Many of her defenders only talk about the 'good work the Foundation does" and never hint at the shakedown method used to further themselves. But many, other than a few like Carville, are openly advising to 'shut it down',, obviously before the calls to 'lock her up' get louder. To think the CF is the only NGO to anything good is ridiculous. But.........if shutdown, Bill no longer commands $500K per speech. THAT is the real reason to keep going. Both of them are Money Whores.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Joe-Scarborough-Hillary-Defends-Clinton-Foundation/2016/08/25/id/745103/

because he liked the work CF did (he didn't get a meeting). Keep trying to defend the Clinton money grab by selling access to State Dept.....next.

END OF MESSAGE

It takes "intelligence" to see that. In fact, her poll #'s are rising, despite Trump's laughable & condescending recent  "outreach" to voters of color & fruitless "fishing expeditions" to find something illegal in her e-mails. Check below link.

-- Modified on 8/25/2016 10:38:34 AM

...when his son was president. Enlighten me nuguy46 on where do you see the difference?

were meetings with the Pres being sold? was access to other govt officials being sold? did any Bush give speeches and paid half a million dollars?

about P4P at the Points of Light Foundation.  Same thing when Bob Dole was running for President and his wife ran the Red Cross.

-- Modified on 8/25/2016 5:24:35 PM

You don't know how to answer his question.

...what you're saying is that when Hillary Clinton, a wife of a former president, was Secretary of State, an ample corruption was going on which involved foreigners making donations to Clinton Foundation and getting favors from state department...  

...but when George H.W. Bush's son was the president of the United States no corrupt P4P which involved foreigners making donations to George H.W. Bush foundation occurred?  

Btw, just so we're on the same page I'm attaching a link to an interesting article which to me looks not overly partizan.  

I mean Bill Clinton did command $500,000 per speech once but about 20 years earlier (imagine the difference in real value too!) Ronald Reagan commanded 2 million dollars for 2 speeches! I'm sure Japanese wouldn't even dream of asking former president Reagan for anything more then just his blah-blah-blah! I mean asking for anything more would mean that Reagan was as corrupt as is Hillary! And we definitely don't think that, right? I mean, God forbid.  

Now seriously speaking I personally don't give a damn about either of them. Both Clinton and Reagan were presidents, they earned the opportunity to command those amounts. I'm believer in market economy, you know, and if you're not, that's fine by me - people entitled to having difference of opinions. I mean none of us here are hypocrites - good for the goose, good for the gander, right?  

So let's take it one step farther. Both Reagan and Clinton received enormous speaking fees from foreigners, so are you saying that Reagan was as (if not more) corrupt as the Clintons because less then a year before those two speech Japanese purchased Rockefeller Center? Do you think there might've been some P4P between former president Reagan and the Japanese in that regard going on? You do realize that one phone call from Ronnie could move a mountain way back then, at least in this country?  

I'm just wondering whether what I describe fits into your corruption criteria or if what I point to here is just another liberal mambo jumbo, that's all.  

-- Modified on 8/25/2016 4:33:08 PM

END OF MESSAGE

When you say, "To think the CF is the only NGO to [do] anything good is ridiculous," you are saying that if an organization is doing good work and accomplishing what it sets out to get done, and which garners sufficient funds to fulfill its mission, that this alone does not make deserving of existence.

Compare this to how we might feel about individual people. The Delia Lama does good work. But he is not the only person doing good work. So wouldn't you argue that things would be better, less corrupt, more transparent, if we terminated the Delia Lama, use whatever wealth he has at his disposal to fund someone other who can do good work, because that would be less corrupt, more transparent? I would counter argue that, in case of the person, you would be suggesting murder for the purpose of personal enrichment.

Surely other NGOs who are indeed doing good work can command the same flow of donations as The Clinton Foundation.

BTW, half of the non-government personnel who sought and received a meeting with The Secretary of State were NOT people who had made any contribution whatsoever to the Clinton Foundation. People who are granted face-to-face meetings with people in high office have some reason that is or seems of interest and importance to both parties. I don't know how many regular joes email the Secretary of State (say Kerry now) and say, "Hi John! My name is Slush So'n'so'n'so, and I'd like to come by and shoot the shit sometime! Whaddoysay?!" But probably most of them get turned down. So the field narrows.