Trump's Russian Collusion

[Peter Brown]

Orange man bad though

Trump's charity is shut down because of corruption. And your reaction is that we must be insane to criticize this. Who the F do you know that had their charity shut down for corruption?

As if this is just no big deal, and just another day in the city. "Oh, I know a guy who had FIVE charities that we shut down for fraud. So really, Trump's fraud is just no bid deal". Where do you come up with this stuff?

I LOVE that you pretend to hate government. And yet somehow, magically, the head of the US Federal Government can do no wrong in your eyes.

That's quite the little world you've concocted for yourself. Nicely done.

I’m fairly sure I said Trumps foundation was “illegal”. You can go back and verify that claim. I also said if we are comparing apples, his fraud doesn’t come within a couple universes of Clinton’s. Clinton simply was smarter with better lawyers. Trump is a small town hustler. The Clinton’s are the OG’s.

But hey, orange man bad and all that. Two million versus two billion.

What was the fraud at the Clinton Foundation? Bigger dollars bigger fraud. How bad was it? Post the link whenever you can.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it ever really fall? What the Clintons did is perfectly ‘legal’. Totally unethical and warped, but that’s life. The Foundation charters their private jets to prepaid vacations and never reach into their own pockets. Saudi Arabia (a huge Foundation benefactor) pays for the G5’s and Round Hill, and Bill and Hilary remain just out of the reach of the law. The tree fell but you didn’t hear it. Of course you love this setup. Trump wasn’t smart enough, or maybe he was too egotistical, to squeeze the juice like Bill and Hillary.

I don’t lose sleep over their schemes; I’m just glad enough people saw her for what she is and punished her at the ballot box, as it always should happen.

$2 million versus $2 BILLION. Lol. But orange man is bad. You guys kill me.

I am more concerned with Russian and Saudi financial ties to the POTUS. Why aren't you?

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/01/10/ ... -attorney/

Your post sounds purely xenophobic. Is it an accepted fact that all money from Russia and Saudi is tainted? If so, please have a word with The Carlyle Group in DC; they’re coffers are full of both sources. Also, speak with the Clinton Foundation; they too seem compromised.

But I know what you’re saying. You’re saying the “governments” of Russia and Saudi are bribing Trump. Ok, let’s go with that. To what end? What if Russia bribed Trump? What do they get out of bribing Trump? That he’ll be nicer to them at the UN? Big frogging deal if so. Tell me, to what end does Russia or Saudi governments need Trump?

Carlyle Group is an excellent firm. You comparing the Carlyle Group to what is basically the Trump Family Office and his fraudulent foundation? Why aren't you concerned with the POTUS 's ties to Russian and Saudi money?

Why aren’t you concerned with Carlyle’s?!

[Typical Lax Dad]

Orange man bad though

Trump's charity is shut down because of corruption. And your reaction is that we must be insane to criticize this. Who the F do you know that had their charity shut down for corruption?

As if this is just no big deal, and just another day in the city. "Oh, I know a guy who had FIVE charities that we shut down for fraud. So really, Trump's fraud is just no bid deal". Where do you come up with this stuff?

I LOVE that you pretend to hate government. And yet somehow, magically, the head of the US Federal Government can do no wrong in your eyes.

That's quite the little world you've concocted for yourself. Nicely done.

I’m fairly sure I said Trumps foundation was “illegal”. You can go back and verify that claim. I also said if we are comparing apples, his fraud doesn’t come within a couple universes of Clinton’s. Clinton simply was smarter with better lawyers. Trump is a small town hustler. The Clinton’s are the OG’s.

But hey, orange man bad and all that. Two million versus two billion.

What was the fraud at the Clinton Foundation? Bigger dollars bigger fraud. How bad was it? Post the link whenever you can.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it ever really fall? What the Clintons did is perfectly ‘legal’. Totally unethical and warped, but that’s life. The Foundation charters their private jets to prepaid vacations and never reach into their own pockets. Saudi Arabia (a huge Foundation benefactor) pays for the G5’s and Round Hill, and Bill and Hilary remain just out of the reach of the law. The tree fell but you didn’t hear it. Of course you love this setup. Trump wasn’t smart enough, or maybe he was too egotistical, to squeeze the juice like Bill and Hillary.

I don’t lose sleep over their schemes; I’m just glad enough people saw her for what she is and punished her at the ballot box, as it always should happen.

$2 million versus $2 BILLION. Lol. But orange man is bad. You guys kill me.

I am more concerned with Russian and Saudi financial ties to the POTUS. Why aren't you?

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/01/10/ ... -attorney/

Your post sounds purely xenophobic. Is it an accepted fact that all money from Russia and Saudi is tainted? If so, please have a word with The Carlyle Group in DC; they’re coffers are full of both sources. Also, speak with the Clinton Foundation; they too seem compromised.

But I know what you’re saying. You’re saying the “governments” of Russia and Saudi are bribing Trump. Ok, let’s go with that. To what end? What if Russia bribed Trump? What do they get out of bribing Trump? That he’ll be nicer to them at the UN? Big frogging deal if so. Tell me, to what end does Russia or Saudi governments need Trump?

Carlyle Group is an excellent firm. You comparing the Carlyle Group to what is basically the Trump Family Office and his fraudulent foundation? Why aren't you concerned with the POTUS 's ties to Russian and Saudi money?

Why aren’t you concerned with Carlyle’s?!

FinCen has jurisdiction, among others over Carlyle Group. Carlyle is not a public servant. Why don’t you care about Russian and Saudi Financial ties to whomever is POTUS?

[Peter Brown]

Orange man bad though

Trump's charity is shut down because of corruption. And your reaction is that we must be insane to criticize this. Who the F do you know that had their charity shut down for corruption?

As if this is just no big deal, and just another day in the city. "Oh, I know a guy who had FIVE charities that we shut down for fraud. So really, Trump's fraud is just no bid deal". Where do you come up with this stuff?

