Hillary won more votes for President

PJ_Soul

Who Princess said:

PJ_Soul said:

JimmyV said:

Um...I understand maybe bending the truth a bit when speaking at someone's funeral but HOLY SHIT this is a whopper of a statement.

https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/708363242737766401

I was actually under that same impression if we're talking the political discussion. Obviously is was the gay community, particularly in NYC and then San Fran, that actually forced action initially and built the cause enough for the Reagans to make it an issue politically, but after that point, I would agree that the Reagans did that.... Not that they had much of a choice of course. I never considered it some great, wonderful thing they did. They were simply fulfilling what I saw as a basic responsibility, and actually, they should have done it sooner than they did, and then done a lot more, faster......

I would give the Reagans ZERO credit for making HIV/AIDS an issue. Reagan didn't even mention it publicly until 4 years after the epidemic was identified by the CDC and didn't make a speech about it for another 2 years. He also suggested that kids with HIV not be allowed to attend school despite assurance from the CDC that they posed no risk to other children. On a personal level, they refused to assist their friend Rock Hudson when he disclosed that he had AIDS.

Thousands of people were infected and died because of the refusal to acknowledge an enormous public health threat. We are still living with the consequences of that indifference.

Yeah, you're right. I was really remembering that they were indeed the ones in the white house when government acknowledged it and everything. I obviously didn't actually give them positive credit... I just meant that they were the first ones to confront it on any level. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that they did any kind of good job.

Who Princess

PJ_Soul said:

Yeah, you're right. I was really remembering that they were indeed the ones in the white house when government acknowledged it and everything. I obviously didn't actually give them positive credit... I just meant that they were the first ones to confront it on any level. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that they did any kind of good job.

I knew what you meant and my harshness wasn't aimed at you, though I realize it sounded that way. It's a sensitive subject with me. I've lost a lot of friends to AIDS.

One of the things that has angered me the most over time is how wrong it's been that so many people had to die before any effort was put into prevention and treatment--and people are still being infected! "How many deaths will it take till he knows that too many people have died?"

JC29856

With a statement like this it's no wonder why Hillary doesn't want to release the wall street speeches. Wtf?
When something happens to you, like a good, dear friend James Brady being shot and suffering, your husband having Alzheimer's, it can't help but change your perspective, and I wish more people would pay attention to those who have gone through these issues.

The other point that I wanted to make too is, it may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s. And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan — in particular Mrs. Reagan — we started a national conversation when before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it. And that too is something that I really appreciate with her very effective, low-key advocacy. But it penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, "Hey, we have to do something about this too."

JC29856

And because of both President and Mrs. Reagan — in particular Mrs. Reagan — we started a national conversation when before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

With a statement like this it's no wonder why Hillary doesn't want to release the wall street speeches. Wtf?
When something happens to you, like a good, dear friend James Brady being shot and suffering, your husband having Alzheimer's, it can't help but change your perspective, and I wish more people would pay attention to those who have gone through these issues.

JHC, give it a rest already. She came out quickly and apologized for the statement. How in the world do you connect a retracted statement on the day of a funeral with the WS question?

JC29856

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

With a statement like this it's no wonder why Hillary doesn't want to release the wall street speeches. Wtf?
When something happens to you, like a good, dear friend James Brady being shot and suffering, your husband having Alzheimer's, it can't help but change your perspective, and I wish more people would pay attention to those who have gone through these issues.

JHC, give it a rest already. She came out quickly and apologized for the statement. How in the world do you connect a retracted statement on the day of a funeral with the WS question?

It's the first I'm commenting on her statement...her retraction has nothing to do with what she said about Reagan AND HER RETRACTION DID NOT SAY SHE WAS DEAD WRONG

The connection: I'm trying to figure out how she could possibly say something like that? As it relates to her speeches:
Does she read something someone else wrote?
Does she not review what she is about to read?
Is she a revisionist historian?
Is she that out of touch with reality?
Is she suffering from some sort of condition like Alzheimer's?

Based on her comments about Nancy, those questions are valid?

JC29856

Guess Hillary or her speech writer forgot this....

