Really? Dude, you pick the strangest hills to die on...
I feel the same way about people who supported Sanders who are defending this.
But okay - let's assume for argument's sake that Stengah has some source for his assertion that State responded to the guy's initial request. Let's assume that the timing in this case was a coincidence. Let's also assume that the fact that more than half of the meetings Clinton had as Secretary of State with nongovernmental parties that either directly or indirectly contributed to the Foundation was also a coincidence. Eighty five different coincidences. That's basically the liberal version of being a climate change denier, but for this argument, let's posit that's all true.
She's still responsible for the appearance of a conflict of interest by keeping a dual-hatted employee on staff. None of this would be an issue if these emails didn't exist and she kept herself properly insulated from the Foundation. Like the private email system, the most generous possible interpretation you can give here is a tradeoff of extremely sloppy ethical decisions in the name of convenience.
Probably true. I would bet this is how the upper echelon network works really but we are hearing/reading about it because of the digging into Hillary.
Of course while I don't disagree I don't think anything would be different under a Trump presidency so on my mental score board I have a check for both so this is not going to be the issue that sways me.
Yeah, the worst conclusion we can really draw here is that it looks bad, potentially, you never know.
I mean, according to the article Norman linked, she's already gone to (by industry standards) rather extreme measures to disconnect from the Foundation, should be be elected. But that'll never be enough. People will still just imagine she's doing... something... somehow... because it's Hillary Clinton.
Probably true. I would bet this is how the upper echelon network works really but we are hearing/reading about it because of the digging into Hillary.
I think there's something to that. Have we ever had someone in Clinton's position run a Foundation like this - one that is already high profile and managed by people who move in these circles before they got into an office like SoS? As intentionally absurd as Norman's "okay let's say it's all coincidence" thought is, I honestly don't have any grasp of how absurd that might actually be, come to think of it. The Foundation's work does a great deal of projects on a global scale, it's difficult for me to think with certainty people weren't donating to the Foundation just because of the usual reasons rich and influential people donate to charities - because it makes them look good.
Even if all the allegations are true (and they don't look like they are), it would still be an election between Nucky Thompson and Gyp Rosetti.
But okay - let's assume for argument's sake that Stengah has some source for his assertion that State responded to the guy's initial request. Let's assume that the timing in this case was a coincidence. Let's also assume that the fact that more than half of the meetings Clinton had as Secretary of State with nongovernmental parties that either directly or indirectly contributed to the Foundation was also a coincidence. Eighty five different coincidences. That's basically the liberal version of being a climate change denier, but for this argument, let's posit that's all true.
She's still responsible for the appearance of a conflict of interest by keeping a dual-hatted employee on staff. None of this would be an issue if these emails didn't exist and she kept herself properly insulated from the Foundation. Like the private email system, the most generous possible interpretation you can give here is a tradeoff of extremely sloppy ethical decisions in the name of convenience.
Huma Abedin started working for Hillary fresh out of college in the mid-90's. She's clearly a trusted personal assistant. Isn't there an argument to be made that Hillary keeps her close over time because she's got confidence in her? Why would you *not* expect her to have her most trusted assistant involved in the Foundation, and later in her State Department days, and her campaign? Seriously. It's not like she's a lobbyist brought into Clinton's circle to enrich her with foreign contacts. She's literally a personal assistant, whatever her title is.
So the idea that she's somehow a secret fund-raising genius belies the fact that her entire career experience consists of being Hillary Clinton's dogsbody. (She is acknowledged to have serious expertise in Middle East affairs, however, and has served in an advisory capacity in that regard.)
Further, you're positing that it's unusual that foreign leaders contribute to an international charity that happens to be very successful in its projects. You also seem to believe that that would become some kind of source of profit for the Clintons (instead of their putting money *into* it), when none of their charity audits and statements by outside sources like PWC indicate anything like that. Indeed, they show that where they *could* have paid themselves and family members large salaries or loans, they did not.