I LOVE that you pretend to hate government. And yet somehow, magically, the head of the US Federal Government can do no wrong in your eyes.

That's quite the little world you've concocted for yourself. Nicely done.

I’m fairly sure I said Trumps foundation was “illegal”. You can go back and verify that claim. I also said if we are comparing apples, his fraud doesn’t come within a couple universes of Clinton’s. Clinton simply was smarter with better lawyers. Trump is a small town hustler. The Clinton’s are the OG’s.

But hey, orange man bad and all that. Two million versus two billion.

What was the fraud at the Clinton Foundation? Bigger dollars bigger fraud. How bad was it? Post the link whenever you can.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it ever really fall? What the Clintons did is perfectly ‘legal’. Totally unethical and warped, but that’s life. The Foundation charters their private jets to prepaid vacations and never reach into their own pockets. Saudi Arabia (a huge Foundation benefactor) pays for the G5’s and Round Hill, and Bill and Hilary remain just out of the reach of the law. The tree fell but you didn’t hear it. Of course you love this setup. Trump wasn’t smart enough, or maybe he was too egotistical, to squeeze the juice like Bill and Hillary.

I don’t lose sleep over their schemes; I’m just glad enough people saw her for what she is and punished her at the ballot box, as it always should happen.

$2 million versus $2 BILLION. Lol. But orange man is bad. You guys kill me.

I am more concerned with Russian and Saudi financial ties to the POTUS. Why aren't you?

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/01/10/ ... -attorney/

Your post sounds purely xenophobic. Is it an accepted fact that all money from Russia and Saudi is tainted? If so, please have a word with The Carlyle Group in DC; they’re coffers are full of both sources. Also, speak with the Clinton Foundation; they too seem compromised.

But I know what you’re saying. You’re saying the “governments” of Russia and Saudi are bribing Trump. Ok, let’s go with that. To what end? What if Russia bribed Trump? What do they get out of bribing Trump? That he’ll be nicer to them at the UN? Big frogging deal if so. Tell me, to what end does Russia or Saudi governments need Trump?

Carlyle Group is an excellent firm. You comparing the Carlyle Group to what is basically the Trump Family Office and his fraudulent foundation? Why aren't you concerned with the POTUS 's ties to Russian and Saudi money?

Why aren’t you concerned with Carlyle’s?!

FinCen has jurisdiction, among others over Carlyle Group. Carlyle is not a public servant. Why don’t you care about Russian and Saudi Financial ties to whomever is POTUS?

Is ‘because I don’t’ an acceptable answer? I do care more about Carlyle.

Bribery happens in many ways, mostly unseen. Trump is a bull in a china shop. Everything is out there. I think his boastfulness offends you. Rightly. Doesn’t make him Clyde Barrow.

[MDlaxfan76]

Orange man bad though

Trump's charity is shut down because of corruption. And your reaction is that we must be insane to criticize this. Who the F do you know that had their charity shut down for corruption?

As if this is just no big deal, and just another day in the city. "Oh, I know a guy who had FIVE charities that we shut down for fraud. So really, Trump's fraud is just no bid deal". Where do you come up with this stuff?

I LOVE that you pretend to hate government. And yet somehow, magically, the head of the US Federal Government can do no wrong in your eyes.

That's quite the little world you've concocted for yourself. Nicely done.

I’m fairly sure I said Trumps foundation was “illegal”. You can go back and verify that claim. I also said if we are comparing apples, his fraud doesn’t come within a couple universes of Clinton’s. Clinton simply was smarter with better lawyers. Trump is a small town hustler. The Clinton’s are the OG’s.

But hey, orange man bad and all that. Two million versus two billion.

What was the fraud at the Clinton Foundation? Bigger dollars bigger fraud. How bad was it? Post the link whenever you can.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it ever really fall? What the Clintons did is perfectly ‘legal’. Totally unethical and warped, but that’s life. They get to charter private jets to prepaid vacations and never reach into their own pockets. Saudi Arabia pays for the G5’s and Round Hill, and Bill and Hilary remain just out of the reach of the law. The tree fell but you didn’t hear it. Of course you love this setup. Trump wasn’t smart enough, or maybe he was too egotistical, to squeeze the juice like Bill and Hillary.

I don’t lose sleep over their schemes; I’m just glad enough people saw her for what she is and punished her at the ballot box, as it always should happen.

PB, I too think the Clintons have walked the edge of legality, and IMO crossed the line ethically, but I think you drink too much from the right wing media propaganda machine. Most of what you say is not accurate nor complete. And what you ignore is that the Clinton Foundation actually did/does enormous good with its funds. The vast majority of that Foundation is actually used to make a difference in the world, for others. That matters when we think about the good/bad of this comparison.

Please don't misunderstand, I can make an argument about the Clintons and their egos, the benefits to them personally of being seen publicly doing good, the enjoyment of flying around the world and being received as muckety-mucks, wined and dined, treated to all sorts of perks...

But the Trump Foundation was clearly a criminal enterprise, not actually designed to benefit others, but rather solely to line their own pockets while pretending to do something for others.

If we compare the Clintons and Trumps, I think we can say that the Clintons are not 'ethical' in all cases, or at least are subject to ego and hubris, however they do understand and fundamentally respect that there are laws that restrict or compel behavior. They follow the law, best we can actually know for sure.

By contrast, the Trumps clearly have no respect for the law, they are full on criminals. The law is merely an impediment to their objectives, a threat they need to manage or avoid.

Big difference.

I know that's inconvenient if you prefer Trump to continue to be in office for some reason, but that's the way it is.

I’m pretty familiar with their foundation Jet charter activity... just saying.

Let's assume for a moment that you are; but I'd be enormously surprised if you had ANY insight as to their accounting for such.
Not a chance.

Flying around all over, regardless even of who cuts the check, has nothing to do with whether it is properly reported. I doubt that they would make the conscious error of doing something illegal. It's just not worth it.

