The Hillary Email / Benghazi Catch-All

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/25/1261534...

I struggled with this idea when I first heard it. After all, if we can’t say anything wrong actually occurred, then who should care what the "perception" is from the outside? Isn’t the appearance of a conflict of interest inherently meaningless if it is ultimately just an appearance?

I think Noble’s response to this question is worth quoting in full:

Politicians like to say things like, "I would have given the lobbyist for Exxon a meeting regardless of their donation," and that might be true. But the problem is that it’s impossible to know if the meeting would have happened anyway, if the meeting was given out of a favor, or what.

So they don’t get the benefit of the doubt. It’s their job to make sure they avoid the appearance of a conflict in interest in the first place — because if a politician has made a decision that affects a major donor [whose money they want], then it becomes basically impossible to sort out why they did it. It calls into question the decision even if it’s totally legitimate and the best one they could make.

That’s why the very idea that access to government depends on how wealthy you are — and how much you give — is so dangerous. What the Clintons did here helps create the impression that if you’re a small-business person who wants to talk to the secretary of state, then you’re out of luck. But if you donate a few million dollars to her husband’s charity, you can talk to her.

Since we keep rehashing this I will again say you're right however we live in a two party country (at least as far as who will win) and I don't see the other side offering a candidate that will counteract the idea "that access to government depends on how wealthy you are"

Quintin_Stone wrote:

WikiLeaks doubles down on dumb. Now it's trying to present "decision fatigue" as a health ailment and then pretends to connect it to a stimulant called Provigil.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...

After looking at the WikiLeaks poll mentioned in the article (Trump 59%, Clinton 16%), I took a little look at their Twitter feed and, Jesus, it's like a slightly milder version or r/The_Donald.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/25/1261534...

I struggled with this idea when I first heard it. After all, if we can’t say anything wrong actually occurred, then who should care what the "perception" is from the outside? Isn’t the appearance of a conflict of interest inherently meaningless if it is ultimately just an appearance?

I think Noble’s response to this question is worth quoting in full:

Politicians like to say things like, "I would have given the lobbyist for Exxon a meeting regardless of their donation," and that might be true. But the problem is that it’s impossible to know if the meeting would have happened anyway, if the meeting was given out of a favor, or what.

So they don’t get the benefit of the doubt. It’s their job to make sure they avoid the appearance of a conflict in interest in the first place — because if a politician has made a decision that affects a major donor [whose money they want], then it becomes basically impossible to sort out why they did it. It calls into question the decision even if it’s totally legitimate and the best one they could make.

That’s why the very idea that access to government depends on how wealthy you are — and how much you give — is so dangerous. What the Clintons did here helps create the impression that if you’re a small-business person who wants to talk to the secretary of state, then you’re out of luck. But if you donate a few million dollars to her husband’s charity, you can talk to her.

Yeah, I want to see that list of small business owners that were able to schedule meetings with previous Secretaries of State. I mean, can they try to play into the uneducated masses any more blatantly, with that kind of reasoning. It's like blue collar workers voting against their own interest because they are sold a false notion of the American Dream, which is that they might be millionaires that want to screw the 99% someday, too.

Seriously, if Trump is president, his Secretary of State is not taking meetings with small businesses. I mean, everyone is here understands that, right?

It seems to me that the lack of concern when it comes to the appearance of a conflict of interests helps normalize and legitimize actual cartoon villains who aspire to power.

I mean, I've been posting here for a long time, and I've heard many of you decry the fact that money and an established political class are corrupting the political system. There are other candidates who, despite their other faults, will certainly be more ethical when it comes to conflicts of interest and transparency - so if you feel strongly enough about that corruption, it's not just a choice between two people. I understand the argument that one or the other "has to" win, but I also feel that's only true because enough people lend the idea veracity.

So I don't really see "B-b-but TRUMP" as a valid defense against criticizing Clinton, but instead a cautionary statement - that without the grey areas and flaunting of rules that people like Clinton personify, there wouldn't be a Trump candidacy.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I mean, I've been posting here for a long time, and I've heard many of you decry the fact that money and an established political class are corrupting the political system. There are other candidates who, despite their other faults, will certainly be more ethical when it comes to conflicts of interest and transparency - so if you feel strongly enough about that corruption, it's not just a choice between two people. I understand the argument that one or the other "has to" win, but I also feel that's only true because enough people lend the idea veracity.

