We should be going after her for that money too.

She sold access to the govt. That belongs to us.
So any profit she got from doing it are ours.

Send the irs after her. Worked on Al

I think part of reason for your downvotes is that you just stated something as a fact, without providing a source of your claim.

I'll add in that the whataboutism probably contributed as well, being that Hillary Clinton currently holds no executive office.

Corrine Brown wasn't holding public office when they put her away for running a fake charity.

Hannity &co got away with their fake childrens charity, money diverted to GOP.

Considering she is on book tours and speaking engagements blaming Russian collusion for her loss, I don't think it matters one bit that she doesn't hold office.

It matters to a certain degree.

Yes. Zero degrees, to be certain.

Ok.

Not really, you don't get to run around saying you only lost the election because the Russians hacked it and NOT expect that people keep pointing out how shitty and corrupt a candidate you are.

Probably not as ridiculous as you. This post is complaining about why we aren't pursuing Hillary and the Saudis in addition to Trump and the Russians, and the answer is (among many many other reasons), that she didn't win and isn't in power, and so doesn't matter nearly as much.

Your obsession with Hillary is kind of pathetic.

Because there's no evidence that she has committed the crime you accuse her of, because you have absolutely no fucking idea if an investigation has taken place into this Saudi prince's statement, and because this ongoing campaign to attack Hillary over a year after she lost the election is pathetic.

This is the same shit we've seen for going on 3 decades, endless shit throwing to see what sticks, but now it's no longer being used to discredit a potential political opponent, but rather to distract from the corruption and incompetence of the people in power.

Guess what, you were the one that asserted the issue hadn't been investigated with absolutely no evidence to support that. You have no idea what's going on, you're just spinning your bullshit accusations hoping that people will be too lazy to call you on them, or that Trump supporters will upvote them regardless.

So I reiterate, you and your obsession with Hillary are pathetic. Now take your own advice and stfu.

There's nothing to defend, your empty claims are designed as such. Making large, unverifiable claims then demanding the opposition prove you wrong is a pretty common argument style around here, and ultimately the only answer is to walk away. So, I'm done, have fun with your Clinton-rage.

b...but it's not illegal because she lost!

The fact that you think this wins the argument is pathetic. It's a disgusting thing to do regardless of the outcome.

We need to impeach her first if we want to investigate President Clinton

What behavior?

It was a story posted by a hacker.

Your own sources say that.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/deleted-official-report-says-saudi-key-funder-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-223282807

Yeah, being obsessed with justice is pathetic. Let Bush go free, let Hillary go free, let Trump go free. It's pathetic, right?

obsessed with justice

Bullshit. This "throw everything you can at Hillary until something sticks" game isn't new, it's been going on for decades. It's just even more pathetic now that Hillary holds no office and there's no real expectation that she ever will again.

Great argument, completely relevant to what I've said. Oh wait, no it isn't! Who would have thought?!

This "throw everything you can at Hillary until something sticks" game isn't new, it's been going on for decades.

True story,.

She served two terms as senator (8 years), yet she has been involved in scandals after for 26 years.

She was in scandals 15 years before taking public office. Each and every time there is the same thing: missing documents, refusal to comply, etc. etc.

it is delusional to think she is innocent.

How much do they pay you an hour? is it worth it?

Removed. Rule 10.

Your obsession with Hillary is kind of pathetic.

So is your defense of her. You should be outraged a blatant criminal runs free after committing so many obvious crimes. You should be rioting that a politician sold your best interest to the highest bidder, and lives in luxury for short handing you.

So breaking the rules only matters if you won? That doesn't seem right...

First off, that's not what I said, so fuck off.

Second, I was explaining the downvotes, which come in part from exhaustion with this endless campaign to tie Hillary to something, anything you can find, to distract from actual, ongoing corruption playing out in broad daylight.

First off, that's not what I said, so fuck off.

That's EXACTLY what you said.

No, I said that whataboutism contributed to downvotes, in that "Why is the President of the United States being grilled on foreign influences in the election when the loser of that election, who holds no public office, isn't?" is a bullshit argument that has been pushed hard enough to generate instinctive downvotes.

But it was YOUR whataboutism. This thread topic did not include Trump. If you'd like to discuss him make a new thread.

I'll add in that the whataboutism probably contributed as well, being that Hillary Clinton currently holds no executive office.

The whole statement is saying that we shouldn't investigate her because she holds no executive office (because she lost).

No, I said that whataboutism contributed to downvotes, in that "Why is the President of the United States being grilled on foreign influences in the election when the loser of that election, who holds no public office, isn't?" is a bullshit argument that has been pushed hard enough to generate instinctive downvotes.

At least you can admit that it's your instinct to downvote posts about Hillary Clinton. Most people aren't so honest.