Where I think we could make a substantive case of unethical, though not at all illegal, is in the grossly high speaking fees for Bill during her SoS and Presidential run up, and her fees during the run-up pre announcement.

Again, the Trump Foundation was a full out criminal enterprise, the Clinton Foundation has actually delivered enormous benefit.

[MDlaxfan76]

Orange man bad though

Trump's charity is shut down because of corruption. And your reaction is that we must be insane to criticize this. Who the F do you know that had their charity shut down for corruption?

As if this is just no big deal, and just another day in the city. "Oh, I know a guy who had FIVE charities that we shut down for fraud. So really, Trump's fraud is just no bid deal". Where do you come up with this stuff?

I LOVE that you pretend to hate government. And yet somehow, magically, the head of the US Federal Government can do no wrong in your eyes.

That's quite the little world you've concocted for yourself. Nicely done.

I’m fairly sure I said Trumps foundation was “illegal”. You can go back and verify that claim. I also said if we are comparing apples, his fraud doesn’t come within a couple universes of Clinton’s. Clinton simply was smarter with better lawyers. Trump is a small town hustler. The Clinton’s are the OG’s.

But hey, orange man bad and all that. Two million versus two billion.

What was the fraud at the Clinton Foundation? Bigger dollars bigger fraud. How bad was it? Post the link whenever you can.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it ever really fall? What the Clintons did is perfectly ‘legal’. Totally unethical and warped, but that’s life. The Foundation charters their private jets to prepaid vacations and never reach into their own pockets. Saudi Arabia (a huge Foundation benefactor) pays for the G5’s and Round Hill, and Bill and Hilary remain just out of the reach of the law. The tree fell but you didn’t hear it. Of course you love this setup. Trump wasn’t smart enough, or maybe he was too egotistical, to squeeze the juice like Bill and Hillary.

I don’t lose sleep over their schemes; I’m just glad enough people saw her for what she is and punished her at the ballot box, as it always should happen.

$2 million versus $2 BILLION. Lol. But orange man is bad. You guys kill me.

I am more concerned with Russian and Saudi financial ties to the POTUS. Why aren't you?

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2020/01/10/ ... -attorney/

Your post sounds purely xenophobic. Is it an accepted fact that all money from Russia and Saudi is tainted? If so, please have a word with The Carlyle Group in DC; they’re coffers are full of both sources. Also, speak with the Clinton Foundation; they too seem compromised.

But I know what you’re saying. You’re saying the “governments” of Russia and Saudi are bribing Trump. Ok, let’s go with that. To what end? What if Russia bribed Trump? What do they get out of bribing Trump? That he’ll be nicer to them at the UN? Big frogging deal if so. Tell me, to what end does Russia or Saudi governments need Trump?

Carlyle Group is an excellent firm. You comparing the Carlyle Group to what is basically the Trump Family Office and his fraudulent foundation? Why aren't you concerned with the POTUS 's ties to Russian and Saudi money?

Why aren’t you concerned with Carlyle’s?!

FinCen has jurisdiction, among others over Carlyle Group. Carlyle is not a public servant. Why don’t you care about Russian and Saudi Financial ties to whomever is POTUS?

Is ‘because I don’t’ an acceptable answer? I do care more about Carlyle.

Bribery happens in many ways, mostly unseen. Trump is a bull in a china shop. Everything is out there. I think his boastfulness offends you. Rightly. Doesn’t make him Clyde Barrow.

Clyde Barrow was a penny ante crook, Trump runs a mob-like enterprise.
And much more importantly, he is using the power he's been vested with in a compromised election to enrich himself further, in some cases either directly or potentially putting America security at risk. And he wants to do so for another 4 years, again compromising our electoral process.

We have financial oversight systems to deal with private enterprises, and of course some do act illegally and should be prosecuted for such...fully fund the oversight orgs please. (Trump has de-funded them).

But this "bribery" of POTUS and his family is only addressed Constitutionally...and that's what we as voters and taxpayers should insist happens.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Right and wrong is irrelevant these days.....PB does not realize I have made a few posts regarding Carlyle Group and it’s pipeline of ex government/military officials.

[seacoaster]

Pretty interesting article from the Post on the role, such as it is, of the Chief in the impeachment trial:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

"A closer look at the constitutional language and the origins and practice of impeachment reveals that these presumptions misread the intent of the Framers and the history and nature of the impeachment process. The constitutional directive that the chief justice “shall preside” does not mean that he will be a presiding judge. “Preside” must be understood in the context of an impeachment trial, not a trial in a court of law. And impeachment trials are not legal proceedings; they are political proceedings with senators as the ultimate decision-makers.

James Wilson, a Pennsylvania delegate at the constitutional convention and one of President George Washington’s first Supreme Court appointments, explained in 1791 that impeachments are “confined to political characters, to political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments.” Alexander Hamilton explained that the framers chose the Senate to be the “judges” and ultimate decision-makers because senators would not be “tied down” by “strict rules.” Senators are not bound by the rules of evidence or the rules of criminal procedure — only by the special impeachment oath they take to “do impartial justice.” Senators, unlike real judges, are politically accountable.

Imagine that the chief justice were to take an activist role — for example, ruling on whether Hunter Biden’s testimony is relevant. Where would he look for guidance on how to decide? Not to any law, because no law applies here to help the chief justice resolve such issues before him. If 51 or more senators say Biden should testify, he testifies. Any ruling Roberts makes can be overturned by a bare majority of the Senate.

The Framers chose the chief justice to preside in presidential impeachment trials for two reasons that had nothing to do with his powers or expertise. The first was purely ceremonial and symbolic: His presence brings solemnity to the occasion.

