Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only crime would be on the AG if they accepted the bribe, not on someone trying to bribe them, if this is even remotely true, nothing will happen to Trump. If the person doing the bribing can be held accountable then ALL lobbying groups would be indicted along with the people donating to Clinton's foundation that got favors.
The only crime would be on the AG if they accepted the bribe, not on someone trying to bribe them, if this is even remotely true, nothing will happen to Trump.
Not to mention that the AG's could be extorting the Trump family.
Remember that Trump reported the New York AG for extorting the Trump family.
Not to mention that the AG's could be extorting the Trump family. Remember that Trump reported the New York AG for extorting the Trump family.
When Trump is cornered he lies, sues or both. Like his exclusive interview on Russia Today yesterday -- that turned out to be an embarrassment, so now Trump and his team are saying they were tricked into being on the show. Trump's been sued or has filed suit over 4,000 times -- he'll do anything to avoid taking responsibility or pay a bill. His track record of fraud, dishonesty and scamming are all there to see if people would just take a little time and research it.
The problem is that there is no evidence of bribery. If anything, it could be extortion by the AG, like the New York AG tried against Trump before Trump reported the extortion.
However, if there is no "fire" with Hillary and the Clinton Foundation where there is 100 times more evidence of wrongdoing, this one tax filing mistake by the Tromp Foundation surely is a non-story.
Lets not forget that the Clinton Foundation had to refile 5-6 years of tax returns because they were hiding money.
You dems can't dismiss literally dozens of instances of overt bribery/pay for play with the Clintons, and then claim Trump is guilty of any wrongdoing over a filing mistake. Honestly, you can't do that, and have anybody take you seriously.
For people so quick to paint any questionable activity by Clinton as CORRUPTION!, it seems rather hypocritical to give Trump a yuuge pass in this matter, when he gave the person who could have prosecuted the Trump U matter $25,000 and then the matter was dropped by that person. Then, after the matter was dropped, Trump ran fund-raisers for her. If that isn't bribery, the word has no meaning. There is clear quid pro quo.
A guy on Twitter making claims without a single piece of evidence given.
You guys are funny.
Let us know when there are dozens of incidents of blatant bribes, pay for play like there is with the Clintons.
You are asserting, without facts, that there were quid-pro-quos involving U.S. policy regarding the Foundation. The record says otherwise. If you disagree, provide evidence that one needed to contribute to the Foundation in order to meet with the Secy. There is ample evidence of donors that requested meetings who were denied -- which undercuts the premise you are making.
For people so quick to paint any questionable activity by Clinton as CORRUPTION!, it seems rather hypocritical to give Trump a yuuge pass in this matter, when he gave the person who could have prosecuted the Trump U matter $25,000 and then the matter was dropped by that person. Then, after the matter was dropped, Trump ran fund-raisers for her. If that isn't bribery, the word has no meaning. There is clear quid pro quo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow
That's generally more than enough evidence for you.
There is federal records including phone records, emails, schedules, tax records that all document dozens of cases where money was donated to the Clinton Foundation by people, and groups that had matters before the State Department, all who recieved favorable action by Hillary's office. These same groups have also paid Bill Clinton 3-4 times is normal speaking fees to give speeches.
I'm sorry, but there is no shortage of credible evidence that comes from the official record, and not Twitter, that the Clintons were engaged in pay or play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
You are asserting, without facts, that there were quid-pro-quos involving U.S. policy regarding the Foundation. The record says otherwise. If you disagree, provide evidence that one needed to contribute to the Foundation in order to meet with the Secy. There is ample evidence of donors that requested meetings who were denied -- which undercuts the premise you are making.
There are federal records that show people were denied access to Hillary when they went through official channels, but were granted access when the Clinton Foundation asked for meeting with Hillary for these people.
Listen, if you want to question Trump, you first have to be willing to admit that there is 100 times the evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary first, otherwise nobody can take you seriously.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
