Clinton Donor Under a Cloud in Fraud Case

dgreen said:
As much as I dislike Hillary I'm not sure where we are going. I mean.. she is giving the money to charity?

Its after the fact, pal! Do you really think she would do that if this story hadnt broke? Don't they investigate who they deal with or take money from?? Christ sake! The Clintons are slimy...
 
Faneros said:
Its after the fact, pal! Do you really think she would do that if this story hadnt broke? Don't they investigate who they deal with or take money from?? Christ sake! The Clintons are slimy...

Well I mean.. if you are concerned about voting for a politician that does background checks on their contributors I hope you aren't voting :p.

And I don't think she would have, because she never would have known.
 
Hillary doesn't give a fuck where the money comes from.

If it's a slimy source, all she has to say is "I didn't know, I'll give the money to charity"

Done deal.
 
Faneros said:
Its after the fact, pal! Do you really think she would do that if this story hadnt broke? Don't they investigate who they deal with or take money from?? Christ sake! The Clintons are slimy...


Yeah.

It's kind of like this

Bush to Give Up $6,000 In Abramoff Contributions

Republican Party officials said yesterday that President Bush will give up $6,000 in campaign contributions connected to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, joining an expansive list of politicians who have shed more than half a million dollars in tainted campaign cash.

The announcement came as Abramoff pleaded guilty in a second criminal case, acknowledging that he conspired to defraud lenders in the purchase of a fleet of Florida casino boats five years ago. The court appearance in Miami came a day after Abramoff pleaded guilty before a federal judge in Washington to defrauding Indian tribe clients of millions of dollars, conspiring to bribe members of Congress and evading taxes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/04/AR2006010402111.html

So how is the President different?
 
dgreen said:
Well I mean.. if you are concerned about voting for a politician that does background checks on their contributors I hope you aren't voting :p.

And I don't think she would have, because she never would have known.

California had a warrant for his arrest! He is a prominent Clinton donor. A little history would have shaken this all out...
 
Faneros said:
California had a warrant for his arrest! He is a prominent Clinton donor. A little history would have shaken this all out...

True, but it's probably hard to check into each and every person who makes a campaign contribution. Now if there are some pictures of her meeting this guy or having him whisper in her ear that is something potentially damaging. This, on the other hand, is just the media talking about something that goes on every day with every candidate.
 
dgreen said:
True, but it's probably hard to check into each and every person who makes a campaign contribution. Now if there are some pictures of her meeting this guy or having him whisper in her ear that is something potentially damaging. This, on the other hand, is just the media talking about something that goes on every day with every candidate.

Thats just it, he is not just any old donor....
 
B_Gus_Richards said:
So how is what Bush did different from Hillary?

I don't think Faneros is on the side of the political spectrum you think he is.
 
dgreen said:
Well I mean.. if you are concerned about voting for a politician that does background checks on their contributors I hope you aren't voting :p.

And I don't think she would have, because she never would have known.


She says now she is going to start vetting her major donors.

I wonder if she's aware of some of the stunts George Soros has pulled...
 
dgreen said:
True, but it's probably hard to check into each and every person who makes a campaign contribution. Now if there are some pictures of her meeting this guy or having him whisper in her ear that is something potentially damaging. This, on the other hand, is just the media talking about something that goes on every day with every candidate.



They knew all there was to be known about the Rich's and they took their money and pardoned them anyway.

They knew what kind of people the FALN terrorists were, but they pardened them for votes.

She is Josephine, obsessed with power and oblivious to the morality of the means...
 
In this case, you are kinda right, she's not the only Democrat running to divest...

Just like when they tried to nail what's-his-name, and then it turned out Pelosi and Hillary had to rush to expunge their records, forgetting that when you point one finger at me, three point back at you.
 
Faneros said:
I am not comparing the two of them. Lets move on....

She is a sleeze-bag

Right, one wouldn't want to actually look at the hypocrisy involved there would one? :rolleyes:
 
Ulaven_Demorte said:
Right, one wouldn't want to actually look at the hypocrisy involved there would one? :rolleyes:
I am specifically talking about the Clintons, they are slimy and have a history of this.
 
Faneros said:
I am specifically talking about the Clintons, they are slimy and have a history of this.

Ignoring the slime dripping off of the Bush family and others is rather hypocritical isn't it?

I mean, if you're anti-slime you should be railing against it wherever it's found.
Unless you're just anti-Clinton. :rolleyes:
 
Ulaven_Demorte said:
Ignoring the slime dripping off of the Bush family and others is rather hypocritical isn't it?

I mean, if you're anti-slime you should be railing against it wherever it's found.
Unless you're just anti-Clinton. :rolleyes:


Aren't you the one that hates the, "But he did it too" argument? :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top