The other reason was to avoid the conflict of interest inherent in having the usual presiding officer of the Senate in charge, the vice president. This conflict was even more acute under the original Constitution, in which the vice president was not the president’s political ally but rather the opponent who finished second. Thus, as originally conceived, impeachment trials really did upend elections since the ousted president would be replaced by the person he defeated.

Placing someone else in charge was thought to remove that problem. The Framers offered no other insights into the chief’s role, except in otherwise providing that the Senate would have the power to determine its own rules for its proceedings, including trials.

The Senate’s rules and history make clear the Senate makes all important decisions in the trial. Chase had a hand in drafting the rules, giving himself power over “all questions of evidence and incidental matters,” and even to cast the tie-breaking vote when the Senate split evenly. But after Chase ruled on the competency of witnesses for the trial, two senators made a request that the Senate strip him of these broad powers. The motion failed, but barely. Chase tried to dilute the next one, which allowed any senator to appeal the ruling of the chair to the full Senate. It passed, and he was then overruled twice, leaving him embarrassed and scuttling the presidential run he had been planning.

In contrast to Chase, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was a model of restraint in presiding over President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial. Rehnquist was never overruled — because he rarely ruled. When the trial ended, he proudly said, “I did nothing in particular, and I did it very well.”

Temperamentally, Roberts is likely to follow the example of Rehnquist, for whom he clerked. At his confirmation hearings, Roberts famously said, “My job is to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.” He pointedly noted that no one came to a baseball game to watch the umpire. That does not sound like someone planning to become the center of attention in Trump’s trial."

[Peter Brown]

Orange man bad though

Trump's charity is shut down because of corruption. And your reaction is that we must be insane to criticize this. Who the F do you know that had their charity shut down for corruption?

As if this is just no big deal, and just another day in the city. "Oh, I know a guy who had FIVE charities that we shut down for fraud. So really, Trump's fraud is just no bid deal". Where do you come up with this stuff?

I LOVE that you pretend to hate government. And yet somehow, magically, the head of the US Federal Government can do no wrong in your eyes.

That's quite the little world you've concocted for yourself. Nicely done.

I’m fairly sure I said Trumps foundation was “illegal”. You can go back and verify that claim. I also said if we are comparing apples, his fraud doesn’t come within a couple universes of Clinton’s. Clinton simply was smarter with better lawyers. Trump is a small town hustler. The Clinton’s are the OG’s.

But hey, orange man bad and all that. Two million versus two billion.

What was the fraud at the Clinton Foundation? Bigger dollars bigger fraud. How bad was it? Post the link whenever you can.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it ever really fall? What the Clintons did is perfectly ‘legal’. Totally unethical and warped, but that’s life. They get to charter private jets to prepaid vacations and never reach into their own pockets. Saudi Arabia pays for the G5’s and Round Hill, and Bill and Hilary remain just out of the reach of the law. The tree fell but you didn’t hear it. Of course you love this setup. Trump wasn’t smart enough, or maybe he was too egotistical, to squeeze the juice like Bill and Hillary.

I don’t lose sleep over their schemes; I’m just glad enough people saw her for what she is and punished her at the ballot box, as it always should happen.

PB, I too think the Clintons have walked the edge of legality, and IMO crossed the line ethically, but I think you drink too much from the right wing media propaganda machine. Most of what you say is not accurate nor complete. And what you ignore is that the Clinton Foundation actually did/does enormous good with its funds. The vast majority of that Foundation is actually used to make a difference in the world, for others. That matters when we think about the good/bad of this comparison.

Please don't misunderstand, I can make an argument about the Clintons and their egos, the benefits to them personally of being seen publicly doing good, the enjoyment of flying around the world and being received as muckety-mucks, wined and dined, treated to all sorts of perks...

But the Trump Foundation was clearly a criminal enterprise, not actually designed to benefit others, but rather solely to line their own pockets while pretending to do something for others.

If we compare the Clintons and Trumps, I think we can say that the Clintons are not 'ethical' in all cases, or at least are subject to ego and hubris, however they do understand and fundamentally respect that there are laws that restrict or compel behavior. They follow the law, best we can actually know for sure.

By contrast, the Trumps clearly have no respect for the law, they are full on criminals. The law is merely an impediment to their objectives, a threat they need to manage or avoid.

Big difference.

I know that's inconvenient if you prefer Trump to continue to be in office for some reason, but that's the way it is.

I’m pretty familiar with their foundation Jet charter activity... just saying.

Let's assume for a moment that you are; but I'd be enormously surprised if you had ANY insight as to their accounting for such.
Not a chance.

Flying around all over, regardless even of who cuts the check, has nothing to do with whether it is properly reported. I doubt that they would make the conscious error of doing something illegal. It's just not worth it.

Where I think we could make a substantive case of unethical, though not at all illegal, is in the grossly high speaking fees for Bill during her SoS and Presidential run up, and her fees during the run-up pre announcement.

Again, the Trump Foundation was a full out criminal enterprise, the Clinton Foundation has actually delivered enormous benefit.

I’m entirely unfamiliar with what “enormous benefit” the Foundation has delivered? I’m also entirely unfamiliar with the Foundation’s accounting nor do I care. It is what it is. I raise it only as a litmus test versus Trump. One has billions, one has two million (sure he wishes he could’ve taken billions but his reputation preceded him).

The Clintons took cash from everyone and anyone with deals in front of HRC as SOS. If it walks and quacks like a duck....

[MDlaxfan76]

Orange man bad though

Trump's charity is shut down because of corruption. And your reaction is that we must be insane to criticize this. Who the F do you know that had their charity shut down for corruption?

As if this is just no big deal, and just another day in the city. "Oh, I know a guy who had FIVE charities that we shut down for fraud. So really, Trump's fraud is just no bid deal". Where do you come up with this stuff?

I LOVE that you pretend to hate government. And yet somehow, magically, the head of the US Federal Government can do no wrong in your eyes.

That's quite the little world you've concocted for yourself. Nicely done.

