Second I have shown that she took money that was given to her husband for charity( in return for an e-mail list).
We all know the e-mail list is for donors right? I'm pretty sure this is par for the course. Certainly I'm aware that my name as a potential donor has been passed around and if you've donated to anything I'm sure yours has too.
The best argument you have here is some form of self-dealing, but that implies that the price was unfair in some way. If the list was worth $1,000 but the price paid was $1,000,000 for example then obviously that would constitute an embezzlement of a near seven figure sale.
But your links don't make that case. No one knows what the price was, everyone agrees that it wasn't sufficient to pay off her debts to any large degree, and the source says the fair price would likely have been in the six figures. In sum, there doesn't appear to be any real financial gain from a self-deal. I'm not even any of your sources allege that an unfair price was paid. Certainly none of your excerpts make that argument.
1)Her debt was not fully paid off until the end of 2012. She paid the bulk of it in early 2009.
a) even if true that still means that the "bulk" was paid off a year before haiti happened.
b) if the Clintons were planning on embezzling it would be far easier to embezzle virtually any other source of money with less oversight. The foundation appears to have taken in resources from donations (the vast majority of which are large donors and foundations) well in excess of $1 billion. This suggests that the government money theory is implausible simply because it's the hardest possible way to commit the crime.
c) Your statement suggests the debt was paid off over a long period of time, rather than all in one burst. There is some tension between that and a narrative about needing to pay down debt to be properly vetted for secretary of state.
2)I'm not going to go back now and search for it again but look into the protracted timeline of payouts for both Katrina and Haiti from the clinton foundation.
I'm not doing your research for you. It's your claim, you have to defend it. That said, I maintain that the payouts for Katrina and Haiti do not, by simply looking at the calendar, plausibly fit into any narrative involving Hillary Clinton running for office or being vetted for secretary of state by diverting funds from those payouts for those purposes. The timelines just don't fit, and are off by anywhere between 18-24 months in both directions.
3) They did reference e-mail lists and I'm not sure if I linked a reference to the secretary of state thing or not.
You did not. In any event, the almighty dictator of linear time suggests that the two are not plausibly linked.
4)the William J. Clinton fund does get money for other things such as African Aids Relief would that make it any better?
if your position is that every charity that doesn't spend 100% of money on direct aid is evil you're going to be sorely disappointed in all your future giving.
If a republican was to collect money for their campaign that was given to his/her spouse by charitable donors hoping to reduce someones suffering I have little doubt that you would see the evil in it.
Under these circumstances? I honestly don't see the problem.