And then too, you seem to be suspicious of the fact that international leaders know each other and cooperate on private as well as public projects. The Bush White House, like the Clinton and Bush and Reagan ones before it, was a revolving door of actual, direct political donors who got not just a good night's sleep in a famous bedroom, but face time with the President. Directly. Not SecState on the phone or anything like that.
And frankly, the idea that these folks can't contact her and set up an entirely discreet Skype call or even a dinner meeting that we'd never know about doesn't even occur. Why got to all this rigamarole with open donations to a real charity for access to someone outside Hillary's family (yet at her personal profit?) when this could all be done - and is done every day at these levels - with a discrete video call or meeting and a Swiss bank account number? Why leave a trail? Much less one that is so pristine and open that all people can say is "Well, it seems odd...".
What seems odd is how quickly people forget how diplomacy and politics and donations really work, and their ability to find suspicious activity in even the most open situations. NO ONE has shown that the Clintons have gotten one dollar in illicit benefit from their Foundation. NO ONE has shown that it or they committed fraud. NO ONE has shown in any way how someone contributed to the Foundation and received face time with the President for it. And NO ONE has shown how that would even touch the normal practice of pay for access that is conspicuously absent in this scenario, but present in all recent Presidential tenures and accepted as normal practice.
It's more a divot to die in, than a hill to die on...
NormanTheIntern wrote:But okay - let's assume for argument's sake that Stengah has some source for his assertion that State responded to the guy's initial request. Let's assume that the timing in this case was a coincidence. Let's also assume that the fact that more than half of the meetings Clinton had as Secretary of State with nongovernmental parties that either directly or indirectly contributed to the Foundation was also a coincidence. Eighty five different coincidences. That's basically the liberal version of being a climate change denier, but for this argument, let's posit that's all true.
She's still responsible for the appearance of a conflict of interest by keeping a dual-hatted employee on staff. None of this would be an issue if these emails didn't exist and she kept herself properly insulated from the Foundation. Like the private email system, the most generous possible interpretation you can give here is a tradeoff of extremely sloppy ethical decisions in the name of convenience.
Huma Abedin started working for Hillary fresh out of college in the mid-90's. She's clearly a trusted personal assistant. Isn't there an argument to be made that Hillary keeps her close over time because she's got confidence in her? Why would you *not* expect her to have her most trusted assistant involved in the Foundation, and later in her State Department days, and her campaign? Seriously. It's not like she's a lobbyist brought into Clinton's circle to enrich her with foreign contacts. She's literally a personal assistant, whatever her title is.
So the idea that she's somehow a secret fund-raising genius belies the fact that her entire career experience consists of being Hillary Clinton's dogsbody. (She is acknowledged to have serious expertise in Middle East affairs, however, and has served in an advisory capacity in that regard.)
Further, you're positing that it's unusual that foreign leaders contribute to an international charity that happens to be very successful in its projects. You also seem to believe that that would become some kind of source of profit for the Clintons (instead of their putting money *into* it), when none of their charity audits and statements by outside sources like PWC indicate anything like that. Indeed, they show that where they *could* have paid themselves and family members large salaries or loans, they did not.
And then too, you seem to be suspicious of the fact that international leaders know each other and cooperate on private as well as public projects. The Bush White House, like the Clinton and Bush and Reagan ones before it, was a revolving door of actual, direct political donors who got not just a good night's sleep in a famous bedroom, but face time with the President. Directly. Not SecState on the phone or anything like that.
And frankly, the idea that these folks can't contact her and set up an entirely discreet Skype call or even a dinner meeting that we'd never know about doesn't even occur. Why got to all this rigamarole with open donations to a real charity for access to someone outside Hillary's family (yet at her personal profit?) when this could all be done - and is done every day at these levels - with a discrete video call or meeting and a Swiss bank account number? Why leave a trail? Much less one that is so pristine and open that all people can say is "Well, it seems odd...".
