Clinton Foundation selling access

[spence]

Just like to remind Jim that this story has pretty much completely fallen apart...

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/26/medi...ion/index.html

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

Just like to remind Jim that this story has pretty much completely fallen apart...

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/26/medi...ion/index.html

So the AP based the story on the facts available and the Clinton News Network says it's 100% inaccurate because they based the story only using available information and didn't include the unavailable information.

So where is the proof of the overestimate the amount of non government people who got to have a meeting with Hillary Clinton?
What a surprise.
Looks like they are waiting until after the election to release any more information that could prove whether the AP was overstating or under stating the influence a donation to the Clinton Foundation

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-clinto...-election.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Just like to remind Jim that this story has pretty much completely fallen apart...

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/26/medi...ion/index.html

And by "falling apart", what your article does, is say that the meetings between Hilary and her donors, were a smaller percentage of her total number of meetings, than the AP reported. CNN isn't rejecting the APs notion that donors were given access. All they are disputing, is the denominator in the ratio that the AP published.

Why would the AP question Hilary? Anyone who can laugh in the face of that sniper fire she claims to have come under, is clearly above reproach.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And by "falling apart", what your article does, is say that the meetings between Hilary and her donors, were a smaller percentage of her total number of meetings, than the AP reported. CNN isn't rejecting the APs notion that donors were given access. All they are disputing, is the denominator in the ratio that the AP published.

The article makes no assertion that donations resulted in access, only that some people she met with had or were associated with someone who had made a donation previously. There still is no evidence anyone was given access because of their donations in fact the email leak shows the opposite.

That they led the story by misrepresenting the entire article is really sloppy journalism.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The article makes no assertion that donations resulted in access, only that some people she met with had or were associated with someone who had made a donation previously. There still is no evidence anyone was given access because of their donations in fact the email leak shows the opposite.

That they led the story by misrepresenting the entire article is really sloppy journalism.

Spence, there is an email from a foundation employee to Hilary's secstate email. In it, the foundation employee says that the prince of Bahrain (who gave $32million to the foundation) is "a good friend of ours". Coincidentally, after this email, Hilary met with the guy and sold him weapons.

Also, Weiner's wife was a paid employee of the State Dept, and the foundation, at the same time.

There is no email where Hilary says that you have to pay to get access to her. But there is certainly the appearance, once again, of impropriety.

And again, there is no earthly reason why foreign donations are acceptable when she was secstate, but inappropriate as POTUS. Secstate is a very powerful position, maybe you can take high school civics and bone up on that.