I think that it was a pretty cheap shot for the Author to suggest that Clinton  "has a proven affinity for Gulf State and Arab dictators", aka the Saudis.

The US has had a very close relationship with the Saudis for more than two generations.
Why? Because they sit atop of some 260 Billion barrels of oil and are viewed as crucial to the world economy.
A few million dollars from some Prince to, not Clinton personally, but to a charity is NOT going to determine US policy. The Saudi have all of the access they could ever want because of or perceived national interests.
What a horrible fantasy.




Hey, if Hillary can get some of that wealth into a charity, more power to her.

Last edited by Goose (8/29/2016 1:14 pm)

A few million dollars from some Prince to, not Clinton personally, but to a charity is NOT going to determine US policy. What a horrible fantasy.

Maybe. Maybe not. But you have to agree that simply as a matter of good government, there should be a much deeper line of demarcation between foreign governments and the foundation named after a sitting secretary of state and potential President of the United States?

Lager I agree with much of what you said, but the article is directly aimed at the Saudis and implies that they got some sort of quid pro quo for their donation. Alll I ask is for anyone to identify anything that has come out of ANY of the donations (let alone the Saudis) to the Foundation. The article is pure politics for the current Hillary run for POTUS. 

 

TheLagerLad wrote:

tennyson wrote:

So to the question asked. Just what did the Saudis (or pick your contributor du jour) get in return ? 

I wouldn't know. But I think an equally important question to ask is, "Why would the Saudi's (or pick your contributor du jour) contribute to the Clinton Foundation? 

What do they get out of it?

Again, my issue is consistency. I think we are all in agreement that big monied interests get preferential treatment from politicians over the average schlub like you and me.

So why are we to think that the Clinton's are immune to giving some sort of preferential treatment to donors?

 

 Agree with everything Lager has said on this topic.

Goose wrote:

So, what was the quid pro quo?
 

I think we are basically going to hear crickets on THAT question. 

Since the title of the article relates to that very thing perhaps someone can enlighten us on the issue of  the topic, but I think the answer is obvious. There really is NONE.