Nancy Reagan Turned Down Rock Hudson’s Plea For Help Nine Weeks Before He Died
Rock Hudson was desperately trying to get treatment for AIDS in France in 1985. Much of that story has been told, but one part hasn’t: After a simple plea came in for White House help to get Hudson transferred to another hospital, First Lady Nancy Reagan turned down the request.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

With a statement like this it's no wonder why Hillary doesn't want to release the wall street speeches. Wtf?
When something happens to you, like a good, dear friend James Brady being shot and suffering, your husband having Alzheimer's, it can't help but change your perspective, and I wish more people would pay attention to those who have gone through these issues.

JHC, give it a rest already. She came out quickly and apologized for the statement. How in the world do you connect a retracted statement on the day of a funeral with the WS question?

It's the first I'm commenting on her statement...her retraction has nothing to do with what she said about Reagan AND HER RETRACTION DID NOT SAY SHE WAS DEAD WRONG

The connection: I'm trying to figure out how she could possibly say something like that? As it relates to her speeches:
Does she read something someone else wrote?
Does she not review what she is about to read?
Is she a revisionist historian?
Is she that out of touch with reality?
Is she suffering from some sort of condition like Alzheimer's?

Based on her comments about Nancy, those questions are valid?

I'm saying give it a rest with your ongoing effort to connect disparate items into one narrative.

Her retraction said "While the Reagans were strong advocates for stem cell research and finding a cure for Alzheimer's Disease," the statement said, "I misspoke about their record on HIV-AIDS. For that, I'm sorry."

So no, she didn't say "I was DEAD wrong".

Now when Bernie said about white people.. “don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto. You don’t know what it’s like to be poor.”

What was the story there?
1. Is he an idiot?
2. Is he a racist?
3. Is he early stage Alzheimer's?
4. Did he spend his entire life in white, cushy Burlington Vermont and Capitol Hill, never having been exposed to the white ghettos in immigrant Chicago, Cleveland, and WV?
5. Does he think only black people are poor?

Or was it a mistake? Works both ways.

JC29856

Forgot this too...

Although more than 5,500 people had died from the disease by the start of 1985, the government had taken few significant steps toward addressing the disease — with the Reagan administration recommending a $10 million cut in AIDS spending down to $86 million in its federal budget proposal released in February 1985.

President Reagan did not give his first major public address on the disease until a year later, on May 31, 1987 — well after the number of AIDS deaths in the United States topped 25,000.

JC29856

Larry Kramer not giving a shit about her retraction:

I wonder if Hillary had any notion of how hateful what she said is to so many people who were going to support her. For the first time I really questioned whether I’m going to vote for her.
[Nancy] never said dipshit! And she … oh please, don’t get me started. She and Ronnie weren’t going to, in any way, talk about AIDS because they have a ballet dancer son whom the world believes to be gay and which they don’t want to confront.
I’m just so disappointed in her that I may just vote for Bernie. And I’m hearing that from a lot of gay people. The gay population is up in arms over this. I don’t think that she realizes that this is a big issue for us, what she has said in her stupidity.
I think the gay population is entitled to an apology and that we should demand an apology in return for our vote and support.

JimmyV

I think she said something incredibly stupid. I don't know exactly what she was thinking or why she said it, but she did offer a retraction and a politician's apology. How much any of us want to hold this against her is our own personal choice, of course. My view is I'm not sure what a second apology would accomplish.

The words were said. She retracted them. Any damage done by them is damage done. She can't undo it. It was a mistake. A big mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. If you were a Hillary backer before this, despite all of her warts as a candidate, you are probably going to be inclined to forgive her for this.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

Larry Kramer not giving a shit about her retraction:

I wonder if Hillary had any notion of how hateful what she said is to so many people who were going to support her. For the first time I really questioned whether I’m going to vote for her.
[Nancy] never said dipshit! And she … oh please, don’t get me started. She and Ronnie weren’t going to, in any way, talk about AIDS because they have a ballet dancer son whom the world believes to be gay and which they don’t want to confront.
I’m just so disappointed in her that I may just vote for Bernie. And I’m hearing that from a lot of gay people. The gay population is up in arms over this. I don’t think that she realizes that this is a big issue for us, what she has said in her stupidity.
I think the gay population is entitled to an apology and that we should demand an apology in return for our vote and support.

