Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The assertions above obscure the problems unearthed through years of investigative reporting on the foundation. Journalist David Sirota, who has reported extensively on the Clinton Foundation, rounded up a sample of the stories that provide a window into Clinton Foundation issues:

The Washington Post found that two months after Secretary Clinton encouraged the Russian government to approve a $3.7 billion deal with Boeing, the aerospace company announced a $900,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation.
The Wall Street Journal found that Clinton made an “unusual intervention” to announce a legal settlement with UBS, after which the Swiss bank increased its donations to, and involvement with, the Clinton Foundation.
The New York Times reported that a Russian company assumed control of major uranium reserves in a deal that required State Department approval, as the chairman of the company involved in the transaction donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation...................


In fact, the more Clinton’s allies have worked to defend big money donations to the Clinton Foundation, the more closely they resemble the right-wing principles they once denounced.

In one telling argument in defense of the Clinton Foundation, Media Matters, another group run by David Brock, argued this week that there was “no evidence of ethics breaches” because there was no explicit quid pro quo cited by the AP. The Media Matters piece mocked press figures for focusing on the “optics” of corruption surrounding the foundation.

Such a standard is quite a reversal for the group. In a piece published by Media Matters only two years ago, the organization criticized conservatives for focusing only on quid pro quo corruption — the legal standard used to decide the Citizens United and McCutcheon Supreme Court decisions — calling such a narrow focus a “new perspective of campaign finance” that dismisses “concerns about institutional corruption in politics.” The piece notes that ethics laws concerning the role of money in politics follow a standard, set forth since the Watergate scandal, in which even the appearance, or in other words, the “optics” of corruption, is cause for concern.

kalm wrote:

And it's all perfectly fine because according to conk judges, Media Matter's David Brock, Gannonfan, and Ivytalk there is no quid pro quo.

(The David Sirota piece that is linked to in the article has substantially more evidence of the corruption)

The assertions above obscure the problems unearthed through years of investigative reporting on the foundation. Journalist David Sirota, who has reported extensively on the Clinton Foundation, rounded up a sample of the stories that provide a window into Clinton Foundation issues:

The Washington Post found that two months after Secretary Clinton encouraged the Russian government to approve a $3.7 billion deal with Boeing, the aerospace company announced a $900,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation.
The Wall Street Journal found that Clinton made an “unusual intervention” to announce a legal settlement with UBS, after which the Swiss bank increased its donations to, and involvement with, the Clinton Foundation.
The New York Times reported that a Russian company assumed control of major uranium reserves in a deal that required State Department approval, as the chairman of the company involved in the transaction donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation...................


In fact, the more Clinton’s allies have worked to defend big money donations to the Clinton Foundation, the more closely they resemble the right-wing principles they once denounced.

In one telling argument in defense of the Clinton Foundation, Media Matters, another group run by David Brock, argued this week that there was “no evidence of ethics breaches” because there was no explicit quid pro quo cited by the AP. The Media Matters piece mocked press figures for focusing on the “optics” of corruption surrounding the foundation.

Such a standard is quite a reversal for the group. In a piece published by Media Matters only two years ago, the organization criticized conservatives for focusing only on quid pro quo corruption — the legal standard used to decide the Citizens United and McCutcheon Supreme Court decisions — calling such a narrow focus a “new perspective of campaign finance” that dismisses “concerns about institutional corruption in politics.” The piece notes that ethics laws concerning the role of money in politics follow a standard, set forth since the Watergate scandal, in which even the appearance, or in other words, the “optics” of corruption, is cause for concern.

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/26/cli ... tion-spin/

Pwns wrote:Simple solution...progdonks need to make a stand and vote for Jill or even Gary.

SDHornet wrote:Pay for play with the CF? Shocker.

kalm, I do like your spin on making hilldogs corruption out to be the conks fault thought. How nuanced of you.

Chizzang wrote:At what point does a lifetime politician cross the line - officially - into just being a common criminal..?

SDHornet wrote:Pay for play with the CF? Shocker.

kalm, I do like your spin on making hilldogs corruption out to be the conks fault thought. How nuanced of you.

andy7171 wrote:Still voting for Her.

kalm wrote:

andy7171 wrote:Still voting for Her.

Chizzang wrote:

kalm wrote:

BTW:
For anybody wondering
It doesn't matter who kalm votes for Hilary is winning Washington State by a LANDSLIDE

93henfan wrote:Gee, I think I'll make a cute stand and vote for Gary Johnson.

Ivytalk wrote:

93henfan wrote:Gee, I think I'll make a cute stand and vote for Gary Johnson.

It's called a conscience. Not that you'd recognize that.

93henfan wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
It's called a conscience. Not that you'd recognize that.

My conscience tells me not to let Hillary Clinton appoint the Supreme Court justices that will ensure a liberal majority for the rest of your lifetime.

Ivytalk wrote:

93henfan wrote:
My conscience tells me not to let Hillary Clinton appoint the Supreme Court justices that will ensure a liberal majority for the rest of your lifetime.

Meh. We survived the Warren Court, we can handle the dillweeds that Hildabeast would appoint (if she can get them confirmed, without the opposition of the GOP Senators that your millstone POTUS candidate is dragging down to defeat). So don't talk to me about your conscience.

Besides, the Johnson/Stein vote isn't likely to be decisive in many states, least of all the swing states. Old duopolies die hard.

SDHornet wrote:Pay for play with the CF? Shocker.

kalm, I do like your spin on making hilldogs corruption out to be the conks fault thought. How nuanced of you.

kalm wrote:

SDHornet wrote:Pay for play with the CF? Shocker.

kalm, I do like your spin on making hilldogs corruption out to be the conks fault thought. How nuanced of you.

Oh...and I almost forgot...David Brock must be a conk now too...at least according to you and Baldy.

SDHornet wrote:

kalm wrote:
Oh...and I almost forgot...David Brock must be a conk now too...at least according to you and Baldy.

Don't know, don't care. I just find it funny that everything is a conks fault according to the MSM...which you so willfully come on here and parrot. Accountability be damned!!!!

SDHornet wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Meh. We survived the Warren Court, we can handle the dillweeds that Hildabeast would appoint (if she can get them confirmed, without the opposition of the GOP Senators that your millstone POTUS candidate is dragging down to defeat). So don't talk to me about your conscience.

Besides, the Johnson/Stein vote isn't likely to be decisive in many states, least of all the swing states. Old duopolies die hard.

No kidding, Senate will easily swing to the donks thanks to Trump.
And 93 blaming the Johnson for hilldogs easy impending win?

93henfan wrote:

SDHornet wrote: No kidding, Senate will easily swing to the donks thanks to Trump.
And 93 blaming the Johnson for hilldogs easy impending win?

It's not Johnson's fault that a significant portion of the Republican Party (RIP) has no backbone and is running scared to him.