Hillary For President

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

What exactly is it that she did?

A criminal conflict of interest statute, 18 U.S.C. § 208, prohibits an employee from participating personally and substantially, in an official capacity, in any “particular matter” that would have a direct and predictable effect on the employee’s own financial interests or on the financial interests of:

- the employee’s spouse or minor child;
- a general partner of a partnership in which the employee is a limited or general partner;
- an organization in which the employee serves as an officer, director, trustee, general partner, or employee; or
- a person with whom the employee is negotiating for or has an arrangement concerning prospective employment.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

What's funny is the hypocrisy of the Republicans complaining about big money in politics.

http://national.suntimes.com/nationa...inton-drop-out

LOL. That's rich, because of course you find no hypocrisy in partisans on the left giving the Clintons a "pass" on this.

[whell]

Originally Posted by nailer

I'd bet the GOP powers that be are praying the Dems don't come up with a better candidate.

The Dems don't have a better candidate. The Dems, IMHO, are showing a serious lack of bench strength in this election cycle in the race for the Oval Office.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by finnbow

A criminal conflict of interest statute, 18 U.S.C. § 208, prohibits an employee from participating personally and substantially, in an official capacity, in any “particular matter” that would have a direct and predictable effect on the employee’s own financial interests or on the financial interests of:

- the employee’s spouse or minor child;
- a general partner of a partnership in which the employee is a limited or general partner;
- an organization in which the employee serves as an officer, director, trustee, general partner, or employee; or
- a person with whom the employee is negotiating for or has an arrangement concerning prospective employment.

Federal prosecutors can read also...so where are all the indictments?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by finnbow

A criminal conflict of interest statute, 18 U.S.C. § 208, prohibits an employee from participating personally and substantially, in an official capacity, in any “particular matter” that would have a direct and predictable effect on the employee’s own financial interests or on the financial interests of:

- the employee’s spouse or minor child;
- a general partner of a partnership in which the employee is a limited or general partner;
- an organization in which the employee serves as an officer, director, trustee, general partner, or employee; or
- a person with whom the employee is negotiating for or has an arrangement concerning prospective employment.

Yes, but do we know that she did that?

[whell]

Originally Posted by icenine

Actually, we know who paid Clinton. The only thing they did not do was tell the Obama Administration like they were supposed to. The only penalty for that infraction would have been for Obama to dismiss her from his administration.

That is the whole crisis....trust me people like Cruz are lining their superpacs with tons of money from undisclosed donors while pointing a finger at Hillary for doing the same thing.

Remember that the approval for the Russian uranium company had to through myriad approval authorities not connected to the State Department, including a Utah state regulatory board. Hillary has a lot of influence in Utah of course

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...residency.html

Mr Chait, no arch - conservative, writes:

The news today about the Clintons all fleshes out, in one way or another, their lack of interest in policing serious conflict-of-interest problems that arise in their overlapping roles:

The New York Times has a report about the State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium mines to a Russian company that donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, and that a Russian investment bank promoting the deal paid Bill $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.

The Washington Post reports that Bill Clinton has received $26 million in speaking fees from entities that also donated to the Clinton Global Initiative.

The Washington Examiner reports, “Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.”

And Reuters reports, “Hillary Clinton's family's charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.”

When Cruz starts raising that kind of money - including significant cash from foreign entities - and refiling years worth of tax returns, I'll start getting concerned. And that remark from Chait about conflicts of interest is probably charitable, IMHO.

Also, as Chait reminds us:

The Obama administration wanted Hillary Clinton to use official government email. She didn’t. The Obama administration also demanded that the Clinton Foundation disclose all its donors while she served as Secretary of State. It didn’t comply with that request, either.

I think its up to the Clintons to explain to the world why folks shouldn't assume that this is, at best, a spectacular ethical lapse, and why folks who are capable of questionable ethics and conflicts of interest should inhabit the White House.

[icenine]

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politi...426-story.html

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by whell

The Dems don't have a better candidate. The Dems, IMHO, are showing a serious lack of bench strength in this election cycle in the race for the Oval Office.

As the saying goes, "there's strength in numbers" so, in that sense, the Repubs have a very strong bench. The problem is most of those guys are unqualified and many are just plain nuts.

We'll see what happens with Clinton. We'll see whether her troubles cause her to recede in approval and whether someone else, like Warren or O'Malley or maybe even Governor Moonbeam begins to accelerate. The election is still a long way off.

The problem is that Clinton has the finances pretty well sewn up. The on;y way another Democrat could mount a credible campaign would be for her donors to defect (unlikely) or for her to withdraw and release her supporters, perhaps in favor of a particular candidate but I don't find that all that much less unlikely.

[icenine]

so many smoking guns, so few indictments lol

[glen65]

Originally Posted by Boreas

What exactly is it that she did?

It really won't matter,
No matter what Hillary might be guilty of here, she'll skate legally. The worst it will do is affect her presidential chances.