I don' understand this damn "pay for play" accusations against Hillary..........

[mrmpa]

the repugs are pointing to her time as Secretary of State and the Clinton Foundation receiving donations from countries. There's nothing that I can see that she "gave" to these countries. Our system of checks and balances would/could not allow the State Department to arbitrarily give anything to these countries.

Now on the other hand giving $25,000 to an Attorney General & then that AG not prosecuting you & your entities, now that's "pay for play".

[Warpy]

1. They think if they screech their accusations loudly enough

they will drown out the stated facts against their own deeply flawed candidate.

So far, the corporate press has been eating it up.

[mrmpa]

2. I agree the press is pissing me off........eom

[loyalsister]

3. It's not an unreasonable spin

Those inferences are exactly the basis of opposition to Citizens United and other dirty campaign finance practices. It is not a leap for anyone to latch on to the possibility that campaign contributions are bribes for political favors (pay to play). The SC decisions are based on the flawed idea that you have to be able to prove bribary for donations with expectations to be considered illegal.

The thing that confuses me is when this is part and parcel to the largest problems in our political system, why would the Clinton foundation do that? They did us a great disservice by making it easy to make the natural pay to play assumptions we make when we talk about the Koch brothers buying our government.

I am getting more encouraged by Hillary Clinton as a candidate, but I refuse to be like the guy I talked with recently who defended Trump's talk about how he would probably be dating his daughter if they weren't related.

Their practices left room for this kind of speculation. It is forgivable, but I won't pretend that it is unreasonable for people to continue to make pay to play assumptions.

[world wide wally]

4. Will cable news finally blow its credibility with this one?

Nah

[betsuni]

5. I don't either.

I saw this sentence about the Clinton Foundation yesterday and it doesn't make sense to me: "The New York Times editorial board said Clinton ought to distance herself from the nonprofit corporation established by her husband ... that focuses on fighting childhood obesity, addressing the effects of global climate change and creating economic growth." It's not like Cheney and Halliburton. Nonprofit. I don't get what sort of "pay for play" could possibly happen here.

[napkinz]

6. watch Joy Reid tonight!

[mrmpa]

7. Thanks, just turned her on......it is such a joy watching Joy.............eom

[napkinz]

8. you're welcome

[AzDar]

9. Raj Fernando 'Donated' Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars To Clinton Foundation... ASKED FOR, And WAS

GIVEN, seat on International Security Advisory Board...which deals with Top Secret matters, even those involving nuclear weapons/proliferation/security. Others on the Board questioned his qualifications, but only after ABC began probing the matter did he IMMEDIATELY RESIGN.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624


Pay. For. Play.

[meow2u3]

10. The repukes are covering up for the real bribery scandal

That of the Orange Criminal. The accusations against HRC are mere deflections, a desperate attempt to retain control of the government, even if it means installing a brutal dictator.