Read the Reuters article. What is this rule that the Foundation broke?
What is this rule that the Foundation broke?Good catch. For a while there, I was mistakenly assuming she might have left actual rules in tatters, instead of just her own integrity.
How do rules work, not a rule at all... whatevs.
Yeah, whatevs. That's the funny thing about integrity - it's kind of like some sort of "voluntary" rule. Confusing.
A lecture on integrity, mixed with indifference to an incorrect accusation. Stay awesome. Or maybe you should "stand down," something that never happened in Benghazi. That one was all about lack of transparency and integrity, too. With six to ten more years of this brew to follow. Whee!!
Please allow me to meekly exit stage left and "stand down".Because I finally see now that the important part of this post was that the author mistakenly (and indifferently!) implied that Hillary may have been required to reveal the source of donations to the Foundation.Silly me - the actual failure to reveal donors would indeed have rebounded negatively on Hillary, if she were in fact required to do so.But since she instead chose to declare that she was holding herself to a higher standard than she was actually required to, her failure to follow through on that promise is really only her own business - I now see that.I also want to apologize for giving such a haughty lecture on "integrity". I have to become more aware that some people are extremely uncomfortable with that topic. Please forgive me, in short, for my inept obtuseness, and let me join with you in declaring that, when it comes to Hillary having failed to live up to her promises of transparency - what difference, at this point, does it make?
In short?Pace yourself. You guys will have 6-10 more years to come up with a -gate that actually happened. The hunt continues! You're sure to catch that wascally wabbit Hiwwawy at wast!
Post a Comment