Missy89:
RNC establishment will pay for this rules they are shoving down the throats of the party.

The ayes have it and the rules have been adopted.

Lucasbalo,the party's nominee calls himself the law and order candidate yet they have no respect for law and order,irony doesn't even cut this.

ValerianSteel:
You deflected,why did you urge towards the gays as against many other groups that are currently protesting the GOP.

Btw,of all gay individuals to pick to speak at the convention,Trump picks Peter Thiel,he's not well liked in the LGBT community plus he's speaking at a convention where the party's platform is the worst that has ever been passed.

So because most gays dont like him means he is less gay? Why are regressives always full of hate to anyone who doesnt agree with their liberal bs?.

If the party is anti gay, why is a gay man speaking? Answer that question

Missy89:


State department release a statement when the story broke and said saudi was an ally so it is not a bad thing. How about you do some research yourself.

The irony is you are asking me if i was educated. Are you? Lol

Hilary drone

I have and I found nothing that supports that the Saudi donors are active members of the Saudi government.

ValerianSteel:
Lucasbalo,the party's nominee calls himself the law and order candidate yet they have no respect for law and order,irony doesn't even cut this.

The irony thou when your party have superdelegates and your candidate got over the finish line with party insiders vote. Some of which are under indictment and heading to jail

Missy89:


So because most gays dont like him means he is less gay? Why are regressives always full of hate to anyone who doesnt agree with their liberal bs?.

If the party is anti gay, why is a gay man speaking? Answer that question

Your words Missy.Peter Thiel is nothing close to being called a unifying LGBT icon,if gawker had never outed him,we'd know nothing about him and since he has publicly come out,not much has been heard about his stances on LGBT rights.

He identifies with the GOP and that's his free will and choice.

If the party is anti-women,why are women speaking at the convention.

ValerianSteel:
I have and I found nothing that supports that the Saudi donors are active members of the Saudi government.

From washington post
Can't wait for you to spin this one.


Foreign donations to foundation raise major ethical questions for Hillary Clinton

In an extraordinary report that has not yet been fully digested, the Wall Street Journal tells us that the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has received millions from foreign governments including Qatar, a prominent backer of Hamas
The Clinton Foundation has dropped its self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign governments and is winning contributions at an accelerating rate, raising ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up her expected bid for the presidency.

Recent donors include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline. . . .

United Arab Emirates, a first-time donor, gave between $1 million and $5 million in 2014, and the German government—which also hadn’t previously given—contributed between $100,000 and $250,000.

A previous donor, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation was created in 1999. Part of that came in 2014, although the database doesn’t specify how much.

The Australian government has given between $5 million and $10 million, at least part of which came in 2014. It also gave in 2013, when its donations fell in the same range.

Qatar’s government committee preparing for the 2022 soccer World Cup gave between $250,000 and $500,000 in 2014. Qatar’s government had previously donated between $1 million and $5 million.

Oman, which had made a donation previously, gave an undisclosed amount in 2014. Over time, Oman has given the foundation between $1 million and $5 million. Prior to last year, its donations fell in the same range.

The foundation of course provides luxury travel for Hillary Clinton and her spouse, a high-visibility platform and access to mega-donors. She is beholden in a meaningful sense to its donors. No presidential candidate can justify a conflict of interest of this magnitude; it is not merely the appearance of conflict but actual conflict of interest.

If former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell (R) might go to jail for receiving lavish gifts for a donor for whom he made a few phone calls, what would be the remedy if, once in office, Hillary Clinton extended her office not only to make calls but also to approve policy and financial arrangements worth billions back to these countries? How will the American people ever be satisfied we are getting her undivided loyalty? No matter how much she protests, her judgment would be questioned as influenced by gratitude toward the foundation’s wealthy patrons. And, of course, a president cannot recuse himself or herself from dealings, so there is no practical way to avoid the conflict.

