The Hillary Email / Benghazi Catch-All

Tanglebones wrote:

Eh. I do remember people on the left speculating that.

On MSNBC, for years, with massive repeated coverage on nationally networked talk radio? ...Probably not...

bekkilyn wrote:
Yonder wrote:

But in this election I've heard none of them, and I suspect it's largely because even the most clueless, anti-Hillary and anti-women people realize that Trump has all of those traits an order of magnitude more than Clinton does.

Something positive about Trump running for president is that if any future female candidate starts getting this kind of BS about being over-emotional, etc. because of her gender, then all she would need to do is point straight back to Trump. :)

Unfortunately that's just not true. People don't seem to have much of a memory beyond a single election, sort of like how the entire country has gone from "oh yeah, George W Bush f*cked up the entire Middle East didn't he" to around half the country going "man, Obama has f*cked up the entire Middle East, hasn't he?"

Clinton: It's HIS fault!

Powell: lol

Ummm..

“Toward the end of the evening, over dessert, Albright asked all of the former secretaries to offer one salient bit of counsel to the nation’s next top diplomat,” Mr. Conason writes. “Powell told her to use her own email, as he had done, except for classified communications, which he had sent and received via a State Department computer.”

Mr. Conason continued, “Saying that his use of personal email had been transformative for the department,” Mr. Powell “thus confirmed a decision she had made months earlier — to keep her personal account and use it for most messages.”

That pretty explicitly says she had already decided to use a private server, so they're not claiming they set it up because he advised it.

Also, while Powell says he didn't remember this dinner conversation there is an email and his own biography which documents him saying exactly what Clinton said he said "I used personal emails and it was a great and useful thing since the government channels aren't as advanced as the private solutions."

I guess like 15,000 of those "newly discovered" emails will be released in the next few months.

Also it looks like more emails are being released which show Huma acting as a go-between to set meetings and access to Clinton Foundation contributors.

Still waiting for the emails to show something actually bad, instead of just relationships that could have resulted in bad stuff.

You know, I want to see a former Clinton firm profiting from a war in the Middle East. Do we have anything like that? Because finding out that Clinton used her power to raise money to help solve issues of poverty around the world just isn't making me hate her all that much.

At some point if nothing ugly turns up, it would seem Hillary might be quite good at not crossing the line, considering how close she always is.
Though it would be a lot more comforting if she just stayed away from that line.

NormantheIntern wrote:

Also it looks like more emails are being released which show Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff acting as a go-between to set meetings and access to Clinton Foundation contributors.

Hmmm... Put that way, it's hard to see the problem...

Shadout wrote:

At some point if nothing ugly turns up, it would seem Hillary might be quite good at not crossing the line, considering how close she always is.
Though it would be a lot more comforting if she just stayed away from that line.

Maybe, but there should also be a point where someone (pundits, citizen action groups, something) should be able to say, from the Republican fold, we've spent almost 2.5 decades watching our legislators, public officials, et al going on a witch hunt here trying to discredit her and nothing ever works... maybe that's the problem.

Instead what we get is more "ooooooh, isn't that suspicious?" then nothing... again until someone is stupid enough to say on live national television that the whole thing has been to try to keep her from getting elected, not to find justice for anyone... and then they start again and everyone just continues the pile on while never getting anything to stick.

Kind of like watching Obamacare repeal vote number... what're we even up to at this point? I think I lost track around the late 30s.

Demosthenes wrote:
Shadout wrote:

At some point if nothing ugly turns up, it would seem Hillary might be quite good at not crossing the line, considering how close she always is.
Though it would be a lot more comforting if she just stayed away from that line.

Maybe, but there should also be a point where someone (pundits, citizen action groups, something) should be able to say, from the Republican fold, we've spent almost 2.5 decades watching our legislators, public officials, et al going on a witch hunt here trying to discredit her and nothing ever works... maybe that's the problem.

Instead what we get is more "ooooooh, isn't that suspicious?" then nothing... again until someone is stupid enough to say on live national television that the whole thing has been to try to keep her from getting elected, not to find justice for anyone... and then they start again and everyone just continues the pile on while never getting anything to stick.

