State dept reveals Hillary Clinton received $500K worth of jewelry from Saudi king

You mean, other than the fact that the point I raised directly related to your post?

If it's true that "someone who would unconstitutionally accept a gift from a foreign nation has no business being president", and it's true that most legislators have "unconstitutionally accept a gift from a foreign nation", would it be reasonable to assume you don't believe there are many viable candidates for president, or does this rule apply only to candidates you want to sling mud at?

 

I don't think there are many viable candidates, no. But most people aren't running for president. She is.

And I have condemned both sides. Care to join me in that, or are you only interested in defending Clinton?

 

The Saudis are corrupt—or at least have very different ethical standards in their culture. "Gifts" are very common.
I talked to a man who had been stationed as a logistics officer for the U.S. military in Saudi Arabia. His job was to buy supplies for the military. A Saudi agent from a private contractor took him out to an expensive restaurant and gave him several high priced gifts, including a silverware set.

 

And that includes the National Chamber of Commerce, of course.

 

Actually, you started out attacking only Clinton and have repeatedly insisted that only Clinton could be mentioned in this thread.
Only after I asserted that the issue is the same, and therefore relevant to the thread, did you grudgingly acknowledge that "many legislators" are equally "guilty" (I would argue more so, given that they didn't return the gifts).

When visiting a country in which gift-giving to guests is a cultural norm, Clinton made a poor judgement call rather than insult her hosts. I'm not debating that wasn't the case. She later returned the gift, which is more than her legislative counterparts (including all of those likely to run from the GOP) have done.

 

I quoted the relevant part of the Constitution in a thread about Clinton. Why not (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) at the OP, who set the topic, instead? BTW, I see you're still making excuses for Clinton. Someone who cared about the crime more than the party would just say, "yes, I join you in condemning both". And you accuse me of hypocrisy.

 

Someone who does not keep a gift has gained no material benefit, and therefore is not beholden to the gift-giver. Is Clinton in the same category as the legislators who routinely accept funds from foreign investors? No.

No matter how much mud-slinging you try to do, you can't change that fact.

 

Ha! Sure. She only took the gifts because it would offend people if she explained the illegality of taking them. Right. And she returned them out of her own sense of right and wrong, not because she got caught. Sure. Your refusal to acknowledge her criminality is telling. Partisan hackery all the way.

 

Ahem...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ons-foundation-raise-major-ethical-questions/

 

Y'know what amuses me?
When someone accuses me of partisan hackery while demonstrating typical conservative hypocrisy.

For example, fighting to ignore that the worst things they accuse Clinton of are equal to the best things that can be said of any potential redumblican candidates; and raising additional manufactured scandals while whining that any point regarding other (conservative) candidates is "off-topic".

That reeks of the very hackery you whine about.

 

What? What does that mean? Your dogs got shot with bullets? And you attribute it to your online activity? Or are you being metaphoric?

 

Get over it. The U.S. doesn't really care about Slavic people. We expect the powers in Europe to take care of that. But since they called us in to do precisely that, don't keep blaming us. We're the muscle. We moved on. Get a better narrative.

 

Could you provide the legislator's from both parties who received gifts from the Saudi's, when they received them, what gifts they were, and whether they actually kept them in violation of U.S. law, or returned them? Might lend credence to your point, which appears solely to be a liberal diversion, quite typical, when a Clinton or member of the Obama administration is pointed out as doing something illegal........

 

How amusing that the goalpost is being moved (again), this time back to being solely about the Saudis...

Even so, between 2000 and 2010, the Saudis have paid approximately $100 million to American firms, to lobby the American government on their behalf.
I assume you're aware that the primary resource provided by Saudi Arabia is oil - and which party is lobbied extensively by the oil industry that Saudis fuel (both literally and figuratively)?

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/12/fact-checking-stephen-walt/67648/

 

You know what amuses me?
When some someone assumes I'm pro-conservative or pro-Republican because I acknowledge the sliminess of the Democrat's "chosen one". Like I said, you are free to talk about "redumblican"(real mature there) candidates all you want. But when you call it "manufactured" that Hillary is taking millions from foreign countries (and not giving it back), yet you offer no evidence that it is not true other than you don't want it to be true (say it ain't so), it shows just how disposable the truth is to you.

 

The fact that you refer to Clinton as "the Democrat's chosen one" is as telling as the fact that you tried to avoid any mention that the exact same accusations could just as easily be made about almost anyone in government, to include GOP candidates.

Are you familiar with the term "onus probandi"? One does not make a claim without evidence and then assume it to be true unless it can be disproven.
Even Peter Schweizer, the author of the book “Clinton Cash” and source of all these conservative talking points, has admitted there is no evidence.

 

I referred to her as the "Chosen One" because she has been assumed to be the Dem candidate before she even announced, much less after actually winning a primary. News flash: you don't have to be a conservative Republican to not like Clinton. I'm not sure if you're just throwing this false dichotomy out there as a tactic, or if you really view the world in such a simplistic, black-and-white manner.

I cited a source, and it wasn't "Clinton Cash", nor was it derived from that book. Try again.

 

True, you don't have to be a conservative Republican to not like Clinton...
But attacking Clinton for doing something that you know is also done by conservative politicians, while not only failing to mention those other politicians - but claiming it's "off topic" to even mention them - is a pretty clear indicator that your mudslinging is directed in only one direction.

Yeah, your source was derived from the Wall Street Journal... And the WSJ article was derived from the book...

