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