No one is trying to distract. Not everyone thinks the things you obsess over are important in the first place. It's in your head that everything else is a distraction. This is a conspiracy sub. Not current events.

Isn't whataboutism usually used to undercut accusations? I didn't see OP say "let's not investigate Trump at all because Clinton did the same thing". Sounded like they're saying "hey while we're at it" to me. Especially since the person the US people trusted less was investigated by her own party and the other is actually getting an independent investigation.

I'd also say the tribalism is causing you only seeing it that way (whataboutism). Clinton getting a real investigation has been a major focus of this and many other subreddits long before Trump even thought about throwing around some birther accusations. That's not gonna go away because an elephant chooses to sit on the coffee table. We are capable of walking and chewing gum. If we can waste time investigating steroids in baseball or planned parenthood, we can sure as hell independently investigate this.

Here's a crazy reason why it's not - they own both parties. Why won't Sessions just reopen the investigation? This is why.

And what about all of the other down votes in this sub that do not bash Trump?

You can go in any political post right now, and any comment that is not blatantly bashing Trump is down voted.

[Down vote for asking to specifically cite what Russia did to influence American voting in Trump's favor](The House Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Adam B. Schiff, said Chairman Devin Nunes changed the FBI surveillance memo he sent to the White House after the committee had approved it.)

Again, down voted for asking for specific example of "Russian psyop

The fact is /r/conspiracy users have their eyes closed while they stpmp their feet and scream at the sky because DRUMPF!

I don't know what happened in here, but it sucks.

I'd say it isn't really r/conspiracy users. It's the shills and vote bots. Most organic users are anti both parties.

Most of us realize there is no true difference between the right and the left because the same small group of wealthy citizens finance both of them.

Share blue and pr companies are using this subreddit to polarize us politically. This includes both pro trump and pro Clinton comments. It's divide and conquer.

Share blue and pr companies are using this subreddit to polarize us politically. This includes both pro trump and pro Clinton comments. It's divide and conquer.

I am glad some people still have their conspiracy cap on and realize WTF is going on.

Source on Saudis bragging about paying for a third of her campaign?

Almost like the CIA likes to manage Reddit forums or something. I wonder if they post articles about man made earthquakes in the science section days before the actual one

Do you believe/know they do this?

R u stupid?

Don't mind the Clinton bots. They hate facts.

Your record needed some correcting, is all.

Your record needed some correcting,

And this is why important media, matters, so that when we Share, Blue links on r/conspiracy can be clicked

It's important to verify these things because Media Matters. We can't just Move On without doing so.

Just like the lies and propaganda need to be validated by viewers like you

I'd wager it's because you're not providing primary sources. Those domains don't look super trustworthy.

Here:

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/deleted-official-report-says-saudi-key-funder-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-223282807

It was a hacker that posted a Clinton hit piece.

OP either knew that before posting this, and didn't care, or didn't actually follow his sources because the story was too good to factcheck for him.

Saudi Arabia donated between 10-25 million to the Clinton Foundation too. But im sure thats just a coincidence!

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%2410%2C000%2C001+to+%2425%2C000%2C000

Because SA really cares about human rights and wants to make the world a better place OBVIOUSLY /s

Comments like these 2 really make me wish reddit would show who down/up votes comments. It'd make RES tagging so much easier.

Who in the fuck thinks SA is a champion of human rights?

Who in the fuck thinks SA is a champion of human rights?

Doesn't matter, they have to change the narrative!

You know /s means sarcasm. right?

Yeah. I was trying (albeit not successfully) to convey that I agree with redpillfiend and notdafeds. Which is why i wanted to see who downvoted (so i could tag as idiots in RES) and who upvoted so I could mark as not-idiots in RES).

Gotcha, my bad. Have seen a lot of people genuinely get confused not knowing what the /s indicated. Carry on :)

I knew :)

I honestly don't know how it was legal for her to use Air Force one as a campaign transport service. Taxpayers pay for that plane and she didn't win the election. Using govt resources for a candidate is a conflict of interest. How was this legal?

Source?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2016/09/22/cost-of-clinton-obama-air-force-one-ride-disclosed.html

She paid for its use, according to your article.

Air Force one isn't a fucking uber and should not be for hire. It also wasn't offered to other candidates. I'm not a Trump fanboy either. Don't confuse the original comment which was Air Force one should not be used for a political campaign of a person who isn't the sitting president

I clicked through the links now that I'm on desktop again, and it looks like she was flying with Obama. Legality and behavior of prior candidates aside, I personally agree she shouldn't fly on Air Force One on her own for campaign reasons, but it looks like she was riding with the sitting President.