It is bad enough when Clinton takes gobs of money in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, oil and chemical companies, and other titans of industry — although that, too, raises the potential for conflicts of interest. But a foreign government should never have any claim on the loyalty of a U.S. president, which is why foreign donations directly to a campaign are illegal. We cannot give her a pass simply because her entity is a “foundation,” not a PAC or campaign entity.

There is no conceivable way, I would suggest, that the foundation can keep the foreign monies if she wants to run for president. It is unseemly in the extreme and raises potential for liability down the road. But even if she were now to give all the money back, she has had use of the money in the meantime (the time value of money is something, after all). More important, her egregious judgment and untrammeled greed raise real questions about her priorities and ethics. Republicans should and will, I predict, pummel her with this. If the MSM is not entirely in her pocket, they will as well. Imagine if Jeb Bush’s education foundation took millions from Saudi Arabia. Surely there would be cries for him to withdraw from presidential pre-campaigning.

The irony here is that it is not the “Israel lobby” that buys influence. It is Arab states that lavishly fund universities and think tanks. And now they are buying a president. I await with baited breath the outrage from Tom Friedman and the other Israel-bashers who accuse lawmakers of being bought and paid for by Israel. Or do the rules just apply to Israel?

Original story from wsj cc valeriansteel.


Foreign Government Gifts to Clinton Foundation on the Rise
Donations raise ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up expected 2016 bid


By James V. Grimaldi And Rebecca Ballhaus
Updated Feb. 17, 2015 11:05 p.m. ET
The Clinton Foundation has dropped its self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign governments and is winning contributions at an accelerating rate, raising ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up her expected bid for the presidency.

Recent donors include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline.

In 2009, the Clinton Foundation stopped raising money from foreign governments after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state. Former President Bill Clinton, who ran the foundation while his wife was at the State Department, agreed to the gift ban at the behest of the Obama administration, which worried about a secretary of state’s husband raising millions while she represented U.S. interests abroad.

ADVERTISEMENT
The ban wasn’t absolute; some foreign government donations were permitted for ongoing programs approved by State Department ethics officials.

The donations come as Mrs. Clinton prepares for an expected run for the Democratic nomination for president, and they raise many of the same ethical quandaries. Since leaving the State Department in early 2013, Mrs. Clinton officially joined the foundation, which changed its name to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, and has become a prodigious fundraiser as the foundation launched a $250 million endowment campaign, officials said.

A representative for Hillary Clinton referred all questions to the Clinton Foundation.

A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation said the charity has a need to raise money for its many projects, which aim to do such things as improve education, health care and the environment around the world. He also said that donors go through a vigorous vetting process.

One of the 2014 donations comes from a Canadian agency promoting the proposed Keystone pipeline, which is favored by Republicans and under review by the Obama administration. The Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development agency of Canada, a first-time donor, gave between $250,000 and $500,000. The donations, which are disclosed voluntarily by the foundation, are given only in ranges.

One of the agency’s priorities for 2014-2015 was to promote Keystone XL “as a stable and secure source of energy and energy technology,” according to the agency’s website. Mrs. Clinton’s State Department was involved in approving the U.S. government’s initial environmental-impact statement. Since leaving State, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly declined to comment on Keystone.

The Canadian donation originated from an agency office separate from the one that advocates for Keystone XL, a Foundation spokesman said.

While the Canadian donation didn’t appear in a Clinton Foundation online database of donors until recently, the donation of about $480,000 was announced in June in Cartagena, Colombia, where the program provides job training for youths.

Kirk Hanson, director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University in California, said the Clintons should immediately reimpose the ban, for the same reasons it was in place while Mrs. Clinton led U.S. foreign policy.

“Now that she is gearing up to run for president, the same potential exists for foreign governments to curry favor with her as a potential president of the United States,” he said.

If she becomes president and deals with these nations, “she can’t recuse herself,” added James Thurber, director of American University’s Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies. “Whether it influences her decision making is questionable, but it is a legitimate thing to focus on by her political opposition.”

