That was why the Clinton's took it a step further and completely made all their financials public remember? That isn't what it said. It didn't say that they though it was a quid pro quo, they were worried it could be misinterpreted that way. There is a difference. They were worried that the donors might think they could use that as leverage to get something they wanted, but there was no evidence that was the case at all.
I mean it was a recommendation, they could make any recommendation they wanted. But it's clear the recommendation did nothing to make the foundation actually look ethical.
What it said was that the Clinton's overlap between their work and philanthropy made the organization look like a quid pro quo situation, and that the people working there and their families thought it was.
Usually former first lady's don't go back into politics for their charity donors to somehow be misinterpreted that way in the first place. I can imagine if we looked at other first lady's contact lists for charity events there would have been overlaps there as well as those making deals currently with the US government as well even if the first lady and former president are no longer involved in state business. In Hillary's case she went back in, that is the only weird thing about any of this.
Auditors are not interested in optics, only operational compliance. The body they’re investigating is responsible for its own perception but as long as the law is not in violation and all requirements meet compliance targets they aren’t terribly interested.
Please show the exact quote where the people working there and their families thought it was a quid pro quo. I don't see it say that anywhere.
To be fair, yes. And it's clear any quid pro quo that may have happened was expertly hidden, legally at least.
When you look at the actual deals that could have been taken as such at all and what was involved, that entire idea pretty well falls apart. Name the quid pro quos that would have been worth it to her to say " you save millions of kids in Africa and I give you this deal" It doesn't make sense for that to even apply here. You also have to look at deals made before and after with other administrations and her deals were not out of line with what was expected. How does Hillary benefit from having people she has dealt with save people in Africa?
So you are saying that the "AIDES" to her father were making too much money and this was somehow Hilary's problem why? This is not their families or members of the foundation thinking there is a quid pro quo anywhere FYI. Sounds like she was worried about her father's aids skimming or embezzling. Chelsea is not even talking about a quid quo pro at all in that quote.
People have donated millions of dollars to medical charities here as well. I still don't remember who they are after the fundraising event. I know I really should, but without some sort of notes to remind me, it isn't going to matter to me one way or the other tbh. Hillary was just trying to raise money for charity, it isn't like she is keeping the money and gets to go on a shopping spree. They aren't giving money to Hillary, they are giving it to a charity who has a board of people overseeing how the money is spent.
That has zero to do with her foundation. The foundation servers were separate from her email server. Also, they still have the hard drive. They said it has never been wiped, they could recall them now if they really wanted to. NONE of the Clinton's hard drives were ever wiped and they could still get anything they wanted off of them. The auditors have nothing to do with her email server. LOL they were auditing the foundation and had access to anything they wanted. The Clintons made all their financial available. you can view them over on Charity navigator. They have the highest score possible for accountability and transparency(100). There is no missing Data.
Yes because if I were a corrupt politician I'd make sure the fully separate the work entirely and only ever talk about on donations to the foundation on the foundation email server that I knew would be the ones actually audited.
Can you give a hypothetical online media platform owned and controlled by the poor?
You do realize that you are showing an article for 2015? they have already proven that FALSE. That is what I am talking about with misinformation. People still believe this BS after they proved it was wrong. He private email server was not wiped, they could recall the data for those 30,000 emails if they chose to do so. Once the FBI received the email server, they found that it hadn't been wiped at all. The GOP congressman that was saying it was wiped was inaccurate, This artlce was after the one you posted correcting that:Yes because if I were a corrupt politician I'd make sure the fully separate the work entirely and only ever talk about on donations to the foundation on the foundation email server that I knew would be the ones actually audited.
Also her foundation servers Hard Drive hasn't been wiped but parts of her private one apparently were.
'Nothing to Worry About': Clinton Dismisses Email Questions as Partisan
Clinton told Telemundo the controversy is being fueled by Republicans who can't defeat her on the issues.www.nbcnews.com
What is BleachBit? Little-known tool at center of Clinton email controversy
The latest focus point in Hillary Clinton's long email controversy may be a little-known tool for freeing up computer storage space.money.cnn.com
gephardtdaily.com
USA