Kind of like watching Obamacare repeal vote number... what're we even up to at this point? I think I lost track around the late 30s.

In the Obamacare thread:

NathanialG wrote:

Since we don't have the picture thread anymore I am just going to put this here:

IMAGE(https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/13669547_10154555611161435_2153848257402381303_o.jpg)

But I hate Hillary Clinton SO MUCH. The fact that no one can find any reason for my hate just proves that she's EVEN MORE WORTHY OF HATE BLAaAaaaAARGGH.

Yonder wrote:

But I hate Hillary Clinton SO MUCH. The fact that no one can find any reason for my hate just proves that she's EVEN MORE WORTHY OF HATE BLAaAaaaAARGGH.

IMAGE(http://static.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1324596542030_7713053.png)

Jayhawker wrote:

Still waiting for the emails to show something actually bad, instead of just relationships that could have resulted in bad stuff.

You don't think it's "bad" when state dignitaries and people rich enough to contribute large sums of money to a private organization get preferential treatment when it comes to meeting with the head of the State Dept?

Yonder wrote:

But I hate Hillary Clinton SO MUCH. The fact that no one can find any reason for my hate just proves that she's EVEN MORE WORTHY OF HATE BLAaAaaaAARGGH.

Thank you for showing me the power of "better posting".

You don't think it's "bad" when state dignitaries and people rich enough to contribute large sums of money to a private organization get preferential treatment when it comes to meeting with the head of the State Dept?

That's how the whole world works though.. somehow we still managed to muddle by this long.. how is this some sort of earth shattering revelation now?

NormanTheIntern wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

Still waiting for the emails to show something actually bad, instead of just relationships that could have resulted in bad stuff.

You don't think it's "bad" when state dignitaries and people rich enough to contribute large sums of money to a private organization get preferential treatment when it comes to meeting with the head of the State Dept

As a level of corruption, it's not great... but I'd still take getting foreign dignitaries and rich folks to make contributions to philanthropic endeavors over here's a bunch of no bid contracts for a company with both have ties to.

Has Donald Trump said he would personally have nothing to do with the Trump Organization if he is elected? Because as a business that seems even more rife for conflict of interest than a charity like the Clinton Foundation.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

You don't think it's "bad" when state dignitaries and people rich enough to contribute large sums of money to a private organization get preferential treatment when it comes to meeting with the head of the State Dept?

Is there actually a concrete example of this so-called preferential treatment? An example where a state dignitary or person rich enough to donate large sums of money to the campaigns of multiple politicians and PACs still couldn't get access to the head of the State Department without donating the the Clinton Foundation?

OG_slinger wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

You don't think it's "bad" when state dignitaries and people rich enough to contribute large sums of money to a private organization get preferential treatment when it comes to meeting with the head of the State Dept?

Is there actually a concrete example of this so-called preferential treatment? An example where a state dignitary or person rich enough to donate large sums of money to the campaigns of multiple politicians and PACs still couldn't get access to the head of the State Department without donating the the Clinton Foundation?

The crown prince of Bahrain tried to set a meeting w Clinton through normal channels, couldn't get one. So a high level Clinton Foundation exec emails Huma, referencing him as a "good friend of ours" (ie a donor), and the meeting is set up. Pretty straightforward.

OG_slinger wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

You don't think it's "bad" when state dignitaries and people rich enough to contribute large sums of money to a private organization get preferential treatment when it comes to meeting with the head of the State Dept?

Is there actually a concrete example of this so-called preferential treatment? An example where a state dignitary or person rich enough to donate large sums of money to the campaigns of multiple politicians and PACs still couldn't get access to the head of the State Department without donating the the Clinton Foundation?

That wouldn't be having to prove a negative though...

I've been wanting to see proof of egregious stuff re: the Clintons for a long time now. So far the best theories have taken real data and done an entertaining yet unsubstantive correlation dance with it. Toward the middle are arguments which point out everyday political crud and inflate its "badness" to suit an agenda. The worst have been the equivalent of digging up a fossil and saying the devil put it there to fool us into believing in evolution.