I’m fairly sure I said Trumps foundation was “illegal”. You can go back and verify that claim. I also said if we are comparing apples, his fraud doesn’t come within a couple universes of Clinton’s. Clinton simply was smarter with better lawyers. Trump is a small town hustler. The Clinton’s are the OG’s.

But hey, orange man bad and all that. Two million versus two billion.

What was the fraud at the Clinton Foundation? Bigger dollars bigger fraud. How bad was it? Post the link whenever you can.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it ever really fall? What the Clintons did is perfectly ‘legal’. Totally unethical and warped, but that’s life. They get to charter private jets to prepaid vacations and never reach into their own pockets. Saudi Arabia pays for the G5’s and Round Hill, and Bill and Hilary remain just out of the reach of the law. The tree fell but you didn’t hear it. Of course you love this setup. Trump wasn’t smart enough, or maybe he was too egotistical, to squeeze the juice like Bill and Hillary.

I don’t lose sleep over their schemes; I’m just glad enough people saw her for what she is and punished her at the ballot box, as it always should happen.

PB, I too think the Clintons have walked the edge of legality, and IMO crossed the line ethically, but I think you drink too much from the right wing media propaganda machine. Most of what you say is not accurate nor complete. And what you ignore is that the Clinton Foundation actually did/does enormous good with its funds. The vast majority of that Foundation is actually used to make a difference in the world, for others. That matters when we think about the good/bad of this comparison.

Please don't misunderstand, I can make an argument about the Clintons and their egos, the benefits to them personally of being seen publicly doing good, the enjoyment of flying around the world and being received as muckety-mucks, wined and dined, treated to all sorts of perks...

But the Trump Foundation was clearly a criminal enterprise, not actually designed to benefit others, but rather solely to line their own pockets while pretending to do something for others.

If we compare the Clintons and Trumps, I think we can say that the Clintons are not 'ethical' in all cases, or at least are subject to ego and hubris, however they do understand and fundamentally respect that there are laws that restrict or compel behavior. They follow the law, best we can actually know for sure.

By contrast, the Trumps clearly have no respect for the law, they are full on criminals. The law is merely an impediment to their objectives, a threat they need to manage or avoid.

Big difference.

I know that's inconvenient if you prefer Trump to continue to be in office for some reason, but that's the way it is.

I’m pretty familiar with their foundation Jet charter activity... just saying.

Let's assume for a moment that you are; but I'd be enormously surprised if you had ANY insight as to their accounting for such.
Not a chance.

Flying around all over, regardless even of who cuts the check, has nothing to do with whether it is properly reported. I doubt that they would make the conscious error of doing something illegal. It's just not worth it.

Where I think we could make a substantive case of unethical, though not at all illegal, is in the grossly high speaking fees for Bill during her SoS and Presidential run up, and her fees during the run-up pre announcement.

Again, the Trump Foundation was a full out criminal enterprise, the Clinton Foundation has actually delivered enormous benefit.

I’m entirely unfamiliar with what “enormous benefit” the Foundation has delivered? I’m also entirely unfamiliar with the Foundation’s accounting nor do I care. It is what it is. I raise it only as a litmus test versus Trump. One has billions, one has two million (sure he wishes he could’ve taken billions but his reputation preceded him).

The Clintons took cash from everyone and anyone with deals in front of HRC as SOS. If it walks and quacks like a duck....

Wow, sorry if this sounds insulting, but that’s one of the more truly ignorant posts you’ve made, PB.

Do some homework on what foundations are intended to do (normally), and then actually look at what these two foundations have done.

The Trump Foundation was used criminally, the Clintons not. It’s not a close call and that has nothing to do with size.

[ggait]

I’m entirely unfamiliar with what “enormous benefit” the Foundation has delivered? I’m also entirely unfamiliar with the Foundation’s accounting nor do I care. It is what it is. The Clintons took cash from everyone and anyone with deals in front of HRC as SOS.

Some friendly advice PB. You are dealing with a pretty savvy demographic here -- it's LaxPower, not MMA-Power after all. It is one of the reasons why I enjoy the conversation here. They are typically well informed and well expressed, which is most appreciated when I actually I don't agree with them. If I wanted fact-free hack screes, it would be so much easier to DVR Hannity than to come here.

You can be plenty partisan, but you have to some back up for what you say. I mean if you admit that you are "entirely unfamiliar" with the Clinton Foundation (your words), then maybe you should read up on it before commenting?

I mean at least read the freaking Wiki page:

In October 2016, The Wall Street Journal reported that four FBI field offices—in New York, Los Angeles, Washington, and Little Rock—had been collecting information about the Clinton Foundation to determine whether "there was evidence of financial crimes or influence-peddling". In a reported separate investigation, the Washington field office was investigating Terry McAuliffe before he became a board member of the Clinton Foundation. CNN reported in January 2018 that the FBI is investigating allegations of corruption at the Clinton Foundation in Arkansas. Sources said that federal prosecutors are checking to see if foundation donors were improperly promised policy favors or special access to Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state in return for donations and whether tax-exempt funds were misused by the foundation's leadership. The Washington Post reported in January 2020 that an additional Justice Department investigation into the matter, initiated after Donald Trump took office in 2017, was winding down after finding nothing worth pursuing.

[Typical Lax Dad]

This is the Year 2020 where facts don’t matter:

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where ... -money-go/

[ToastDunk]

This is the Year 2020 where facts don’t matter:

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where ... -money-go/

I must thank PB for bring up the Clinton Foundation ad nauseam, which prompted TLD to post the above link. Because of PB we've all learned more detail about the Clinton Foundation. AND what a fine foundation it is. I'd say pretty damn impressive.

Something tells me we'll be hearing more about Uranium One in PB's upcoming posts.

[Typical Lax Dad]

This is the Year 2020 where facts don’t matter:

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where ... -money-go/

I must thank PB for bring up the Clinton Foundation ad nauseam, which prompted TLD to post the above link. Because of PB we've all learned more detail about the Clinton Foundation. AND what a fine foundation it is. I'd say pretty damn impressive.

