Trump cheats at golf - the ONE and ONLY politics thread

It is absolutely a good enough defense against a particular charge, which is that it is a "sham charity" that "exists to pay six-figure salaries to Chelsea Clinton and others."

 

It's not a comparison. It just served to show what a shitty excuse it is to say a group did a lot of good, so we shouldn't concern ourselves with the problems.

 

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. You two don't get to weasel from this that easily. That is a damned near libelous sentence. You two don't get to play, "the-Televnovela-meme-was-truthy" game with it.

 

The particular problem was that it is a "sham charity" that "exists to pay six-figure salaries to Chelsea Clinton and others."

You are being unresponsive. No one said that we shouldn't discuss its problems. But the fact that it does good is certainly a valid response to the charge that it is a "sham charity" that exists to pay six-figure salaries.

 

The telenovela meme WAS truthy. The Clinton Foundation stuff is a flat-out lie.

 

The Clinton Foundation is a grotesque scam, a molehill of charity hidden beneath of mountain of political corruption, all wrapped up in a cloak of ersatz righteousness.

And Kevin D. Williamson of The National Review, one of my favorite columnists on this here planet, was wrong to write that it "exists to pay six-figure salaries to Chelsea Clinton and others."

He'd have been fine if he'd just written that it exists to "feather the nest of the Clintons and keep their sycophants comfortable with six-figure salaries." He'd have been fine if he'd just written that it "exists to keep the Clinton coterie off the welfare roles until it can traipse back into the White House."

But he didn't write either of those things. And, therefore, what he actually wrote as re: Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton Foundation was wrong.

Good enough?

 

The word you are looking for is "potentially libelous."

 

"Potentially libelous" = two words.

Is it potentially libelous? Doesn't it have to have been defamatory as well?

But, still ... Seeing as how you're the expert, I will amend my earlier statement:

"... therefore, what he actually wrote as re: Chelsea Clinton and the Clinton Foundation was wrong and potentially libelous."

 

It doesn't matter if it's true if it can trigger a valuable national discussion, right YF?

 

Somebody better alert Charity Watch that the Clinton Foundation is a "sham charity" that only exists to pay off the Clintons and their buddies.

Charity Ratings | America's Most Independent, Assertive Charity Watchdog | CharityWatch

 

LOL.

 

Actually, now that I think on it, Mr. Williamson's not necessarily inaccurate in his writing. Just saying that entity X exists to do Y doesn't mean that entity X actually does Y. So even the fact that Chelsea doesn't take a salary doesn't necessarily mean that the Clinton Foundation doesn't exist to pay her one.