The donations weren’t announced by the foundation and were discovered by The Wall Street Journal during a search of donations of more than $50,000 posted on the foundation’s online database. Exactly when the website was updated isn’t clear. The foundation typically updates its website with the previous year’s donations near the beginning of the year. All 2014 donations were noted with asterisks.

At least four foreign countries gave to the foundation in 2013—Norway, Italy, Australia and the Netherlands—a fact that has garnered little attention. The number of governments contributing in 2014 appears to have doubled from the previous year. Since its founding, the foundation has raised at least $48 million from overseas governments, according to a Journal tally.

United Arab Emirates, a first-time donor, gave between $1 million and $5 million in 2014, and the German government—which also hadn’t previously given—contributed between $100,000 and $250,000.

A previous donor, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation was created in 1999. Part of that came in 2014, although the database doesn’t specify how much.

The Australian government has given between $5 million and $10 million, at least part of which came in 2014. It also gave in 2013, when its donations fell in the same range.

Qatar’s government committee preparing for the 2022 soccer World Cup gave between $250,000 and $500,000 in 2014. Qatar’s government had previously donated between $1 million and $5 million.

Oman, which had made a donation previously, gave an undisclosed amount in 2014. Over time, Oman has given the foundation between $1 million and $5 million. Prior to last year, its donations fell in the same range.

The Clinton Foundation has set a goal of creating a $250 million endowment, an official said. One purpose was secure the future of the foundation’s programs without having to rely so much on the former president’s personal fundraising efforts

Missy89:


From washington post
Can't wait for you to spin this one.


Foreign donations to foundation raise major ethical questions for Hillary Clinton

In an extraordinary report that has not yet been fully digested, the Wall Street Journal tells us that the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has received millions from foreign governments including Qatar, a prominent backer of Hamas
The Clinton Foundation has dropped its self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign governments and is winning contributions at an accelerating rate, raising ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up her expected bid for the presidency.

Recent donors include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline. . . .

United Arab Emirates, a first-time donor, gave between $1 million and $5 million in 2014, and the German government—which also hadn’t previously given—contributed between $100,000 and $250,000.

A previous donor, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation was created in 1999. Part of that came in 2014, although the database doesn’t specify how much.

The Australian government has given between $5 million and $10 million, at least part of which came in 2014. It also gave in 2013, when its donations fell in the same range.

Qatar’s government committee preparing for the 2022 soccer World Cup gave between $250,000 and $500,000 in 2014. Qatar’s government had previously donated between $1 million and $5 million.

Oman, which had made a donation previously, gave an undisclosed amount in 2014. Over time, Oman has given the foundation between $1 million and $5 million. Prior to last year, its donations fell in the same range.

The foundation of course provides luxury travel for Hillary Clinton and her spouse, a high-visibility platform and access to mega-donors. She is beholden in a meaningful sense to its donors. No presidential candidate can justify a conflict of interest of this magnitude; it is not merely the appearance of conflict but actual conflict of interest.

If former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell (R) might go to jail for receiving lavish gifts for a donor for whom he made a few phone calls, what would be the remedy if, once in office, Hillary Clinton extended her office not only to make calls but also to approve policy and financial arrangements worth billions back to these countries? How will the American people ever be satisfied we are getting her undivided loyalty? No matter how much she protests, her judgment would be questioned as influenced by gratitude toward the foundation’s wealthy patrons. And, of course, a president cannot recuse himself or herself from dealings, so there is no practical way to avoid the conflict.

It is bad enough when Clinton takes gobs of money in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, oil and chemical companies, and other titans of industry — although that, too, raises the potential for conflicts of interest. But a foreign government should never have any claim on the loyalty of a U.S. president, which is why foreign donations directly to a campaign are illegal. We cannot give her a pass simply because her entity is a “foundation,” not a PAC or campaign entity.