Personally I see it as one issue of many and when I look at the totality of their records I firmly, completely, unequivocally believe Hillary will support my interests more than any of the other candidates but each of us gets to go to the ballot and decide.

I agree with a lot of that spirit. I also think that b-b-but Trump is an overused cop out. The context here which makes this unimpressive to me isn't the "better of two evils" aspect, but the fact that I have Hillary Witch Hunt fatigue. The last couple of decades have just been one ridiculous instance of crying wolf after another. This is not only important emotionally, but logically as well. For a random politician I may indeed think that something sort of kiny seeming was an indication of something actually bad which hadn't come to light because that individual had slipped by deeper scrutiny.

With Hillary Clinton I know that she hasn't slipped by deeper scrutiny, I know that they have combed the combs that combed through every aspect of her life. These instances of mild conflict of interest and apparent but not actual impropriety aren't the warning signs--they are literally the worst skeletons that have been been dredged out of a well-cleared river.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

It seems to me that the lack of concern when it comes to the appearance of a conflict of interests helps normalize and legitimize actual cartoon villains who aspire to power.

I mean, I've been posting here for a long time, and I've heard many of you decry the fact that money and an established political class are corrupting the political system. There are other candidates who, despite their other faults, will certainly be more ethical when it comes to conflicts of interest and transparency - so if you feel strongly enough about that corruption, it's not just a choice between two people. I understand the argument that one or the other "has to" win, but I also feel that's only true because enough people lend the idea veracity.

So I don't really see "B-b-but TRUMP" as a valid defense against criticizing Clinton, but instead a cautionary statement - that without the grey areas and flaunting of rules that people like Clinton personify, there wouldn't be a Trump candidacy.

I'd feel a lot better about your thoughts if your posts were actually about criticizing Clinton for the appearance of impropriety that we've ended up at. Instead you post open ended accusations that something else is going on.

I certainly agree with most of what you said here, and it's nice that you've come to this point since you'll find a lot of agreement around the fact that HRC is a status quo politician who should do more to open up the transparency of her communications and divorce herself from conflicts of interest.

Unfortunately, whenever you find that common ground you seem to use it to launch back into claims of nefarious activity and either incompetence or working against the American people.

Among our current crop of politicians who are capable of realistically becoming president, I find her to be far and away the best option. But let's all have that conversation. I'd much rather talk in more detail about Johnson or Stein's platforms or policies (or gaffes or pitfalls) than rehash this again.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

It seems to me that the lack of concern when it comes to the appearance of a conflict of interests helps normalize and legitimize actual cartoon villains who aspire to power.
...
So I don't really see "B-b-but TRUMP" as a valid defense against criticizing Clinton, but instead a cautionary statement - that without the grey areas and flaunting of rules that people like Clinton personify, there wouldn't be a Trump candidacy.

I think if anything Clinton is almost the correct way of handling things. When she has done things with the appearance of a conflict of interest, folks have investigated. That's right and proper. (In her case, overly zealous, but the idea itself isn't wrong.) So really, her "flaunting" isn't what gave rise to Trump, it's that others weren't investigated as fastidiously, and therefore actually got away with conflicts of interest.

Jolly Bill wrote:

I'd much rather talk in more detail about Johnson or Stein's platforms or policies (or gaffes or pitfalls) than rehash this again.

Well, this is, literally, The Hillary Email thread. If you want to talk about that stuff, the Election thread is still open.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

It seems to me that the lack of concern when it comes to the appearance of a conflict of interests helps normalize and legitimize actual cartoon villains who aspire to power.

I mean, I've been posting here for a long time, and I've heard many of you decry the fact that money and an established political class are corrupting the political system. There are other candidates who, despite their other faults, will certainly be more ethical when it comes to conflicts of interest and transparency - so if you feel strongly enough about that corruption, it's not just a choice between two people. I understand the argument that one or the other "has to" win, but I also feel that's only true because enough people lend the idea veracity.

So I don't really see "B-b-but TRUMP" as a valid defense against criticizing Clinton, but instead a cautionary statement - that without the grey areas and flaunting of rules that people like Clinton personify, there wouldn't be a Trump candidacy.

I'm not saying "B-b-but TRUMP". I'm saying "why are people trying to pretend Hillary is some unique and exceptional case?"