It actually reflects more poorly on obama but it still misuse of govt funds and should draw a red flag and hi light the spread of corruption taking place. These are supposed to be our representatives and public servants but they mistake it for being elected royalty.

The President, like our other elected officials, is allowed to participate in the political process. The use of Air Force One (or other government transportation) is required for him while he is in office. Pretty sure it would be a massive security risk if he hopped aboard a Southwest flight to get places.

Now, Hillary (and any candidate in that situation) is required by law to pay a predetermined amount when they use Air Force One, so that it isn't breaking all sorts of campaign finance laws. But the ethical question here really begins and ends on if you believe elected officials should be able to participate in the political process while in office (I do), because once you allow that there is no alternative for the President to using Air Force One.

True. I don't think elected officials should be allowed to campaign for other candidates while in office.

Well, that's a fair opinion that I disagree with you on, but there's nothing wrong with that.

What about the current Republican candidate declaring candidacy the day after their inauguration so that can collect donations and campaign on the government's dime?

Another flagrant misuse of govt funds

I'd say even worse, he isn't asked to pay that money back. It's all bullshit. Bullshit all the way down

The quote:

“Saudi Arabia always has sponsored both Republican and Democratic Party of America and in America current election also provide with full enthusiasm 20 percent of the cost of Hillary Clinton’s election even though some events in the country don’t have a positive look to support the king of a woman (sic) for presidency,”

Also, avoid Telesurtv link. besides giving your browser cancer, there is no author listed. Same with ZeroHedge but at least we get to pretend Tyler Durden wrote it :D

None of the sources actually have proof of the 'comments' beyond a screenshot.

Yep, we can investigate it right along side whether Russia laundered money through the Trump campaign and the GOP. Fine by me!

Sure, and no one in this thread has said otherwise?

The strength of reddit has always been users adding new info and content. I did my part.

You didn't add more info or content, you just attempted to move a goalpost. Thank you for making your bias open, though. Have a fantastic day.

I'm sorry your brittle world view can't take a challenge to its reasoning. I'll try to be more delicate when I comment here.

There's no challenge to my reasoning. I'm not a Trump supporter. I'm all for an investigation into Trump. I'm all in for an investigation to the OPs post.
But you bringing up the former in no relation to the latter? A blatant display of whataboutism?To deny you had an agenda with the post is... Disingenuous at best.

If you can look at the supposition of this post as told by the OP and three awful and anonymous sources and still swallow it, more power to you.

So are you reneging on your original comment in which you were fine with an investigation into OPs post?
You might want to zip up, your bias is showing.

I'm all for any investigation that doesn't do what this post and those sources are doing: making shit up out of whole cloth.

So the answer is yes, you are reneging on your original comment.

You're boring.

Personal attacks now? Are you running out of bullet points?

Yep, he is. The famous stupid idea of not being able to investigate two things, you have to do what they want first lol.

lol

What needs to be investigated?

The hackers who hoaxed you and everyone else by posting this fake story?

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/deleted-official-report-says-saudi-key-funder-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-223282807

Your own sources say that's what happened, so are you saying to investigate that hack, and the subsequent anti-Clinton story the hacker posted?

i think we need to get to the bottom of our "stable genius" aka our ready made president

Nice. Then you have no problem with the legitimate Russia investigation. Ditto.

The fact that you got downvoted, in /r/conspiracy, for saying that government hijinks should be investigated shows exactly how fucked this sub is now.

Have you asked the authorities to do that?

What's the mechanism the Saudis used to donate this money, which they couldn't do legally? How did it get laundered? If your mind jumps to the CF, how did the charity launder money into Clinton's campaign? What evidence is there that any of this actually happened besides one badly translated quote?

I think you missed the point. Old-Neptune is subtly suggesting that you lack credible source material to even make a claim worthy of investigation.

Anonymous Russian spies paid for stories about prostitutes urinating on beds is credible enough to launch federal investigations.

That's on the record now, that's the standard. It's not the one I would have picked, but there you go.

I assume you aren't serious.

Just to correct the record, those sources are not anonymous to the person who compiled the dossier or to the FBI. And many of those claims have already been proven true, so I'd agree that it is credible enough to launch federal investigations.

We need to be more firm in this regard - thank you :) It is time to show who is in charge and let spilt milk be made into curds. Eyes forward only.

Laundering isn't what this is. It is probably some sort of PAC/SuperPAC bullshit that Citizens United opened up.

I keep seeing people throw around the term laundered, but that is specifically for money obtained through criminal acts that needs to be cleaned ("laundered").

Look what they churned up against James Traficant. This was thuggery from the shadows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Traficant

Here's what the zerohedge story links to:

Jordan's official news agency said on Tuesday that it was hacked when, over the weekend, a story briefly appeared on its website that said Saudi Arabia is a major funder of Hillary Clinton's campaign to become the next president of the United States.

