Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Norris2k said:
I know no substantial evidence, but it's not easy to prove, and it seems she has very strong connection to prevent anyone to want to prove it (her IT guy got immunity !). Still, and that's New York time source, Bill get 500.000$ for a speech, her foundation get 2 millions $ from a russian company at the very same period where a deal is decided with this very company. Why would they give 2 millions it didn't have benefits ? What I'm saying is not a substantial prove for a court of justice, I understand that... but really, you believe they gave 2 millions to the vice president's foundation at this very moment... just by accident ? In all logic, they give because that helps them. Hence the controversy. This is just one case, but you can find documentation for multiple cases.
As for the OP question, I believe he unfortunately stand no chance. Just look at how biased the press is (there are crystal clear examples), the funds she get, the relationships she has, it's incredible.
|
The CEO of the Clinton foundation basically stated that phone calls from the Clinton foundation were made to get appointments for donors as courtesy appointments, including business people but "claimed" that no policy decisions were apparently made.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zI_BMq1exe0&feature=youtu.be
|
Is it ironical ? Guilty or not, the CEO would say that, that's just a statement. Again why would the russian give 2 millions dollars to this very foundation, at this very moment if they did not believe it will "smooth" discussions ? In fact they would purposely give to another foundation if they wanted to make a good action and avoid misunderstanding. And what would do this foundation if they wanted to avoid to give the apparence of a conflict of interest ? They would not take the money.
