t it wrong for Hillary’s foundation to accept foreign cash from oligarchs and countries who had business pending on her desk as Sec. of State?”

Schweizer continued: “Moreover, if, as has been confirmed by numerous mainstream media organizations, Hillary Clinton violated her ethics pledge with the Obama administration to disclose all Clinton Foundation donations, why should the American people believe she would now honor a new pledge to forgo bagging cash from foreign oligarchs and countries?”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/21/nail-coffin-huffington-post-calls-end-clinton-foundation-just-shut/

 

[AURaptor 1,137]

The biggest lies and the most brazen corruption goes on right out in plain sight, and Dems be all like " What corruption ?? "  

[homersapien 11,812]

I already posted a link to that article 14 hours ago

 As I said, it was a good editorial.

(But it didn't exactly say what you apparently think it did)

[TheBlueVue 177]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I already posted a link to that article 14 hours ago

 As I said, it was a good editorial.

(But it didn't exactly say what you apparently think it did)

It said exactly what I think it said...that the Clintons should go ahead and shut that sleeze bag Foundation down.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Love how Bill declares that, IF Hillary gets elected, THEN the Foundation will stop taking foreign money. Because it was perfectly fine when she was SecState, building up to her election, but now ... 

 

Domestic $ will still be taken, of course. And there's no possible way foreigners could launder money through domestic sources to then have it end up in the Foundation's account, right ? I mean, that'd be illegal !! 

[homersapien 11,812]

15 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

It said exactly what I think it said...that the Clintons should go ahead and shut that sleeze bag Foundation down.

You said:  "there simply isn't a shred of evidence that proves Clinton Foundation is corrupt, HuffPo seems to disagree."

There was nothing in the NYT article that proves the foundation is corrupt.  The article did say they should shut it down, and I agree with that, even if just for the sake of appearance. 

[TheBlueVue 177]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You said:  "there simply isn't a shred of evidence that proves Clinton Foundation is corrupt, HuffPo seems to disagree."

There was nothing in the NYT article that proves the foundation is corrupt.  The article did say they should shut it down, and I agree with that, even if just for the sake of appearance. 

Those appearances are the corruption.They handled the matter with kid gloves because they're ALL IN for the Clintons. How can you be so naive? HuffPo knows that Foundation is corrupt as hell just like the NYT does and so does everyone else who isn't all the way in the tank for the Clintons. You dont really expect either of those leftist rags to come out with anything against the Clintons ..do you?

[homersapien 11,812]

9 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Those appearances are the corruption.They handled the matter with kid gloves because they're ALL IN for the Clintons. How can you be so naive? HuffPo knows that Foundation is corrupt as hell just like the NYT does and so does everyone else who isn't all the way in the tank for the Clintons. You dont really expect either of those leftist rags to come out with anything against the Clintons ..do you?

Total BS.  Appearances don't prove anything.  At least not in our legal system.    

[TheBlueVue 177]

18 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Total BS.  Appearances don't prove anything.  At least not in our legal system.    

Is this a court of law? I mean I must have missed something. With the Clintons its always, there is no smoking gun or you cant prove wrong doing and they stonewall, lie, delay and deny until everyone is so sick of talking about it they go to the talking point this is old news. LOL

[homersapien 11,812]

3 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

Is this a court of law? I mean I must have missed something. With the Clintons its always, there is no smoking gun or you cant prove wrong doing and they stonewall, lie, delay and deny until everyone is so sick of talking about it they go to the talking point this is old news. LOL

Huffington post said nothing about actual evidence.  You implied they did.  You were wrong.

[AURaptor 1,137]

what part of " SHUT IT DOWN " didn't you get, homer ? 

 

I bet it was the IT, huh ?  Real tricky word, that. 

[homersapien 11,812]

2 hours ago, AURaptor said:

what part of " SHUT IT DOWN " didn't you get, homer ? 

 

I bet it was the IT, huh ?  Real tricky word, that. 

And I agree with that, clueless one.

 

 

[AURaptor 1,137]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

And I agree with that, clueless one.

 

 

But there's no evidence , huh?

 

weirdo

[japantiger 4,077]

The standard I try to use on all these things is the same standard I use when evaluating the actions of my teams or any proposed action I might take.... "would I accept this type of behavior from one of my kids" or "would I accept this type of answer from one of my kids" or "how would I feel if my name was attached to this and my Mom read about this in the paper".  The answers are "no", "no" and "ashamed".