What is being called 'corruption' seems far different from what has been before. We're talking about something inherent to the American political landscape. The American people in general are granted a basic level of access. Your representatives can and do listen to their constituents. However, with money comes even greater access.

This is the way it has been. If we want reform, I'm firmly of the opinion that starting at the top (and especially in the executive branch!) will accomplish little.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I mean, I've been posting here for a long time, and I've heard many of you decry the fact that money and an established political class are corrupting the political system. There are other candidates who, despite their other faults, will certainly be more ethical when it comes to conflicts of interest and transparency - so if you feel strongly enough about that corruption, it's not just a choice between two people. I understand the argument that one or the other "has to" win, but I also feel that's only true because enough people lend the idea veracity.

If we were still discussing the primaries, I'd agree with you, and is a reason why I voted for Bernie as I believed him to not only represent more of my views, but I also believed him to be the most ethical of the candidates, and I still believe it to be the case. Unfortunately, not enough of the rest of everyone here in the U.S. shared my opinion, so Bernie lost and Hillary won.

I am very strongly against privatizing all public services and handing every aspect of our lives over to corporations and corporate interests, so I will never vote Libertarian for that reason alone, though there are other reasons.

I don't like the Green Party from what I know of them, and have developed a particular dislike of Jill Stein and her particular brand of vindictiveness, so she is not an option.

Therefore, the only other option left is Trump and I can't think of a single quality about him that I like or respect. He's also the only real alternative to Hillary in this race even if I actually liked the 3rd party candidates, which I don't.

Considering that the race is indeed realistically between two candidates, Hillary and Trump, Hillary actually *is* the most ethical choice between the two.

I also happen to have a severe case of Hillary Clinton Witch Hunt Fatigue, so she's practically going to need to mow down a crowd of innocent people in the streets before I'd start thinking that maybe Trump is actually the better choice. (And even then I'd probably have to think about it at this point.)

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:

I'd much rather talk in more detail about Johnson or Stein's platforms or policies (or gaffes or pitfalls) than rehash this again.

Well, this is, literally, The Hillary Email thread. If you want to talk about that stuff, the Election thread is still open.

Y'know, I almost added an edit to say that, but took my son for a walk instead.

To Norman's point, and I think this has been said most times it comes up, reasonable people agree that the appearance of impropriety is bad and should be avoided. But I think Robear (and Yonder?) made a great counterpoint to that in regards to Hillary: At this point Hillary has been the subject of so many accusations of impropriety, appearances or no, that it becomes normal.

As Norman said: What Clinton does normalizes conflicts of interest. That is literally the worst that can be said about it. But the blame of that normalizes doesn't fall ONLY on her, due to the many times that wolf has been cried.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

I mean, I've been posting here for a long time, and I've heard many of you decry the fact that money and an established political class are corrupting the political system. There are other candidates who, despite their other faults, will certainly be more ethical when it comes to conflicts of interest and transparency - so if you feel strongly enough about that corruption, it's not just a choice between two people. I understand the argument that one or the other "has to" win, but I also feel that's only true because enough people lend the idea veracity.

What corrupt things has Hillary actually done, again?

Taking a last minute meeting with a state leader (and heir apparent) of a country that's been an ally of the US since the 90s and that currently is the home for the United States Naval Forces Central Command and the Fifth Fleet?

Or maybe it was when she met with that Noble Prize-winning economist who has done tremendous work helping people (mostly women) in developing nations to escape poverty? It can't be that Yunus was dirty because the AP article you love so much pointed out that he was accused of mismanaging funds and the Norwegian government found the charges baseless.

You can't even call those meetings conflicts of interest because that would require that Clinton had a role at the Clinton Foundation when she was Secretary of State (she didn't) *and* that the Clinton Foundation wanted things that the State Department and the US government didn't.

But none of that is stopping people from accusing Hillary of nefarious deeds.

Let's take a closer look at the Crown Prince of Bahrain. The more right wing media spin a story that the Crown Prince gave the Clinton Foundation $32 million, which bought him access to Hillary (that completely overlooks the fact that as the Crown Prince of a Middle East ally that he'd already have access to Clinton).

So what about all that money? $32 million is a lot. Well, you can search for the Crown Prince on Contributor and Grantor Information page on The Clinton Foundation's website. You won't find him. You will find the Kingdom of Bahrain. They cumulatively gave between $50,000 and $100,000 and earmarked the funds for Clinton Global Initiative activities such as memberships, sponsorships, and conference fees.

