Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: FLORIDA A.G. CEASED INVESTIGATING TRUMP UNIVERSITY AFTER TRUMP DONATED TO HER [View all]think
(11,641 posts)16. 5 'too big to fail' banks are violating Dodd-Frank rules
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/13/investing/dodd-frank-banks-living-wills/
And I showed that Hillary is siding with these corrupt banks and you chose to ignore it.
Trump sucks and the $25,000 donation looks bad but like Hillary go ahead and prove that there's a quid quo pro.
I believe there was a quid pro quo but the GOP will use the same "prove it" crap Hillary supporters use.
Speaking of looking like a quid pro quo here's a great one by Hlllary and Bill. But hahaha you can't PROVE anything..:
And I showed that Hillary is siding with these corrupt banks and you chose to ignore it.
Trump sucks and the $25,000 donation looks bad but like Hillary go ahead and prove that there's a quid quo pro.
I believe there was a quid pro quo but the GOP will use the same "prove it" crap Hillary supporters use.
Speaking of looking like a quid pro quo here's a great one by Hlllary and Bill. But hahaha you can't PROVE anything..:
Hillary Helps a Bankand Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons
CONOR FRIEDERSDORF JUL 31, 2015
The Wall Street Journals eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.
~Snip~
The article adds that there is no evidence of any link between Mrs. Clintons involvement in the case and the banks donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, or its hiring of Mr. Clinton. Maybe its all a mere coincidence, and when UBS agreed to pay Bill Clinton $1.5 million the relevant decision-maker wasnt even aware of the vast sum his wife may have saved the bank or the power that she will potentially wield after the 2016 presidential election.
But even that wouldnt make accepting the $1.5 million excusable.
If youre Bill Clinton and your wife has recently intervened, in her capacity as a cabinet secretary, to help a giant corporation avert a significant threat to its bottom-line, the very least you could do, if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety, is to avoid negotiating seven-figure paydays with that same corporation. This is particularly jaw-dropping because ultra-wealthy Bill Clinton has virtually unlimited opportunities to give lucrative speeches to any number of audiences not directly implicated by decisions that his wife made as secretary of state.
Read more:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/
CONOR FRIEDERSDORF JUL 31, 2015
The Wall Street Journals eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.
~Snip~
The article adds that there is no evidence of any link between Mrs. Clintons involvement in the case and the banks donations to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, or its hiring of Mr. Clinton. Maybe its all a mere coincidence, and when UBS agreed to pay Bill Clinton $1.5 million the relevant decision-maker wasnt even aware of the vast sum his wife may have saved the bank or the power that she will potentially wield after the 2016 presidential election.
But even that wouldnt make accepting the $1.5 million excusable.
If youre Bill Clinton and your wife has recently intervened, in her capacity as a cabinet secretary, to help a giant corporation avert a significant threat to its bottom-line, the very least you could do, if only to avoid the appearance of impropriety, is to avoid negotiating seven-figure paydays with that same corporation. This is particularly jaw-dropping because ultra-wealthy Bill Clinton has virtually unlimited opportunities to give lucrative speeches to any number of audiences not directly implicated by decisions that his wife made as secretary of state.
Read more:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
57 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
FLORIDA A.G. CEASED INVESTIGATING TRUMP UNIVERSITY AFTER TRUMP DONATED TO HER [View all]
Sancho
Jun 2016
OP
All the Gulf state AGs at least threatened to come after BP until they were bought off and shut
Dustlawyer
Jun 2016
#22
And people wonder why Bernie supporters are concerned about the MILLIONS in INCOME
think
Jun 2016
#2
If Trump is guilty he should be charged. One shouldn't be allowed to what he did even if he can get
think
Jun 2016
#32
Hillary opposes Glass Steagall and hasn't called out Wall Street fraud. Instead she took their
think
Jun 2016
#11
Hillary supports Dodd Frank and going after shadow bankers, which Bernie is clueless about.
SunSeeker
Jun 2016
#14
Bernie has been addressing the larger issue of too big to fail banks for a long time.
think
Jun 2016
#37
And you're also using the "half truth smear about the CFMA. Good grief you all are so full of it.
think
Jun 2016
#18
Why are you changing the subject of this thread? You do realize you're helping Trump, right?
SunSeeker
Jun 2016
#26
Dodd Frank is the law Sanders cites as giving him the authority to "break up the banks."
SunSeeker
Jun 2016
#57
Soft corruption is legal. And that's probably why Trump probably won't be indicted.
think
Jun 2016
#39
Where did I deflect? I am not against them trying to prosecute Trump. I think even if a quid pro quo
think
Jun 2016
#47
And where is the evidence Hillary has ever made a corrupt decision on banks? n/t
pnwmom
Jun 2016
#54
I like to say that anyone who does't have a little bit of the Devil in him . . .
Jack Rabbit
Jun 2016
#20
Well, it's worked for bank$ter/jihadists these past 8 years, no reason why he couldn't
jtuck004
Jun 2016
#34