HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Aiding and abetting poten...

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:37 PM

 

Aiding and abetting potentially indicted people

All of the Clinton supporters who are worried about Sanders continuing his campaign should be more worried that he won't be around if and when Bill and/or Hillary Clinton are charged with criminal charges as a result of decisions being made relative to when and how speeches were paid for and/or when and how contributions were made to the Clinton Foundation. Here is one of several apparent situations of interest.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

Therefore, they should be worried about are these supporters giving aid and comfort to potential criminals. Will they have as part of their resume that they gave aid and comfort to potential criminals? That is much more potentially serious than being worried about Sanders quitting the "race" sooner so the "supporters" don't have to worry about negative comments. If they can't handle negative judgments during a primary, how are they going to handle it during the general election where Trump is already calling Clinton "crooked Hillary"?

18 replies, 1860 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply Aiding and abetting potentially indicted people (Original post)
Arizona Roadrunner Apr 2016 OP
farleftlib Apr 2016 #1
99th_Monkey Apr 2016 #2
HooptieWagon Apr 2016 #3
farleftlib Apr 2016 #5
COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #11
HooptieWagon Apr 2016 #13
COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #14
HooptieWagon Apr 2016 #15
geek tragedy Apr 2016 #4
CoffeeCat Apr 2016 #8
agracie Apr 2016 #6
displacedtexan Apr 2016 #7
Arizona Roadrunner Apr 2016 #9
YouDig Apr 2016 #10
COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #12
Arizona Roadrunner Apr 2016 #16
insta8er Apr 2016 #17
Contrary1 Apr 2016 #18

Response to Arizona Roadrunner (Original post)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:40 PM

1. Good article

 

K & R

For a candidate running for prez, there is more than a whiff of scandal here. it's
more like a miasma of criminal activity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arizona Roadrunner (Original post)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:46 PM

2. Hillary would be SO much more vulnerable in the GE than Bernie.

 

and not only for the reasons you cite, but because Trump & the Clintons go WAY back,
and Trump knows all kinds dirt on Hillary, and will use it, guaranteed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arizona Roadrunner (Original post)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:49 PM

3. A tax-free 'charity' slush fund is much more lucrative than cattle futures...

 

...and sketchy real estate developments. But the Clintons motivation for self-enrichment while supposedly serving the public always remains.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:54 PM

5. Yes they've upped their game considerably since the 90's

 

No more real estate deals and cattle futures, that's chump change to them now.
They have weapons deals and all kinds of corporate schemes that pay much better
money. Her 4 years as SoS has only whetted her appetite for a couple hundred mil more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 11:51 PM

11. Yep. A charity which, according to audited records

gives 89% of what it takes in to other charities. Quite a 'slush fund', considering that most major charitable foundations and other organizations have administrative expenses well in excess of 11%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #11)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 11:56 PM

13. Like Dolores Huerta's charity, to buy her services.

 

And what charitable role did Sidney Blumenthall for his $10,000/ month salary? Did he do any work whatsoever for the Foundation? Facilitate quid pro quos with foreign govts perhaps?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #13)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 12:00 AM

14. You might direct those questions to the Clinton Foundation.

I'm sure they'd be delighted to provide you with all the pertinent information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Arizona Roadrunner (Original post)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:53 PM

4. Clap for the Indictment Fairy in order to prolong your false hope.

 

Your dreams will die soon enough.

Looking forward to the members of the Not Hillary Party leaving here by June 8. None of you will be missed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 11:11 PM

8. No one wants this drek in our party

No one is hoping for an indictment. We would rather than this did not happen in our party.

Dismissing open discussion of the FBI investigation against Hillary is not helpful to our party.

What happens if she is indicted? Are you prepared? Is our party prepared?

Our frontrunner is being investigated by the FBI for building a vulnerable, unsecure server and conducting all of her State business on it. Obama has said that he did not know about this server. 2,000 of her emails have been classified, 22 of them secured "Top Secret" status, which means that releasing the information would "put the country in grave danger."

She was supposed to turn over her server, but she deleted 30,000 emails first. She had emails going back and forth with Blumenthal, who didn't have a security clearance. They were discussing security in Libya. There were emails found in his inbox that Hillary deleted and didn't turn over to the FBI.

