Actually the specifics of the foreign government donations aren't public. Which is the issue. Of which, millions came while HRC was whoring; I mean serving the public.
What they got in return for the "donations" is not. There are a lot of things that are suspect surrounding this organization. The IRS is auditing it but given the outcome of FBI investigation, I doubt anyone believes they would hang 'em.
The IRS will find multiple illegalities and then bend over and take it in the ass just like James Comey did.
He's not dangerous. You know that more than half the shit he's said he wants to do will never get done. He's not an insider so half his term would be about bloviating and bullshit backdoor hand shaking. Hillary's been there done that.....business as usual. There is nothing more dangerous than that. Johnson isn't dangerous....he's just a loser.
I'm still waiting to find out how a blog and an article written by the same person, is legitimate in one aspect but not the other. Anyone?
Well, what did they get "in return"? Their expenses are also a public record. And their taxes. They are under more public scrutiny than any people alive and there is nothing for the Republicans in any if these contrived "scandals" except innuendo. When you cry "wolf" too often with no wolf apparent, people start disbelieving.
More like the sly fox. The farmer catches the fox in the act of stealing his chickens yet the fox keeps on feasting. The farmer knows that the fox is guilty even though he has been outfoxed.
http://www.makealivingwriting.com/writing-an-article-vs-writing-blog-post-differences/ Here you go......to help out here is the gyst of what it says: Blogs are mostly the writers opinion, there are no interviews conducted or research cited, kept short, built around SEO keywords, casual style of writing that isn't necessarily concerned with good spelling or grammer and there is no editor involved. Articles do not allow the writer to inject their opinion, requires credible interviews and research to be cited, longer than 300 words, keywords are of no importance, uses a more formal and sophisticated style of writing and, of course, it must ultimately go through an editor prior to publishing.
I understand the basic and subtle differences. The fact remains, I linked to a blog written by the same person and submitted on the same day as the article you linked. The ONLY difference was that your article was for paid subs so I'm sure it contained a few wing dings and a few more words. With that said, do you really mean to suggest that in the blog I linked, the writer somehow had a lapse in spelling and grammar (did you cut and paste and STILL get the spelling wrong?) that he/she somehow cleaned up for the article he/she wrote and submitted that same day? The blog piece, while it may have been called a blog, was not an amalgam of the writer's opinion. It was a short but to-the-point story about Trump's financial report filing. That's it. The WSJ sees the importance of using blogs, available to the public, as a tease to gain paying subscribers. It would do them no good to put out something that sucked in basic structure and was lacking any type of factual information. You likely just didn't realize that the source I used, which you summarily dismissed, was written by the same person, published on the same day, as the article you linked. You might want to own that.
