allowed to die -- except for one from a politically important Middle Eastern Prince who had also made his request through proper diplomatic channels and did meet with her.

That's not to say big donors can't get access, but Hillary and others are careful to stay on the right side of the rules. That's a big part of what all those parties and other social gatherings are for.

To look for corruption, look for its REAL results. Mitch McConnell laboriously built his power over 30 years through influence peddling. His state is littered with building, institutes, other monuments to him paid for, for instance, by Chinese businessmen. He wanted power more than money, so took much of his payback in donations to candidates who would know they owed their election to him for instance. Nevertheless, his personal wealth is significantly more than his government income would explain (especially since living his life is so expensive), although his marriage to a wealthy daughter of one of the Chinese billionaires he has been so helpful to obscures this.

There is no story here. There was no pay to play. Sec. Clinton rightly used a "flack catcher" to dead letter box rediculous requests from people who wanted a favor.

We need to stop with the false equivalence stuff. Sec. Clinton capably handled the situation and there is not even a whiff of corruption - no matter how hard the Alt.Right party wants to whip up a story. Believe it or not - Democrats are not the same as the old republican party. And we are nothing like the new Alt.Right party that has replaced it.

A foundation run by or connected to people holding positions of power in the federal government should not be receiving contributions from foreign governments or even domestic sources that could influence policy. Period.

don't change if it is a Democrat involved.
This type of stuff need to be cleaned up.
There are numerous news article from friend sources discusses it.

It looks lik ed the Clintons themselves know that the rules need to change due to her run for th red Presidency.

On my way in I was listening to the news snd hearf that almost all of the visitors that Hillary met with at the State Department were Clinton Foundation Donors. This just leaves the door open for suspicion and speculation.

about 1% of Clinton non-governmental donors. (60-85, depending on the report -- out of 7000.)

And the news story highlighted the several contacts she had with a man she's known since 1983, who gave money to the Clinton foundation. He is the economist who won the Nobel Prize for his work on micro-finance (micro-credit) -- a threat to big banks everywhere.

AP's story neglected to mention that Hillary has known the man ever since she first worked with him in 1983.

Suspicious people will always find something to be suspicious about -- especially when the man's first name is Muhammed.

http://washingtonmonthly.com/2016/08/24/how-the-ap-spun-the-story-about-the-clinton-foundation/#.V72vJUbthsT.facebook

I have however read numerous articles from sources like the Washington Post and I have formed an opinion. Defending what I think is wrong just because the candidate is a Democrat is not my thing. The connections to a foundation and it's contributions from both foreign and domestic sources should be broken for the leader of the free world and her ex-President husband before they take office and the donation rules should be modified while they are in office.

So too bad...and a big who cares. Rude Pundit is right...nothing can be done until we take back the House which won't happen if you bash Democrats.

To understand why some might find an issue with some of the donations and a perceived access that they might have bought, the following article from slate does a pretty good job explaining it.

Please note that I am posting this just to add an informational article to the discussion and i have no malicions intentions in posting it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/23/the_clinton_foundation_controversy_explained.html

way to gain access, influence, and financial benefits. Let's see how Trump uses pay for play. Show us his taxes and his companies' books.

Meet and greets build relationships and it's a helluva lot easier to influence your friends than it is to change the behaviors of your enemies.

i support getting rich folks to part with cash to help solve some of the world's ills. Can't GoFundMe for every problem.

Navigating this ever complex world takes more than actions that will fit easily into headlines and sound bites. And just as we often credit Obama for operating, politically, like he's playing 3D chess, I believe the Clintons operate, globally, across a 3D chess board.

IMO, the talking heads need to cease looking for the Clinton strategy to fit into a flat sound bite which the republicans have defined.

money in politics is wonderful? And that's when the money goes directly to a candidate's campaign...so shouldn't they be even more fine with money going to a charity a candidate founded...one of the world's best charities?

Or did we miss part of the SCOTUS ruling that says money is free speech only if it goes to republicans?

even though he'd personally taken large cash gifts and loans.

By condemning thousands to poverty and death be ending a great charity but the Trumpster rolls merrily along...no you are wrong.

Were you intending to reply to my post?

All I did was kick and recommend the Rude Pundit. Sincerely, I have no idea how your reply relates to my post.

The Clinton "scandals" are all roughly the same (always have been, always will be):

1) find something minor that may sound questionable if held to a certain angle or perspective or specious claims
2) conflate it with treason and get the vapors
3) light hair on fire and run around screaming that this is a threat to the foundations of Western civilization
4) keep hair fires going with ginned-up hearings and costly 'investigations' (cue messers Issa and Gowdy)...
4) once hair is extinguished and "controversy" debunked, lather, rinse, repeat.

They have been doing this since 1992. Not a goddamn thing has changed in the interim...except for the more overt sexist dog whistles and innuendos being thrown about now. I am so fucking tired of GOP projectionism and the media lapping up false equivalencies like manna from heaven. I don't know which is more disgusting - a GOP congress critter or a media hack who believes "some people are saying..." is a legitimate "source".

If Nixon had the press we have today, he could have gotten away with completely undermining the constitution and declared himself emperor!

The cost to them of closing the Foundation must be considered but almost nothing is ever said about this.

Restructuring it would be better than closing it in response to groundless Republican and media witch hunts.