Clinton Foundation / Clinton Wealth questions linger (POL)

HEY! I didn't get a Mercedes, or is this really some baseless claim about paid shills for fox news.

I don't watch it, but can I still sign up?

I wasn't going to touch that, can't say I had a laugh riot going on in my head and didn't cross my mind..but I left it alone.Altho since it was a farm related post one could easily...nahhh...too tooo easy. Leave Glenn alone he's somewhat of a defenseless sheep as it is. Unless he wants to come back with one of his "EPIC FAIL" type reply's, then you're in trouble.

Here, let me cut to the chase through all this noise.

There's a fair chance that Sec'y Clinton won't be our next President. Things do come up, minds do change.

But right now, she's unquestionably the single most likely person to be our next President come 2017.



She wakes up every morning with 247 of the 270 electoral votes she'll need sitting in her back pocket.
And that's if you deny her the 22 in Virginia and Colorado, which'll be really hard for a Hillary Clinton to lose.



Sprinkle in a rebounding Nevada that even Pres. Obama carried in a much more troubled 2012, and she won't even need Ohio or Florida (though they're easily within her grasp).

The GOP, meanwhile, doesn't have a candidate that Americans will support, let alone vote for over her.

Jeb Bush? The guy just said that, knowing what we know know, he'd still invade Iraq like his brother did. WTF? Even Laura Ingraham thinks that's idiotic.

Scott Walker? He can't beat Hillary in his own state, how's he going to win in Ohio?

The rest of that clown bus?



All just auditioning for Fox News shows and book deals. At best, they're hoping for a VP nom (which they can turn into better Fox News shows and book deals).

The Clinton Foundation and its associated Clinton Global Initiative will not pose a problem for her. At all. The Clintons are far too smart to build a foundation that'd undercut their obvious, longterm plan for another Clinton presidency. The Clintons are a lot of things, but they're not insanely stupid.

But if it occupies the opposition, diverts them from her true weaknesses (arrogance, dismissiveness, unjustified hawkishness, fealty to big business), I'm sure she'll send out sweet thank-you notes.

So have at it fellas.

I got to pay our bills..


US OK'd most Bill Clinton speech requests within days

"...Its standard response, fired off in a short memo: "We have no objection."

That decision remained unchanged even after the Justice Department announced just months later, in August 2010, that Barclays Bank agreed to pay nearly $300 million in penalties for violating financial sanctions against Iran, Cuba, Sudan, Libya and Burma. The long-running case had hardly been a secret: Barclays had openly acknowledged in its annual reports - as recently as the same month as Clinton's 2010 request - that it was under investigation by the Justice Department and others for sanctions violations, and it cautioned that the impact on its profits "could be substantial."

In November, the former president mingled with top Barclays executives and clients at a bank-sponsored question session in Singapore. A little more than two months later, he again joined Barclays officers and clients at an exclusive dinner in Davos, Switzerland. The two appearances for Barclays netted Bill Clinton $650,000..."

"..The potential "first dude" has said he intends to continue accepting speaking fees during the presidential campaign.

"I got to pay our bills," he said in an interview with NBC's "Today Show" last week.

"...Taken together, the State Department and financial disclosure documents show the agency sped through Bill Clinton's steady stream of requests for events while rarely raising concerns about potential conflicts. At the same time, the agency's ethics office, which had primary responsibility for the decisions, was hobbled by "strained program operations," according to a 2012 report by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, the government's top ethics agency.

State Department ethics officials gave quick approval, for example, for the two Barclays appearances and events paid by other international banks under legal scrutiny. Bill Clinton's $200,000 appearance in Florida for British-based HSBC in 2011 was cleared despite an ongoing federal money-laundering investigation that led to a 2012 settlement with prosecutors.

Five U.S. events in 2011 and 2012 earned the former president $840,000 from the wealth management unit of UBS Bank less than two years after the Swiss bank had acknowledged a massive tax evasion scheme aiding American clients and paid $780 million in penalties. The banks declined to comment about their dealings with the former president.."



https://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_CLINTON_BILLS_SPEECHES?SITE=SCAND&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Whats your objection? Your upset he's making a living? That sounds alot like class-envy (as Mitt would call it)

PS - thank you for showing Bill Clinton primarily earns his income through speaking engagements and not his charity like uinformed hacks have said on this thread.

Romney put his assets in a blind trust while he was running for president. Ted Cruz's wife resigned from Goldman to prevent any possible conflict of interest charges. Having bill continue to give speeches to companies and countries doing business while his wife is running for president with the US is a conflict of interest

The Clinton's are one of the richest families in the country. Bill could skip a few speeches

"Romney's Blind trust" . That's hilarious. The only thing that was blind was his hidden tax records.
Romney's Blind trust managed by his best friend

You're going to need a serious bean-counter if you are going to keep track of all the "big dollar speeches given to special interest groups" during campaign season. If thats your attack against the Clintons then you will be standing in front of a giant glass house.

He gave his money to his lawyer to manage, who do you think should manage it? Who is managing the Clinton fortune?

Romney would be comfortable testifying under oath about his "blind trust". He would answer with straight, no BS answers. Hillary, on the other hand, would argue the "definition of is is".

Bill quote with help from Hillary.


"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."