For the love of God, do not elect Hilary Clinton next election. (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

But none of that proves anything. Every Democrat in high office tend to be in favor of trade agreements they opposed as candidates when they had to pander to liberal and union concerns. We've seen that again and again. You're tring to connect dots that are very likely unrelated.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But none of that proves anything. Every Democrat in high office tend to be in favor of trade agreements they opposed as candidates when they had to pander to liberal and union concerns. We've seen that again and again. You're tring to connect dots that are very likely unrelated.

Tim, yeah, I agree the US Attorney General won't be approving any investigations into Hillary's non-profit's activities any time soon. It also helps when there are no emails to subpoena. Emails directly between Hillary and Giustra are probably a prime example of the very sort of emails that would have been destroyed at Hillary's instruction.

 

[Chadstroma]

I was asked why I think Hillary would be better than Obama, I dont have a lot of time since I am at work but there are two main areas. So without much detail, a quick hit highlight of why I believe so can be summed up in two main points: 1) Domestically, I believe Hillary would be more business friendly than Obama has. 2) Foreign policy, I believe that Obama has a bad tendancy to delay action and then make bad judgements. (ISIS JV team, handeling the emerging crisis as they happened in Libya/Syria/Yemen, alienating Allies, etc) that has been a total disaster. It is a very low standard to achieve to do better because I believe Obama has been so horribly bad in his second term (I actually graded him out higher in the first term giving him around a "B" grade but with his inaction, misteps and incompetence the entire grade has been dropped to an "F").

 

[urbanhack]

I was asked why I think Hillary would be better than Obama, I dont have a lot of time since I am at work but there are two main areas. So without much detail, a quick hit highlight of why I believe so can be summed up in two main points: 1) Domestically, I believe Hillary would be more business friendly than Obama has.

yea...wall street is really hurting.

 

[Chadstroma]

I was asked why I think Hillary would be better than Obama, I dont have a lot of time since I am at work but there are two main areas. So without much detail, a quick hit highlight of why I believe so can be summed up in two main points: 1) Domestically, I believe Hillary would be more business friendly than Obama has.

yea...wall street is really hurting.

Almost completely due to monetary policy in a way that historically insane. And Wall St. does not automatically mean business is doing well.

 

[tommyboy]

I was asked why I think Hillary would be better than Obama, I dont have a lot of time since I am at work but there are two main areas. So without much detail, a quick hit highlight of why I believe so can be summed up in two main points: 1) Domestically, I believe Hillary would be more business friendly than Obama has.

yea...wall street is really hurting.

wall street isn't business, its just wall street.

come on, you're smarter than that man.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

I was asked why I think Hillary would be better than Obama, I dont have a lot of time since I am at work but there are two main areas. So without much detail, a quick hit highlight of why I believe so can be summed up in two main points: 1) Domestically, I believe Hillary would be more business friendly than Obama has.

yea...wall street is really hurting.

Almost completely due to monetary policy in a way that historically insane. And Wall St. does not automatically mean business is doing well.

Good point, Wall Street doesn't mean that Obama's policies have been favorable towards small and medium sized businesses.

 

[urbanhack]

I was asked why I think Hillary would be better than Obama, I dont have a lot of time since I am at work but there are two main areas. So without much detail, a quick hit highlight of why I believe so can be summed up in two main points: 1) Domestically, I believe Hillary would be more business friendly than Obama has.

yea...wall street is really hurting.

Almost completely due to monetary policy in a way that historically insane. And Wall St. does not automatically mean business is doing well.

Any specifics then on why you think Obama has been "unfriendly" to business?

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

I was asked why I think Hillary would be better than Obama, I dont have a lot of time since I am at work but there are two main areas. So without much detail, a quick hit highlight of why I believe so can be summed up in two main points: 1) Domestically, I believe Hillary would be more business friendly than Obama has.

yea...wall street is really hurting.

Almost completely due to monetary policy in a way that historically insane. And Wall St. does not automatically mean business is doing well.