All of this, and so much more, warrants discussion. Adults should be able to discuss the big elephant in the Democratic party.

This affects all of us. Behaving like a child and saying la-la-la or mocking Sanders supporters for wanting to address this serious subject, in a serious way--is bizarre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arizona Roadrunner (Original post)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:57 PM

6. "Under investigation by the FBI" should disqualify a person from running for public office. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arizona Roadrunner (Original post)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 10:58 PM

7. What an incredibly unamerican thing to say.

We live in a country that honors "innocent until proven guilty." Shame on you. "Aiding and abetting POTENTIALLY indicted people" is a pathetic argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to displacedtexan (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 11:31 PM

9. Good luck with that position

 

Frankly I was trying to be polite. You are innocent until proven guilty but do you really think that being indicted wouldn't have an impact on Clinton's campaign? Get real!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arizona Roadrunner (Original post)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 11:34 PM

10. All people are "potentially indicted people."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #10)

Wed Apr 20, 2016, 11:52 PM

12. Congratulations for making clear the falsity and

the viciousness of that other statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arizona Roadrunner (Original post)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 01:39 AM

16. Guilty of poor judgment

 

The bottom line is there is a risk of being criminally guilty of a crime in the above example in the attached article. However they are both GUILTY of very poor JUDGMENT for putting themselves in this situation. Just on the appearance, Bill should not have accepted any speaking fees. It was and is an obvious conflict of interest. However, when you are used to pushing the limits and people are afraid or intimidated to challenge you, Bill and Hillary get away with VERY POOR JUDGMENT!!!!! Their "TEAM" look very weak because frankly most people with any credibility wouldn't put themselves in a position where they have to tolerate such actions. Then you discover many of them are lobbyists and "corporatists" and you understand why they have so little credibility for operating for the "general public interest".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arizona Roadrunner (Original post)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 01:44 AM

17. I always wondered how someone could call them self a republican

 

There is enough information available that these people are voting against their best interest yet they seem to be oblivious to this. Some blame it on the brainwashing that is being done by the likes of Faux News and other right wing "news" outlets. Studies show that that demographic is one of the least informed, someone who does not watch any news seems to be more or better informed about the current situation in the world/country. Looking at the cheer squad, I cannot help but to notice a lot of parallels that are prevalent in both groups.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arizona Roadrunner (Original post)

Thu Apr 21, 2016, 02:16 AM

18. Not to mention this:

Hillary Clinton’s Dealings With Saudi Arabia Back In Focus For 9/11 Bill

"...The bill, called the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, already passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and would remove immunity from foreign governments in cases “arising from a terrorist attack that kills an American on American soil.” The bill was introduced by Senator John Cornyn and is co-sponsored by Senator Chuck Schumer.

A recent report by 60 Minutes revealed that much of the controversial material in the famed 28 withheld pages of the 9/11 Commission Report contains information linking Saudi government officials to the 9/11 hijackers. The report from 60 Minutes suggests that the 9/11 Commission’s statement, that there was “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded the organization,” is purposely misleading, as the 28 pages reveal connections between non-senior officials in the Saudi government helping men who would become part of the 9/11 attacks settle in the United States.

<snip>

The 60 Minutes report and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act became a political football over the weekend when both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders came out in support of the bill after earlier equivocating. On the other side is President Barack Obama, whom both candidates claim to support and see themselves as heirs to.

But for Hillary Clinton this new position is problematic in other ways as well. The Saudi royal family and the Clinton family have a close personal and commercial relationship. According to the Clinton Foundation website, Saudi Arabia gave the Clinton Foundation between $10-$25 million. After the Saudis gave to the foundation, the Hillary Clinton-run State Department cleared a massive arm sale to Saudi Arabia worth $29 billion. The defense contractors in the deal also donated princely sums to the Clinton Foundation..."

And a gift to Hillary Clinton of a $500,000 necklace...go figure.

https://shadowproof.com/2016/04/18/hillary-clintons-dealings-with-saudi-arabia-back-in-focus-for-911bill/





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread