| fatslob-:O said: Nope, not all of it is circumstantial! There's an email from George Soros that instructed how the Secretary of State at the time (Clinton) was to deal with the unrest in Albania and she followed. Although I wish I knew what exactly was going on in that billionaire's mind ... Muhammad Yunus (Clinton Foundation donor) was granted $13 million dollars from the former Secretary of State and then she intervened with the Bangladesh government on behalf of Muhammad during an investigation against him. A massive and blatant example of conflict of interest due to cronyism if you ask me ... Depending on your definition of "a lot", his income from licensing his name isn't even in the double digit by the millions! I'd be more inclined to believe your proposal that LARGE conflict's of interests would arise with him if well y'know these foreign partnerships ACTUALLY made a substantial portion of Trump's income instead of a VANISHING portion ... |
Like...someone said, when you are Secretary of State, everyone wants to get involved. There is no evidence that any decisions were made due to this email. Again, this is the definition of circumstancial. Again, I agree that there are conflicts of interest involved with the Clinton Foundation, but there isn't direct evidence of quid pro quo.
Now, speaking about Trump for a second, I have already posted that Trump receives $8million per year from his South Korean deal. Now, your sources indicate that Soros provided the Clinton Foundation (again, this money goes to charity, not into Clinton's pockets) $7mil during the election cycle, so any way you slice it, Trump is making more money from a single source than Clinton is here. The fact that Clinton recieves more money total really only implies that she has more sources of income for her foundation and that there are more interests involved (meaning that the interests of her donors would be more likely to conflict).
Also, you are acting like Trump licensing his name isn't central to his business strategy, when that has been his business strategy for years now (and its very worth noting that the federal disclosure form is far from complete due to it not exactly being written for someone like Trump). Additionally, there are and have been many other deals involving this licensing, so if the South Korean deal is anything to go by, factoring in an increase in Trump's name power as president, it wouldn't be unlikely that future licensing deals which he could directly affect as President would make him over $10million per year each.
I'm not really sure why we are arguing anymore. This has become a pissing contest. Both of them have clear, undeniable conflicts of interest. Theres no two ways about it.
However, worth noting that Hillary has already made it clear that Bill and several other members will step away from the foundation (Hillary has already stepped away), it will go independent, and donations would only be accepted from US citizens if she were to become president. Trump on the other hand has said that his kids would be in charge of his business, which doesn't separate him any where near far enough from the conflict of interest imo.