There is no conceivable way, I would suggest, that the foundation can keep the foreign monies if she wants to run for president. It is unseemly in the extreme and raises potential for liability down the road. But even if she were now to give all the money back, she has had use of the money in the meantime (the time value of money is something, after all). More important, her egregious judgment and untrammeled greed raise real questions about her priorities and ethics. Republicans should and will, I predict, pummel her with this. If the MSM is not entirely in her pocket, they will as well. Imagine if Jeb Bush’s education foundation took millions from Saudi Arabia. Surely there would be cries for him to withdraw from presidential pre-campaigning.

The irony here is that it is not the “Israel lobby” that buys influence. It is Arab states that lavishly fund universities and think tanks. And now they are buying a president. I await with baited breath the outrage from Tom Friedman and the other Israel-bashers who accuse lawmakers of being bought and paid for by Israel. Or do the rules just apply to Israel?

Again I restate,no proof that the Saudi donors represent the Saudi government.It is not established that they are active members of the Saudi government.

ValerianSteel:
Your words Missy.Peter Thiel is nothing close to being called a unifying LGBT icon,if gawker had never outed him,we'd know nothing about him and since he has publicly come out,not much has been heard about his stances on LGBT rights.

He identifies with the GOP and that's his free will and choice.

If the party is anti-women,why are women speaking at the convention.

Looks like you are extremely confused. I am not blaming you thou. Liberals aint all that.

So now you are talking about how theil sexuality was known not the fact that he is speaking at the convention?. Lol

What the heck is a unifying lgbt icon?

ValerianSteel:
Again I restate,no proof that the Saudi donors represent the Saudi government.It is not established that they are active members of the Saudi government.

Lol robot. Even Clinton is not denying it and it is on the foundation's database according to the report

Hilary Drone

Wsj report on clintons comment about the story

In its statement, the foundation said: “The Clinton Foundation has strong donor integrity and transparency practices that go above and beyond what is required of U.S. charities and well beyond the practices of most peer organizations. This includes the voluntary, full disclosure of donors on our website for anyone to see.”

“The bottom line: these contributions are helping improve the lives of millions of people across the world, for which we are grateful.”

In its account of the donations from foreign governments, the Journal quoted several independent analysts who said the foundation should restore its ban on such contributions, out of concerns that foreign governments would attempt to curry favor with Mrs. Clinton.

Keep living in denial

Missy89:


Looks like you are extremely confused. I am not blaming you thou. Liberals aint all that.

So now you are talking about how theil sexuality was known not the fact that he is speaking at the convention?. Lol

What the heck is a unifying lgbt icon?

Don't misconstrue my words Missy,it's not his sexuality I mentioned it's his stance on LGBT rights,he has never been known as an advocate for LGBT rights which is pretty okay,he is not bound to be just cause he's a nationally recognized figure.

The GOP's platform is anti-gay and Thiel isn't going to the convention to speak on gay rights cause his party doesn't support it.The GOP has made it clear this year that they would do everything they can to clamp down on civil liberties.

Thiel's presence at the convention does not shore up LGBT support for Trump,neither does it reflect an inclusive LGBT platform from the Republican Party.

When I used the term 'unifying LGBT icon',I mean he is not a personality LGBT individuals rally around as a champion for LGBT rights or someone to fight for LGBT rights in the GOP.

Missy89:


Lol robot. Even Clinton is not denying it and it is on the foundation's database according to the report

Hilary Drone

Wsj report on clintons comment about the story

In its statement, the foundation said: “The Clinton Foundation has strong donor integrity and transparency practices that go above and beyond what is required of U.S. charities and well beyond the practices of most peer organizations. This includes the voluntary, full disclosure of donors on our website for anyone to see.”

“The bottom line: these contributions are helping improve the lives of millions of people across the world, for which we are grateful.”

In its account of the donations from foreign governments, the Journal quoted several independent analysts who said the foundation should restore its ban on such contributions, out of concerns that foreign governments would attempt to curry favor with Mrs. Clinton.

Keep living in denial

You think they'd make the accounts public if there are damning foreign contributions.

ValerianSteel:
You think they'd make the accounts public if there are damning foreign contributions.

Yes they did

Go to the Clinton foundation website and check the donor list for 5 million and up. You will see the kingdom of Saudi Arabia there.

