A young male elephant named Plai Kwan Mueang lies down to interact with students with disabilities during the Elephant Education Program for Blind and Disable Children at the Thai Elephant Research and Conservation Fund in Pak Chong district of Nakhon Ratchasima province, Thailand.
“The spokesman, Brian Fallon, also said the report does not account for more than half her tenure leading the State Department and “omits more than 1700 meetings she took with world leaders, let alone countless others she took with other US government officials, while serving as secretary of state.”
Fallon added: “Just taking the subset of meetings arbitrarily selected by the AP, it is outrageous to misrepresent Secretary Clintoon’s basis for meeting with these individuals.””
“The real story of the Clintoon Foundation is that there is no scandal. That’s just it. It’s not just “nothing to see here” it’s “nothing but good to see here.” It’s an un-scandal. An anti-scandal. Something of which the whole Clintoon family can be justly proud.
That is, unless you’re determined to make the data fit your story.”
Michael T. 25 Aug 2016, 6:37 a.m.
What they do with the money is the smokescreen. The purpose of the foundation for the Clintoons is not about how they spend the money but what the foundation does for them in money laundering, peddling influence, creating influence and a tax dodge. The Clintoons are not concerned about money anymore —— it is the power distributing all the money gives them.
We have become so inured to this influence peddling we turn a blind eye to that because they have convinced us they are Robin Hood. She used her State Department position to peddle the Foundation. It doesn’t matter where the money went but where it came from and why they donated it. Never before have many of these nations put this kind of money into “charity”. Why weren’t they doing this before the Clintoons? They weren’t concerned with charity but with buying influence.
MjL 25 Aug 2016, 6:50 a.m.
Sorry Michael, I lost my original thought in the tirade! (And good morning by the way!) My first thought has always been, “If even ONE of those transactions was to sell influence then ONE is enough.” The Clintoons aren’t arguing they haven’t done it, only that the Associated Press misrepresented how often and with whom.
MjL 25 Aug 2016, 6:52 a.m.
In conversation with Tracey I concocted a very disturbing and outrageous exaggerated comparison —— What IF they made the money by selling child pornography but gave all the money to charity? Ridiculous but sometimes the extreme case makes the point. HOW you get the money can be more important than the money or who you give it to.
MjL 25 Aug 2016, 7:05 a.m.
“If”
Michael T. 25 Aug 2016, 7:51 a.m.
“Is”
There IS a conflict of interest. I don’t think anyone can honestly believe the people who donated to her expected NOTHING in return.
MjL 25 Aug 2016, 7:58 a.m.
Well, it is good that the Clinton’s are FINALLY being investigated, right? We really need to spend another 100 million on hearings to come up with nothing. As far as I am concerned this is just more right wing media and Repuglican, “SQUIRREL” reporting to keep us from focusing on the issues that really matter.
God forgive me for doing anything that resembles defending Hillary but I was fed up with the Clinton investigations 30 years ago.
Actually the Clintoon Foundation has NOT been investigated the way you or I would investigate it —— because we don’t accept that influence peddling is an acceptable part of Democracy. The GQP can NOT investigate it in terms of influence peddling because it is also the basis for their position.
I don’t mind anyone defending them in the light of phony investigations and sensationalism. But I also recognize that very few politicians would survive a real investigation based on the same laws and policies you or I would be judged upon.
In short, NONE of this nonsense bears up to scrutiny if you step out of the bubble created by the media and politicians. No honest person becomes a multi-millionaire as a result of public service. We just don’t use that standard because the majority have already agreed we have to settle for the least crooked of a crooked lot.
Hillarity Clintoon did NOT win the primary because she is a more popular candidate believed to be honest and trustworthy. She won it because she used her influence to subvert democracy. The Clintoon Foundation is just one small part of that picture.
MjL 25 Aug 2016, 8:56 a.m.
All true, now what?
That is not the only reason she won it, the media played a huge role.
This is very much reminiscent of 1998 with the UAW. Except we have something, a movement, (I hope), started by Bernie that is heading us in the right direction. Just attended one of the Our Revolution kick-off gatherings last night, and had some excellent pizza at Pizza Works.
I have hope which I did not have with the end of the UAW struggle.
For me, Hillary/Clinton bashing is wasted effort, wheel spinning, accomplishes nothing but creates a lot of smoke and stinks up the place.
Michael T. 25 Aug 2016, 9:14 a.m.
I absolutely agree with all but the last sentence. Although I have struggled to measure my comments against her —— I also abhor the thought that people think there is ANY altruism in her or Bill. Sadly most people refuse to even honestly consider anything other than she is somehow better than Twitler.
I will be voting against Clintoon and Twitler. I don’t think Jill Stein is THE answer but a better answer. In effect I am voting the lesser evil I guess.
I sincerely applaud your hope and in no way wish to diminish it. In fact I envy it. I’m afraid I don’t yet share any conviction we will see any good come of the upcoming election.
MjL 25 Aug 2016, 9:46 a.m.
MjL 25 Aug 2016, 10:13 a.m.
I as well do not expect any good coming from the presidential election but do see the possibility of down ballot elections possibly making a difference. Bernie has changed the conversation and my hope is that the repercussions of that will continue to ripple across the world. Actually don’t think Bernie started it, but he gave it voice. That the young people have latched on gives me hope that it will have legs.
I, unfortunately, am, so far, unwilling to don full battle gear again, giving money and lip service but little else. I see the need and hope the youngsters are willing to do battle. If the right opportunity presents itself I can see myself in the streets again, maybe. Time will tell if the pendulum is headed back.
Michael T. 25 Aug 2016, 10:27 a.m.
Well said Michael. I suspect we are more in agreement than otherwise. I just need to temper my scorn for Hillarity. I am at times accused of supporting Twitler and that troubles me more than anyone supporting Hillarity. We are truly a divided society.
About
