Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: Clinton foundation front for child sex trafficing?

  1. #1

    Default Clinton foundation front for child sex trafficing?

    I been hearing rumors about Hillary and her financial backers being implicated in an international child sex slave trafficking ring and using the Clinton Foundation as a front. So far I've seen a few articles with mostly speculation and "FBI leaks" but has anyone heard of this or seen anything solid on it? I know Hillary's crooked as all hell and I have no love for her or Trump and normally try to stay out of this stuff but, this one was a bit much for me to ignore. Well there's always a chance that it could just be conspiracy theorist with overactive imaginations but with Hillary Clinton's past and Bill Clinton's past I wouldn't put it past them for the story to have a few true details even if most of it is BS. But I haven't actually seen or heard anything beyond rumors speculation at this point I was wondering if anyone else has

  2. #2

    Default

    I dont have much to go on here as far as citing anything, I do however find it extreamly unlikely that somthing as despicable as human trafficking would be a behind the curtain business for a foundation or person that is sure to be in the public eye

  3. #3

    Default

    No-one involved in something so utterly morally bankrupt would ever follow a path as much in the public eye as a career politician at the highest level of politics. The number one rule to getting away with a crime is "don't get suspected in the first place". Politicians are always suspect, whether by the public or their opponents. There's always someone digging (and in Clinton's case it's a full-fledged strip-mine), so linking yourself to something that would drive most of the population into a frenzied lynch mob is definitely to be avoided, even if you yourself have no moral objections to it. Where is the advantage to the child sex ring, or its backers, of associating itself with someone who is so much in the public eye? If you want someone in government to turn a blind eye to something, bribe some anonymous official, not someone who is a household name.

    Accusing someone of a crime that is generally regarded as lower than drug dealing, on the other hand, is a pretty effective way of smearing them.

    It is far more plausible that these rumours are yet another form of political attack against the Clintons than it is that either of them would be so stupid to be even tangentially involved in such a thing. After all, you have to admit that if "Hillary's as crooked as all hell", and yet she's managed to stay out of jail, despite fending off investigations of one kind or another for decades, then she has to be a criminal genius. Criminal geniuses don't take those kind of risks.
    Last edited by Akastus; 01-Nov-2016 at 20:56.

  4. #4

    Default

    From what I read it's more along the lines of a lot of her financial donors from the Middle East are the ones that are getting investigated for it but because all the money is brought into the Clinton Foundation which essentially funds her running for president and pays for her multi billion-dollar mansion she is being implicated but like I said it's just rumors at this point and the sources are not all that reliable that's why I was asking if anyone else heard about it I would have figured something this big Wikileaks would have been all over it months ago but it does come with some suspicion as to why comey would go against FBI protocol and announce something like the reopening g of the case before they have any definite proof. Don't get me wrong she already belongs in jail. She mishandled classified information as the Secretary of State. My father has quite a bit of security clearance for the government contractor he works for and if he were to have mishandled information even half as important as that he'd be facing prison time without the possibility of parole for the rest of his life as would any member of Congress it's just awfully convenient on that fact that the FBI decided not to prosecute even after being pointed out in the Congressional hearing that if anyone else had done it they would be locked away. The selection year has been toxic, neither candidate is fully qualified for the job in fact neither of them even meet the prerequisites Donald Trump has no political background and Hillary Clinton has been involved in way too many criminal investigations as of late on top of all the leaked emails from the DNC server in any properly run government these two clowns have been out on their ass months ago.

  5. #5

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by w0lfpack91 View Post
    Don't get me wrong she already belongs in jail. She mishandled classified information as the Secretary of State.
    I disagree with that statement, mostly because Gen. Patraeus directly gave classified information to someone not cleared to have it, and was not conducting government business while doing so. He only got probation and a fine. In my opinion the fact that Clinton was at least conducting government business with the small amount of classified information sent over her email server makes what she did, which don't get me wrong was dumb, a lot less bad than what Patraeus did. If Clinton were to be imprisoned for only what is currently known to the public that to me would be a huge double standard. There is also a difference in enforcement of mishandling classified information between cleared government employees and cleared contractors. Typically a government employee who mishandles small amounts of classified information would be subject only to administrative action. A contractor is, however, held to a much higher standard. Again not saying that this is correct, but it is how the government has dealt with these issues for decades. As to your last point about criminal investigations, we have to remember that the U.S. Constitution has put forth that our court systems have a presumption of innocence, so using involvement in a criminal investigation, with no conviction, as a mark against someone is unfair.

