First of all, the Clintons have flat refused to open the books on their foundation.
Louis Weeks

Again with the false equivalence. As every candidate since Richard Nixon did, the Clintons released their personal income taxes. They released many years worth, as I recall. It was utterly ignored by the media because there was nothing there to raise an eyebrow over. This is the parallel to Trump releasing none of his personal income taxes, in a break from modern tradition.

Now, the Clinton Foundation is a non-profit organization whose books have been reviewed by charitable watchdog groups. They have no obligation to make their books public, nor is there any precedent for them doing so. However, as a non-profit organization they are incredibly transparent with what they do make public, far beyond legal requirements. You can see their annual reports and IRS 990 and 990T forms here. These include audit reports by Price Waterhouse Cooper. No, they are not required to report salaries of employes — that is highly proprietary information. However, any such statements that they do make, such as the salary that Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea receive, is absolutely required to be truthful, and is subject to IRS audits (as violation would endanger their non-profit status). You will see aggregate salaries and benefits for all non-profit administrators listed in the consolidated financial statements.

As for your conjecture about which travel expenses are paid by the Foundation versus through private funds, that is a lot of conjecture about things you admit we have no knowledge about. I will say, though, that a Foundation does not achieve 11% or less administrative costs by lavishing top-shelf goods and services on its founders. Do you have the same assertions about the American Red Cross — widely considered the gold standard for a non-profit actively engaged in charity work — with a 10% administrative load? It is theoretically possible that the Clinton Foundation is so extraordinaril well-run that it really only has a 5% administrative load, and Bill and Hillary pocket the next 6% in paid vacation stops jet setting around the world. But, highly unlikely.

And, yes, they “got” Al Capone on tax evasion. Because he was evading taxes, and the way the tax laws work if you have criminal income you either report that income or you are evading taxes. He clearly had the income, so the tax evasion conviction was easier to make than murders (in which cases he paid off the juries and officials). Tax evasion is a slam-dunk easy case to make, because the numbers either add up or they don’t, and that is a federal crime which went through a less easily-corrupted process than the local statutory crimes in Chcago in the 1920s.

The thing is, after all the investigations by the Republican Congress just in the past couple of years, along with all the investigations with literally limitless funding in the 1990s, no tax inconsistencies have been found. Why not? This is an easy case to make, if the evidence is there. Why has none even gone to an indictment phase?

I’m sure, given the other echo chamber memes you have brought up, you really do believe that the Clintons are murderers (Vince Foster! Exploding melons!) and secretly run Washington DC behind the scenes. But the evidence is simply not there, and given the litany of purported crimes and the millions of dollars wasted investigating them, something surely would have been found by now.

You said: “My point ab out the Clintons is the massive double standard. Why cry about Trump possibly getting thousands of dollars when the Clintons got hundreds of millions of dollars?”

  1. You have offered no proof nor even convincing evidence of this claim against the Clintons.
  2. This claim against the Clintons has already been investigated, over and over again.
  3. In the past decade, neither of the Clintons has been President of the United States, as Trump will be on January 20, 2017.

Yeah, feel free to spend the next two years investigating the Clintons. Again. It will probably work better for you in the 2018 elections than if you go with the currently floated “Plan A” to rescind the ACA and kill Medicare. From my perspective, it harms many many fewer people, so have your witch hunt. Don’t be surprised that the same people who thought they were voting for “change” in 2016, who were actively pursued with a “we don’t want endless Clinton investigations for the next four years!” argument, look highly askance on such an approach to power. Enjoy your two years of power.

You said, “Trump is least likely to fall for bribe attempts because he is already filthy rich.” That is an incredibly bogus argument. One would think that someone who is already “filthy rich” would be the least likely to stiff his workers and “win” lawsuits brought against him by extending the legal process and bleeding the plaintiff’s legal funds dry. One would think that someone who is “filthy rich” would have fulfilled his repeated campaign promise to put $100M of his own money into the campaign. One would think that someone who is “filthy rich” would have immediately followed through on his fundraising donation to veterans groups, rather than having to be outed by the media months later when no veterans groups could be found to have received the raised funds. One would think that someone who is “filthy rich” would not use his “Trump Foundation” as a personal expense slush fund and would, for instance, instead pay for his self portraits with his own “filthy” money. Historically, “filthy rich” people are no less likely to participate in common abuses of power for money. This is a very bad argument.

As a side note, I personally would avoid any construction with the word “filthy” in it describing Trump, because that word fits him to a T.

You said “Special interests tried to buy Trump and he sent them packing refusing to take their money. Hillary took money from anyone willing to give it, you do not think taking all that money is a conflict of interest? I thought you wanted special interest money out of elections and Washington? I guess you actually only want the Republicans to stop taking that money, Democrats should take all they can get, right?”

The first statement is completely unsubstantiated. Only Trump claims that “big money” came knocking. We do know that he has rewarded the first Senator to back his campaign with an Attorney General appointment. He is clearly not above politics. We do know that he accepted funds from white nationalist groups and individuals. We do know that he accepted funds from the primary backer of Breitbart, and in return named the head of Breitbart as his campaign Cheif Executive and later to a “co-equal chief of staff” position, and the head of another Mercer organization to be his Campaign Manager (noting that this only happened after Mercer stopped backing Cruz and started funding Trump’s campaign).

In a modern political campaign, you do take money from whoever gives it, within reason (typically, deplorable individuals such as the white nationalists and Breitbart racist anti-semites would be considered well outside of “reason”, but apparently that standard has been shifted for Trump). When your opponent is taking money from every conceivable corner of the racist underworld, it leaves very little opening to deny funding from above-board and respectable sources.

More importantly, though, this is all a moot point because, as you may have noticed, Hillary Clinton did not win the election and thus will never be able to give a “quo” to her funders. Trump has already made significant moves to blatantly reward his funders, and also to enrich himself from the Presidency. Losing an election is not illegal, although I’m sure you’d love to indict Hillary for that. Enriching oneself from the power of the Presidency is not only illegal in an ordinary law sense, but it is specifically named as illegal by the US Constitution.

All told, you keep trying to draw a false equivalency between Trump and Clinton to excuse Trump’s abhorrent behavior. There is no equivalency, even in your most lurid and sensationalized accusations. Hillary is not President Elect. Trump is. He has shown indications of being far more corrupt than any of the past six Presidents, and frankly the argument could be made that his actions thus far have outpaced Nixon’s as well. He has the blessing of a lapdog House and Senate, but that will only last two years if they do not immediately clamp down on his illegal schemes.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.