Hillary For President

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by whell

Funny how some folks who howl about big money in politics, the Citizens United decision, etc., have absolutely no problem with any of this.

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

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

Gilmore then turns his attention to money in politics.

“The people of the United States don’t have confidence in the democratic system anymore,” Gilmore said. “They think it’s all rigged, they think it’s all set up, they think it’s all big money. She is the perfect candidate to continue that cynicism.”

Host Luke Russert then presses Gilmore on the massive amounts of money being poured into the GOP via the billionaire Koch brothers, and asks if there is perhaps too much money on his side of the aisle as well.

“I recognize that, as a matter of fact,” Gilmore replies. “But the fact is that the Koch brothers are not supporting Hillary Clinton.”

However, when Russert asks Gilmore if he’d take money from a Super PAC, Gilmore says “sure” without hesitation.

So, to review: Gilmore says Clinton doesn’t have integrity and she that the she represents American’s feelings that politics is rigged by big money. But the Koch brothers’ money doesn’t count and Gilmore himself would take money from a Super PAC.

Got it? Good.

[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.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by whell

Funny how some folks who howl about big money in politics, the Citizens United decision, etc., have absolutely no problem with any of this.

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

[Boreas]

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

This is exactly right, of course. Hillary's failure to disclose the donation to the Clinton Foundation is a violation of no law. It's just that it's not in keeping with the voluntary agreement she made with President Obama as a condition of employment. Also, it's not clear that Bill Clinton's speaking fee needed to be reported at all.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Boreas

This is exactly right, of course. Hillary's failure to disclose the donation to the Clinton Foundation is a violation of no law. It's just that it's not in keeping with the voluntary agreement she made with President Obama as a condition of employment. Also, it's not clear that Bill Clinton's speaking fee needed to be reported at all.

It still runs afoul of Federal conflict-of-interest laws. There needn't be a quid pro quo and spousal income from people/interests with business before you is identical to you receiving the income directly (or at least so said my annual ethics training and instructions of my annual Federal assets/income declaration). It's clear to me that a division chief at State would definitely have been fired and/or prosecuted for exactly what Hillary did.

[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.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

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.

So, you're a Cruz man. Best of luck with that.

[nailer]

Having this old woman as President would be amusing.

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

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by nailer

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

That's what I'm thinking. Pocahontas is the concern IMO.

[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.