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by DMVanGrif View Post
    I disagree with that statement, mostly because Gen. Patraeus directly gave classified information to someone not cleared to have it, and was not conducting government business while doing so. He only got probation and a fine. In my opinion the fact that Clinton was at least conducting government business with the small amount of classified information sent over her email server makes what she did, which don't get me wrong was dumb, a lot less bad than what Patraeus did. If Clinton were to be imprisoned for only what is currently known to the public that to me would be a huge double standard. There is also a difference in enforcement of mishandling classified information between cleared government employees and cleared contractors. Typically a government employee who mishandles small amounts of classified information would be subject only to administrative action. A contractor is, however, held to a much higher standard. Again not saying that this is correct, but it is how the government has dealt with these issues for decades. As to your last point about criminal investigations, we have to remember that the U.S. Constitution has put forth that our court systems have a presumption of innocence, so using involvement in a criminal investigation, with no conviction, as a mark against someone is unfair.
    Okay then how come everyone's calling Donald Trump a rapist for "raping a girl when there's no conviction or even proof against him and that happened over 10 years ago it's double standard she's is a government employee therefore she gets special treatment with the law which is a double standard for the civilian population. If anyone else was put into her position it would be guilty until proven innocent what we have right now is a problem with the completely neurotic Society obsessed with their own personal feelings to the point they want to criminalize anyone who disagrees with them. Which makes it really hard to find solid tangible evidence on either side because everybody's on a side, to the point that everything that you find is going to be heavily biased in one Direction or another the fact is we do not know that what she did was minor everything we know we is what we are told, but what we are told cannot be proven true or false because no one has access to the proof without going through either a blue or red filter

  7. #7

    Default

    I haven't heard this rumor before, and it's particularly sensational. I think it may have grown from another rumor that seems more pluasable, but, I can't substantiate. it goes something like this. Since the girl Wiener was having an inappropriate relationship with was under age the subpoena used to seize his laptop and other devices was one looking for child porn. As any pictures from the young lady Wiener was in contact with would technically be just that. Some have said (I.E put on your seatbelts and tinfoil hats) that former top aide Huma had a "life insurance" folder on there

    If you want to bad mouth the clinton foundation why not just accuse it of influence pedaling, or embezzling Haiti relief funds

    to DMVanGrif saying Hillary belongs in jail goes back farther than E-mails. It goes all the way back to insider trading on cattle futures to Whitewater, Marc Rich, Lincoln bedroom ect.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by w0lfpack91 View Post
    Okay then how come everyone's calling Donald Trump a rapist for "raping a girl when there's no conviction or even proof against him and that happened over 10 years ago it's double standard she's is a government employee therefore she gets special treatment with the law which is a double standard for the civilian population. If anyone else was put into her position it would be guilty until proven innocent what we have right now is a problem with the completely neurotic Society obsessed with their own personal feelings to the point they want to criminalize anyone who disagrees with them. Which makes it really hard to find solid tangible evidence on either side because everybody's on a side, to the point that everything that you find is going to be heavily biased in one Direction or another the fact is we do not know that what she did was minor everything we know we is what we are told, but what we are told cannot be proven true or false because no one has access to the proof without going through either a blue or red filter
    Did I bring up the accusations on Donald Trump? I think that under our justice system that deciding his guilt without a court verdict is also wrong. I also never said I agreed with the double standard of employee vs contractor, just pointing out that the law is written as such. I honestly was not trying to incite anything here. I actually agree with you that partisanship and otherness are the biggest problems this particular election season has exposed. I did not defend what Hillary Clinton did either. I tried to present what I viewed as the most neutral fact base possible. I understand that my personal bias against Trump would lead me to say unsavory things, which is why I originally refrained from mentioning him. I apologize for not being more clear in my original post.

  9. #9

    Default

    What is on the records as fact is Donald Trump walking in unexpected into the girl's dressing room on the Miss America Pageant and I believe, Miss Teen America. Anyway, The Washington Post report was that he deliberately walked in on naked girls as young as 15 years of age. If anyone is a pedophile, it's him, and even by his own words from interviews.

  10. #10

    Default

    well that snuffs it the two major candidates should be disqualified. so Johnson or Stein.

Similar Threads

  1. Trump vs. Clinton
    By Hoorf in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-Aug-2016, 09:14
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17-Jun-2015, 18:53
  3. Panty Girdle / Foundation Wear with Diapers?
    By toni in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 19-Dec-2013, 02:26
  4. The Being A Child/Wanting A Child Subject
    By StrawberryRaven in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 24-Sep-2013, 12:02
  5. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 20-Oct-2009, 15:37

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.