I'm all for more clarity and accountability in politics. That's a good and necessary discussion to have about principles. If we're going to go after a person or organization though, some kind of concrete evidence is necessary to further the argument against them. With all of the well sourced info (including from hacks) that's floating around, why aren't we seeing that?

NormanTheIntern wrote:

The crown prince of Bahrain tried to set a meeting w Clinton through normal channels, couldn't get one. So a high level Clinton Foundation exec emails Huma, referencing him as a "good friend of ours" (ie a donor), and the meeting is set up. Pretty straightforward.

This is the middle ground stuff I'm talking about, BTW. It definitely addresses OG's question, but this is politics writ large these days. Does it foster a discussion about whether things should be done this way as a rule? Sure. Is it egregious or otherwise surprising? I don't think so, but maybe someday it will be as our political landscape evolves.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

The crown prince of Bahrain tried to set a meeting w Clinton through normal channels, couldn't get one. So a high level Clinton Foundation exec emails Huma, referencing him as a "good friend of ours" (ie a donor), and the meeting is set up. Pretty straightforward.

I read the emails.

The Crown Prince's representative went through official and unofficial channels on a Tuesday, trying to set up a very last minute meeting with Hillary because he was in D.C. from Wednesday through Friday.

Hillary didn't want to officially book a meeting on Thursday or Friday "until she knows how she will feel" and that "she may want to go to ny, but doesn't want to be committed to stuff in ny."

So rather than being a case where Hillary refused to speak with the Crown Prince of Bahrain, it was a case of the Crown Prince wanting a last minute meeting because he happened to be in town and Hillary either not feeling well or wanting to get back to NYC early, or both.

I suppose I'm still at a loss for what the supposed issue is. The Secretary of State talked with the Crown Prince of Bahrain. Why wouldn't the State Department talk with the one of the heads of the government where the US Fifth Fleet is based out of? And she talked with a great number of state leaders and influential (read rich and powerful) people. That's kind of the job description.

If you have proof that Hillary and the Crown Prince cooked up a dastardly plan during that meeting that was contrary to American interests, that's a whole other discussion. But that's not the case. It's just pointing at someone who's job it is to talk to a sh*t load of people and say it's somehow suspicious that they're talking to a sh*t load of people.

You asked me if being a donor got anyone access to a meeting, I showed how it did.

It's true that I can't prove they tried to summon Gozer so their enemies could be roasted in the belly of a giant Sloar - but that's moving the goalposts.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

You asked me if being a donor got anyone access to a meeting, I showed how it did.

It's true that I can't prove they tried to summon Gozer so their enemies could be roasted in the belly of a giant Sloar - but that's moving the goalposts.

You showed that a donor got a meeting, not that the donor got the meeting specifically because they were a donor. Had the Crown Prince tried a different informal way of getting a meeting, he likely still would have gotten it, because he's the Crown Prince of Bahrain.

Edit to add:
What OG described seems like he got a very soft no initially, so I'm not surprised at all that another attempt regardless of the go-between turned it into a yes. It's not like letting her know he donated to her foundation turned a hard no into a sure thing for him.

LouZiffer wrote:

This is the middle ground stuff I'm talking about, BTW. It definitely addresses OG's question, but this is politics writ large these days. Does it foster a discussion about whether things should be done this way as a rule? Sure. Is it egregious or otherwise surprising? I don't think so, but maybe someday it will be as our political landscape evolves.

It's not even politics writ large, it's just humanity writ large. "Busy person unable to get appointment with other busy person until mutually known busy person told the first busy person it would be worth their time, news at 11."

My last company had a policy where if you knew a qualified person that could fill a job opening at your company, you referred them, and they were accepted, you got a small bonus. I got that bonus after referring an acquaintance that was accepted. My new company has that same policy, and my friend got that bonus after referring me.

Run that by the Clinton news filter and you get "Allegations that corrupt local employee received payout from company that hired his friends!"

That's not to say that such activity doesn't have it's own perils. The extreme of this activity is nepotism or cronyism, which--yes--is bad. This aspect of humanity is also a factor that holds minorities from new industries, as on average they have to break in with much less networking benefit. It's also a bit of a handicap for those of us who are pretty bad at keeping acquaintances and friendships going when we don't actually see the other person regularly.