Something tells me we'll be hearing more about Uranium One in PB's upcoming posts.

I had looked into when I first became aware of the controversy leading up to the election. Found out the foundation does a lot of good work.....(btw, finally organized about 1,500 jazz CDs over the past two weekend about half)

[Peter Brown]

Orange man bad though

Trump's charity is shut down because of corruption. And your reaction is that we must be insane to criticize this. Who the F do you know that had their charity shut down for corruption?

As if this is just no big deal, and just another day in the city. "Oh, I know a guy who had FIVE charities that we shut down for fraud. So really, Trump's fraud is just no bid deal". Where do you come up with this stuff?

I LOVE that you pretend to hate government. And yet somehow, magically, the head of the US Federal Government can do no wrong in your eyes.

That's quite the little world you've concocted for yourself. Nicely done.

I’m fairly sure I said Trumps foundation was “illegal”. You can go back and verify that claim. I also said if we are comparing apples, his fraud doesn’t come within a couple universes of Clinton’s. Clinton simply was smarter with better lawyers. Trump is a small town hustler. The Clinton’s are the OG’s.

But hey, orange man bad and all that. Two million versus two billion.

What was the fraud at the Clinton Foundation? Bigger dollars bigger fraud. How bad was it? Post the link whenever you can.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it ever really fall? What the Clintons did is perfectly ‘legal’. Totally unethical and warped, but that’s life. They get to charter private jets to prepaid vacations and never reach into their own pockets. Saudi Arabia pays for the G5’s and Round Hill, and Bill and Hilary remain just out of the reach of the law. The tree fell but you didn’t hear it. Of course you love this setup. Trump wasn’t smart enough, or maybe he was too egotistical, to squeeze the juice like Bill and Hillary.

I don’t lose sleep over their schemes; I’m just glad enough people saw her for what she is and punished her at the ballot box, as it always should happen.

PB, I too think the Clintons have walked the edge of legality, and IMO crossed the line ethically, but I think you drink too much from the right wing media propaganda machine. Most of what you say is not accurate nor complete. And what you ignore is that the Clinton Foundation actually did/does enormous good with its funds. The vast majority of that Foundation is actually used to make a difference in the world, for others. That matters when we think about the good/bad of this comparison.

Please don't misunderstand, I can make an argument about the Clintons and their egos, the benefits to them personally of being seen publicly doing good, the enjoyment of flying around the world and being received as muckety-mucks, wined and dined, treated to all sorts of perks...

But the Trump Foundation was clearly a criminal enterprise, not actually designed to benefit others, but rather solely to line their own pockets while pretending to do something for others.

If we compare the Clintons and Trumps, I think we can say that the Clintons are not 'ethical' in all cases, or at least are subject to ego and hubris, however they do understand and fundamentally respect that there are laws that restrict or compel behavior. They follow the law, best we can actually know for sure.

By contrast, the Trumps clearly have no respect for the law, they are full on criminals. The law is merely an impediment to their objectives, a threat they need to manage or avoid.

Big difference.

I know that's inconvenient if you prefer Trump to continue to be in office for some reason, but that's the way it is.

I’m pretty familiar with their foundation Jet charter activity... just saying.

Let's assume for a moment that you are; but I'd be enormously surprised if you had ANY insight as to their accounting for such.
Not a chance.

Flying around all over, regardless even of who cuts the check, has nothing to do with whether it is properly reported. I doubt that they would make the conscious error of doing something illegal. It's just not worth it.

Where I think we could make a substantive case of unethical, though not at all illegal, is in the grossly high speaking fees for Bill during her SoS and Presidential run up, and her fees during the run-up pre announcement.

Again, the Trump Foundation was a full out criminal enterprise, the Clinton Foundation has actually delivered enormous benefit.

I’m entirely unfamiliar with what “enormous benefit” the Foundation has delivered? I’m also entirely unfamiliar with the Foundation’s accounting nor do I care. It is what it is. I raise it only as a litmus test versus Trump. One has billions, one has two million (sure he wishes he could’ve taken billions but his reputation preceded him).

The Clintons took cash from everyone and anyone with deals in front of HRC as SOS. If it walks and quacks like a duck....

Wow, sorry if this sounds insulting, but that’s one of the more truly ignorant posts you’ve made, PB.

Do some homework on what foundations are intended to do (normally), and then actually look at what these two foundations have done.

The Trump Foundation was used criminally, the Clintons not. It’s not a close call and that has nothing to do with size.

It’s “ignorant” to not know the many accomplishments of the Clinton Foundation?!

I’m sorry but I haven’t come into direct contact with the Fdn; it’s certainly well known in the Jet charter world. I guess if I had the interest i am sure google could provide me the facts that I’d like to see, and similarly google could provide you the facts you want to see.

That isn’t the issue so far as I am concerned. The Clinton Fdn was established by very sophisticated lawyers to raise enough $$ to keep the enemy at bay. And it has. They were successful. But we should have the honesty to see and admit what has gone on.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Orange man bad though

Trump's charity is shut down because of corruption. And your reaction is that we must be insane to criticize this. Who the F do you know that had their charity shut down for corruption?

As if this is just no big deal, and just another day in the city. "Oh, I know a guy who had FIVE charities that we shut down for fraud. So really, Trump's fraud is just no bid deal". Where do you come up with this stuff?

I LOVE that you pretend to hate government. And yet somehow, magically, the head of the US Federal Government can do no wrong in your eyes.

That's quite the little world you've concocted for yourself. Nicely done.

I’m fairly sure I said Trumps foundation was “illegal”. You can go back and verify that claim. I also said if we are comparing apples, his fraud doesn’t come within a couple universes of Clinton’s. Clinton simply was smarter with better lawyers. Trump is a small town hustler. The Clinton’s are the OG’s.

