Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi does not want to be bullied by Hillary Clinton. She likes it much better when she’s bribed.
For months we’ve heard about the corruptness of The Clinton Foundation. The foundation is a charity. It focuses on global health, climate change, improving opportunities for girls and women and a variety of other activities. You know. Good stuff.
Though there’s been accusations of pay-to-play with the foundation, all investigators can find are contributors seeking meetings with world leaders. That’s about it.
Now we have the Trump Foundation. This is also a charity. Supposedly. Donald Trump established it and other people put money into it. Donald Trump does not. Who benefits from the Trump Foundation? Starving children? Aids victims? People with small hands and funky hair? We’re not sure except that public office holders threatening to investigate a Trump business will get a payout.
You may ask “isn’t that illegal?”. Using a charity to make a political contribution? It sure sounds illegal. It is. How would you feel if the quarters you gave a Salvation Army Santa was spent on a 40?
Here’s what happened:
Trump University was scamming people in Florida. Pam Bondi looks into opening an investigation on Trump University. She also asks Donald Trump for a political contribution.
Trump’s charity gives $25,000 to a pac supporting her. And surprise! Days later she drops all interests in an investigation of Trump U. She later receives a swanky fundraiser at Trump’s Mar-A-Lago resort in Florida and more donations from Melania Trump.
The IRS frowned on this and they fined the Trump Foundation at least $2.500. Trump’s team says it was a mistake because the Bondi pac had a similar name to a charity. Sure. “Bondi For AG” sounds a lot like “Unicef.”
How could a Trump initiative make such a HUGE mistake when Trump always hires the best people? He’s shrugged his shoulders blowing it of as a mistake, but he’s also claimed during the Republican debates that when he gives politicians money that they do what he wants. Hey, Pamela. Did you do what he wanted? Did he want it nasty?
Of these two foundations, which of their law breaking have you heard more about? The bar is set seriously low for Trump.
It comes down to this: Clinton’s foundation has been accused. Trump’s foundation has been found guilty of breaking the law by the Internal Freaking Revenue Service of taking money intended by donors to help the needy but instead given to a political candidate so she doesn’t investigate a Trump business shadier than the Plexus diet drink pyramid scheme.
Now which one of these is corrupt?
Did you like this cartoon? Want to help a cartoonist make a living? Look to the right of this page and make a donation through Paypal. I need to buy pens, paper, sandwiches, and dog food. The starving cartoonist and his Beagle appreciates it. If you’ve donated in the past, THANK YOU!!!
CLAYTOONZ 
Quite remarkable. Oh, not the Pam Bondi bribe. Floridians are well aware of Bondi’s corruption. She and Scott are like the Bobbsey Twins. No, I’m talking about the selective memory of those intent upon whitewashing Clinton’s corruption by insisting that her own Pay to Play scheme is non-existent. Seriously? She’s hip deep in this stuff. Here’s one of my favorites: Donate a few million to the Clinton and even a hedge fund guy can get a rush, Top Secret Clearance and be appointed to a nuclear commission. Sounds legit, right?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/hillary-clinton-donor-rajiv-fernando/
LikeLike
I was unaware that the Secretary of State appointed people to nuclear commissions.
LikeLike
Lest their be any misunderstanding, in my humble opinion, Trump is insane and shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the White House. The problem is, both RNC and DNC Presidential candidates are retchingly corrupt. The justification for voting for Clinton, saying that she has “experience”, is deeply flawed. George W. Bush had “experience”, the Obama’s pet DOG has lived in the White House for years and interacted with heads of state, thus he too could be said to have “experience”, but mere “experience” should never be mistaken for sound judgment, an area in which Mrs. Clinton has always been found sorely lacking. Faced with a choice of the most popular candidate in the nation’s history, with a decades long history of sound judgment, and his opponent, one of the least popular candidates in existence, a status quo candidate weighted down with a well deserved reputation (like it or not) for corruption, the DNC conspired and colluded to nominate the latter, thereby flushing the potential for a landslide win right down the tubes. Bernie was right. We NEED a political revolution.
LikeLike
Wait. George W. Bush had “experience?” In what alternative universe?
LikeLike