 

What is more interesting is what voters think. 63% of Likely U.S. Voters think it’s likely some actions Clinton took as secretary of State were influenced by donations made to the Clinton Foundation.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...e_helped_foreign_donors_as_secretary_of_state

Now there has been no new polls since the Clinton Foundation scandal or affair broke, depending on which side of the aisle you're on. But here are the latest polls concerning the Democratic nomination.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep..._democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

 

"Funds from foreign investors". Are they investing in the said legislators business or something? If they're investing in a business deal, doesn't matter if its a US Congressperson or whatever, their service on Capitol Hill doesn't prevent them from running a business. Or, if they invested in their campaigns then yeah, it's the same crime.

I'll accuse both along with you. I believe Hillary's being brought out by foreign lobbies, whether it's her Foundation, or whether it's her previous or current dealings make her the most unfavorable "candidate" EVER. To me, this is far more provable and dangerous than the Birther conspiracy theory. We KNOW Hillary is beholden to INTL. Countries and to Wall Street.

We know she's being peddled to us to basically screw us over. Why would we elect such a trojan horse? Why would we even let her run?

 

Hang on... You say that you agree that foreigners investing into political campaigns (in an attempt to buy friendly legislation) is "the same crime", and are willing to "accuse both along with me"... But then you say it's worse if/when Clinton does it, and single her out as someone who shouldn't be allowed to run...?

Clearly, the entire system is broken. Whoever has the most money during an election generally wins. This creates a political environment in which candidates pander to whoever funds their campaign expenses - representing those interests rather than their actual constituents.

A major contributing factor to this is "Citizens United", which allows blatant bribing of politicians by anyone with cash to invest in anticipation of legislative returns. As you may remember, attempting to kill "Citizens United" was a very partisan issue not so long ago... Which political party was it that wanted to kill it, and which was it that fought to keep it in place?

More importantly (tying this back to the thread), why single out one politician for allegedly doing what others do so transparently, unless this is pure partisan hackery?

 

Ever heard of the devil you know, VS the devil you don't know? This person used her post as Secretary of State for God freaking sakes to elicit these illegal contributions. Forget whether or not she's compromised, the integrity of the WH itself is compromised. Whether or not it is "highlighting partisanship" is irrelevant. The very fact that she's not being charged with anything is offensive in of itself. Do you think the Founders would tolerate this? Should we?

Do you trust a person who behaves in this fashion for CIC of the Armed Forces?

 

You mean as opposed to any member of the Legislative branch of government who has made laws specifically to line the pockets of his campaign contributors (whether they be foreign or domestic)?! How is that any better?
Hell, we've had plenty of blatant examples of sedition recently by some of the very people who are being considered as GOP candidates - non of whom were charged either! Do you think the Founders would tolerate that? Should we?

 

Not at all, give me the names with a link of proof and I'll gladly take them off my list of support(But then again, since I hate most/all of the DOM/GOP Pool with the exception of Ken. Senator Paul, I probably already have them off my list). I don't think we as Americans should tolerate brought and paid for candidates, R or D.

 

Well, let's see... Who's on the list of likely candidates...?

Ted Cruz
http://gizmodo.com/how-much-money-big-cable-gave-the-politicians-who-overs-1657002442
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-lobbyists-turning-down-heat-on-oil-export-issue-1421432419
Oh, and his #1 campaign contributor for years has been the largely Koch-funded "Club for Growth". I'm sure that's not a problem, the Koch brothers are clearly just philanthropists with no interest in swaying policy in a way that grows their personal wealth...

Rand Paul
Yeah, the guy who most vocally attacked Clinton about alleged Saudi donations... he's got Norm Coleman (who lobbies for the Saudis) on his Senate re-election leadership team. Hypocrisy much?
When Paul was running for the US Senate in 2009 and 2010 as a tea party outsider who would take on Washington's special-interest lobbyists, he repeatedly cited the Cheney-connected Halliburton as an example of what was wrong in the nation's capital - but there's been not a peep from Paul about limiting the campaign contributions and lobbying efforts of corporations (like Halliburton) that receive federal contracts. He has not introduced legislation in this regard. Instead, he has regularly accepted campaign money from the sort of special-interest wheedlers he has excoriated. According to data assembled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Paul has pocketed $83,000 from donors who have been registered lobbyists or who work in the government relations industry (or are married to someone who does). This list includes donors who toil for the top lobbying and law firms of Washington, including the Podesta Group; the Duberstein Group; Akin Gump; Quinn, Gillespie and Associates; Ogilvy Government Relations; and the Livingston Group.
Oh, and he's blocked an amendment to a U.S.-Swiss tax treaty, slowing Switzerland’s handover of data on thousands of Americans with bank accounts hidden from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. This protects the top 1% who choose to hide their income in foreign accounts in order to avoid paying tax, thereby shifting the tax burden to "the little people". Yeah, that's who we want for president...

Marco Rubio
http://www.republicreport.org/2012/marco-rubio-lobbyist/
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/marco-rubios-lavish-rise-to-the-top/1079473

Jeb Bush
Is this even necessary?
http://www.floridabulldog.org/2015/...-support-for-bacardi-as-contributions-flowed/
http://www.ibtimes.com/jeb-bush-pressed-pension-officials-behalf-donors-firm-1865946

Scott Walker
http://www.businessinsider.com/scott-walker-gave-81k-job-to-lobbyists-dropout-kid-2011-4
Not sure if this guy is even a serious candidate any more since the Koch bros dumped him.

Chris Christie
http://www.ibtimes.com/chris-christ...ase-after-oil-giant-gave-rga-big-cash-1830752

Who else is there?