Any specifics then on why you think Obama has been "unfriendly" to business?

The ACA for one.

 

[Chadstroma]

A few off the top of my head

I was asked why I think Hillary would be better than Obama, I dont have a lot of time since I am at work but there are two main areas. So without much detail, a quick hit highlight of why I believe so can be summed up in two main points: 1) Domestically, I believe Hillary would be more business friendly than Obama has.

yea...wall street is really hurting.

Almost completely due to monetary policy in a way that historically insane. And Wall St. does not automatically mean business is doing well.

Any specifics then on why you think Obama has been "unfriendly" to business?

A few off the top of my head...

-NLRB appointees

-Heavier regulatory burden on numerous industries

-Speaking of regulatory burden.... Dodd-Frank

-Obamacare

-Talking to small business owners on a daily basis and their perspective feedback... also remember seeing a poll that something like 70% of small business owners viewed Obama as being business unfriendly.

 

[Jack White]

The great David Stockman on Hillary:

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/hillary-clinton-class-president-of-a-failed-generation/

This is a must-read for Hillary sycophants and detractors alike.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The great David Stockman on Hillary:

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/hillary-clinton-class-president-of-a-failed-generation/

This is a must-read for Hillary sycophants and detractors alike.

The Triumph of Politics!

 

[timschochet]

Ruh roh! The Scooby van parks in a handicapped space in Iowa. World Net Daily in an uproar!

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Ruh roh! The Scooby van parks in a handicapped space in Iowa. World Net Daily in an uproar!

The van also drove past people in wheelchairs. Wheelchairs, people!!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ruh roh! The Scooby van parks in a handicapped space in Iowa. World Net Daily in an uproar!

Msnbc too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=81&v=E99wYLWHiFk

Mika makes good points.

 

[McGarnicle]

She is such an awful person. I hope this destroys her campaign.

 

[rct]

Ruh roh! The Scooby van parks in a handicapped space in Iowa. World Net Daily in an uproar!

Msnbc too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=81&v=E99wYLWHiFk

Mika makes good points.

There was noting said in that clip by anyone about the van parking in a handicapped space. But I am glad you agree with Mika that Hillary is "accomplished and articulate".

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

A few off the top of my head

I was asked why I think Hillary would be better than Obama, I dont have a lot of time since I am at work but there are two main areas. So without much detail, a quick hit highlight of why I believe so can be summed up in two main points: 1) Domestically, I believe Hillary would be more business friendly than Obama has.

yea...wall street is really hurting.

Almost completely due to monetary policy in a way that historically insane. And Wall St. does not automatically mean business is doing well.

Any specifics then on why you think Obama has been "unfriendly" to business?

A few off the top of my head...

-NLRB appointees

-Heavier regulatory burden on numerous industries

-Speaking of regulatory burden.... Dodd-Frank

-Obamacare

-Talking to small business owners on a daily basis and their perspective feedback... also remember seeing a poll that something like 70% of small business owners viewed Obama as being business unfriendly.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=18e7

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ruh roh! The Scooby van parks in a handicapped space in Iowa. World Net Daily in an uproar!

Msnbc too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=81&v=E99wYLWHiFk

Mika makes good points.

There was noting said in that clip by anyone about the van parking in a handicapped space. But I am glad you agree with Mika that Hillary is "accomplished and articulate".

Correct, they don't discuss that but it is an overall good discussion about the strategy behind the campaign. I don't like the word optics but it's of a piece. - And yeah Mika is right, and it's interesting to hear it from a supporter, so why do they keep her under wraps this go round? Squiz pointed out it's to avoid teh appearance of a coronation, is that what's happening here and are they succeeding?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary campaign also asking those attending the listening tour to sign releases... and they have to turn in their phones...

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-to-have-coffee-with-hillary-clinton-2015-4

 

[Sinn Fein]

As USA get closer to the 2016 election year, US citizens must remember that they cannot trust Hillary Clinton to create American jobs.