What seems odd is how quickly people forget how diplomacy and politics and donations really work, and their ability to find suspicious activity in even the most open situations. NO ONE has shown that the Clintons have gotten one dollar in illicit benefit from their Foundation. NO ONE has shown that it or they committed fraud. NO ONE has shown in any way how someone contributed to the Foundation and received face time with the President for it. And NO ONE has shown how that would even touch the normal practice of pay for access that is conspicuously absent in this scenario, but present in all recent Presidential tenures and accepted as normal practice.
It's more a divot to die in, than a hill to die on... :-)
TLDR version:
Says who?!
Sorry Robear. Couldn't resist.
That was funny.
Yeah, the worst conclusion we can really draw here is that it looks bad, potentially, you never know.
I mean, according to the article Norman linked, she's already gone to (by industry standards) rather extreme measures to disconnect from the Foundation, should be be elected. But that'll never be enough. People will still just imagine she's doing... something... somehow... because it's Hillary Clinton.
Why would people be suspicious of someone who constantly does things that look bad? Must be sexism.
Or, perhaps, long term propaganda... You're not suspicious of Bush II, but he did stuff that looked bad nearly every week of his two terms...
Hillary is not the perfect candidate, but she's far from the demon she's made out to be. The fact that your complaint is that a few of her situations "look bad"... I mean, where's the *actual* harm (outside of the email idiocy, which we all agree on)?
A lot of time "bad optics" is used as a way to get around "no evidence of wrongdoing". After a while - after 23 years! - I'd expect that if she was this bad, this incompetent as you present her to be, we'd have ample evidence of it beyond "Oh, everything she does looks bad" coming up in an election year. It feels like it's just partisan BS.
Come up with some real evidence and let us know.
I have to say that all this mud slinging with no substance has made me completely rethink my perspectives on Clinton.
I always thought she was shifty, but if the absolute worst anyone can come up with is 'foreign dignitary got an audience with the Secretary of State, oh and gave money to a charity that has her name, but she doesn't actually benefit from' then she may actually be the cleanest politician in history.
Yeah it seems to have a traction way outside how bad it is. Is that because there is so little actual substance to talk about?
I have to say that all this mud slinging with no substance has made me completely rethink my perspectives on Clinton.
I always thought she was shifty, but if the absolute worst anyone can come up with is 'foreign dignitary got an audience with the Secretary of State, oh and gave money to a charity that has her name, but she doesn't actually benefit from' then she may actually be the cleanest politician in history.
That's where I've been for quite some time as far as Hillary Clinton is concerned. I'm prepared to believe almost anything about a politician and upper crust type. There's certainly the motive and means for them to do bad things. However, I'm not going to believe it without evidence.
What has been dug up so far says without a doubt that she's a politician, she has money, she has influence, and that she's damn good at working the system to get her work done. Those are things I already know and expect of a woman who has gone so far beyond being a First Lady. The more I ask for evidence, the more evidence gets piled on which says these things. That isn't what I'm asking for. I'm asking for the sort of dirt which we can easily find with a cursory look at Trump. We don't even need leaks or hacks to see the skeletons in his closet. Where are Clinton's?
Bloo Driver wrote:Yeah, the worst conclusion we can really draw here is that it looks bad, potentially, you never know.
I mean, according to the article Norman linked, she's already gone to (by industry standards) rather extreme measures to disconnect from the Foundation, should be be elected. But that'll never be enough. People will still just imagine she's doing... something... somehow... because it's Hillary Clinton.
Why would people be suspicious of someone who constantly does things that look bad? Must be sexism.
Minus the "sexism" snark, you seem to agree with my point. She just looks bad constantly but the only proof of wrongdoing is that it just seems like she's doing things wrong. Which, to be fair, is not a bad reason to be suspicious of someone. But, as I said, that's the worst we can really get to with this line - it looks bad. So let's just make the complaint as what it is: people are suspicious of her, but there's not a lot that's concrete to base it all on, despite the fact that people are trying to act like suspicion = guilt.
Huma Abedin started working for Hillary fresh out of college in the mid-90's. She's clearly a trusted personal assistant. Isn't there an argument to be made that Hillary keeps her close over time because she's got confidence in her? Why would you *not* expect her to have her most trusted assistant involved in the Foundation, and later in her State Department days, and her campaign? Seriously. It's not like she's a lobbyist brought into Clinton's circle to enrich her with foreign contacts. She's literally a personal assistant, whatever her title is.
