Of course the defense industry profited. That's what they do. As for conflating the donations to a charity and the decisions by the administration on who gets sold weapons, well, that is a Repugnant wet dream and worthy of a big fat blow it out your ass. The only real influence Saudi Arabia needs is their oil fields.

Anyone can donate to a charity for whatever reason that they want. A tax write off? The belief that it might help them via influence? Or maybe because they do good work? Doesn't matter. But remember, it's a fucking charity that does good work.

I'd be willing to wager that Sirota, or you for that matter, cannot prove jack shit and speculating in this manner is doing the bidding of the Teabag set. I am sure they are pleased with you. Or are you pleased with yourself?

This is coming from the far Left. I agree with you that this is undoubtedly "business as usual". And I think the Clintons are corrupt to the bone. They profit from those whose business is killing people. They have a charitable foundation which is profiting from human misery. And he gets paid $675,000 by a big bank to speak for 45 minutes?

Nothing to see here, just move along.

In their hatred of Hillary. The truth and accuracy doesn't matter when you hate. The article is bullshit to any in not blinded by that hate.

and often in that place lies the truth.

How specifically is this article "bullshit"?

The right unites for truth? WHEN??

Sometimes for the same reasons and sometimes not. But I'm very sure that if Bush were making these kinds of deals, Dems would be outraged.

Opposing a candidate on issues is not "hate." It's opposing the candidate on issues, and one doesn't have to be "far" left to oppose HRC on many issues.

Repeating and perpetuating lies about anyone is. And by the way don't play the game about what is a lie. You can use Google as well as anybody, I'm sure.

I haven't seen DUers "hating" by perpetuating lies.

and they are very explicit about that. I know it's difficult for personality cultists to understand.

It is interesting to watch the attack after attack from all sides, with nothing to back up the allegations.

It is if she is so feared. You suggest that she profits from those businesses killing people. How does she profit? The Clinton foundation gives the Clintons no money.

You suggest that the charitable foundation "profits." Think critically about this if you can attempt to set aside your disgust for a minute. Foundations do not profit. They dole out the money to help people. The help Bill Clinton has done with his foundation is amazing.

Speaking fees: this right-wing meme is getting old. Please investigate the speaking fees that ex-secretaries of state, ex-presidents receive. I thought we liked democracy, where you can succeed if you work hard. She is a huge draw and a huge name in politics. She was the secretary of state! That should be worth some mighty fine speaking fees.

Those with agendas and biases from decades of attacks are spoon-fed this crap and eat it with glee. I would hope we would all take a step back and really do some critically thinking about what is alleged before we jump for joy and regurgitate it as fact.

who then get deals so that they can sell weapons that kill innocent civilians to countries on the human rights watch lists? And that's done so that your foundation can help people?

And I'm sure none of these companies wind up giving huge donations to the Clinton campaign.

If Bush was up to this, there would be outrage. I don't understand the double standard.

There is no--and will never be--evidence of quid pro quo. That allegation of felonious actions are sure thrown out there with no filter. You are suggesting that the Secretary of State used her powerful position to gain money for a charity organization. What a reckless, factless allegation.

Seriously.

And that is business as usual.

And those cozy ties to Monsanto, and Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup? And Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch and JP Morgan Chase? "You gotta dance with them that brung ya."