[ExI] The Clinton Foundation

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Thu Sep 1 19:51:50 UTC 2016

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:11 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> *>​>​…*I get impatient when people talk about trivialities like the pay
>> grade of assistants… In contrast Donald won't let us see his tax records
>> and his business relationships are a confusing tangled mess that he makes
>> no effort to untangle for us. And yet it's Clinton who is opaque not Trump.
>>>>  John K Clark  ​
> ​> ​
> Ah, OK I see the disconnect, and how two things are being compared which
> are so dissimilar: Trump was playing with his money.  Mrs. Clinton was
> playing with ours.

​Exactly, so if President Trump gives preferential treatment to his
business interests he will personally benefit from it but Mrs. Clinton
won't because she has no skin in the game.   ​

​> ​
> Trump isn’t breaking any laws:

​I just Googled "Trump" and "broke the law" and got 368,000 results.​

> ​> ​
> the IRS already has his tax returns.

​But we the voters do not have his tax returns. And because of that and
because they are so secret and convoluted if President Trump does give
preferential treatment to his business interests
​ we the voters won't know, only he will know, and of course his wife and
kids who will continue to run his business as usual.​

​> ​
> She has shown contempt for our laws with that very questionable
> arrangement with her aide. Unless she can show us a contract with details
> on what her aide was doing, that isn’t just questionable, it is illegal.

be damned if I know why but the probability Trump will win has gone up in
recent days, ​

​it's now at about 30%, ​so the danger is approximately the same as putting
not one but two bullets into in revolver, spinning the cylinder at random
putting the gun to your head and pulling the trigger. Perhaps that's why
when I hear details of the work contract of some aid to Hillary that I've
never heard of until a few days ago my mind starts to wander.

> ​> ​
> That arrangement gives the appearance that perhaps other countries (where
> governments durn sure are corrupt) might perhaps possibly view a donation
> to the Clinton Foundation as a way to get access to the US State
> Department.

​Donating money to a political campaign ​
​in the unstated hope of gaining access is not a crime and is not even
considered immoral in most circles, and even less donating money to a
philanthropic foundation to get access. ​ However it is illegal to accept
contributions from
foreign government officials
​ and it's even illegal to ask for it, but that's exactly what Donald Trump
did: ​


​> ​
> Trump refuses to show us how he was making his money.  Mrs. Clinton
> refuses to show us how she was spending ours.

​As I said the list hates Hillary far more than it hates Trump, and I
honest to god don't get it.​


 John K Clark

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160901/ecd7d931/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list