So the idea that she's somehow a secret fund-raising genius belies the fact that her entire career experience consists of being Hillary Clinton's dogsbody. (She is acknowledged to have serious expertise in Middle East affairs, however, and has served in an advisory capacity in that regard.)
Hillary's own actions belie your hand-waving "business-as-usual" explanations though - she resigned as Hillary's personal assistant and was re-hired as a "special employee" when she started working for the Foundation. So not even Hillary would agree that it's acceptable for someone who directly reports to her to have one foot on the Foundation side of the fence. The underlying issue is that this title change was apparently a smokescreen, and Huma continued to have a key role in scheduling, communication, etc.
(Your characterization of my argument as Huma being a "secret fund raising genius" is spurious)
Further, you're positing that it's unusual that foreign leaders contribute to an international charity that happens to be very successful in its projects. You also seem to believe that that would become some kind of source of profit for the Clintons (instead of their putting money *into* it), when none of their charity audits and statements by outside sources like PWC indicate anything like that. Indeed, they show that where they *could* have paid themselves and family members large salaries or loans, they did not.And then too, you seem to be suspicious of the fact that international leaders know each other and cooperate on private as well as public projects. The Bush White House, like the Clinton and Bush and Reagan ones before it, was a revolving door of actual, direct political donors who got not just a good night's sleep in a famous bedroom, but face time with the President. Directly. Not SecState on the phone or anything like that.
And frankly, the idea that these folks can't contact her and set up an entirely discreet Skype call or even a dinner meeting that we'd never know about doesn't even occur. Why got to all this rigamarole with open donations to a real charity for access to someone outside Hillary's family (yet at her personal profit?) when this could all be done - and is done every day at these levels - with a discrete video call or meeting and a Swiss bank account number? Why leave a trail? Much less one that is so pristine and open that all people can say is "Well, it seems odd...".
So again, your argument boils down to: nothing untoward, business-as-usual, and again, all that's needed to refute this is to look at Hillary's (and Obama's) actions. First, as Bloo already alluded to, Clinton has announced restrictions on corporate and foreign donations if elected President. Why would she do that, unless the current situation has at least the appearance of impropriety? More importantly, why didn't she put those restrictions in place when she was head of State? Furthermore, Obama himself seemed to think that mixing the two was problematic from day one - his transition team forced Clinton to sign a Memorandum of Understanding prior to putting her forward as Secretary of State. This agreement laid out a number of restrictions and disclosures in relation to the Foundation - they were (not surprisingly) violated in several ways during her time at State, but the point is, these connections and arrangements are nowhere near as blase as you frame them.
I think you're the person who's convinced that Trump or Cruz would declare martial law and overthrow the republic (if I'm mixing you up with someone else, apologies), but you seem to have no problem with a seemingly unending ignoring of established rules and limits, demanding to see actual harm here before passing judgement. Shouldn't this be similar to the concept of expanding Executive power - even if you're personally convinced this specific person is a white hat, doesn't the precedent make it that much easier for a black hat to operate later?
No, I don't think that of Trump, and I *do* have a problem with ignoring rules and limits. I'm one of the few who sided with you on the emails (and if I remember correctly, before you even took your stance here). But my viewpoint on this (and with others from both parties) is that if she actually is doing that much wrong, there should be some actual evidence popping up by now. We've had 23 years of actual, billionaire funded "research", PR hit jobs and Congressional investigations into Hillary, and what's come of it? A bunch of faked stories in books on the conspiracy de jour, an email scandal and some vague hand-waving about possible impropriety in appointments, which could easily be read as, yes, "business as usual". (I note that in none of your posts do you investigate the behavior of the previous Presidents and SecStates, even though you'd find *actual* pay for play going on there).
This is an argument that has much more appeal if you already think she's "Crooked Hillary". But where's the evidence? 23 years, dude, and one scandal? Many Republicans would kill a teenage intern for a record that light... I kid, but you see what I mean here? Where's the beef?
