If this doesn't convince you

[CitizenBBN]

then there is no way for you to be convinced.

More than half of the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was serving as secretary of state gave money to the Clinton Foundation, either personally or through or companies or groups, according to a review of State Department calendars released to the Associated Press.

At least 85 of the 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to the documents obtained by the AP.
The 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million combined, and at least 40 donated more than $100,000 each while 20 gave more than $1 million.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...epartment.html

That is from an AP report, not some right wing blog. More than 50% of people who met with her thought so much of their charity work they wrote big fat checks. This is financial logrolling at its best, and more blatant than anything I've ever seen at this level.

Lobbyists and everyone else do this to buy access, and it's ruining our nation. While everyone does it, no one has taken it to the level of the Clintons. Senators end up with hundreds of thousands or a few million, the Clintons are raking in hundreds of millions in just a handful of years. Far more damaging is that they are taking it from ANYONE up to and including our national enemies, like Russian companies closely tied to Putin. No one has EVER done that before and politically lived to tell the tale.

This would put Senator Byrd and other experts at the practice to shame, and in this case unlike traditional access buying it's all run through a non-profit that doesn't even pay taxes. The only analogy is someone like Jessie Jackson who extorted millions into his non profit then used it to buy houses and airplanes, but his doesn't touch this level of corruption and didn't involve massive sums from anti-American foreign interests.

When more than 50% of your meetings involve donations you know damned well it's pay for play or whatever spiffy name we want to put on public corruption.

[Doc]

Jim Baker is envious

[Darrell KSR]

That's an amazing--astounding--jaw-dropping number.

[CitizenBBN]

That's an amazing--astounding--jaw-dropping number.

Well, if this doesn't convince you of media bias, nothing will:

The New York Times, supposedly the standard bearer of newspapers, didn't even report the story. Now this is from the AP, and they of course subscribe to the AP, and it is most clearly news, but the NYT couldn't find room for it in their paper.

Even the AP concluded it at least creates the impression of inappropriate behavior, but the NYT didn't even consider it news.

[bigsky]

No elected official at any level could survive the appearance of impropriety, even at values scaled back to a proportionate amount

[Doc]

That's an amazing--astounding--jaw-dropping number.

But it will have minimal influence on how most vote. Most folk are immune to her transgressions and accept them as par for the course

[MickintheHam]

As most here know from the primary season, I agonized over my vote in the Alabama Presidential Primary. I ultimately voted for the Governor of Ohio.

In the months since last March I have continued to agonize over the vote in the coming Presidential General Election. Assuming only two are electable candidates, I have focused on, not the candidates, but the people who support them. What amazes me is the Conservatives, Republicans and Evangelicals who support Trump can look past his words and focus on his actions. By contrast, the liberals, Democrats, and Pro-choice types can look past Hillary's actions and selectively focus on her words. Do actions really speak louder than words?

[Doc]

Good question Mick. 2 things that I relate to that are 1) actions do speak louder than words, and especially those done out of public view. You see somebody's honestly not when others are watching, but when nobody is watching. 2) Words are often misunderstood or misused or misrepresented especially in an electoral season. As stated in another thread, Trump wanting secure boarders does not make him a racist. Nor does being pro life make one anti women as is often portrayed. Contortions words is a simple process but doing that to actions is far more difficult

[KeithKSR]

Good question Mick. 2 things that I relate to that are 1) actions do speak louder than words, and especially those done out of public view. You see somebody's honestly not when others are watching, but when nobody is watching. 2) Words are often misunderstood or misused or misrepresented especially in an electoral season. As stated in another thread, Trump wanting secure boarders does not make him a racist. Nor does being pro life make one anti women as is often portrayed. Contortions words is a simple process but doing that to actions is far more difficult

People need to listen to Hillary's actions over the last 30 years.

[Doc]

People need to listen to Hillary's actions over the last 30 years.

I agree but they won't, nor will they be told of them accurately

[Darrell KSR]

But it will have minimal influence on how most vote. Most folk are immune to her transgressions and accept them as par for the course

I'd venture to say it will have a statistically wholly insignificant influence. As close to zero as it gets. Won't budge the needle.

The good news is, those that are flabbergasted by this information are already knowledgeable of the quality of Clinton's character and realize many of her issues.

The bad news is, those that are not budged by this information won't be budged by anything short of incarceration. And even then...I'm not sure.

[Doc]

I'd venture to say it will have a statistically wholly insignificant influence. As close to zero as it gets. Won't budge the needle.

The good news is, those that are flabbergasted by this information are already knowledgeable of the quality of Clinton's character and realize many of her issues.

The bad news is, those that are not budged by this information won't be budged by anything short of incarceration. And even then...I'm not sure.

Incarceration would be blamed on racist misogynistic Republicans who have been out to get her for decades

[KeithKSR]

Incarceration would be blamed on racist misogynistic Republicans who have been out to get her for decades

Yep, the much mentioned vast right wing conspiracy.

[dan_bgblue]

The links below point toward further money grubbing by the Clintons. It appears that Haiti was raped after the 2010 earthquake and the rapist was none other than a former US president. The first link is from an unknown (to me anyway) website but the others are to the WSJ, and to the National review.

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2016/09/19...-to-play-ihrc/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...64651201202122

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/1...-stayed-house/

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ton-foundation

[CitizenBBN]

I guarantee Haiti was raped and I haven't even clicked on the link. Just the story about getting a mining concession there through BIll's brother and how that was tied to money coming from the FOundation told me everything I needed to know about how they were operating.

They're getting paid on both ends. They get the money from donations, but then they're getting kickbacks on the grants they give, which btw are paltry compared to their size and operating expenses. It's basically a money laundering scheme, where they get money in their pockets by having control of money that is ostensibly for charity.

I doubt the Clintons are the only ones doing it, I think American politics is as dirty as it's ever been, but they are absolutely the champions of it and are doing it on a scale the likes of which no one has ever seen.

[dan_bgblue]

Money is drying up and they are trying to save some of it to pay for the new house