The last time she had a meaningful job,

she outsourced it to Monica Lewinsky. ...

And Monica blew it.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary campaign also asking those attending the listening tour to sign releases... and they have to turn in their phones...

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-to-have-coffee-with-hillary-clinton-2015-4

this may have nothing to do with her campaign. She is a former First Lady with Secret Service protection. There are probably a few wackos out there who might wish to do her harm.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Harm? From revealing what she did or said? Yeah, maybe they are worried about harm that could be caused.

 

[Jayrod]

The great David Stockman on Hillary:

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/hillary-clinton-class-president-of-a-failed-generation/

This is a must-read for Hillary sycophants and detractors alike.

This paragraph summarizes why I can't stand the AMA and don't like any of the current politicians.

"Soon 10,000 people will own a preponderant share of the wealth; 10 million people will live grandly off the droppings; 150 million will live off the state; and the rest of America will be left high and dry waiting for the house of cards to collapse."

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Newsweek with another new report on yet another contributor to the Clinton Foundation who would possibly profit from a Hillary presidency:

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-runs-white-house-and-row-over-ukrainian-benefactors-trade-322253.html?piano_t=1

 

[tommyGunZ]

Ruh roh! The Scooby van parks in a handicapped space in Iowa. World Net Daily in an uproar!

Msnbc too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=81&v=E99wYLWHiFk

Mika makes good points.

There was noting said in that clip by anyone about the van parking in a handicapped space. But I am glad you agree with Mika that Hillary is "accomplished and articulate".

Correct, they don't discuss that but it is an overall good discussion about the strategy behind the campaign. I don't like the word optics but it's of a piece. - And yeah Mika is right, and it's interesting to hear it from a supporter, so why do they keep her under wraps this go round? Squiz pointed out it's to avoid teh appearance of a coronation, is that what's happening here and are they succeeding?

Mika is not a Hillary supporter.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Ruh roh! The Scooby van parks in a handicapped space in Iowa. World Net Daily in an uproar!

Msnbc too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=81&v=E99wYLWHiFk

Mika makes good points.

There was noting said in that clip by anyone about the van parking in a handicapped space. But I am glad you agree with Mika that Hillary is "accomplished and articulate".

Correct, they don't discuss that but it is an overall good discussion about the strategy behind the campaign. I don't like the word optics but it's of a piece. - And yeah Mika is right, and it's interesting to hear it from a supporter, so why do they keep her under wraps this go round? Squiz pointed out it's to avoid teh appearance of a coronation, is that what's happening here and are they succeeding?

Mika is not a Hillary supporter.

She's very complimentary in that commentary, so is the iother female commentator in that piece.

 

[matuski]

Any good God fearing man should vote Hillary.

 

[Eminence]

Any good God fearing man should vote Hillary.

Get out of here. I'm voting for the surgeon.

 

[skol asylum]

Any good God fearing man should vote Hillary.

Get out of here. I'm voting for the surgeon.

You do know he's black right?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Today's NY Times:

New Book, ‘Clinton Cash,’ Questions Foreign Donations to FoundationThe book does not hit shelves until May 5, but already the Republican Rand Paul has called its findings “big news” that will “shock people” and make voters “question” the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer — a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities — is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.

The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.

“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes.

His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.In the long lead up to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign announcement, aides proved adept in swatting down critical books as conservative propaganda, including Edward Klein’s “Blood Feud,” about tensions between the Clintons and the Obamas, and Daniel Halper’s “Clinton Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine.”

But “Clinton Cash” is potentially more unsettling, both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book.

Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which includes Mr. Paul and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, have been briefed on the book’s findings, and its contents have already made their way into several of the Republican presidential candidates’ campaigns.

Conservative “super PACs” plan to seize on “Clinton Cash,” and a pro-Democrat super PAC has already assembled a dossier on Mr. Schweizer, a speechwriting consultant to former President George W. Bush and a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution who has contributed to the conservative website Breitbart.com, to make the case that he has a bias against Mrs. Clinton.