After a while, it really, truly seems like crying wolf over and over and over and over and over and over and over and... It just gets tiresome.
Put another way... Try building a scenario where Clinton benefits from the machinations with, say, the Crown Prince of Bahrain. Show us how she profits financially, and why the reports cannot be explained innocuously. My read was given above. In your mind, quo vadis? Defend with the evidence to hand.
At what point do you acknowledge that there is in fact an entire propaganda engine running full out this year to smear her? Isn't that, like, Republican Best Practices for election years?
"Why the restrictions on foundation activities now?" appears to ignore that the foundation has both proactively and reactively adhered to additional unnecessary (according to law) restrictions and disclosure activities since it was founded. Evidence suggests she was juggling both foundation and government work while she was Secretary of State. Where is the evidence that this had a negative impact or resulted in illegal acts?
I am absolutely seeking where harm has been done, because that's the true litmus test IMO. The Secretary of State works for the President. It's up to the President to say whether their cabinet is doing their job or not. If we're going to critique a cabinet member though, we need to point to where they went wrong by us - not by their boss.
Put another way... Try building a scenario where Clinton benefits from the machinations with, say, the Crown Prince of Bahrain. Show us how she profits financially, and why the reports cannot be explained innocuously. My read was given above. In your mind, quo vadis? Defend with the evidence to hand.
At what point do you acknowledge that there is in fact an entire propaganda engine running full out this year to smear her? Isn't that, like, Republican Best Practices for election years? :-)
First of all - you don't need to prove corruption to show poor judgement. That's not coming from me or the "right wing agitprop engine", that's a drum Bernie Sanders and his supporters have been beating for months.
Second - the idea that the number and proportion of nongovernmental donors who got meeting with Clinton was extraordinarily high didn't come from breitbart or the blaze or politico - it came from the Associated Press. If you'd like to argue that organizations calling these items into question - the AP, the NY Times, etc - are in the Republicans' pocket, we can have that debate, I suppose. Otherwise you sound like someone blaming their husband's perjury on a partisan conspiracy.
H, A, and R are in both "Hillary" and "Harm" and "M" is the first letter of the word "Man", so the connection is obvious. Hillary has harmed a lot of men and that's why we need to vote for Trump for a better America. (Which happens to include A, R, and M. so it's also obvious Hillary is going to harm America too.)
Edit - nevermind, misread
First of all - you don't need to prove corruption to show poor judgement. That's not coming from me or the "right wing agitprop engine", that's a drum Bernie Sanders and his supporters have been beating for months.
True. And to quote myself
Probably true. I would bet this is how the upper echelon network works really but we are hearing/reading about it because of the digging into Hillary.
Of course while I don't disagree I don't think anything would be different under a Trump presidency so on my mental score board I have a check for both so this is not going to be the issue that sways me.
Second - the idea that the number and proportion of nongovernmental donors who got meeting with Clinton was extraordinarily high didn't come from breitbart or the blaze or politico - it came from the Associated Press.
What do you mean by this? This isn't meant as a gotcha question. "Extraordinarily high" requires something to compare it to. What are you comparing it to? The total number of people who got meetings? The number of people who met with previous SecStates and also contributed to some equivalent foundation? The number of Foundation donors above some threshold? Some other metric?
There has to be some sort of context before comparisons mean anything.
Isn't it a Secretary of State's job to have meetings with people? Like, all the freaking time?
Isn't it a Secretary of State's job to have meetings with people? Like, all the freaking time?
Indeed.
Follow up question - how do Bahrainian Princes usually get an appointment with the Secretary of State? My money is on the answer being "exactly like this".
We know Clinton is dirty, so we need to investigate. How do we know she's dirty? Well, all the investigations.