Kramer made this statement before the retraction, according to Slate.

Bernie's problem with African Americans is much deeper and perpetual than Hillary's one off statement about Nancy Reagan. You should be more focused on how Bernie can cut into her 50+ point lead on that front, rather than Hillary's 8 point lead in the gay community.

JC29856

JimmyV said:

I think she said something incredibly stupid. I don't know exactly what she was thinking or why she said it, but she did offer a retraction and a politician's apology. How much any of us want to hold this against her is our own personal choice, of course. My view is I'm not sure what a second apology would accomplish.

The words were said. She retracted them. Any damage done by them is damage done. She can't undo it. It was a mistake. A big mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. If you were a Hillary backer before this, despite all of her warts as a candidate, you are probably going to be inclined to forgive her for this.

What was the big mistake?

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts.
They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.

The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."

Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.

But you have just summarized a classic conflict of interest.

Is it? And if it is, who's fault is it with the conflict of interest?

1. The foundation is a worldwide charity group. Is the assumption here that it's simply a front for the Clinton's to increase their wealth? They support progressive causes around the world.

2. The Obama administration knew about the foundation and their donors. They also knew the role of the secretary of state. If it's a conflict then it was an egregious judgment error by the administration to make her secretary.

3. I'm fairly certain Clinton and Obama entered into an MOU about new donations from countries. Second, there was a bureaucratic review of all contributions and in over several hundred document reviews, only once was a concern raised.

I think the conflict of interest is on Clinton's side. I actually don't think that anyone who is running for President should be allowed to have connections to a foundation that collects donations. They should be legally obligated to cut all ties with any organization that would allow people to donate money to anything other than the campaign itself.

I thought you were writing about her time as Sec'y of State, not running for POTUS. Her time as Secy, the obligation is on the administration. And other than accusations online by disreputable sources and opinion pieces, followed by analysis by reputable sources, there hasn't been any issues. If there was a remote chance of something there, you can be damned sure the GOP congress would have funded some investigations.

Further, Politifact did some research on the Foundation after Carly accused it of only spending 6% of its donations on charitable work. Its work with outside experts concluded, and I quote "Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or “charity”), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard. Here's the link: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

Now regarding your comment about her role with the foundation, I think she meets the bar that you are advocating. Hillary (nor Bill for that matter) does not take a salary from the Foundation. Hillary served on the BOD after her time as Sec'y, but no longer serves on the board. She has no legal, advisory or financial connection. Not that I think you are saying this, but to expect the Foundation to shut down since she is running for POTUS would be a bridge too far.

JC29856

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts.
They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.

The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."

Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.

But you have just summarized a classic conflict of interest.

Is it? And if it is, who's fault is it with the conflict of interest?

1. The foundation is a worldwide charity group. Is the assumption here that it's simply a front for the Clinton's to increase their wealth? They support progressive causes around the world.

2. The Obama administration knew about the foundation and their donors. They also knew the role of the secretary of state. If it's a conflict then it was an egregious judgment error by the administration to make her secretary.

3. I'm fairly certain Clinton and Obama entered into an MOU about new donations from countries. Second, there was a bureaucratic review of all contributions and in over several hundred document reviews, only once was a concern raised.

I think the conflict of interest is on Clinton's side. I actually don't think that anyone who is running for President should be allowed to have connections to a foundation that collects donations. They should be legally obligated to cut all ties with any organization that would allow people to donate money to anything other than the campaign itself.

The Clinton's have the best attorneys money can buy. I would love to see the legal costs the Clinton's and the foundation pay and have paid. I'm sure as sec of state some of those legal costs were paid by taxpayers.
It's ridiculous to think that there are laws written for and about first ladys that become senators that become sec of state that become president and even more ridiculous to think that before every move was made throughout that process the Clinton attorneys weren't digging to see if the money funnels and their actions were cutting the mustard. It's obvious they were advised exactly how to legally increase there personal fortunes from the positions they held (like every other political figure)
As for those dogged GOP'ers trying to take her down, they live comfortably in glass houses.

