Chelsea Clinton's wedding was paid for with...

[lspencer534]

money for Haiti raised by the Clinton Foundation. This past weekend the Washington Post ran an article questioning such. Bill Clinton then Tweeted:

Bill Clinton‏Verified account
@BillClinton
Follow Follow @BillClinton

"No Clinton Foundation funds—dedicated to Haiti or otherwise—were used to pay for Chelsea’s wedding. It’s not only untrue, it’s a personal insult to me, to Hillary, and to Chelsea and Marc."

That’s when Wikileaks jumped in to remind the world they have e-mail proof that the Clintons did in fact pay for Chelsea’s wedding with Haiti relief funds and linked back to an e-mail released in November, 2016. The document was an email between Hillary Campaign Chairman John Podesta and Clinton official Doug Band and confirms that Chelsea had used the money for her weeding and for paying taxes on other money given to her by her parents.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ment/?mtcid=cf

[snide]

Will someone go to jail over this?

Or commit suicide by two bullets to the back of their heads?

[lspencer534]

Originally Posted by snide

Will someone go to jail over this?

Or commit suicide by two bullets to the back of their heads?

I doubt it, but one person was indicted last week in connection with the Hillary Clinton uranium deal with Russia. The problem is, there's a 5-year Statute Of Limitation of Federal felonies, and Hillary left office in 2013, so she has to be indicted this year if at all.

[Thunder22]

How many times do you think Slick Willy typed in "Fake news!" and deleted it before hitting send on that tweet?

[DAB]

Originally Posted by lspencer534

I doubt it, but one person was indicted last week in connection with the Hillary Clinton uranium deal with Russia. The problem is, there's a 5-year Statute Of Limitation of Federal felonies, and Hillary left office in 2013, so she has to be indicted this year if at all.

so legally, we cannot look into any criminal activity, such as been alleged, that is older than 5 years.

but....

we are told that we not only have to look into, but we have to believe, without any other evidence, claims of sexual harassment that in some cases are more than 35 years old.

got it.

[Sea Six]

The email in the OP doesn't say anything except that there is an investigation into using Foundation resources for the wedding.

I don't see where it proves that they actually did.

[snide]

Originally Posted by Sea Six

The email in the OP doesn't say anything except that there is an investigation into using Foundation resources for the wedding.

I don't see where it proves that they actually did.

The investigation should follow the money. Any guesses as to what they'll find?

[Mike Mercury]

Originally Posted by lspencer534

That’s when Wikileaks jumped in to remind the world they have e-mail proof that the Clintons did in fact pay for Chelsea’s wedding with Haiti relief funds and linked back to an e-mail released in November, 2016.

Sadly, 80% of the voting public may never know this... as ABC, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, NBC will overly cover that Bill openly denied it; with little to no mention of facts showing otherwise.

One big reason why the Klintons always get a pass on this shhit is that the "slanted towards one party" media outlets always provide damage control.

[Cybercowboy]

The email was part of the Podesta Wikileak emails from October 2016. Those who have been following that have known of this email for well over a year now. There's been many mentions of it in responses to Chelsea tweets, but now it's getting play again because of Bill Clinton denying any CF money was used for her wedding. But like all things Clinton, he always leaves his claims vague and specific at the same time. Suffice it to say the head of the CF was getting pissed off about Podesta/DNC not sufficiently hiding the CF stuff from the public. The FBI was sniffing all around that entity before it was squashed by Comey/Lynch. That's what Doug Band is talking about.

[Sea Six]

Originally Posted by snide

The investigation should follow the money. Any guesses as to what they'll find?

Oh, I strongly suspect that a proper investigation would find that CF money was used for all of the items mentioned in the email in the OP.

[Bill]

Look, all the people of Haiti were INVITED to the wedding, so writing off all the food, venue, security, flowers, dress, tuxes, etc. is perfectly OK since the Haitian people were going to benefit from it. It's not Chubbell's fault no Haitians showed up to the wedding. They were invited, and that's enough.

[Mike Mercury]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

Look, all the people of Haiti were INVITED to the wedding, so writing off all the food, venue, security, flowers, dress, tuxes, etc. is perfectly OK ...

[OddBall]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

Look, all the people of Haiti were INVITED to the wedding, so writing off all the food, venue, security, flowers, dress, tuxes, etc. is perfectly OK since the Haitian people were going to benefit from it. It's not Chubbell's fault no Haitians showed up to the wedding. They were invited, and that's enough.

[Rob]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

Look, all the people of Haiti were INVITED to the wedding, so writing off all the food, venue, security, flowers, dress, tuxes, etc. is perfectly OK since the Haitian people were going to benefit from it. It's not Chubbell's fault no Haitians showed up to the wedding. They were invited, and that's enough.

When you address things to "shithole" the USPS cannot decide which nation to send it to

[Dave]

Is that email supposed to be a smoking gun? It's not.
It seems to do nothing more than mention what the investigation is looking at, not at what actually happened.

[Sea Six]

Originally Posted by Dave

Is that email supposed to be a smoking gun? It's not.
It seems to do nothing more than mention what the investigation is looking at, not at what actually happened.

Precisely the point I made early on.

[lspencer534]

Originally Posted by Dave

Is that email supposed to be a smoking gun? It's not.
It seems to do nothing more than mention what the investigation is looking at, not at what actually happened.

I know, but juries are allowed to make inferences. The e-mail does say, "I hope you will speak to her and end this."

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by snide

The investigation should follow the money. Any guesses as to what they'll find?

HOW long does that TAKE?? I say a reasonable time frame is 2-3 daze....anything more is just bullshit.....

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Dave

Is that email supposed to be a smoking gun? It's not.
It seems to do nothing more than mention what the investigation is looking at, not at what actually happened.

How else do I read that? Hey, Chelsea isn't funding her lifestyle and wedding with CF cash. We need to end that.

OK, "hey Chelsea, we need you to start funding your lifestyle with CF cash, because it just looks bad if you don't take our money."

[Dave]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

How else do I read that? Hey, Chelsea isn't funding her lifestyle and wedding with CF cash. We need to end that.

OK, "hey Chelsea, we need you to start funding your lifestyle with CF cash, because it just looks bad if you don't take our money."

It's not even a complete f'n sentence. It tells me absolutely nothing whatsoever.
"The investigation into her getting paid..."
ok, great. What about it? Is the investigation doing something? Nope. No verb that tells me anything that's happening with the investigation. Just a few phrases that I can only presume the investigation is looking into.