I don't think you will be able to find a single instance where I changed my position due solely to a donation.That was supposedly an answer to a question about whether or not he did change positions because of campaign contributions. And it's not a lost art, at all. Not now that another Clinton is running for President;
Brian Fallon, a spokesperson for the Clinton campaign, tells the [NY] Times the suggestions of impropriety were "baseless".
There is not a shred of evidence "supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation", he adds.Which is in response to stories breaking in the New York Times and Washington Post supporting the theory that she very well might have. As the BBC piece explained;
In the Times Jo Becker and Mike McIntire write about a Russian energy conglomerate's purchase of a Canadian company with uranium mining interests in the US and Kazakhstan. It's a detailed, 4,000-word investigation with a lot of moving parts, but the gist is clear.
The chairman of the Canadian company that profited from the sale, Ian Telfer, donated millions of dollars to the foundation - most of which was not reported publicly. The founder of the company, Frank Giustra, also donated $31m (£20.5m) to the foundation and flew former President Bill Clinton to Kazakhstan in 2005, at a time when the nation was considering whether to grant uranium mining rights to Canadian company.Can we count those shreds? Or these;
In 2010, at roughly the same time, the Russian company, Rosatom, was attempting to purchase the Canadian company, President Clinton travelled to Moscow and was paid $500,000 by a bank affiliated with Rosatom.
The US government, including the Department of State then headed by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, had to approve the Russian purchase, as it involved acquiring strategic mineral rights on US soil. It did.So where are the feminists to insist that the Caesarina's husband must be above suspicion.