Who can fill me in on this controversy regarding donations made by foreign entities/governments? I haven't followed it closely. Heard a joke about it last night during the Washington Press Corp dinner.

 

Too lazy to spend much time yet looking it up.

Book is written by someone on the far right. No facts at all and absolutely nothing to back up what is in the book. It at most deals with time lines, but no facts, no proof.

 

To me it's a money grab, the author knows that some on the right will eat this up and go out and buy his book that has no facts and no proof. The only people who will buy the book or rely in it's information would have never voted for Hillary in a million years anyway. And people who would vote for Hillary, including independents and undecided voters will never buy the book, again, no facts, no proof.

 

Like I said, it's a money grab, the author will make money off of those on the right wing on a book with no facts and no proof.

M.

Book is written by someone on the far right. No facts at all and absolutely nothing to back up what is in the book. It at most deals with time lines, but no facts, no proof.

 

To me it's a money grab, the author knows that some on the right will eat this up and go out and buy his book that has no facts and no proof. The only people who will buy the book or rely in it's information would have never voted for Hillary in a million years anyway. And people who would vote for Hillary, including independents and undecided voters will never buy the book, again, no facts, no proof.

 

Like I said, it's a money grab, the author will make money off of those on the right wing on a book with no facts and no proof.

 

All you do is attack the author without facts of your own. Typical of what the Clinton's do, demean and attack the individual, never answer the question with information.

Don't know anything about it. I'm sure it will all be vetted and we will be able to determine the truth vs the rumors.

y

Book is written by someone on the far right. No facts at all and absolutely nothing to back up what is in the book. It at most deals with time lines, but no facts, no proof.

 

To me it's a money grab, the author knows that some on the right will eat this up and go out and buy his book that has no facts and no proof. The only people who will buy the book or rely in it's information would have never voted for Hillary in a million years anyway. And people who would vote for Hillary, including independents and undecided voters will never buy the book, again, no facts, no proof.

 

Like I said, it's a money grab, the author will make money off of those on the right wing on a book with no facts and no proof.

 

Spoken like a true acolyte of Jerry Lundergran who is a lap dog for the Clinton's.

The tidbits I've heard mention the Foundation taking donations from countries like Saudi Arabia. As the Foundation is supposed to be (in part) an entity to push for the rights of women, there are those who feel it is hypocritical of the Foundation to have accepted these contributions. I haven't delved into it. This is just what I understand from what I've read.

Book is written by someone on the far right. No facts at all and absolutely nothing to back up what is in the book. It at most deals with time lines, but no facts, no proof.

 

To me it's a money grab, the author knows that some on the right will eat this up and go out and buy his book that has no facts and no proof. The only people who will buy the book or rely in it's information would have never voted for Hillary in a million years anyway. And people who would vote for Hillary, including independents and undecided voters will never buy the book, again, no facts, no proof.

 

Like I said, it's a money grab, the author will make money off of those on the right wing on a book with no facts and no proof.

 

How do you defend the following.

 

The New York Times has a report about the State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium mines to a Russian company that donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, and that a Russian investment bank promoting the deal paid Bill $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.

The Disastrous Clinton Post-Presidency -- NYMag

M.

 

All you do is attack the author without facts of your own. Typical of what the Clinton's do, demean and attack the individual, never answer the question with information.

 

y

 

Spoken like a true acolyte of Jerry Lundergran who is a lap dog for the Clinton's.

 

Typical of what Clinton haters do. Demean and attack Clinton supporters without ever answering the question or with information. Such a vicious cycle.

How do you defend the following.

 

The New York Times has a report about the State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium mines to a Russian company that donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, and that a Russian investment bank promoting the deal paid Bill $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.

The Disastrous Clinton Post-Presidency -- NYMag

 

Not good.

Typical of what Clinton haters do. Demean and attack Clinton supporters without ever answering the question or with information. Such a vicious cycle.

 

You may be to young to have experienced the Clinton's. All they know is how to attack those who oppose them. Never answering what they are accused of, just like when Bill said he "never had sex with that woman". Yet it was proven he did have a relationship with "that woman".

You may be to young to have experienced the Clinton's. All they know is how to attack those who oppose them. Never answering what they are accused of, just like when Bill said he "never had sex with that woman". Yet it was proven he did have a relationship with "that woman".

 

I began voting in 1992.

 

I'm speaking more on how party lines are held strong and no constructive dialogue is done by either side. One party attacks the other. Lines in the sand are drawn. Dialogue is then ruined.

I began voting in 1992.

 

I'm speaking more on how party lines are held strong and no constructive dialogue is done by either side. One party attacks the other. Lines in the sand are drawn. Dialogue is then ruined.

 

In that respect, BGP is a microcosm.

You may be to young to have experienced the Clinton's. All they know is how to attack those who oppose them. Never answering what they are accused of, just like when Bill said he "never had sex with that woman". Yet it was proven he did have a relationship with "that woman".

 

To be honest the attacks were reciprocal.

 

Bill is a master politician in the worst sense of the word. And yet he got things done with a Republican Congress.

Typical of what Clinton haters do. Demean and attack Clinton supporters without ever answering the question or with information. Such a vicious cycle.

 

Just taking a page from their playbook.

You may be to young to have experienced the Clinton's. All they know is how to attack those who oppose them. Never answering what they are accused of, just like when Bill said he "never had sex with that woman". Yet it was proven he did have a relationship with "that woman".

 

Yeah ask Vincent Foster's family how they feel about the Clintons.