Clinton Aide Email Reveals $12M Quid Pro Quo Between Foundation and Morocco

[Dashinka 25,854]

A stone-faced Hillary Clinton refused to comment on an email a top aide sent calling a Clinton Foundation quid pro qou a 'mess' of the former secretary of state's own making.

'I have nothing to say about Wikileaks, other than I think we should all be concerned about what the Russians are trying to do to our election and using Wikileaks very blatantly to try to influence the outcome of the election,' Clinton said on Saturday.

The Democratic nominee was responding to a question posed by DailyMail.com during a media avail with reporters riding on her campaign plane.

Hacked emails revealed an internal disagreement among Clinton's aides about her desire to hold a conference in Marrakech, Morocco.

The country's king made a $12 million pledge to fund the Clinton Global Initiative conference - but only if the the likely presidential candidate attended.

Top confidante Huma Abedin bluntly wrote in a January 2015 email that 'if HRC was not part of it, meeting was a non-starter.'

Then she warned: 'She created this mess and she knows it.'

It was an uncharacteristic remark from Abedin, who is known for her abiding loyalty to Clinton over the years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3863568/No-comment-Clinton-say-Wikileaks-email-revealing-12M-quid-pro-quo-Morocco-s-king-aide-said-mess-making.html

[jg121783 3,921]

Hillary used her appointment as Secretary of State for personal gain and she will use the presidency in the same manner if the American people allow her to.

[Dashinka 25,854]

Hillary used her appointment as Secretary of State for personal gain and she will use the presidency in the same manner if the American people allow her to.

Yes, corruption practiced at the highest levels!

[Rob L 3,811]

Hillary used her appointment as Secretary of State for personal gain and she will use the presidency in the same manner if the American people allow her to.

What was the personal gain?

[jg121783 3,921]

Contributions to the Clinton Foundation which only gives 5% to charity in exchange for favors.

[Rob L 3,811]

Contributions to the Clinton Foundation which only gives 5% to charity in exchange for favors.

Audit returns show a 89.6 % distribution of the funds for charity and not administrative overhead. Maybe a small amount goes to other charities because the Clinton Foundation performs its own work and runs its own programs.

[jg121783 3,921]

Actually audits show only 5% goes to charity and the rest is "overhead". The people of Haiti got the short end of that stick.

Edited October 24, 2016 by jg121783

[Rob L 3,811]

Actually audits show only 5% goes to charity and the rest is "overhead". The people of Haiti got the short end of that stick.

Audits, what audits?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Jesus Christ people, Google is your friend: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

[Rob L 3,811]

Jesus Christ people, Google is your friend: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

I luv it when you get all "jus GTS it people!" Very hot.

[Dashinka 25,854]

Jesus Christ people, Google is your friend: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

Factcheck.org has been found to be politically biased.

[jg121783 3,921]

Jesus Christ people, Google is your friend: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/

So basically that page says according to IRS filings 6% is given to charity and we should just take the word of the Clinton Foundation that the rest also goes to charity.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

So basically that page says according to IRS filings 6% is given to charity and we should just take the word of the Clinton Foundation that the rest also goes to charity.

Try again. Reading is fundamental!

[Rob L 3,811]

Factcheck.org has been found to be politically biased.

Everyone has a bias. That does not mean the facts are changed.

Do we have a fact checker for the fact checker?

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Factcheck.org has been found to be politically biased.

Citations? Ones from Breitbart and similar ilk don't count.

Everyone has a bias. That does not mean the facts are changed.

Do we have a fact checker for the fact checker?

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-09-28/story/fact-check-so-whos-checking-fact-finders-we-are