Title abbreviated . Did Brit Paul McCartney Just let slip he made an illegal contribution to Hillary Clinton? http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...made-illegal-contribution-to-hillary-clinton/ The money quote from the article: " This is the first time I've ever paid to hear myself sing". McCartney, as a foreign national, cannot make contributions to federal office seekers. It's possible his wife made the contribution for him, but if she got the money from McCartney it's still illegal. I think this will not get any press coverage. The liberals here will not care. The conservatives should be outraged. So should any independents. Her Majesty's agents should not be determining who becomes President. This isn't a colony any more, and it isn't 10 Downing street.
I'm glad this thread title is posted as a question (even though there's no ? there ). Doesn't "...McCartney’s wife Nancy Shevell is a U.S. citizen and could legally donate to Clinton unless it was money given to her by McCartney which would be illegal" negate the whole thing though? ~ kuux
From the article: Later McCartney played four songs: Jet, Cant Buy Me Love, Lady Madonna and Hey Jude.
If your biggest problem is that Paul Mc Cartney played 4 songs for Clinton then you ain't got no real problems. Please lets have another Senate investigation on this one. Can we please waste more time and money...
The OP should have known better. When your source is The Dumbest Man on the Internet, you're going to be disappointed. Meanwhile, the Trump campaign was actively soliciting donations from foreigners as recently as July. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/donald-trump-foreign-donations The pain of being a Trump supporter: almost any time you try to level a criticism of Hillary, it turns out Trump already did the same thing, or worse.
Doesn't mean she's better, it means we're screwed. I still remember the report that came out about how all candidates in the race took foreign money. The Founders would be aghast with themselves, as this is the one thing they wanted to avoid. That's why naturalized citizens cannot hold the highest ranks of our country(Pres and VP). It's called "conflict of interest".
There is a difference between 'conflict of interest' and subject loyalty. The architects of the Constitution were concerned with loyalty. The possibility for a conflict of interest is there for citizens as for foreign nationals as well.
Mostly the same thing IMO. Unless the US-Born is indoctrinated with propaganda(as we see with terrorist organizations using the internet.), I can't see an American-born with a conflict of interest(as it pertains to the country.) Now their business/work dealings, that's different and I don't care about your private lives folks On that note, it's good that twitter/facebook are starting to shut down the accounts linked to terrorism, but that's not going far enough. They need to trace IP'S, give that to FBI/CIA agencies and literally run a crackdown.
No it is not. Conflict of interest is in no way on the same level a loyalty. One can have a conflict of interest and not be disloyal to the country. If one sells out his country, that there was a conflict of interest as well is irrelevant.
You haven't even distinguished any sort of difference between conflict of interest and those with dual-citizenship. Because there isn't one to be had. A conflict of interest is two competing sides, parties or ideas and you're on the fence for both ideas(or nations in this case), that stupidly simple.
