XPost: az.general, alt.religion.satanism, li.politics   
   XPost: alt.war.nuclear   
   From: investigate.pelosi@cnn.com   
      
   Scandal: Hillary Clinton says if she wins the presidency, it   
   might be a good idea for former President Clinton to cut his   
   ties to the Clinton Family Foundation. Good idea? A new IBD/TIPP   
   Poll suggests that average Americans are way ahead of her on   
   this issue.   
      
   "I don't think there are conflicts of interest" with having   
   former Bill Clinton run a foundation that raises money around   
   the world during her campaign, Hillary Clinton said in an   
   interview with ABC News on Tuesday. Americans, it seem, would   
   disagree.   
      
   Average people have a far less benign view of what's gone on at   
   the Clinton Foundation. And it looms as a major problem for   
   Clinton as she pursues the presidency.   
      
   In our latest IBD/TIPP Poll, taken the week of Aug. 26 to Sept.   
   1, shows that Americans are increasingly wary of the Clinton   
   Foundation's questionable practices, which IBD has written about   
   extensively. The poll of 934 adults has a margin of error of +/-   
   3.3 percentage points.   
      
   The ups and downs of the Clinton Foundation, it turns out, are   
   of big interest to average Americans. Some 72% in the IBD/TIPP   
   Poll said they are following it.   
      
   Perhaps more significantly, of the 72% who are following it,   
   three-fourths — or 77% -- believe that donors to the Clinton   
   Foundation received special access and favors from the State   
   Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state from   
   2009 to 2013.   
      
   And there is, surprisingly, bipartisan agreement on this: Some   
   55% of Democrats agree that the Clintons used public office to   
   dispense favors to their foundation's friends.   
      
   Yet, those investigating both the Clinton email scandal and the   
   related questions about the Clinton Foundation have been met   
   with hostility by Clinton partisans. FBI Director James Comey,   
   who all but indicted Hillary with his words when he announced he   
   would not prosecute her, this week even had to defend his   
   decision to release more documents from his investigation. For   
   the record, his investigation — and subsequent testimony to   
   Congress — found that Hillary lied repeatedly about her home-   
   brew email server and about sending and receiving classified   
   information on it. All of these are crimes.   
      
   But even bigger questions are now being raised about the cozy   
   ties between the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's State   
   Department. Though she promised an arms-length relationship to   
   the foundation when she was first named secretary of state, at   
   least 181 Clinton Foundation donors — companies, individuals,   
   even countries — lobbied the State Department during her years   
   there.   
      
   Indeed, more than half the non-government people who met with   
   Hillary — 85 of 154 — while she was in office gave money to the   
   Clinton Foundation. Those donors, together, gave as much as $156   
   million to the Clinton Foundation, according to an Associated   
   Press analysis.   
      
   It strongly suggests a quid-pro-quo relationship, given that the   
   State Department can act as a favor-giver and gatekeeper for   
   business deals and other lucrative arrangements around the   
   world. It reeks of a corrupt pay-to-play system based on a major   
   conflict of interest, in which Hillary Clinton was ideally   
   positioned to grant government favors to those who had already   
   enriched her, her husband Bill and her daughter, Chelsea, by   
   giving boatloads of money to the eponymous family foundation.   
      
   Charles Ortel, a highly regarded Wall Street financial expert,   
   took a look at the Clinton Foundation's books over the last year   
   or so and this week published his partial conclusion: "To   
   informed analysts, the Clinton Foundation appears to be a rogue   
   charity that has neither been organized nor operated lawfully   
   from inception in October 1997 to date ... it is a case study in   
   international charity fraud, of mammoth proportions."   
      
   Based on what appears to be repeated violations of the law and a   
   shocking disregard for the minimal ethics requirements of   
   government officials, it's time for a special prosecutor of   
   Hillary Clinton to look into both the family foundation and the   
   emails.   
      
   Our polling shows Americans would definitely support such a   
   move, either before or after the election. According to   
   IBD/TIPP, nearly two-thirds (63%) think a special prosecutor   
   should be appointed. And 88% of Republicans and 68% of   
   Independents want a special prosecutor to look into the possible   
   misconduct. The sentiment that something wrong has taken place   
   is overwhelming.   
      
   To save the nation from another failed presidency, it's time to   
   put this issue to rest by naming a special prosecutor.   
      
   http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/ibdtipp-poll-time-   
   to-name-a-special-prosecutor-for-possible-clinton-crimes/   
                           
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)