ADVERTISEMENT

Bill Clinton Smoked But Didn't Inhale. Hillary, Smoke But No Fire

wisemaniac

Platinum Buffalo
Mar 4, 2007
8,541
986
113
Does anyone really think the absurd sums of money thrown at the Clinton Foundation were done with no intent to influence Hillary at the State Department? The American people aren't dumb. She was recently questioned about it on CNN (a network uber friendly to the Clintons).

On Wednesday’s broadcast of CNN’s “AC 360,” Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton argued that with the Clinton Foundation, “there’s a lot of smoke and there’s no fire.” And that recently announced changes to the Clinton Foundation’s practices that will be implemented if she’s elected are due to “unique circumstances” that didn’t exist during her tenure at the State Department.

Clinton was asked, “Why was it okay for the Clinton Foundation to accept foreign donations when you were secretary of state, but it wouldn’t be okay if you were president?

She answered, “Well, what we did when I was secretary of state, as I said, went above and beyond anything that was required, anything that any charitable organization has to do. Now, obviously, if I am president, there will be some unique circumstances, and that’s why the foundation has laid out additional, unprecedented –.”

Host Anderson Cooper then followed up, “But didn’t those unique circumstances exist when you were secretary of state?”

Hillary responded, “No, no. You know, look, Anderson, I know there’s a lot of smoke and there’s no fire. This AP report, put in it context, this excludes nearly 2,000 meetings I had with world leaders, plus countless other meetings with US government officials when I was secretary of state. It looked at a small portion of my time, and it drew the conclusion, and made the suggestion that my meetings with people like the great Elie Wiesel, or Melinda Gates, or the Nobel Prize winner Muhammad Yunus were somehow due to connections with the foundation, instead of their status as highly respected global leaders. That is absurd. These are people I was proud to meet with, who any secretary of state would have been proud to meet with, to hear about their work, and their insights.”​

I have no doubts she would have met with folks but to think the huge donations were being made with no impact on her decision making is laughable at best. To quote Bernie Sanders on Hillary Clinton accepting huge sums from Wall Street - Why would they make these huge donations without expecting some sort of quid pro quo? "I guess just for fun. They just want to throw it around."
 
Does anyone really think the absurd sums of money thrown at the Clinton Foundation were done with no intent to influence Hillary at the State Department? The American people aren't dumb. She was recently questioned about it on CNN (a network uber friendly to the Clintons).

On Wednesday’s broadcast of CNN’s “AC 360,” Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton argued that with the Clinton Foundation, “there’s a lot of smoke and there’s no fire.” And that recently announced changes to the Clinton Foundation’s practices that will be implemented if she’s elected are due to “unique circumstances” that didn’t exist during her tenure at the State Department.

Clinton was asked, “Why was it okay for the Clinton Foundation to accept foreign donations when you were secretary of state, but it wouldn’t be okay if you were president?

She answered, “Well, what we did when I was secretary of state, as I said, went above and beyond anything that was required, anything that any charitable organization has to do. Now, obviously, if I am president, there will be some unique circumstances, and that’s why the foundation has laid out additional, unprecedented –.”

Host Anderson Cooper then followed up, “But didn’t those unique circumstances exist when you were secretary of state?”

Hillary responded, “No, no. You know, look, Anderson, I know there’s a lot of smoke and there’s no fire. This AP report, put in it context, this excludes nearly 2,000 meetings I had with world leaders, plus countless other meetings with US government officials when I was secretary of state. It looked at a small portion of my time, and it drew the conclusion, and made the suggestion that my meetings with people like the great Elie Wiesel, or Melinda Gates, or the Nobel Prize winner Muhammad Yunus were somehow due to connections with the foundation, instead of their status as highly respected global leaders. That is absurd. These are people I was proud to meet with, who any secretary of state would have been proud to meet with, to hear about their work, and their insights.”​

I have no doubts she would have met with folks but to think the huge donations were being made with no impact on her decision making is laughable at best. To quote Bernie Sanders on Hillary Clinton accepting huge sums from Wall Street - Why would they make these huge donations without expecting some sort of quid pro quo? "I guess just for fun. They just want to throw it around."
If it was no big deal then why did the State Department wait three years to release her meeting schedule. And only then after they were sued. I'm so glad we are dealing with the most transparent administration ever
 
Why no concern from the cons about the ANONYMOUS donors to the 2 bush presidents foundations?
 
Since you have no problem with the Clinton Foundation Donors, why even bring up the Bush donors? That's hypocrisy, if you're looking for a really good example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThunderCat98
Since you have no problem with the Clinton Foundation Donors, why even bring up the Bush donors? That's hypocrisy, if you're looking for a really good example.

The hypocrisy is that Hillary has provided a list of ALL donors. The Bush's, nope, and you whine like mules.
 
What's the issue with transparency?
Who the foundation was getting money from, basically. When Clinton took the State Department job in 2008, she promised President Barack Obama that the foundation would publish all its donors every year. And ... that didn't happen

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/24/politics/clinton-foundation-explainer/index.html
The Clintons made a number of promises about changes to the foundation that they never followed through on. They're already starting to backtrack on things they said would change if she becomes POTUS.
 
KKK members collectively gave Hills 20k, and their Sacramento chapter endorses her. But she won't be made to condemn them and certainly won't be lumped into their group like an R would be.
 
KKK members collectively gave Hills 20k, and their Sacramento chapter endorses her. But she won't be made to condemn them and certainly won't be lumped into their group like an R would be.

Bwaaaaaahahaha !!!!!
 
KKK members collectively gave Hills 20k, and their Sacramento chapter endorses her. But she won't be made to condemn them and certainly won't be lumped into their group like an R would be.
Her latest campaign ad is insane. I used to think at least she acted in a way that was above the childish rhetoric Democrats accused Trump of (& rightfully so) but she's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt she's not.
 
Her latest campaign ad is insane. I used to think at least she acted in a way that was above the childish rhetoric Democrats accused Trump of (& rightfully so) but she's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt she's not.

Every election cycle gets to this point, the older I get the more it affects me. If you're a Rep or Conservative it seems you have to prove you're not sexist/racist/bigoted, otherwise it's just assumed. It's BS rhetoric from the left, the bigots they are.

Bwaaaaaahahaha !!!!!

Trump was lumped in with David Duke, and the same should be expected of Hillary and Will Quigg. Both accusations are ridiculous, but it shows the bias reporting of the two parties.
 
Every election cycle gets to this point, the older I get the more it affects me. If you're a Rep or Conservative it seems you have to prove you're not sexist/racist/bigoted, otherwise it's just assumed. It's BS rhetoric from the left, the bigots they are.



Trump was lumped in with David Duke, and the same should be expected of Hillary and Will Quigg. Both accusations are ridiculous, but it shows the bias reporting of the two parties.

What it actually shows is that it took some time for trump to separate himself from Duke, and it was exacerbated by his anti immigrant, anti latino, anti muslim rhetoric he's already spewed.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT