I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

News Buzzard Tue May 19, 2015 9:40 am

Since we're going into McCarthy mode on the Clintons maybe it's time for the media to investigate the Bush family:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/bush-foundation-clinton-foundation-jeb

red_hill Tue May 19, 2015 10:17 am

There is currently no Bush running nor is there a foundation named the George HW, George W and Jeb Bush Foundation. You are grasping at straws. The Bush Foundations were primarily setup to fund libraries. I know you meant for this article to slam the Bush family, but it is more damning to the Clintons:

But the Clinton Foundation does release the names of all its donors and the general amount of each donation (though it has acknowledged screwing up on occasion)

A foreign government, a corporation, or wealthy individuals donating to the foundation could have an interest in a decision or action made by a secretary of state. And the public had a right to know if any potential conflicts of interest were at hand. (The overlap between the foundation's funding, the Clintons' personal finances, Bill's global hobnobbing with foreign leaders and CEOs, and Hillary's official actions as secretary of state certainly deserved scrutiny.)

With the Clinton Foundation accepting large checks from powerful players around the world, the Clintons have cooked up a situation that is rife with possible conflicts of interest. At least, it's been easy for critics to point to potential problems.

"cooked up" does not generally involve food!

News Buzzard Tue May 19, 2015 3:52 pm

If it looks, smells or feels like a foundation, it's a foundation, regardless of the direction of the donations. You're right that no Bush is running for President, yet, so we can assume that any donation to the George W Bush Foundation would not be any attempt to woo any favors from Jeb if he were to be elected, right?

http://www.georgewbushlibrary.smu.edu/en/About-Us/Partnerships/George-W-Bush-Foundation.aspx

Meanwhile, not a stitch of evidence has yet to be scratched up against Hillary.

News Hawk Wed May 20, 2015 7:38 am

News Buzzard wrote:Meanwhile, not a stitch of evidence has yet to be scratched up against Hillary.

Government didn't have "anything" on Al Capone, either.

Twisted Evil

.

Outerlimits Wed May 20, 2015 12:35 pm

News Buzzard wrote:If it looks, smells or feels like a foundation, it's a foundation, regardless of the direction of the donations. You're right that no Bush is running for President, yet, so we can assume that any donation to the George W Bush Foundation would not be any attempt to woo any favors from Jeb if he were to be elected, right?

http://www.georgewbushlibrary.smu.edu/en/About-Us/Partnerships/George-W-Bush-Foundation.aspx

Meanwhile, not a stitch of evidence has yet to be scratched up against Hillary.

Your nonpartisan source (ABC) that declared there was not a shred of evidence does not appear to be so fair and balanced these days. Rolling Eyes

George Stephanopoulos accused Peter Schweitzer of having a “partisan interest” in writing a book critical of the Clintons while he himself worked for and to this day is close personal friends with the Clintons. Never mind his nondisclosure of personal donations exceeding 75K to the Clinton Global Slush Fund…oops…Clinton Foundation.

As for there being no evidence, The TY Times and WaPo investigations contradict your clearly non-partisan claim.

Why not have both foundations investigated and see what turns up?

I’m sure you only want the Bush Foundations investigated due to the mountain of overwhelming evidence. Laughing

News Buzzard Wed May 20, 2015 12:42 pm

There is not a shred of evidence that either the Bush or Clinton Foundations have done anything wrong, despite all of your mumbo-jumbo about patterns of behavior. I'll agree to an investigation on Hillary when all of the conservative non-profits, like Americans for Prosperity, reveal their donors so we can get a look at their patterns of behavior. Many conservatives, including the Murdochs, have donated to the Clinton Foundation, so your criticism of Stephanopoulos is like trying to hold water in a strainer.

red_hill Wed May 20, 2015 2:14 pm

News Buzzard wrote:There is not a shred of evidence that either the Bush or Clinton Foundations have done anything wrong, despite all of your mumbo-jumbo about patterns of behavior. I'll agree to an investigation on Hillary when all of the conservative non-profits, like Americans for Prosperity, reveal their donors so we can get a look at their patterns of behavior. Many conservatives, including the Murdochs, have donated to the Clinton Foundation, so your criticism of Stephanopoulos is like trying to hold water in a strainer.

You can spout here all you want- the real court of public opinion will be on election day.

red_hill Wed May 20, 2015 2:16 pm

News Buzzard wrote:If it looks, smells or feels like a foundation, it's a foundation, regardless of the direction of the donations. You're right that no Bush is running for President, yet, so we can assume that any donation to the George W Bush Foundation would not be any attempt to woo any favors from Jeb if he were to be elected, right?

http://www.georgewbushlibrary.smu.edu/en/About-Us/Partnerships/George-W-Bush-Foundation.aspx

Meanwhile, not a stitch of evidence has yet to be scratched up against Hillary.

The George W Bush Foundation vs. The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. I bet Hillary wishes she never allowed that name change.

News Buzzard Wed May 20, 2015 4:48 pm

Still no evidence!!!! Wink

News Hawk Wed May 20, 2015 7:33 pm

News Buzzard wrote:There is not a shred of evidence that either the Bush or Clinton Foundations have done anything wrong, despite all of your mumbo-jumbo about patterns of behavior. I'll agree to an investigation on Hillary when all of the conservative non-profits, like Americans for Prosperity, reveal their donors so we can get a look at their patterns of behavior. Many conservatives, including the Murdochs, have donated to the Clinton Foundation, so your criticism of Stephanopoulos is like trying to hold water in a strainer.

Hillary is openly transparent—just like Obama.

Rolling Eyes

.

red_hill Thu May 21, 2015 1:50 pm

News Buzzard wrote:Still no evidence!!!!

The court of public opinion does not care about evidence. Ms Clinton will be stabbed in the back by many Ds this cycle... et tu

News Buzzard Thu May 21, 2015 3:40 pm

I don't know how many times I've said I'm voting for Bernie in the primary, but I'll be voting for Hillary in the general election. She will be walking into it with about 245 electoral votes in her pocket so she won't need to break a sweat to get to 270. That's why the Republicans are so desperate to get rid of her with all of this nonsense. I also don't know how many times I have to make the point that Hillary is not doing anything the Republicans aren't. I see Bernie as the smartest guy and the only gentleman in this race, and even he can beat the talented Republican field!! pirat

Outerlimits Thu May 21, 2015 4:55 pm

News Buzzard wrote:...That's why the Republicans are so desperate to get rid of her with all of this nonsense.

Republicans are not responsible for this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/us/politics/first-batch-of-hillary-clinton-emails-captures-concerns-over-libya.html?_r=1

New emails show Hillary Clinton got early warning that the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi were premeditated terrorism and not a spontaneous response to an anti-Muslim video.

Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton’s longtime trusted friend and former campaign adviser, sent an intelligence assessment to the secretary of state’s personal account on Sept. 13, 2012 — two days after four Americans were killed at the Benghazi outpost. Citing sensitive sources, Blumenthal wrote Clinton that the attacks “had been planned for approximately one month” and carried out by “well-trained, hardened killers” from Ansar al-Sharia, the Libyan terrorist group.

I doubt this will be reported by the likes of the media matters propaganda sites.

Blumenthal told Clinton the attack was driven by Al Qaeda-tied Ansar al-Shariah members who had planned it for a month and used a protest as cover.

"Yet, Susan Rice would go on several television programs Sept. 16 to claim the attacks were "spontaneous," and not premeditated, and link them to protests over the anti-Islam video."

A little different from what the liberal rags purposely “re-interpreted”.

“Not a shred of evidence.” Laughing

News Buzzard Thu May 21, 2015 5:04 pm

Outerlimits wrote:New emails show Hillary Clinton got early warning that the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi were premeditated terrorism and not a spontaneous response to an anti-Muslim video.

So what?? Since when is it a crime to botch your talking points?? (provided by CIA and later corroborated by NY Times)

News Hawk Fri May 22, 2015 7:38 am

News Buzzard wrote:Still no evidence!!!!

Isn't it interesting that George Stephanopolous (of ABC News) "donated" to the Clinton Foundation?

The MSM came out later to say, "George Stephanopolous has been trying to rid himself of Clinton bias for 18 years". (!)

pale

.

Outerlimits Fri May 22, 2015 11:13 am

News Buzzard wrote:So what?? Since when is it a crime to botch your talking points?? (provided by CIA and later corroborated by NY Times)

Botched talking points??? Wink

More like politically convenient lies.

The emails many of which are marked "sensitive but unclassified”, show the role played by Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton family confidante, who was working for the Clinton family foundation and advising a group of entrepreneurs trying to win business from the Libyan transitional government."
If it has taken years to uncover the facts it is only because this administration and Hillary have stonewalled it from virtually the first moments after the events.

“What difference at this point does it make?”

6 U.S. Code 482 - Facilitating homeland security information sharing procedures. Regarding the sharing of classified information: Blumenthal's access to this information is a serious transgression, even more so because it was then shared even further with unknown business interests.

Hillary is the democrats best shot at 2016 (Bernie Sanders…give me a break ). Hillary is plagued with the skeletons of her past and her campaign has been nothing more than continuous degradation of any perceived integrity or honesty she had left.

Progressives are witnessing this and it infuriates them; it not only means their best shot is an acknowledge sociopathic corrupt liar, but because this corrupt liar is a reflection of her voting base, and the more that Hillary's past catches up with her, the worse it looks on her loyal supporters.

Hillary’s campaign is like watching an octopus slowly falling out of a tree. Get your popcorn ready…many more scandals on the horizon. cheers

News Buzzard Fri May 22, 2015 11:59 am

Why don't you read your post again. You describe the E-mails as unclassified, but yet the US code section you list describes the sharing of classified information. So which is it?? Is this another pattern of behavior with which you are desperately trying to sink Hillary? This is how you conservatives like to operate, but you're not very good at talking from both sides of your mouth!!

In your words: Not moving the needle!

News Buzzard Fri May 22, 2015 12:24 pm

Keep trying, outerlimits! You have such a wonderful field of buffoons to run against Hillary!!! Razz

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

Outerlimits Fri May 22, 2015 3:32 pm

News Buzzard wrote:Why don't you read your post again. You describe the E-mails as unclassified, but yet the US code section you list describes the sharing of classified information. So which is it?? Is this another pattern of behavior with which you are desperately trying to sink Hillary? This is how you conservatives like to operate, but you're not very good at talking from both sides of your mouth!!

In your words: Not moving the needle!

Maybe you should take a break from Media Matters and try to keep up with current events.

Hillary admitted to confiding in this guy, and getting advice. She admitted to taking direction on policy issues from him while she was forbidden to do so. Now we have the emails where she forwarded his recommendations.

Hillary said there was absolutely no classified information on her email. According to statement made by the FBI today, there is. affraid

Hillary said there was 1 email; there are now at least 2 on different servers. affraid

She did violate the law by disclosing (at the time) confidential information.

You can deny the facts all you want but she clearly lied many times and she broke the law. You are supporting a criminal manipulator which suggests you are ideologically brainwashed and blind to the facts.

Still, It’s hysterical you started a thread to question the donors of the Bush Foundations while Hillarygate is in full bloom. You better check the needle again. Laughing

News Buzzard Fri May 22, 2015 4:32 pm

The New York Times today said that there was no classified information in those E-mails, so do you like the NY Times this week or not? I guess it depends on how mush the story is twisted toward your narrative. (also twisted) Nice try, though! Rolling Eyes

Outerlimits Tue May 26, 2015 12:37 pm

News Buzzard wrote:The New York Times today said that there was no classified information in those E-mails, so do you like the NY Times this week or not? I guess it depends on how mush the story is twisted toward your narrative. (also twisted) Nice try, though!

Well…

The AP, the FBI and the Obama Administration state otherwise:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton received information on her private email account about the deadly attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi that was later classified "secret" at the request of the FBI, underscoring lingering questions about how responsibly she handled sensitive information on a home server.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_CLINTON_EMAILS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-22-12-38-27

Obama administration was forced to concede that at least one of the e-mails contained classified information.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/418812/hillary-discussed-highly-sensitive-information-now-classified-secret-her-private-e

As a true Clinotnite… I know you are going to use the “It depends upon what your definition of is, is” defense.

"Because the information was not classified at the time the email was sent, no laws were violated and Hillary didn’t lie." - Ya, like that is not twisted Rolling Eyes

Of course that defense ignores the fact that information could not be vetted until Friday.

News Buzzard Tue May 26, 2015 3:18 pm

That's right! It wasn't classified until last Friday, so you still got nothing! Rolling Eyes

You're going to need a lot more than this garbage to peel voters away from Hillary, and this witchhunt might help her!! Cool

News Hawk Tue May 26, 2015 8:10 pm

News Buzzard wrote:That's right! It wasn't classified until last Friday, so you still got nothing!

You're going to need a lot more than this garbage to peel voters away from Hillary, and this witchhunt might help her!!

I just thought of Hillary's greatest achievement: the condition of present day Libya.

pirat

Sponsored content

I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?

Re: I Wonder Who Donates To The Bush Foundations?