>You're saying- what exactly? That Bahrain bought more weapons from US manufacturers because their Crown Prince donated $ to the Clinton Foundation? That doesn't even begin to make sense.


(Sigh) I'm pointing out facts. Again, during 2006-2008, the U.S. sold $219 million in weapon's to Bahrain's military. Then Bahrain contributed 32 million to Clinton Foundation programs. Then during HRC's tenure, the State Department approved the sale of $630 million worth of weapons to Bahrain's military. The State Department also approved a huge spike in the sales of arm sales classified as toxicological agents.

If that isn't worthy of further investigation, than I don't know what would.


>This is the same example I've given 3 times. First, lots of people ask to meet Clinton. To declare favoritism to donors, you need to show that a donor got to meet her who normally wouldn't get a foot in her door. Second, as I keep saying: if the Crown Prince is the only example then it proves the opposite of what you want, especially if he's wanting to buy lots more military goodies. Apart from anything else, if the State Department were so foolish as to snub him, the French will cheerfully scoop up all his business and invite him to dinner at Hôtel Matignon. No doubt HRC would be blamed for that as well.

First, the "you need to show a donor got to meet her who normally wouldn't get a foot in the door" doesn't hold water, and would give HRC license to work with people outside the scope of agreements she signed.

Second, on this "if the Crown Prince is the only example"....you've essentially acknowledged that I've answered your initial question to name an example of pay to play. Again, at the beginning of HRC's tenure, she signed an agreement letter to the State Department Ethics Official, stating she wouldn't participate in any matter involving the Clinton Foundation or any party they represented. Her agreements never differentiated between "new" and "existing" foreign players/oligarchs

(Also....I've seen the "it proves the opposite of what you say" tactic before - you will never slip that one by me). :)

Third, reduction ad absurdum, the "if we didn't sell them weapons, Bahrain would get them from someone else" is the magic "get out of jail, free" card, mean there would never, never be any logical grounds for finding HRC guilty of violating her agreements and even federal corruption charges.