 

 

[homersapien 11,812]

5 hours ago, AURaptor said:

But there's no evidence , huh?

I realize you live in a logic-free world, so let me explain:  Evidence of corruption is not required before shutting down a foundation because it's causing more political trouble than it's worth.  Let someone else take it over.  

In fact, that's pretty much what the NYT piece said, if you had taken the trouble to actually read it.

[AURaptor 1,137]

 They know, you know, and everyone knows there is plenty of evidence for corruption here. You just wont admit it, because you prefer Hillary over Trump. And because of that, your view on this topic is biased. I get that, I really do. But if you would just drop all the political BS, and see it for  what it actually is...

 Never mind.  I've wasted too much time on you already. 

[homersapien 11,812]

24 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

 They know, you know, and everyone knows there is plenty of evidence for corruption here. You just wont admit it, because you prefer Hillary over Trump. And because of that, your view on this topic is biased. I get that, I really do. But if you would just drop all the political BS, and see it for  what it actually is...

 Never mind.  I've wasted too much time on you already. 

Well you are right in that consistently making arguments of assertion without evidence is a waste of your time.  Mine too.

Did you understand the point of logic I tried to explain?

[AURaptor 1,137]

Homer - I understand far more than you. It's funny that you accuse others of being logic free. 

[homersapien 11,812]

26 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Homer - I understand far more than you. It's funny that you accuse others of being logic free. 

Yeah right. You understand so much you don't even have bother to read the article that is being discussed. 

Now, are you going to explain how one favoring shutting down the foundation necessarily means they think a crime has been committed.   How does that work, logically speaking?

[tiger88 934]

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

You said:  "there simply isn't a shred of evidence that proves Clinton Foundation is corrupt, HuffPo seems to disagree."

There was nothing in the NYT article that proves the foundation is corrupt.  The article did say they should shut it down, and I agree with that, even if just for the sake of appearance. 

Lol. Wallow in your suport of Hillary. You know the worst is coming. You know. They are hooked to the iceberg and ready to bring it up for all to see.

Trump in a landslide. I will bet Hillary weasels out of the debates if she is a candidate when they come around. 

 

Maybe they can get michelle obama to replace her, lol. 

[tiger88 934]

36 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Homer - I understand far more than you. It's funny that you accuse others of being logic free. 

Poor old homer is drowning in denial. He will soon accept that he hitched his wagon to a sociopathic, self seving, pathologically lying spawn from hades. Lol. 

[homersapien 11,812]

10 minutes ago, tiger88 said:

Lol. Wallow in your suport of Hillary. You know the worst is coming. You know. They are hooked to the iceberg and ready to bring it up for all to see.

Trump in a landslide. I will bet Hillary weasels out of the debates if she is a candidate when they come around. 

 

Maybe they can get michelle obama to replace her, lol. 

I didn't see a question or comment about my post in that.  Was there one?

 

[tiger88 934]

Just now, homersapien said:

I didn't see a question or comment about my post in that.  Was there one?

 

Well, at least you're not totally blind, lol. 

[homersapien 11,812]

9 minutes ago, tiger88 said:

Poor old homer is drowning in denial. He will soon accept that he hitched his wagon to a sociopathic, self seving, pathologically lying spawn from hades. Lol. 

LOL indeed. 

But let's not get too far away from the specific issue in contention.  Since you feel like joining in, perhaps you can help.  So, since Raptor seems at a loss, let me ask you:

Can you explain how one favoring shutting down the foundation necessarily means they think a crime has been committed.   How does that work, logically speaking?

[WDavE 332]

The Uranium One deal would be enough alone to take down most politicians.

 

Bill and Hillary Clinton had helped a Canadian financier named Frank Giustra and a small Canadian company obtain a lucrative uranium mining concession from the dictator in Kazakhstan;

–The same Canadian company, renamed Uranium One, bought uranium concessions in the United States;

–The Russian government came calling and sought to buy that Canadian company for a price that would mean big profits for the Canadian investors;

–For the Russians to buy that Canadian company, it would require the approval of the Obama administration, including Hillary’s State Department, because uranium is a strategically important commodity;

–Nine shareholders in Uranium One just happened to provide more than $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation in the run-up to State Department approval;

–Some of the donations, including those from the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Teler, were kept secret, even though the Clintons promised to disclose all donations;

 

 

Now close your eyes and try to imagine a Republican doing the same thing.

 One more thing who do you think Iran bought the uranium from to fuel their reactors? (Russia)