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.

 

Like her Secretary of State memoir?

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

 

Nothing is allowed if its a negative story.

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.

 

 

Won't happen in your lifetime , bud. The GOP has gone far off the well-beaten path to Sanityville. It's all Hannityville now. Maybe by about 2072 , the GOP will once again occupy the White House.

Funny I've heard that before.

 

Some would say that the lefties have also jumped the shark.

 

Funny how you're so quick to deride the right wing pundits but even as much of a true believer as you are you have to admit that MSNBC has their share of lefty nut bars that are also way of the path of sanity.

I believe that Hillary is more corrupt and dangerous than most politicians, maybe even more so than Frank Underwood...

I believe that Hillary is more corrupt and dangerous than most politicians, maybe even more so than Frank Underwood...

 

The more watch House of Cards and read on the stories surrounding the Clinton's you wonder if they weren't the motivation behind the series.

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.

 

This post does a good job of logically saying what is going on. Look, the Clintons are not stupid. People are not going to find a "smoking gun" that shows a definite quid pro quo - favors from Hillary for huge sums of money for the Clinton Foundation. You have to look at a pattern of behavior. The execs of the uranium company have donated 10's of millions to the Clinton Foundation. Bill's speaking fees tripled when Hillary was SOS. The Foundation immediately announced it had to redo its tax returns for the past 5 YEARS because of tons of money (many millions) it did not report (once this story came out). Also, Hillary definitely broke her agreement with Obama about disclosing all foreign donors to the Foundation while she was SOS. Add in that she destroyed thousands of emails and you have to wonder what she is thinking. Did she do anything illegal? Probably but she will never be prosecuted. Did she do anything unethical? Hard to believe she did not.

 

And for those blaming Fox News here...what? The guy who wrote this story is doing a similar story on Jeb Bush's campaign contributions -book coming out later this year. The New York Times was very involved in this story...not exactly right wing. Anyone who thinks the Clintons are not corrupt is pretty naïve. I believe most politicians are corrupt (not all but most)...the Clintons take corrupt to a level seldom seen in politics though.

I believe that Hillary is more corrupt and dangerous than most politicians, maybe even more so than Frank Underwood...

 

How many of Bill's conquests would have ended up under a subway train if she had the chance?

How many of Bill's conquests would have ended up under a subway train if she had the chance?

I would say hundreds of them...

I was told once that every Clinton Controversy seemed to go away once Hillary got involved in managing the issue. The only one that nearly actually cost them anything was the Lewinski episode where Bill kept Hillary in the dark as long as possible. Then once that one was about to cost him everything, he spilled his guts to Hillary and after that Monica got marginalized by everyone. Even the fact that he lied under oath got spun as just a right wing conspiracy. In the end Clinton got more sympathy from the country than he did disdain for his actions in the White House or lying under oath. This was mostly due to Hillary's management of the story and painting herself and Bill as victims.

related article.. Millions more in foreign donations unreported...http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hillary-clintons-charity-empire-hid-162600226.html

I was told once that every Clinton Controversy seemed to go away once Hillary got involved in managing the issue. The only one that nearly actually cost them anything was the Lewinski episode where Bill kept Hillary in the dark as long as possible. Then once that one was about to cost him everything, he spilled his guts to Hillary and after that Monica got marginalized by everyone. Even the fact that he lied under oath got spun as just a right wing conspiracy. In the end Clinton got more sympathy from the country than he did disdain for his actions in the White House or lying under oath. This was mostly due to Hillary's management of the story and painting herself and Bill as victims.

 

Great post. It's why I can't ever bring myself to vote for her.

 

But if I was running for office, you better bet your backside that I'd have Hillary on my team. Going against her is terrible for your electability. There's no circumstance where it doesn't get ugly.

Slick Willy only got away with lying under oath because he was a liberal. Your allowed to be white and liberal and get away with stuff. But if your a white republican it become white privilege. If Clinton had been a. Republican he would have been crucified and impeached.

A little humor on the subject....

 

Never Trust Liberal ?Fact Checkers? | Power Line