JC29856

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

With a statement like this it's no wonder why Hillary doesn't want to release the wall street speeches. Wtf?
When something happens to you, like a good, dear friend James Brady being shot and suffering, your husband having Alzheimer's, it can't help but change your perspective, and I wish more people would pay attention to those who have gone through these issues.

JHC, give it a rest already. She came out quickly and apologized for the statement. How in the world do you connect a retracted statement on the day of a funeral with the WS question?

It's the first I'm commenting on her statement...her retraction has nothing to do with what she said about Reagan AND HER RETRACTION DID NOT SAY SHE WAS DEAD WRONG

The connection: I'm trying to figure out how she could possibly say something like that? As it relates to her speeches:
Does she read something someone else wrote?
Does she not review what she is about to read?
Is she a revisionist historian?
Is she that out of touch with reality?
Is she suffering from some sort of condition like Alzheimer's?

Based on her comments about Nancy, those questions are valid?

I'm saying give it a rest with your ongoing effort to connect disparate items into one narrative.

Her retraction said "While the Reagans were strong advocates for stem cell research and finding a cure for Alzheimer's Disease," the statement said, "I misspoke about their record on HIV-AIDS. For that, I'm sorry."

So no, she didn't say "I was DEAD wrong".

Now when Bernie said about white people.. “don’t know what it’s like to be living in a ghetto. You don’t know what it’s like to be poor.”

What was the story there?
1. Is he an idiot?
2. Is he a racist?
3. Is he early stage Alzheimer's?
4. Did he spend his entire life in white, cushy Burlington Vermont and Capitol Hill, never having been exposed to the white ghettos in immigrant Chicago, Cleveland, and WV?
5. Does he think only black people are poor?

Or was it a mistake? Works both ways.

Who is talking about Bernie?
If you quote Bernie in it's entirety like I did Hillary I would be glad to offer my opinion.

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts.
They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.

The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."

Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.

But you have just summarized a classic conflict of interest.

Is it? And if it is, who's fault is it with the conflict of interest?

1. The foundation is a worldwide charity group. Is the assumption here that it's simply a front for the Clinton's to increase their wealth? They support progressive causes around the world.

2. The Obama administration knew about the foundation and their donors. They also knew the role of the secretary of state. If it's a conflict then it was an egregious judgment error by the administration to make her secretary.

3. I'm fairly certain Clinton and Obama entered into an MOU about new donations from countries. Second, there was a bureaucratic review of all contributions and in over several hundred document reviews, only once was a concern raised.

I think the conflict of interest is on Clinton's side. I actually don't think that anyone who is running for President should be allowed to have connections to a foundation that collects donations. They should be legally obligated to cut all ties with any organization that would allow people to donate money to anything other than the campaign itself.

The Clinton's have the best attorneys money can buy. I would love to see the legal costs the Clinton's and the foundation pay and have paid. I'm sure as sec of state some of those legal costs were paid by taxpayers.
It's ridiculous to think that there are laws written for and about first ladys that become senators that become sec of state that become president and even more ridiculous to think that before every move was made throughout that process the Clinton attorneys weren't digging to see if the money funnels and their actions were cutting the mustard. It's obvious they were advised exactly how to legally increase there personal fortunes from the positions they held (like every other political figure)
As for those dogged GOP'ers trying to take her down, they live comfortably in glass houses.

How about you go and read form 990 on the Clinton Foundation's public tax filings to see if your myriad of accusations are true. Or better yet, spend some time thinking about how Bernie can actually increase his delegate count, or appeal to moderate Democrats, Democrats over 40, African-Americans and all the other groups that he is losing in a landslide. Rather, you prefer to cut and past bullshit in your attempt to bring down HIllary rather than elevating your own candidate.

JC29856

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts.
They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.

The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."

Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.

But you have just summarized a classic conflict of interest.

Is it? And if it is, who's fault is it with the conflict of interest?

1. The foundation is a worldwide charity group. Is the assumption here that it's simply a front for the Clinton's to increase their wealth? They support progressive causes around the world.

