Clintons/Qatar/FIFA

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Time Immemorial

Shakyamunison
Now, lets get this right. That's Queen Clinton. wink

Time Immemorial
Where is the righteous liberal crowd?

AsbestosFlaygon
She's obviously hiding something.
Why d'ya think she releases the emails in an incremental pace? Why doesn't she answer all the questions in front of the press personally?
The answer is the extreme leftists/liberals are afraid of her to mess up. But it seems some info managed to leak through all that skimming and scanning.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by AsbestosFlaygon
She's obviously hiding something.
Why d'ya think she releases the emails in an incremental pace? Why doesn't she answer all the questions in front of the press personally?

Even CNN is saying shes hiding stuff.

-Pr-
Heh. I thought she was evil before, but this just confirms it.

AsbestosFlaygon
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Even CNN is saying shes hiding stuff.
When a left-leaning journalism channel that supports the democratic party starts questioning your integrity, you know there's something wrong.

Ushgarak
Wait, how the heck does A connect to B here? Is the accusation simply that the Clintons' charity accepted donations from FIFA or Qatar? Unless you are showing something shady they did in return, that's a nothing.

Omega Vision
TI, the donation from Qatar to the Clinton Foundation was a bandaid to pacify Bill, who'd been a major figure in the US bid for the 2022 world cup and felt like Qatar had stolen the bid (which it had). It's not proof of any involvement in FIFA's corruption on the part of the Clintons, more like proof that they were victims of the corruption and were paid hush money. You can criticize them for accepting that hush money, but that's where it ends--there's simply no evidence that they were involved in the Qatar 22 scandal.

Q99
Originally posted by Omega Vision
TI, the donation from Qatar to the Clinton Foundation was a bandaid to pacify Bill, who'd been a major figure in the US bid for the 2022 world cup and felt like Qatar had stolen the bid (which it had). It's not proof of any involvement in FIFA's corruption on the part of the Clintons, more like proof that they were victims of the corruption and were paid hush money. You can criticize them for accepting that hush money, but that's where it ends--there's simply no evidence that they were involved in the Qatar 22 scandal.


Pretty much this. Bill was Not Happy with how things turned out. Qatar doesn't like ex-presidents / potential first spouses being mad at them. If Bill had actual proof of corruption, rather than the suspicion everyone on Earth had, then blowing the whistle would've helped him get what he wanted, a US World Cup.



The bending over backwards to blame everything on the Clintons gets a bit silly. There's a lot of 'boy who cried wolf' syndrome, where most attacks really don't work on them because everyone is so used to them being accused of everything. Being a Clinton near a scandal is not the same as them being involved in it.




Eh, who cares? Everyone is bored of people making up Clinton scandals, it doesn't exactly require much debunking, you know?

dadudemon
Wait...

Omega Vision and Q99, explain your reasoning.


So the Clintons are innocent because they took bribe money? Seems pretty clear what took place. There's no conspiracy.




What am I missing?

Omega Vision
Originally posted by dadudemon
Wait...

Omega Vision and Q99, explain your reasoning.


So the Clintons are innocent because they took bribe money? Seems pretty clear what took place. There's no conspiracy.




What am I missing?
They're innocent of the Qatar Scandal unless new evidence comes forward. The money was almost certainly payment to keep Bill from raising too much of a fuss over the corrupt bid. You could try to claim that Bill was paid to sabotage America's bid, but really there's no evidence of this, and by all appearances the American bid was a solid one simply beat out by the incredible corruption and bribery going on in FIFA on Qatar's behest.

It's like this:

Bill: You stole the vote.
Qatar: Maybe we did, here's lots of money to make you feel better about it.
Bill: Well, okay...

To be clear, I think the Clintons should have turned the money down. I don't think ANY charity should accept ANY money coming out of that corrupt cesspool of a slaver state, but in no way do I see any evidence that the Clintons are somehow implicated in the actual scandal itself.

Ushgarak
Again, 'bribe' indicates something was done in return.

This needs an A to B connection for it to be of any note at all. It's not as if the Clintons have ever done anything suspicious in relation to helping FIFA or Qatar.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Omega Vision
They're innocent of the Qatar Scandal unless new evidence comes forward. The money was almost certainly payment to keep Bill from raising too much of a fuss over the corrupt bid. You could try to claim that Bill was paid to sabotage America's bid, but really there's no evidence of this, and by all appearances the American bid was a solid one simply beat out by the incredible corruption and bribery going on in FIFA on Qatar's behest.

It's like this:

Bill: You stole the vote.
Qatar: Maybe we did, here's lots of money to make you feel better about it.
Bill: Well, okay...

To be clear, I think the Clintons should have turned the money down. I don't think ANY charity should accept ANY money coming out of that corrupt cesspool of a slaver state, but in no way do I see any evidence that the Clintons are somehow implicated in the actual scandal itself.

Let's be clear that a bribe definitely includes giving someone money to hush them up.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bribery

It just so happens that this kind of bribe is not illegal. Still, it is unethical. And it should be obvious why the Clintons don't want to draw attention to this.


Edit - Also, it seems you and Ushgarak are under the assumption (regarding my position) that this situation needs to indicate that the Clintons are part of the FIFA scandal. My comments are not about that, at all. My comments are solely about the Clintons accepting bribe money.

Ushgarak
No, my comment is as broad as it gets. This idea that it was 'hush money' makes no logical sense and seems to be based on nothing at all. Again, for it to be a bribe, there has to have been something done in return. There's no connection to be made there at all. I can't even understand the basis of the idea, as if otherwise Clinton was in some way otherwise going to go on a PR campaign against FIFA.