On Sunday a report appeared on the Petra News Agency website that included what were described as exclusive comments from Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The comments included a claim that Riyadh has provided 20 percent of the total funding to the prospective Democratic candidate's campaign.

The report did not remain on the website for long, although the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs later re-published an Arabic version of it, which quoted Prince Mohammed as having said Saudi Arabia had provided with “full enthusiasm” an undisclosed amount of money to Clinton.

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/deleted-official-report-says-saudi-key-funder-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-223282807

It was a hack of the new site, that then placed that story there. I guess this is today's ride on The_Donald's bullshit carousel...

She didnt win. Who cares if she cheated? What are the consequences? I see what you are doing, you want to equate this to the Russian collusion investigation. But the big difference is Trump won, Hillary lost. If the roles were reversed I would not want Trump investigated, its a waste of resources.

Crimes are crimes, win or lose.

There is no victim in this case though. So what is the purpose of this investigation? Do you really think politicians will be deterred from taking donations/bribes

Attempted murder shouldn't actually be a crime because no one was murdered? Conspiracy to commit a crime shouldn't be a crime if the intent crime isn't committed?

Wow.

There is still a victim there.

If I plan to kill you, plant the bomb, and failed to set the timer properly, then are you seriously suggesting that I shouldn't be held accountable because there was no victim?

I said there is a victim there even though you were not successful

A Russian plant in the white house is a far more pressing issue.

Please enlighten us.

If i have to explain to you why a Russian plant in the white house is much more serious than illegal campaign contributions to someone who didn't win and is not in public office, the task of enlightening you is far too great for any one person.

Please enlightened one. Bless us with your knowledge.

Why would I bother going over the mountain of evidence with a deza troll? Do I have to reinvent the wheel every time I engage you Kremlin trolls?

So Hilary as a saudi plant would be better? Remember it was hilary that gave Russia uranium, not le drumpf. I'll believe Trump is a Zionist Israeli plant, not a Russian one. Now please, do tell how Russia managed to gain control over the us.

Hillary is not in power. The is moot you deza troll.

Moot points aside, I'd really like to know how you think shithole country Russia, that can barely push around eastern Europe anymore, would gain control over the US. If you respond with more deflection and name calling I'll just assume you know your wrong as well.

An issue totally unrelated to this one

I just want to instill a sense of perspective.

It's whataboutism. The same thing it is when Trump supporters defend themselves by saying "but what about when Clinton did..".

If you can't discuss the topic without deflecting to another one, please just say nothing.

It's whataboutism. The same thing it is when Trump supporters defend themselves by saying "but what about when Clinton did..".

If you can't discuss the topic without deflecting to another one, please just say nothing.

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/betternews] The Saudis bragged about paying for a third of Hillary's presidential campaign when the amount spent at the time was something like $1.2 billion. This is illegal. Why hasn't it been investigated and charges laid?

 ^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

Because the theme of the recent struggle is to prevent russias rise on a global scale. Because US is already suffering, another large competitor globally is really going to put a spanner in the works.

Plus USA is hypocritical liar, if anyone fails to see that, they are blind or stupid. Constantly they say one thing ,and do another. They accuse other nations of what they are guilty of as well, the difference in their actions is that US believes its somehow entitled to be world government or something, that they are in right to do the things to, whilst scolding others for doing the same. But it conducts itself as anything but a beacon of good will and leadership atm.

Sure maybe once a great nation, it has now been infiltrated by corporate agenda, and thusly empathy and humnism is gone out of the window. Corporate agenda of the big boys like Nestle believes water is not a human right.....what lind of lunacy is that?

Anything about the US + Saudi Arabia gets a pass. Been that way for a long, long time. Hint:Petrodollar.

Practically all mid-high level politics is rotten to the core. You're bickering over both sides of the same coin.

Because SA is on the the "right" team.

This is exceptionally weak, even for this sub. The only sites that have picked this up are sites nobody has heard of or sites that are know for bullshit. Those include zerohedge and infowars.

You read something that fits with your opinion about Clinton. Then you posted it without any supporting evidence. When you were called out for that, you googled and found a few sources that allegedly support you predetermined views of Clinton. You're taking the word of Prince Mohammed bin Salman on face instead of doing any sort of actual investigation.

There is no actual evidence of this happening. There is data to support that the Saudis donated to the Clinton Foundation. Further there is no evidence that foundation money was used to fund the campaign. Your post is baseless speculation.

You could have at least picked something that has at least a little meat on it. Like whether it was ethical or not for the Clinton foundation to take donations from foreign countries while she was secretary of state. That at least starts with facts.

Removed. Rule 10.