So either the Clinton Foundation is purposefully hiding one of their largest donors ever or there's more to the story.

Since 1999 the Crown Prince has run a scholarship program that sends ten promising Bahrain students to colleges and universities outside of the country. It's a damn generous program, spending about $500K on each student (who aren't even required to return to Bahrain after graduation).

In 2005 the Crown Prince asked the Clinton Global Initiative (not the Clinton Foundation) to help him create an endowment fund for the scholarship so he could get donors to help him build an $80 million endowment. At that point the Crown Prince committed to raising the first $32 million.

That's kinda key there. The Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) doesn't actually fund or raise money for things.

CGI FAQ wrote:

DOES CGI PROVIDE FUNDING OF ANY KIND?

No. CGI convenes leaders to drive action through its unique modelCGI is not a grant-making organization and does not provide funding directly to CGI members to carry out their work. Rather than directly implementing projects, CGI facilitates action by helping members connect, collaborate, and make effective and measurable Commitments to Action—plans for addressing significant global challenges. CGI supports the development of commitments by facilitating dialogue, providing opportunities to identify partners, showcasing the actions taken by commitment-makers, and communicating results.

So the $32 million that the media is hinting was kinda a bride to gain access to Hillary couldn't have been one. The $32 million wasn't the Clinton Global Initiative's money. Nor the Clinton Foundation's money. And it certainly wasn't the Clinton's money.

It's money raised by others that doesn't benefit the CGI, the Clinton Foundation or the Clinton's in any way. It goes directly into the Crown Prince's scholarship fund. If you're looking for transparency then go read the Crown Prince's scholarship page on the CGI website.

So instead of being an example of someone rich and powerful giving millions to the Clinton Foundation to get access to Hillary, the Crown Prince's story actually represents someone who was helped by the Clinton Global Initiative. And that's a far cry from corruption, conflicts of interest, and no transparency.

That's a good example of my asking for the actual harm, OG. Turns out there's no there, there...

NormanTheIntern wrote:

That’s why the very idea that access to government depends on how wealthy you are — and how much you give — is so dangerous. What the Clintons did here helps create the impression that if you’re a small-business person who wants to talk to the secretary of state, then you’re out of luck. But if you donate a few million dollars to her husband’s charity, you can talk to her.

I just wanted to point out that you're very close to repudiating the ideas behind Citizens United here. By making the role of money in politics something that should be tightly controlled and transparent, you're going against Republican orthodoxy on this one. Curious to me, since I'd have bet you'd be happy with CU (money == speech).

I would go further than that, Bekkilyn. I would say Hillary is the most ethical candidate between the four choices.

I still don't see what 'looks bad' about privately running a huge charity with some of the cleanest books and most efficient use of money out of any charity.

Isn't private charity a central tenet in conservatism?

Being a foreigner, MrDeVil, it's understandable you wouldn't understand, so I will elucidate...

....ahem...

It's a private charity with ties to Hillary Clinton

...

Hillary

...

Clinton

Surely that helps you grok the problem.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Being a foreigner, MrDeVil, it's understandable you wouldn't understand, so I will elucidate...

....ahem...

It's a private charity with ties to Hillary Clinton

...

Hillary

...

Clinton

Surely that helps you grok the problem.

Thanks for explaining in a way that's clear to my alien foreign brain.

Robear wrote:

I just wanted to point out that you're very close to repudiating the ideas behind Citizens United here.

And by arguing that only the actual quid pro quo is wrong and should be prevented, rather than the appearance of corruption itself, you're essentially agreeing with the Roberts court when it decided that Buckley v Valeo went too far.

Actually, I'm arguing that after a point, when no evidence of actual corruption is found, the accusations should be viewed more skeptically than most. The "appearance of misconduct" standard is usually followed to avoid the *possibility* of inadvertent wrongdoing. It's not however something that has the force of law, to the best of my knowledge. What matters in the end is, did investigations turn up any wrongdoing? In this case, in 23 years, we have pretty much one instance - the email scandal.

Given the volume of attacks on Clinton that did *not* have any factual basis, it's right to be *extremely* skeptical of claims that she's corrupt. Investigations are fine if they are not over-used (as with Benghazi and Whitewater and so forth) as in those cases they waste millions of taxpayer money.

