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
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: "Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons" [View all]VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)61. Nonsense believing it did actually.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
61 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
= 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
"Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons" [View all]
Cheese Sandwich
Jul 2015
OP
To skate on the edge would be to have duel citizenship, Swiss as Mrs. Bachmann the IRS lawyer
Sunlei
Aug 2015
#25
The phrase "conflict of interest" doesn't apply here--that implies an ethical dilemma.
TwilightGardener
Aug 2015
#44
Depositing money in Bill Clinton's personal checking account is philanthropy?
Cheese Sandwich
Aug 2015
#3
Many people here are deeply uncomfortable with the "Underground" part of the name
nxylas
Aug 2015
#20
Except DailyKOS, and this thread fails to point out that their is no evidence
still_one
Aug 2015
#28
"One needn’t believe that there’s ever been any quid pro quo to see that this matters."
Cheese Sandwich
Aug 2015
#31
“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,”
udbcrzy2
Aug 2015
#55
Since you didn't note there is no evidence in the OP, I am not sure what that means
still_one
Aug 2015
#29
No evidence of what? Government official protected bank. Then bank paid spouse millions.
Cheese Sandwich
Aug 2015
#30
It isn't me, it is in the original WSJ article which stated no evidence of any link between Mrs.
still_one
Aug 2015
#32
What's your explanation for why UBS paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million speaking fees?
Cheese Sandwich
Aug 2015
#33
If I report a story taken from the original source, I put in the disclaimers also from the source
still_one
Aug 2015
#34
Disclaimer: "One needn’t believe that there’s ever been any quid pro quo to see that this matters."
Cheese Sandwich
Aug 2015
#35
wow. Crystal ball? I think they said that in 2008 too. so Hillary sycophancy is the price of admissi
roguevalley
Aug 2015
#24
In your opinion if Mrs. Clinton is 'skeezy' who is out there in the running to vote for?
Sunlei
Aug 2015
#26
There is no evidence. This was posted in another thread earlier which made the same allegation
still_one
Aug 2015
#27
Just looks bad. Tone deaf. "Bad optics". It has the appearance of impropriety, at the least.
Cheese Sandwich
Aug 2015
#36
Appreciate that you responded to each one of my responses. This last one makes the most sense in my
still_one
Aug 2015
#37
I work in the government and people keep on handing me millions of dollars for no reason
Cheese Sandwich
Aug 2015
#50