>>>>>John, John, how you do go on!
>>>
>>>I'm not the one going on creating a big ado about nothing. Nor am I interested in conspiracy theories not supported by facts.
>>>
>>>All I'm seeing here is a handful of people requesting things and not getting them. E.g. Bono wanted his concert to be broadcast to the International Space Station. Yep, HRC was right onto that. Not.
>>>Somebody else wanted a visa for a criminal. Didn't get it.
>>>A Crown Prince asked for and received a meeting to which he is entitled a) as an Heir of State, b) as head of a national Military with close ties to US military, and c) as a deputy Prime Minister. Perhaps compare to a meeting request from Prince Charles who is "just" a Crown Prince and not in charge of the national Military or a Cabinet Member. Would he be allowed a meeting, whether he donated to the Clinton Foundation or not?
>>>
>>You're avoiding the 800 lb elephant in the room
>>Why did he give the money, John?
>>
>>
>>So, what's your point?
>>Lack of evidence?
>>Lack of prosecution?
>>In political cases they mean nothing.
>>Two (2) attorneys general, John Mitchell and Richard Kleindienst, plead to felonies in connection with the Watergate case.
>>Both were in charge of the FBI when the FBI conducted "extensive" investigations and found nothing.
>>Two cub reporters on the Washington Post found things that hundreds of trained FBI agents missed- intentionally, as it later turned out.
>>Something obviously stinks here, John.
>>If we're lucky, we'll get the facts after she's elected.
>>We'll have dodged the Donald and we can impeach her and be rid of the Clintons forever.
>
>An interesting article at http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_CLINTON_FOUNDATION?SITE=AP .
>
>I'm somewhat bemused by discussion of e-mails, even those found recently on a nominally "private" server. I would have thought any discussions about favours would have been (and will always be) sub rosa. Anything damaging committed to an e-mail would have to represent terminal stupidity.
>
Al.. Nixon put it all on audio tape. How stupid can someone be?

>A former client of mine, a lawyer, once told me in his long legal experience he had never seen a case of altruism. He claimed that every time he thought he encountered one, it turned out he was missing something and had to dig deeper to find the true motivations crucial to the case at hand.
>
>I think as a lawyer he was somewhat like police, seeing people at their worst rather than their best. I don't think what he said is 100% true, for example there are from time to time substantial anonymous donations made to universities, charities etc. Still, I believe altruism is far less prevalent than many people would like one to believe.

Not as rare as you might think.

Late last year I lost a good friend and colleague who was an altrusistic hero in the best sense of that idea.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E7D8113AF93BA25751C1A9639D8B63

Martin was one of many businessmen who do the right thing.

I saw union workers punch out and come back to work off the clock to help a small business owner who was struggling to stay afloat.

We don't hear about them but they're out there.

They make the Clintons all the more despicable.