But again, dinging her because she stepped over a *preventive* line, rather than a *legal* one, is putting the cart before the horse. Show evidence that that shaded into illegality, corruption, and I'll back you up with the condemnation. But otherwise, look at the context. Hillary Clinton is the most hated prominent, successful political figure in the US, and you have to take that into account when looking at accusations about her.

Saying where there's smoke there's fire starts to lose some impact for me when people have set up fog machines and the fire departments found nothing despite crawling though the ductwork for twenty years.

Robear wrote:

Actually, I'm arguing that after a point, when no evidence of actual corruption is found, the accusations should be viewed more skeptically than most. The "appearance of misconduct" standard is usually followed to avoid the *possibility* of inadvertent wrongdoing. It's not however something that has the force of law, to the best of my knowledge. What matters in the end is, did investigations turn up any wrongdoing? In this case, in 23 years, we have pretty much one instance - the email scandal.

Given the volume of attacks on Clinton that did *not* have any factual basis, it's right to be *extremely* skeptical of claims that she's corrupt. Investigations are fine if they are not over-used (as with Benghazi and Whitewater and so forth) as in those cases they waste millions of taxpayer money.

I just can't buy the argument that we should give a Secretary of State or President the benefit of the doubt when it comes to *investigating* potential conflicts of interest or corruption, just because she was somehow unfairly targeted in the past. These two issues (email and Foundation) are entirely of her own creation, and someone who is in a position of power and in an even sharper partisan spotlight should be erring on the side of caution and transparency, instead of deliberately obfuscating and muddying the waters. No one forced her to use outside email for day to day communications with everyone. No one forced her to keep Huma on the payroll of both organizations. No one forced the Foundation to continue soliciting contributions when she was running for office, and no one is forcing Chelsea to remain on the Board even if she wins.

More power should equal more scrutiny, not less.

I think you are completely right, Norman - but I just wonder at what point we can stop and say, "yup, this has been scrutinized. We good.". There doesn't seem to be a point at which the Republicans are willing to say that.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

These two issues (email and Foundation) are entirely of her own creation, and someone who is in a position of power and in an even sharper partisan spotlight should be erring on the side of caution and transparency, instead of deliberately obfuscating and muddying the waters.

I will say that I always feared Clinton would find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Whatever our various positions on the merits of all this, I still can't believe she didn't see that she'd be handing *any* opponent a gift (I never know whether Trump is the best candidate for her to run against or the worst). Whatever the 'truth' is, how could a politician supposedly as smart as her not see this trouble coming?

I mean, if they've been going after you for decades with baseless-yet-damaging accusations, what makes you think they're going to stop all of a sudden and give you a pass on all this?

The only sense I can make of it is

1) she really didn't plan on running for President when she became Secretary of State, or

2) that the private e-mails were to keep the bleed-over with the Foundation out of the public record to avoid exactly what is happening, and she didn't anticipate Benghazi. At least, that's what I tell myself so I don't have to face the idea that as good of a President as she'll be, she'll do something this boneheaded again along the way and hand the Presidency to, like, Ted Cruz in a redistricting year.

SallyNasty wrote:

I think you are completely right, Norman - but I just wonder at what point we can stop and say, "yup, this has been scrutinized. We good.". There doesn't seem to be a point at which the Republicans are willing to say that.

It's perfectly clear that the only point Republicans will say "we good" is when Hillary announces that she's retiring from public service and the Clinton Foundation shutters its doors.

At this point they're literally using the smear campaigns they put together in the 90s to justify why Hillary should be under a perpetual cloud of suspicion today.

OG_slinger wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I think you are completely right, Norman - but I just wonder at what point we can stop and say, "yup, this has been scrutinized. We good.". There doesn't seem to be a point at which the Republicans are willing to say that.

It's perfectly clear that the only point Republicans will say "we good" is when Hillary announces that she's retiring from public service and the Clinton Foundation shutters its doors. the family line is extinct.

At this point they're literally using the smear campaigns they put together in the 90s to justify why Hillary should be under a perpetual cloud of suspicion today.

If Chelsea ever decides to run for *any* office, these'll pop right back up.

As "Crooked Hilary's" daughter.

fangblackbone wrote:

As "Crooked Hilary's" daughter.

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." - Exodus 20:5