clinton global initiative to shut down

[wesw]

it seems that access to a loser with no political future isn t bringing in the "charitable" contributions from foreign govts ....

surprise, surprise !!!

[Jarlaxle]

Wes, please go away.

[wesw]

jarlaxle, please go fuck yourself.

[Jarlaxle]

Suck a shotgun.

[wesw]

nothing like civil discourse to start the holiday...

famous last words heard while sucking a shotgun.....

shotgun says: "i promise, i won t cum..."

[Scooter]

You do know this is old news, right? It was announced in September.

And the CGI has nothing to do with fundraising, foreign or otherwise.

[wesw]

boy, you talk about sucking something and like clockwork....

[Scooter]

So you didn't know. You're not alone, the right wing blogosphere has been braying "where is the media" for days. Of all the legitimate right-wing press I read, only the National Review bothered to mention that the windup was announced before the last annual meeting. It would have been an incovenient anomaly in the narrative they created.

[liberty]

It appears to be true and that being so opens up quite a few questions. Why would people stop donating money just because the leader lost an election? I donate money to Seven Hundred Club because of the good works they do around the world. I wouldn’t stop donating money if “what’s his name” lost an election. Could it be that the people that were donating thought they were buying influence and now she is not in a position to provide those favors?


clinton global initiative to shut down

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/15/t ... -for-good/

[Crackpot]

Reading what has already been said is not your strong point.

However, understating while pointing to the obvious is mine.

[liberty]

Reading what has already been said is not your strong point.

However, understating while pointing to the obvious is mine.

Well, I read you and I read this:

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/15/t ... -for-good/

Apparently not. If nothing else, these developments are indicators of precisely what many suspected all along. The Clintons were, no doubt, doing some good work through their foundation, but it was also a convenient magnet attracting massive amounts of cash and influence. And the people lining up to empty their coffers into the Clintons’ hands could have sent their donations anywhere, but they chose the Clinton Foundation because it put them on good terms with a powerful American dynasty which was widely expected to take back the White House. Once Hillary Clinton’s future plans for power had fallen to ruin, the enthusiasm for giving seems to have begun to wane almost immediately.

[Scooter]

The author makes the same error as other pieces. The CGI does not do fundraising, and certainly wouldn't depend on foreign cash to perform what is essentially a convening role. A drop in donations would hit almost every other division of the Clinton Foundation harder than the CGI. A drop in donations cannot be the reason for closing the CGI when it has left every other division unaffected.

And again, the decision to shut down was made in September, before this alleged fall off in donation would have begun. Once more, something that hadn't happened yet and which would not have affected CGI anyway could not be the reason for the closure.

Before putting this out as any sort of "proof" of the Clintons' corruption - was thsere ever any tangible link between the CGI and any of the parade of alleged conflicts of interest and corruprt practices associated with Hillary Clinton's involvement in the Foundation? If not, then then how does the CGI closure relate to this "scandal" at all?

"Attracting massive amounts of cash" - oh my, people donated money to a charity which used it, all of it, to do good work wherever it was needed in the world. None of the Clintons ever saw a dime of that money, but people had no problem characterizing it a a bribe or a slush fund. How does a person take a bribe without ever seeing any of the money? How does one maintain a "slush fund" without the means to access it?