This is going well.

This is going well.

 

Are you surprised??:idunno:

This is going well.

 

Then I will say this, while C. Clinton was a senator and Sec of State, she has little if any skills to be President. She was elected and appointed due to who she was, not based upon any political or diplomatic skills. Even if I believed if she had such skills I would not for her, as I oppose the liberal policies she supports. If Humphrey or Carter were too liberal for me, no way I vote for this Clinton.

To answer Clyde' original question and to dispute people saying this is a non issue.

 

The New York Times , Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post are all raising questions on the findings . After Clinton supporters orginally came out attacking the author , the Clinton Foundation has now admitted to not disclosing Foreign donations.

 

While there is no proof yet of criminal wrong doing there is enough evidence now to call for a much more detailed investigation. The foundation received a 2.35 million dollar donation from an official with a company at the sametime Hillary Clinton's state department approved his companies takeover of a a Uranium company that is now under Russian control. At the sametime Bill Clinton received 500k to speak in Russia from a bank directly tied to the Kremlin.

 

Right now there is no smoking gun to say 100% those funds influenced the decision but any reasonable person can look at the time lines and when money exchanged hands and raise questions.

 

This is only one instance that has been uncovered. Anyone calling this a smear job either didn't read some of the detailed reports out there or refuses to admit the truth.

 

What we do know at the very least the Clintons broke their agreement with Obama Administration on disclosure. At worst with a more detailed investigation we may find criminal behavior took place.

And WE ALL KNOW they wouldn't have admitted any mistakes or try to fix them unless they were caught.

Everything that comes out isn't a WITCH HUNT. Sometimes someone decides to expose the corruption, which is a good thing.

And WE ALL KNOW they wouldn't have admitted any mistakes or try to fix them unless they were caught.

Everything that comes out isn't a WITCH HUNT. Sometimes someone decides to expose the corruption, which is a good thing.

Is this a story that needs investigating? Yes. I think so. Is this also a "witch hunt" to derail Hillary by the tax-dodging owner of Fox News? Absolutely. Which is why Peter Schweizer, author of "Clinton Cash," got a huge block of time yesterday on "Fox News Sunday" with Chris Wallace. Like every other book on the Clintons, it'll have its two weeks in the sun, then fade away.

The Clinton's are famous (infamous?) for pay-for-play activity.

 

Remember Travel-gate? At its heart was the fact that the long-serving non-partisan WH travel office refused to engage an Arkansas charter-flight company with connections to Clintons. With that the office came under direct personal and legal attack. And after a trial where the head of that department was found innocent of all charges initiated by the Clintons (most put the blame on Hillary) it was stated that Hillary misrepresented numerous facts. A nice way to say - she lied to investigators.

 

Its is clearly in government documents:

 

House Report 104-849 - INVESTIGATION OF THE WHITE HOUSE TRAVEL OFFICE FIRINGS AND RELATED MATTERS

 

From above House report:

 

 

"The initial response by White House officials when faced with a press hostile to the firings was to hide the truth. They withheld the full scope and extent of Harry Thomason's favor- seeking at the White House, misrepresented the Peat Marwick review and repeatedly maligned the seven fired Travel Office employees. When that did not work and the press raised issues of cronyism and patronage, on May 21, the White House press office summoned the FBI spokesperson to the White House to edit the FBI's press statements in an effort to bolster the White House's story."

 

 

If you search 'misrepresent' in the above you will get lots of hits.

 

Fast forward to the Clinton Foundation and Haiti.

 

Clinton Foundation acknowledges 2010 donation broke Obama administration agreement - CNNPolitics.com

In 2008, before Hillary Clinton became Obama's secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation and the Obama administration signed an agreement that outlined how the foundation would deal with conflict of interest questions but still be allowed to continue its philanthropic work.One aspect of the agreement was that the Clinton Foundation would stop taking new foreign donations, except from those countries that had previously donated to the foundation and didn't increase their contributions.

 

 

So yes, the Clinton Foundation definitely was taking money from foreign elements.

 

And after an earthquake in Haiti the Clinton Foundation provided considerable funding to the Haitian government for humanitarian aid. And apparently much that money did come from foreign sources.

 

Did the Clinton's, especially Hillary or her family, get anything out of this aid? There is the question.

 

Tony Rodham is on the board of VCS Mining. VCS Mining mines gold. Where is VCS's apparently sole 'project' - Haiti.

 

VCS Mining LLC | Haiti

 

From above:

Even though Haiti's mineral potential is similar to that found in the Dominican Republic, it has remained under-explored. VCS Mining now has the ability to open this prime land for development.

 

Emphasis added.

 

A WaPo article in situation. As it states - there are blurred lines.

 

How the Clintons? Haiti development plans succeed ? and disappoint - The Washington Post

 

A couple of articles on the subject - one from WaPo, one from UK press.

 

Role of Hillary Clinton?s brother in Haiti gold mine raises eyebrows - The Washington Post

 

Hillary Clinton's brother landed lucrative gold-mining permit in Haiti after Bill Clinton helped country recover from earthquake devastation | Daily Mail Online

 

This should give all a view of the issue at hand.

Is this a story that needs investigating? Yes. I think so. Is this also a "witch hunt" to derail Hillary by the tax-dodging owner of Fox News? Absolutely. Which is why Peter Schweizer, author of "Clinton Cash," got a huge block of time yesterday on "Fox News Sunday" with Chris Wallace. Like every other book on the Clintons, it'll have its two weeks in the sun, then fade away.

 

Who cares if its Fox News, at least they report it, I sure dont see any of the other liberal networks reporting it.

 

If we elect a Republican POTUS then I hope someone keeps them in check too, then I hope MSNBC does their job as a news reporter and makes sure no wrong doing is being done, and I hope Fox News would do the same.

Is this a story that needs investigating? Yes. I think so. Is this also a "witch hunt" to derail Hillary by the tax-dodging owner of Fox News? Absolutely. Which is why Peter Schweizer, author of "Clinton Cash," got a huge block of time yesterday on "Fox News Sunday" with Chris Wallace. Like every other book on the Clintons, it'll have its two weeks in the sun, then fade away.

 

From what I've had a chance to read up on the situation, he has now set his sights on Jeb Bush. I'm sure MSNBC will provide a comparable time for him when that book is published.

 

Hillary has a growing problem from the left. Is anyone really surprised?

Post 6, 7, 19 and 22 seem to be good info on this subject...at least they don't seem to be just comment without backing facts. FWIW I think the Saudis have given a donation to every Presidential Library after the Presidents left office.

 

Approving deals on a quid pro quo basis would seem to be more problematic...If Hillary was authorizing "Business Deals" as SS and then Pres.Clinton gets paid later, that would seem to be more than a bit fishy.

 

Of the 13 (Bill) Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state.

From what I've had a chance to read up on the situation, he has now set his sights on Jeb Bush. I'm sure MSNBC will provide a comparable time for him when that book is published.

 

Hillary has a growing problem from the left. Is anyone really surprised?

I've not seen anyone on the left with a problem with Hillary.

I've not seen anyone on the left with a problem with Hillary.

 

From what I've read it's more of a growing concern about their not having a plan B to her candidacy. Confidence is not what it was as these things continue to pop up.

Quit watching Faux Newz !

Quit watching Faux Newz !

 

All I posted was from newspapers. Does the New York Times and Washington Post not count now?

From what I've read it's more of a growing concern about their not having a plan B to her candidacy. Confidence is not what it was as these things continue to pop up.

 

The legitimate contenders may be waiting out to see if she implodes.

 

You do not want to challenge the princess when she is on her way to the coronation.