The only troubling part of the AP story, other than their misleading tweet about it, was how much effort they went to avoiding putting the information in its proper context. Hillary met with 84 Clinton foundation donors...84 out of..thousands. Less than 1% of the meetings held were with foundation donors. Sound the alarm.
You don't understand. And I highly doubt you will if you keep your blinders on against the corruption that is Clinton.
It isn't the fact that it's
84 101 people out of thousands, it's the fact that she met these people
who had no business being there, much less meeting with the Secretary of State and asking for "favors" (while they seem small to you, they are favors nonetheless, and still go against ethics regulations the government put into place that you conveniently ignore on this).
Why don't you explain to the class why these specific 101 non-government employees/non-foreign officials met with the SoS of the United States, who's only defining feature is that they donated to her family's charity foundation. I mean, if it's not for a "pay to play" scheme that's going on.
King, no. They explained a lot more. The casual corruption is inherent in that class. Hillary is no less corrupt in that telling.
(Fixed your spelling mistakes, also #Wings4Rooks)
Nobody else but her is running for the top seat of government.
Even though you pass this off as "well, everyone is doing it, so it's not bad," doesn't excuse corruption at all.
Next thing you know, you will excuse serial killers and school shootings because "everyone is doing it, so what difference does that make™?"
Corruption is very bad, and it's even worse when it comes from the top seats of government. I don't understand why this concept is hard for people to understand...