Omega Vision
Originally posted by dadudemon
Let's be clear that a bribe definitely includes giving someone money to hush them up.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bribery

It just so happens that this kind of bribe is not illegal. Still, it is unethical. And it should be obvious why the Clintons don't want to draw attention to this.


Edit - Also, it seems you and Ushgarak are under the assumption (regarding my position) that this situation needs to indicate that the Clintons are part of the FIFA scandal. My comments are not about that, at all. My comments are solely about the Clintons accepting bribe money.
I don't think we're disagreeing about anything significant, I think you're just being pedantic. Ya goofball, you.

Time Immemorial
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, my comment is as broad as it gets. This idea that it was 'hush money' makes no logical sense and seems to be based on nothing at all. Again, for it to be a bribe, there has to have been something done in return. There's no connection to be made there at all. I can't even understand the basis of the idea, as if otherwise Clinton was in some way otherwise going to go on a PR campaign against FIFA.

My sources back up my claim.

Time Immemorial
This is rich.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/29/football/fifa-congress-corruption-case-blatter-election/index.html

AsbestosFlaygon
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
This is rich.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/29/football/fifa-congress-corruption-case-blatter-election/index.html
Disgusting beyond belief.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Where is the righteous liberal crowd?

It's next to Bill's cigar.

Robtard
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
This is rich.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/29/football/fifa-congress-corruption-case-blatter-election/index.html

I blame Hillary for this one.

Ushgarak
Originally posted by Time Immemorial
My sources back up my claim.

Not that I saw- where exactly? No connection for favours returned is made or even attempted. Heck, one of your sources talks about Bill Clinton being the driving force behind starting the investigation, which is pretty much the opposite of your claim.

You are making a very serious claim that the Clintons are somehow complicit in the deaths of Qatar workers. Make your case clear- what exactly do you think the Clintons did in return for donations to their charity, so that you may back such a claim?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's next to Bill's cigar.

Which means it's right next to Monica Lewinski.

Guys, I solved the mystery. Just find Monica and we will have found the righteous liberal crowd.

grouchoawe

dadudemon
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, for it to be a bribe, there has to have been something done in return.

This is where we disagree. You think there has to be an action for a bribery when in fact, there does not have to be at all. A bribe can be used to hush someone up, as well.

This type of bribery is known as "hush money." It is not as though I just asspulled a random definition of bribery:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hush+money

Originally posted by Ushgarak
There's no connection to be made there at all. I can't even understand the basis of the idea, as if otherwise Clinton was in some way otherwise going to go on a PR campaign against FIFA.

Even pro-Clinton news sites are calling those donations, bribes. The left and right see it as FIFA trying to bribe the Clintons to STFU about the corruption. I don't see this as being debatable.

Let's take this a step further. Some places are claiming that Bill's rage about the corruption was so severe that it may have been Bill, himself, that caused the FIFA "scandal" to make waves in the US legal system. And to take it as far left, politcally, as possible, the hush money didn't work too well, at least according to this author:

http://2paragraphs.com/2015/05/bill-clintons-rage-doomed-fifa-thieves/


Sure, Bill didn't say much (if anything at all) after his outrage at the lost bid, so some could claim the hush money worked.


Edit - It wasn't just FIFA that made donations. It was also Qatar. It's like catching a toddler with a blue market, there's blue markings all over the walls, and then the toddler saying, "It wasn't me." I mean...sure...there's technically room to deny it wasn't bribe money. But there really isn't.

Here's my implicit point: if they didn't want this to seem like bribe money, they should have graciously denied the donations and released a press statement that said something similar to, "To avoid a public relations fall-out, we cannot accept these donations." This is the type of stuff they teach business majors in college. I highly doubt the advisers to the Clintons missed this potential PR Nightmare.

Ushgarak
What a ridiculous semantic argument. Staying quiet IS doing something in return, obviously. That is what the claim would be. This is nothing to do with disagreement, just you being obtuse.

In which case, you have made no case at all for this. I don't think you can even vaguely establish that there was some sort of activity Bill was going to take that he then didn't. The whole idea is rather extraordinary. What do you think he was going to do- mount a long term public anti-FIFA campaign?

Or if you feel it was to shut him up behind the scenes- well, not only is there also no evidence at all there either, but also (as, I say, was provided in one of TIs sources), the scuttlebut is the opposite- that Bill is one of the prime instigators behind the current investigation.

The whole claim is ludicrous. There's no chain, no cause and effect- and hence no story.

The only possible condemnation is that you shouldn't take money from dodgy sources for any reason, but there's a totally different argument that would coerr way more charities than the Clintons.

Your idea that they should have to pro-actively show it isn't bribe money when the whole idea of it being bribe money is something you have effecitvely made up is judicially abhorrent.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your idea that they should have to pro-actively show it isn't bribe money when the whole idea of it being bribe money is something you have effecitvely made up is judicially abhorrent.

I have no idea what you're talking about, right here. Like...I don't even understand what it is you're trying to say, here.

Can you better explain what you're trying to state?

A better way to go about this is to ask you to clarify what you think my position is. Maybe that's the source of my confusion on what you're stating. What exactly did you mean by "Your idea..." in the above quote?

We can get into the semantics of "...the whole idea of it being bribe money is something you have effectively made up..." later. But, to avoid silly and groan inducing arguments, it would probably be best if we first clarify each other's positions.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.