top | item 13543597

(no title)

SixSigma | 9 years ago

No mention that Thomson Reuters, owner of the Reuters news service, donated between $1m-$5m to Clinton.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundati...

discuss

order

BryantD|9 years ago

There's a slight inaccuracy here; by simply saying "donated to Clinton" you imply that the donation was to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The donation was, however, to the Clinton Foundation.

Given that the donations to the Clinton Foundation also came from conservative media outlets such as Newsmax and Fox, I'm confident that donating to the Clinton Foundation does not prove bias towards Hillary Clinton.

contergan|9 years ago

The Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative are just two fronts the Clintons used over the years to receive bribes.

How else do you explain this:

http://observer.com/2017/01/the-clinton-foundation-shuts-dow...

As soon as Clinton was out of the race, all those donations suddenly stopped coming in. It's pretty obvious that the whole thing was pretty much just legal bribery und the disguise of altruism.

Since the Global Initiative has already shut down, it's probably only a matter of time until the Foundation shuts down, too.

gravypod|9 years ago

It think it's pretty obvious that Hillary's foundation is basically her back pocket. Can you point to any charity work that was done by it? Any charity work of the magnitude of the millions it's received? With far less money many more organization have done much more charitable work. One such example is the NAACP. They've received ~16mill which is a stark contrast between the Clinton Foundation who has received in the ballpark of 500mill from 09 to 12.

Not only is the NAACP a charity that received funding that had a huge impact but also many many more. To name one I'd pick the National Parks fund.

There is also the Red Cross who has received writing 600mill but again has done so much more right it to the point where its name is ubiquitous in the field of aid.