Have you seen the Clinton Cash documentary?

No.
I was watching the “Trump Trash” channel.

I don’t need to know any more about the Clintons, unless, as has been suspected, they paid for Donald Trump’s campaign.

Trump turns Clinton’s sow’s ear into a silk purse.
Imopssible to imagine, otherwise.

@gorillapaws – how much of the documentary do you think is fair and unbiased?

documentary? You demean yourself considerably by categorizing this as anything other than the cheesy attempt at swift boating which it is. Even the irritating background music is repulsive.

In the end, if every word of the film is the God’s honest truth, the country would STILL be better off in the hands of proven thieves than at the mercy of a megalomaniacal demagogue.

@elbanditoroso Obviously the film has a point of view. I’d be happy to hear counterarguments on the specific points made.

@stanleybmanly I agree the style is obnoxious, but it’s labeled as a documentary, which is why I referred to it as such. Do you disagree with specific points the film makes? Or are you just dismissing it outright?

You can label it canned ham or whatever you choose. Everyone recognizes it for what it is and the purpose of it. But if you REALLY consider the points of the film, the conclusion to be drawn is that since the Clintons were broke when they left the White House, their big mistake was in waiting til Bill left office to begin selling off influence.

Is the documentary made from the original printed book or the ebook version with all the inaccuracies edited out?

@Lightlyseared I’m not sure. This is the fact sheet the video links to.

I gave it a shot, but the movie itself seems really sensationalized, so I just started digging. There’s a lot of third parties that have checked the facts and what’s left doesn’t seem that damaging unless you view it thought the lens of “something must be wrong here”.

Looking at the Foundation most of the money discussed is put through – it seems to check out that they use the vast majority of funds to help people. So I don’t have a problem there.

Keep in mind that Hillary wasn’t formally involved with the foundation until 2013 and the foundation discloses donors.

So most of the other faults are that the Clintons receive money for speaking engagements from people who also donate to their charity. All ex politicians receive money for speaking engagements, and it makes sense that people who would value them that highly would also donate to their causes. That’s really not a thing.

So how about the uranium. 20% of all the US’s uranium sounds like a lot to give the Russians, right? Well, there’s the long NY Times story on that, but what it really seems to boil down to is a number of business transactions where a business that currently mines one fifth of the annual US production was bought by another company. That’s not 20% of the US uranium. That’s a sensational headline that simply isn’t true.

So I just decided to check the source, who made this video?

Clinton Cash

Director – M.A. Taylor

Three movies.

Hype: The Obama Effect (2008) – A documentary detailing the various questions about Barack Obama’s past, filmed before the 2008 presidential election.

Hillary: The Movie (2008) – A documentary that takes a close look at who Hillary Clinton really is. The many mini-interviews, news articles, and investigative reports give the viewer an in depth look into what makes Mrs. Clinton tick.

Clinton Cash (2016) – An investigation into how the Clintons have amassed millions in personal wealth through foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation, a supposed charity, in exchange for political favors while Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State.

Someone seems to have a specialty. I guess?

Producer – Stephen K. Bannon – Breitbart News Executive Chairman.

Produced Such Hits as In the Face of Evil: Reagan’s War in Word and Deed – Good versus evil in this epic tale which chronicles Ronald Reagan’s crusade to destroy the most tyrannical and depraved political systems the world has ever known.

That’s where I quit, come on.

I’m not dismissing it all together, some of this stuff is shaky in the same way all big business and politics is shaky. The beneficiaries really seem to be a foundation that does a lot of good and two famous ass politicians that probably don’t. I don’t think there’s anything here that stands out as corrupt.

That’s really the charge, isn’t it?

Nice work! Thanks!

@funkdaddy Thanks for looking into this. It does seem like there are some dubious characters involved in the film, which certainly raises my eyebrows. That said I do take issue with this point:

“So most of the other faults are that the Clintons receive money for speaking engagements from people who also donate to their charity. All ex politicians receive money for speaking engagements, and it makes sense that people who would value them that highly would also donate to their causes. That’s really not a thing.’

It seems to me that the claims aren’t that the Clintons receive money for speaking engagements from donors, but that there are dubious favors being done in connection with the timing of the speeches and the payouts. If true, that would be very troubling in the eyes of many Americans.

Look, the film obviously has a point of view and there are clearly motives behind it’s production which makes one raise their eyebrows. That said, HRC does have a history of shady behavior, so I don’t think all of the claims can be dismissed outright. I know that HRC put a major donor onto a nuclear advisory board with top secret clearance despite no qualifications. The guy stepped down when the news broke. She did shady weapons deals with Clinton Foundation donors. Those are widely agreed upon facts.

The producer of this film is the new campaign director for the Trump campaign.

Tough to keep it positive in 2016.

——-

@gorillapaws – sorry for the lack of response here.

I’m really not defending HRC, so much as saying
1) She’s been in the public eye for more than 30 years now, 30 years of her communication history can be pulled by a request…
2) she’s had as many investigations into her actions as anyone I can think of
3) There are many people out there that would like to see her charged

I think if there was something truly corrupt going on, she’d probably be charged or forced into a lower profile at a minimum. Think about all the dirt that has come out on other candidates, if this is the strongest stuff she’s left in terms of evidence, she’s either a criminal mastermind, or just not that bad.

My personal view is she’s calculating and driven to the point that I don’t trust her either. But I think any career politician has these sort of connections in their past. It’s the state of the profession and has been for a long time, so we weed out the truly dangerous and try to keep things transparent, even if it causes some strange proceedings.