But hey, orange man bad and all that. Two million versus two billion.

What was the fraud at the Clinton Foundation? Bigger dollars bigger fraud. How bad was it? Post the link whenever you can.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it ever really fall? What the Clintons did is perfectly ‘legal’. Totally unethical and warped, but that’s life. They get to charter private jets to prepaid vacations and never reach into their own pockets. Saudi Arabia pays for the G5’s and Round Hill, and Bill and Hilary remain just out of the reach of the law. The tree fell but you didn’t hear it. Of course you love this setup. Trump wasn’t smart enough, or maybe he was too egotistical, to squeeze the juice like Bill and Hillary.

I don’t lose sleep over their schemes; I’m just glad enough people saw her for what she is and punished her at the ballot box, as it always should happen.

PB, I too think the Clintons have walked the edge of legality, and IMO crossed the line ethically, but I think you drink too much from the right wing media propaganda machine. Most of what you say is not accurate nor complete. And what you ignore is that the Clinton Foundation actually did/does enormous good with its funds. The vast majority of that Foundation is actually used to make a difference in the world, for others. That matters when we think about the good/bad of this comparison.

Please don't misunderstand, I can make an argument about the Clintons and their egos, the benefits to them personally of being seen publicly doing good, the enjoyment of flying around the world and being received as muckety-mucks, wined and dined, treated to all sorts of perks...

But the Trump Foundation was clearly a criminal enterprise, not actually designed to benefit others, but rather solely to line their own pockets while pretending to do something for others.

If we compare the Clintons and Trumps, I think we can say that the Clintons are not 'ethical' in all cases, or at least are subject to ego and hubris, however they do understand and fundamentally respect that there are laws that restrict or compel behavior. They follow the law, best we can actually know for sure.

By contrast, the Trumps clearly have no respect for the law, they are full on criminals. The law is merely an impediment to their objectives, a threat they need to manage or avoid.

Big difference.

I know that's inconvenient if you prefer Trump to continue to be in office for some reason, but that's the way it is.

I’m pretty familiar with their foundation Jet charter activity... just saying.

Let's assume for a moment that you are; but I'd be enormously surprised if you had ANY insight as to their accounting for such.
Not a chance.

Flying around all over, regardless even of who cuts the check, has nothing to do with whether it is properly reported. I doubt that they would make the conscious error of doing something illegal. It's just not worth it.

Where I think we could make a substantive case of unethical, though not at all illegal, is in the grossly high speaking fees for Bill during her SoS and Presidential run up, and her fees during the run-up pre announcement.

Again, the Trump Foundation was a full out criminal enterprise, the Clinton Foundation has actually delivered enormous benefit.

I’m entirely unfamiliar with what “enormous benefit” the Foundation has delivered? I’m also entirely unfamiliar with the Foundation’s accounting nor do I care. It is what it is. I raise it only as a litmus test versus Trump. One has billions, one has two million (sure he wishes he could’ve taken billions but his reputation preceded him).

The Clintons took cash from everyone and anyone with deals in front of HRC as SOS. If it walks and quacks like a duck....

Wow, sorry if this sounds insulting, but that’s one of the more truly ignorant posts you’ve made, PB.

Do some homework on what foundations are intended to do (normally), and then actually look at what these two foundations have done.

The Trump Foundation was used criminally, the Clintons not. It’s not a close call and that has nothing to do with size.

It’s “ignorant” to not know the many accomplishments of the Clinton Foundation?!

I’m sorry but I haven’t come into direct contact with the Fdn; it’s certainly well known in the Jet charter world. I guess if I had the interest i am sure google could provide me the facts that I’d like to see, and similarly google could provide you the facts you want to see.

That isn’t the issue so far as I am concerned. The Clinton Fdn was established by very sophisticated lawyers to raise enough $$ to keep the enemy at bay. And it has. They were successful. But we should have the honesty to see and admit what has gone on.

When you talk about things you know nothing about, it’s ignorant.

[MDlaxfan76]

Orange man bad though

Trump's charity is shut down because of corruption. And your reaction is that we must be insane to criticize this. Who the F do you know that had their charity shut down for corruption?

As if this is just no big deal, and just another day in the city. "Oh, I know a guy who had FIVE charities that we shut down for fraud. So really, Trump's fraud is just no bid deal". Where do you come up with this stuff?

I LOVE that you pretend to hate government. And yet somehow, magically, the head of the US Federal Government can do no wrong in your eyes.

That's quite the little world you've concocted for yourself. Nicely done.

I’m fairly sure I said Trumps foundation was “illegal”. You can go back and verify that claim. I also said if we are comparing apples, his fraud doesn’t come within a couple universes of Clinton’s. Clinton simply was smarter with better lawyers. Trump is a small town hustler. The Clinton’s are the OG’s.

But hey, orange man bad and all that. Two million versus two billion.

What was the fraud at the Clinton Foundation? Bigger dollars bigger fraud. How bad was it? Post the link whenever you can.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it ever really fall? What the Clintons did is perfectly ‘legal’. Totally unethical and warped, but that’s life. They get to charter private jets to prepaid vacations and never reach into their own pockets. Saudi Arabia pays for the G5’s and Round Hill, and Bill and Hilary remain just out of the reach of the law. The tree fell but you didn’t hear it. Of course you love this setup. Trump wasn’t smart enough, or maybe he was too egotistical, to squeeze the juice like Bill and Hillary.

I don’t lose sleep over their schemes; I’m just glad enough people saw her for what she is and punished her at the ballot box, as it always should happen.

PB, I too think the Clintons have walked the edge of legality, and IMO crossed the line ethically, but I think you drink too much from the right wing media propaganda machine. Most of what you say is not accurate nor complete. And what you ignore is that the Clinton Foundation actually did/does enormous good with its funds. The vast majority of that Foundation is actually used to make a difference in the world, for others. That matters when we think about the good/bad of this comparison.

