| fatslob-:O said: Sure thing ... Here's Clinton granting a few nations who happen to be donors to the Clinton Foundation weapon deals ... Here's Crown Prince of Kingdom of Bahrain (a nation with poor record of human rights) getting access to Clinton for which he failed to get access through "normal channels" but what's more is that she approved an arms sale for which they then later used it for "suppressing uprisings" ... Bill Clinton get's promoted to "honorary chairman" to the world's largest SHARIA LAW education firm while accepting money for the Clinton Foundation ?! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/17/hillary-clinton-gmo-support-monsanto-ties-spark-ba/ Monsanto donates to Clinton and the next thing you know she promotes GMO's ... http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-charity-tapped-foreign-friends-1426818602 Mr, Schoen then reveals that the purpose behind the meetings between Clinton and Viktor Pinchuk (a Clinton Foundation donor) was to make the US government pressure former president Viktor Yanukovych to release Yulia Tymoshenko ... And then we get to Gilbert Chagoury (denied visa cause of shady connections) and George Soros both of which are billionaires and Clinton Foundation donors which disturbingly shows pay to play going on in the emails ... The peer pressure is as real as it gets ... |
Theres a key difference between those sources and the Infowars source. There is no direct evidence of anything quid pro quo. Its all circumstancial. Tons of people donated to the Clinton Foundation and got nothing out of it too. Now of course there are conflicts of interest (and if Hillary were to become president, her and Bill should also step away from the Clinton Foundation), but again, they get no money from the Clinton Foundation (the talks they do get money from, but thats a bit of a different beast). I believe these conflicts of interest are on a different level of magnitude.
However, as I've stated before, the nature of Trump's Business involves him personally making a lot of money from foreign sources (without even considering how is domestic decisions could affect his business). That is also a clear conflict of interest. While Trump hasn't been given a chance yet to see how he would act in a political situation, I don't think that should excuse him of the danger that comes with these conflicts of interest.
I think its fair to have disagreements over whos conflicts of interest are more significant as that isn't anything objective. I personally believe donations to charity are less of a conflict than money in the pocket, but thats just me. At the core of the issue however is that both Clinton and Trump have unprecedented, large conflicts of interest, both of which are worrying.