I just wanna repeat that I don't dismiss the suspicion. I don't. The idea that the Clinton family/foundation has had this influence and power and never ever misused would be insane. And constantly looking bad is not nothing when it comes to politics and leadership. But the problem we keep seeming to have - as noted by the article - is that the only thing we really see as "proof" is suspicion, and the only reason there's suspicion is because of suspicion. I'd be fine if people would just stick with "this looks shady as hell" as statements, rather than "Because this all looks bad, that's enough evidence for me to know she's dirty." These folks pretending they have something at all is getting annoying, but the pattern is clear - enough repetitions makes it truthy.
oilypenguin wrote:We know Clinton is dirty, so we need to investigate. How do we know she's dirty? Well, all the investigations.
I just wanna repeat that I don't dismiss the suspicion. I don't. The idea that the Clinton family/foundation has had this influence and power and never ever misused would be insane. And constantly looking bad is not nothing when it comes to politics and leadership. But the problem we keep seeming to have - as noted by the article - is that the only thing we really see as "proof" is suspicion, and the only reason there's suspicion is because of suspicion. I'd be fine if people would just stick with "this looks shady as hell" as statements, rather than "Because this all looks bad, that's enough evidence for me to know she's dirty." These folks pretending they have something at all is getting annoying, but the pattern is clear - enough repetitions makes it truthy.
And Clinton has about 23 years of repetition of her crookedness and power hunger and manipulations because that's all the GOP has been able to stick on her because they haven't had anything decently legit until the email thing.
First of all - you don't need to prove corruption to show poor judgement.
...
So again, your argument boils down to: nothing untoward, business-as-usual, and again, all that's needed to refute this is to look at Hillary's (and Obama's) actions. First, as Bloo already alluded to, Clinton has announced restrictions on corporate and foreign donations if elected President. Why would she do that, unless the current situation has at least the appearance of impropriety? More importantly, why didn't she put those restrictions in place when she was head of State? Furthermore, Obama himself seemed to think that mixing the two was problematic from day one - his transition team forced Clinton to sign a Memorandum of Understanding prior to putting her forward as Secretary of State. This agreement laid out a number of restrictions and disclosures in relation to the Foundation - they were (not surprisingly) violated in several ways during her time at State, but the point is, these connections and arrangements are nowhere near as blase as you frame them.I think you're the person who's convinced that Trump or Cruz would declare martial law and overthrow the republic (if I'm mixing you up with someone else, apologies), but you seem to have no problem with a seemingly unending ignoring of established rules and limits, demanding to see actual harm here before passing judgement.
Again, you're making a judgement here using a standard that would convict just about anyone who has been in politics as long as Hillary. That's why I want to see harm. You're saying, hey, there's so much smoke here, there's *gotta* be a fire; I'm saying, look, the woman's been dealing with smoke grenades thrown at her for so long that she's got her own fire department!
I think we've hit the usual impasse. No big deal, we just disagree on how to read the seriousness of "appearance of impropriety".
To add a bit more to why I put a check in the box for both candidates (and therefore the issue cancels inself out)
What Donald Trump Knew About Undocumented Workers at His Signature Tower
The relevant part that makes me think about getting special treatment (as is the insinuation about Clinton)
Trump Tower has never been just another building project for Donald Trump. And in 1980, it was something of a personal obsession. He had started in real estate in Queens, working for his father, who had prospered in the outer boroughs. In 1979 he managed, through charm, persistence and hard work, to secure the lease on the old Bonwit Teller building at 56th Street and Fifth Avenue, eventually signing a 50-50 deal with the property owner to develop what would be the city’s tallest glass structure on the site. Facing zoning restrictions, Trump made large donations to politicians and curried favor with powerful members of the New York board of estimate, which approved a zoning variance for the project.
NormanTheIntern wrote:First of all - you don't need to prove corruption to show poor judgement. That's not coming from me or the "right wing agitprop engine", that's a drum Bernie Sanders and his supporters have been beating for months.
True. And to quote myself
farley3k wrote:Probably true. I would bet this is how the upper echelon network works really but we are hearing/reading about it because of the digging into Hillary.
Of course while I don't disagree I don't think anything would be different under a Trump presidency so on my mental score board I have a check for both so this is not going to be the issue that sways me.
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.
Pages