2. The Obama administration knew about the foundation and their donors. They also knew the role of the secretary of state. If it's a conflict then it was an egregious judgment error by the administration to make her secretary.

3. I'm fairly certain Clinton and Obama entered into an MOU about new donations from countries. Second, there was a bureaucratic review of all contributions and in over several hundred document reviews, only once was a concern raised.

I think the conflict of interest is on Clinton's side. I actually don't think that anyone who is running for President should be allowed to have connections to a foundation that collects donations. They should be legally obligated to cut all ties with any organization that would allow people to donate money to anything other than the campaign itself.

The Clinton's have the best attorneys money can buy. I would love to see the legal costs the Clinton's and the foundation pay and have paid. I'm sure as sec of state some of those legal costs were paid by taxpayers.
It's ridiculous to think that there are laws written for and about first ladys that become senators that become sec of state that become president and even more ridiculous to think that before every move was made throughout that process the Clinton attorneys weren't digging to see if the money funnels and their actions were cutting the mustard. It's obvious they were advised exactly how to legally increase there personal fortunes from the positions they held (like every other political figure)
As for those dogged GOP'ers trying to take her down, they live comfortably in glass houses.

How about you go and read form 990 on the Clinton Foundation's public tax filings to see if your myriad of accusations are true. Or better yet, spend some time thinking about how Bernie can actually increase his delegate count, or appeal to moderate Democrats, Democrats over 40, African-Americans and all the other groups that he is losing in a landslide. Rather, you prefer to cut and past bullshit in your attempt to bring down HIllary rather than elevating your own candidate.

I didn't know the 990 would list Bill and Hillary personal attorney fees? I'll go look thou...
Your head is stuffed so far up Hillary ass you think everyone that opposed Hillary supports Sanders.

As I said before I paste facts...you don't like then added together.

You prefer to look at things in isolation, like your Bernie quote, leaving out the rest of what he said. You prefer to isolate all the shady shit the Clinton's have done with the hope that most don't have the intelligence to add up all of the evidence throughout all the years including the circumstantial evidence and conclude that Hillary is the ultimate Manchurian candidate that will say and do anything to amass power and wealth. It's great that you are all into her/them, I'm just saying once in awhile pull your head from her vagina you just might learn something.

JC29856

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts.
They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.

The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."

Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.

But you have just summarized a classic conflict of interest.

Is it? And if it is, who's fault is it with the conflict of interest?

1. The foundation is a worldwide charity group. Is the assumption here that it's simply a front for the Clinton's to increase their wealth? They support progressive causes around the world.

2. The Obama administration knew about the foundation and their donors. They also knew the role of the secretary of state. If it's a conflict then it was an egregious judgment error by the administration to make her secretary.

3. I'm fairly certain Clinton and Obama entered into an MOU about new donations from countries. Second, there was a bureaucratic review of all contributions and in over several hundred document reviews, only once was a concern raised.

I think the conflict of interest is on Clinton's side. I actually don't think that anyone who is running for President should be allowed to have connections to a foundation that collects donations. They should be legally obligated to cut all ties with any organization that would allow people to donate money to anything other than the campaign itself.

The Clinton's have the best attorneys money can buy. I would love to see the legal costs the Clinton's and the foundation pay and have paid. I'm sure as sec of state some of those legal costs were paid by taxpayers.
It's ridiculous to think that there are laws written for and about first ladys that become senators that become sec of state that become president and even more ridiculous to think that before every move was made throughout that process the Clinton attorneys weren't digging to see if the money funnels and their actions were cutting the mustard. It's obvious they were advised exactly how to legally increase there personal fortunes from the positions they held (like every other political figure)
As for those dogged GOP'ers trying to take her down, they live comfortably in glass houses.

How about you go and read form 990 on the Clinton Foundation's public tax filings to see if your myriad of accusations are true. Or better yet, spend some time thinking about how Bernie can actually increase his delegate count, or appeal to moderate Democrats, Democrats over 40, African-Americans and all the other groups that he is losing in a landslide. Rather, you prefer to cut and past bullshit in your attempt to bring down HIllary rather than elevating your own candidate.