However, on the typical, normal level of networking it's a completely reasonable activity which helps companies and individuals vet people with additional information that they wouldn't have with a normal resume or meeting invite.

When this sort of stuff comes up I don't see fire, I don't see smoke, and I'm not entirely sure I'm seeing water vapor either.

Stengah wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

You asked me if being a donor got anyone access to a meeting, I showed how it did.

It's true that I can't prove they tried to summon Gozer so their enemies could be roasted in the belly of a giant Sloar - but that's moving the goalposts.

You showed that a donor got a meeting, not that the donor got the meeting specifically because they were a donor. Had the Crown Prince tried a different informal way of getting a meeting, he likely still would have gotten it, because he's the Crown Prince of Bahrain.

I read that exchange yesterday. It actually ended with the CP's rep emailing Huma telling her he got a meeting through official channels.

So the problem with this situation is that... he tried to do it unofficially? Huma's first response was to tell the CP's rep to go through official channels. Those same channels he used to get the meeting that was taken.

Bring this up if Huma runs for president, I guess.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

You asked me if being a donor got anyone access to a meeting, I showed how it did.

No, I asked you to give me an example of the supposed "preferential treatment" (your words).

All we know is that Hillary had a meeting with the Crown Prince that was arranged at the last minute. You might see that as "preferential treatment" whereas I see it as Hillary doing her job as Secretary of State.

And without knowing which other state leaders and influential people Hillary met at the last minute during the course of her duties there's honestly no way to say whether the Crown Prince getting a few minutes of face time in 2009 was preferential treatment or if was par for the course.

What's for certain is that the reality of the situation--the Crown Prince's handlers using multiple channels to arrange a last minute meeting because he was in town--is *vastly* different than what most media coverage is hinting at: that Hillary would have never met with the Crown Prince ever if he hadn't set up a scholarship fund through the Clinton Foundation, even though the US has loads of business with and interest in Bahrain.

oilypenguin wrote:
Stengah wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

You asked me if being a donor got anyone access to a meeting, I showed how it did.

It's true that I can't prove they tried to summon Gozer so their enemies could be roasted in the belly of a giant Sloar - but that's moving the goalposts.

You showed that a donor got a meeting, not that the donor got the meeting specifically because they were a donor. Had the Crown Prince tried a different informal way of getting a meeting, he likely still would have gotten it, because he's the Crown Prince of Bahrain.

I read that exchange yesterday. It actually ended with the CP's rep emailing Huma telling her he got a meeting through official channels.

So the problem with this situation is that... he tried to do it unofficially? Huma's first response was to tell the CP's rep to go through official channels. Those same channels he used to get the meeting that was taken.

Bring this up if Huma runs for president, I guess.

Eh, if it was the unofficial request that made the difference, it'd be really stupid to make it so blatantly obvious by sending the confirmation back through the unofficial channel, which would just scream "secret & nefarious meeting," especially since a request was already made through an official channel.

Prince: "Can we have a meeting?"

**no response**

Clinton Foundation: "Can this donor have a meeting?"

State: "Sure"

Probably just coincidence though, okay.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Prince: "Can we have a meeting?"

State: Whatever the official version of "she doesn’t want to commit to anything for thurs or fri until she knows how she will feel. Also she says that she may want to go to ny and doesn’t want to be committed to stuff in ny..." is

Clinton Foundation: "Can this donor have a meeting?"

State: she doesn’t want to commit to anything for thurs or fri until she knows how she will feel. Also she says that she may want to go to ny and doesn’t want to be committed to stuff in ny...

Two days later, when she knows how she feels on Thursday:

State: "She decided to meet, we've sent a response already through official channels, let him know if you talk to him"

Probably just coincidence though, okay.

FTFY

Wow. One of the leaders of a strategic ally since 1947, a person who has been able to address Bush's cabinet and meet the President, tries to get a meeting on extremely short notice and has the clout to pull it off? And we *know* it's because he gave $32M to a charitable foundation, rather than the equivalent of tens of billions to the US government in military and diplomatic benefits over decades?

Really? Dude, you pick the strangest hills to die on...