Colorado delegation walked out of Convention floor.

Missy89:
Nevertrump revolt. Demands roll call vote!.

Delegates are trying to change the rules that will prevent non republicans from voting during primaries. Ted Cruz faction are trying to set the stage for 2020.

Rules committee report hanging in the balance.

Well, I will favor a rule that only allows Republicans and independents to vote in the primaries.
It makes no sense to me that Dems would be allowed to vote in Republican primaries and vice versa. Independent should get to vote in either primary because most of them are still, at that time, trying to decide which party would best serve their interests.

Melania Trump has been working on her speech for, at least, 5 weeks.

CFCman:
Melania Trump has been working on her speech for, at least, 5 weeks.

Heard she's going to speak on "the softer side of Trump"(he doesn't have a soft side).

Less than 1% of delegates at the convention are black,interestingly even 1964 was 1%.

ValerianSteel:
Heard she's going to speak on "the softer side of Trump"(he doesn't have a soft side).

He has a soft side oh. His "I will bomb the crap outta ISIS and take the oil" line cracks me up all the time

CFCman:


He has a soft side oh. His "I will bomb the crap outta ISIS and take the oil" line cracks me up all the time

Or the "I'm speaking with myself because I have a very good brain and I've said a lot of things..." this one kills me every time

ValerianSteel:
Or the "I'm speaking with myself because I have a very good brain and I've said a lot of things..." this one kills me every time

lwkmd

ValerianSteel:
Less than 1% of delegates at the convention are black,interestingly even 1964 was 1%.

1000 percent of democratic delegates are black but there are more blacks on welfare in the last 8 years and black youth unemployment is very high.

So how is your high delegate number working for the black community?

CFCman:


Well, I will favor a rule that only allows Republicans and independents to vote in the primaries.
It makes no sense to me that Dems would be allowed to vote in Republican primaries and vice versa. Independent should get to vote in either primary because most of them are still, at that time, trying to decide which party would best serve their interests.

Only party members should be able to vote primaries.

Missy89:


Only party members should be able to vote primaries.

But aggrieved voters could file lawsuits against parties holding closed primaries. The thinking is that primaries are funded by taxpayers, thus, it shouldn't be restricted to only party members.

However, such a lawsuit will fail. It's just like suing the US Army for not selecting you as a recruit, even though your tax dollars fund the military. So, I'll essentially agree with you that all 50 states and D.C. and the territories could hold closed-only contests in the future.

ValerianSteel:
Heard she's going to speak on "the softer side of Trump"(he doesn't have a soft side).

What softer side ?. The one he used in cheating on his ex wife's or the one he told Howard Stern that women are only good to go on their knees and cook his meals. What a piece of misorgynistic garbage.

ValerianSteel:
Less than 1% of delegates at the convention are black,interestingly even 1964 was 1%.

I am surprised it's that much. Bunch of Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemima.

Update....she did good. Would love to see more of her campaigning, voicing and holding her own for her husband.

CFCman:
Melania Trump has been working on her speech for, at least, 5 weeks.

armyofone:
Update....she did good. Would love to see more of her campaigning, voicing and holding her own for her husband.

You mean the speech that was plagiarised. Almost exact speech Michelle Obama gave 8 years ago.

Lucasbalo:
You mean the speech that was plagiarised. Almost exact speech Michelle Obama gave 8 years ago.

I never realized it oh

I'm now watching Lawrence O'Donnell talking about it on MSNBC.

[i][/i]

ValerianSteel:
Electoral map advantage to Hillary.We've not even announced our VP yet

I love that electoral map.

CFCman:

I never realized it oh

I'm now watching Lawrence O'Donnell talking about it on MSNBC.

With the huckster and his team, nothing surprises me anymore. The guy is simply a snake oil salesman.

Lucasbalo:
With the huckster and his team, nothing surprises me anymore. The guy is simply a snake oil salesman.

But it's so cruel on Melania.
She didn't deserve such a treatment