Please don't misunderstand, I can make an argument about the Clintons and their egos, the benefits to them personally of being seen publicly doing good, the enjoyment of flying around the world and being received as muckety-mucks, wined and dined, treated to all sorts of perks...

But the Trump Foundation was clearly a criminal enterprise, not actually designed to benefit others, but rather solely to line their own pockets while pretending to do something for others.

If we compare the Clintons and Trumps, I think we can say that the Clintons are not 'ethical' in all cases, or at least are subject to ego and hubris, however they do understand and fundamentally respect that there are laws that restrict or compel behavior. They follow the law, best we can actually know for sure.

By contrast, the Trumps clearly have no respect for the law, they are full on criminals. The law is merely an impediment to their objectives, a threat they need to manage or avoid.

Big difference.

I know that's inconvenient if you prefer Trump to continue to be in office for some reason, but that's the way it is.

I’m pretty familiar with their foundation Jet charter activity... just saying.

Let's assume for a moment that you are; but I'd be enormously surprised if you had ANY insight as to their accounting for such.
Not a chance.

Flying around all over, regardless even of who cuts the check, has nothing to do with whether it is properly reported. I doubt that they would make the conscious error of doing something illegal. It's just not worth it.

Where I think we could make a substantive case of unethical, though not at all illegal, is in the grossly high speaking fees for Bill during her SoS and Presidential run up, and her fees during the run-up pre announcement.

Again, the Trump Foundation was a full out criminal enterprise, the Clinton Foundation has actually delivered enormous benefit.

I’m entirely unfamiliar with what “enormous benefit” the Foundation has delivered? I’m also entirely unfamiliar with the Foundation’s accounting nor do I care. It is what it is. I raise it only as a litmus test versus Trump. One has billions, one has two million (sure he wishes he could’ve taken billions but his reputation preceded him).

The Clintons took cash from everyone and anyone with deals in front of HRC as SOS. If it walks and quacks like a duck....

Wow, sorry if this sounds insulting, but that’s one of the more truly ignorant posts you’ve made, PB.

Do some homework on what foundations are intended to do (normally), and then actually look at what these two foundations have done.

The Trump Foundation was used criminally, the Clintons not. It’s not a close call and that has nothing to do with size.

It’s “ignorant” to not know the many accomplishments of the Clinton Foundation?!

I’m sorry but I haven’t come into direct contact with the Fdn; it’s certainly well known in the Jet charter world. I guess if I had the interest i am sure google could provide me the facts that I’d like to see, and similarly google could provide you the facts you want to see.

That isn’t the issue so far as I am concerned. The Clinton Fdn was established by very sophisticated lawyers to raise enough $$ to keep the enemy at bay. And it has. They were successful. But we should have the honesty to see and admit what has gone on.

Fact free post again = ignorant.

How about just reading gait's post above and then the following posts...go to the links.
You really aren't forced to be ignorant...it's up to you.

[ggait]

PB -- read up and tell us something other than "Uranium One!!!" And if you do, recognize that most of the bankers, businessmen and lawyers on this board actually know what CFIUS is and how it worksd. So you'll have to do a bit better than just pee on our leg.

We can get that lame content from Hannity easily. I come here to hear someone tell me something I don't otherwise know (regardless of partisan lean).

FYI, from the link posted above regarding Clinton Foundation:

Another philanthropy watchdog, CharityWatch, a project of the American Institute of Philanthropy, gave the Clinton Foundation an “A” rating.

Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or “charity”), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.

So while there's definitely some conflict issues regarding the CF operations, most of the money went for fine charitable works. The record shows that can't be said about Trump's slush fund.

That's not partisan (I personally strongly dislike Hill), but just factual.

Carry on PB.

[Peter Brown]

PB -- read up and tell us something other than "Uranium One!!!" And if you do, recognize that most of the bankers, businessmen and lawyers on this board actually know what CFIUS is and how it worksd. So you'll have to do a bit better than just pee on our leg.

We can get that lame content from Hannity easily. I come here to hear someone tell me something I don't otherwise know (regardless of partisan lean).

FYI, from the link posted above regarding Clinton Foundation:

Another philanthropy watchdog, CharityWatch, a project of the American Institute of Philanthropy, gave the Clinton Foundation an “A” rating.

Daniel Borochoff, president and founder of CharityWatch, told us by phone that its analysis of the finances of the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates found that about 89 percent of the foundation budget is spent on programming (or “charity”), higher than the 75 percent considered the industry standard.

So while there's definitely some conflict issues regarding the CF operations, most of the money went for fine charitable works. The record shows that can't be said about Trump's slush fund.

That's not partisan (I personally strongly dislike Hill), but just factual.

Carry on PB.

I’m not sure I’ve said a word in praise of Trump’s Fdn. It’s a disguise for tax free money used mostly for personal expenses.

The difference between the two is obvious to anyone not invested in the outcome. Trump’s is small change. Bill’s Fdn has the heft to keep the feds at bay. I’m sure it was loosely rated at the beginning and is now a shining beacon for all who need the story to match well with your preferred outcome. This is how these things go.

Meanwhile it covers personal jet charters, massive salaries for FOB’s, and the CGI while many on this board whistle past the glaringly obvious. I don’t even care; they can do what they want. I’m more amused that the board denizens of the left train their fire at such a chump change outfit like the Trump Fdn. And we know why.

Btw, from what I can tell, many people here don’t come to do much other than echo the noise they love to hear.

[ToastDunk]

Btw, from what I can tell, many people here don’t come to do much other than echo the noise they love to hear.

Now that's rich. Pot, meet kettle.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Btw, from what I can tell, many people here don’t come to do much other than echo the noise they love to hear.

Now that's rich. Pot, meet kettle.

A friend I work with reads the same articles that PB reads. Some of PB’s comments are almost word for word.