If you go look back at one of my bullshit posts you will see where the foundation admitted to omitting some important information from the tax filings, so I'm not to sure relying on them will give us an accurate portrayal.
Anyway I looked and I didn't see any personal attorney fees on the 990. Again you may have isolated my words foundation from the Clintons.

"The Clinton's have the best attorneys money can buy. I would love to see the legal costs the Clinton's and the foundation pay and have paid."

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

I just went thru all my pasties starting on page 10 all but 1 arguably contained facts.
They are pretty easy reads anyone that questions the source when a link isn't provided can copy it to Google, if they dont believe the facts contained therein.

The articles you have quoted are taking possibly disparate facts and tying them together. E.g. "Israel donated to the Clinton Foundation. The State Dept approved munition sales to Israel. Ergo, Clinton approved these sales because of the donation to the Clinton Foundation."

Two of these things are facts, but the conclusion drawn may be false. Correlation does not equal causation.

But you have just summarized a classic conflict of interest.

Is it? And if it is, who's fault is it with the conflict of interest?

1. The foundation is a worldwide charity group. Is the assumption here that it's simply a front for the Clinton's to increase their wealth? They support progressive causes around the world.

2. The Obama administration knew about the foundation and their donors. They also knew the role of the secretary of state. If it's a conflict then it was an egregious judgment error by the administration to make her secretary.

3. I'm fairly certain Clinton and Obama entered into an MOU about new donations from countries. Second, there was a bureaucratic review of all contributions and in over several hundred document reviews, only once was a concern raised.

I think the conflict of interest is on Clinton's side. I actually don't think that anyone who is running for President should be allowed to have connections to a foundation that collects donations. They should be legally obligated to cut all ties with any organization that would allow people to donate money to anything other than the campaign itself.

The Clinton's have the best attorneys money can buy. I would love to see the legal costs the Clinton's and the foundation pay and have paid. I'm sure as sec of state some of those legal costs were paid by taxpayers.
It's ridiculous to think that there are laws written for and about first ladys that become senators that become sec of state that become president and even more ridiculous to think that before every move was made throughout that process the Clinton attorneys weren't digging to see if the money funnels and their actions were cutting the mustard. It's obvious they were advised exactly how to legally increase there personal fortunes from the positions they held (like every other political figure)
As for those dogged GOP'ers trying to take her down, they live comfortably in glass houses.

How about you go and read form 990 on the Clinton Foundation's public tax filings to see if your myriad of accusations are true. Or better yet, spend some time thinking about how Bernie can actually increase his delegate count, or appeal to moderate Democrats, Democrats over 40, African-Americans and all the other groups that he is losing in a landslide. Rather, you prefer to cut and past bullshit in your attempt to bring down HIllary rather than elevating your own candidate.

I didn't know the 990 would list Bill and Hillary personal attorney fees? I'll go look thou...
Your head is stuffed so far up Hillary ass you think everyone that opposed Hillary supports Sanders.

As I said before I paste facts...you don't like then added together.

You prefer to look at things in isolation, like your Bernie quote, leaving out the rest of what he said. You prefer to isolate all the shady shit the Clinton's have done with the hope that most don't have the intelligence to add up all of the evidence throughout all the years including the circumstantial evidence and conclude that Hillary is the ultimate Manchurian candidate that will say and do anything to amass power and wealth. It's great that you are all into her/them, I'm just saying once in awhile pull your head from her vagina you just might learn something.

I'm lukewarm on Hillary at best, as I stated several posts earlier. But the lack of critical analysis, the piecing together of disparate facts to draw unsupported conclusions, followed by out and out BS from opinion sites makes it impossible for me to read without commenting.

Of course the 990 doesn't list Bill and Hillary's personal attorneys and fees. But what the fuck does that have to do with anything? You think because they have a high end attorney on retainer that makes them guilty of something? Should they have Dan Fielding from Night Court on retainer instead? That's not a fucking argument and it means nothing. I have an attorney firm that I use for all my personal and professional business. Lots of people do.

So now she's the Manchurian Candidate... and which country precisely has planted her?