And the newly assembled Clinton campaign team is planning a full-court press to diminish the book as yet another conservative hit job.

A campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, called the book part of the Republicans’ coordinated attack strategy on Mrs. Clinton “twisting previously known facts into absurd conspiracy theories,” and he said “it will not be the first work of partisan-fueled fiction about the Clintons’ record, and we know it will not be the last.”

Mr. Schweizer and a spokeswoman for HarperCollins, which is owned by News Corporation and is publishing the book, declined to comment.

The timing is problematic for Mrs. Clinton as she begins a campaign to position herself as a “champion for everyday Americans.”

From 2001 to 2012, the Clintons’ income was at least $136.5 million, Mr. Schweizer writes, using a figure previously reported in The Post. “During Hillary’s years of public service, the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions” with foreign governments and individuals, he writes. “Some of these transactions have put millions in their own pockets.”

The Clinton Foundation has come under scrutiny for accepting foreign donations while Mrs. Clinton served as secretary of state. Last week, the foundation revised its policy to allow donations from countries like Germany, Canada, the Netherlands and Britain but prohibit giving by other nations in the Middle East.

Mr. Schweizer’s book will be released the same day former President Bill Clinton and the Clintons’ daughter, Chelsea, will host the Clinton Global Initiative gathering with donors in Morocco, the culmination of a foundation trip to several African nations. (A chapter in the book is titled “Warlord Economics: The Clintons Do Africa.”)

There is a robust market for books critical of the Clintons. The thinly sourced “Blood Feud,” by Mr. Klein, at one point overtook Mrs. Clinton’s memoir “Hard Choices” on the best-seller list.

But whether Mr. Schweizer’s book can deliver the same sales is not clear. He writes mainly in the voice of a neutral journalist and meticulously documents his sources, including tax records and government documents, while leaving little doubt about his view of the Clintons.

His reporting largely focuses on payments made to Mr. Clinton for speeches, which increased while his wife served as secretary of state, writing that “of the 13 Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state.”

In 2011, Mr. Clinton made $13.3 million in speaking fees for 54 speeches, the majority of which were made overseas, the author writes.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Well you can tell what the author will be writing.... without even opening that book...

http://www.amazon.com/Peter-Schweizer/e/B001IGT4ES/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

 

[3C's]

Well you can tell what the author will be writing.... without even opening that book...

http://www.amazon.com/Peter-Schweizer/e/B001IGT4ES/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

Getting rich off of politicians getting rich. That's rich.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Snipped from the NYT:

But “Clinton Cash” is potentially more unsettling, both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book.

He writes mainly in the voice of a neutral journalist and meticulously documents his sources, including tax records and government documents, while leaving little doubt about his view of the Clintons.

That last bit is something of a left handed compliment.

So, I think we can expect:

1. Congressional committee investigating these events; and

2. WaPo and NYT having their own reports. WaPo has already been reporting on this stuff.

Also, obviously most probably emails relating to these transactions have been destroyed, I think we know that already.

 

[timschochet]

Sounds like complete and total BS to me for the same reasons I've stated before. They had better be able yo prove the connection beyond just money received to the foundation. Thousands of State Department employees worked on and pushed for almost all of the transactions that went on while Hillary was S of S. These are public servants who work under Democrats and Republicans.

 

[timschochet]

And if there are congressional investigations, that's only going to hurt the Republicans politically.

 

[The Commish]

Sounds like complete and total BS to me for the same reasons I've stated before. They had better be able yo prove the connection beyond just money received to the foundation. Thousands of State Department employees worked on and pushed for almost all of the transactions that went on while Hillary was S of S. These are public servants who work under Democrats and Republicans.

This sorta feels like one of those "If you take away his longest run of 50 yards, he only rushed for 30" SP types of comments

 

[TobiasFunke]

Sounds like complete and total BS to me for the same reasons I've stated before. They had better be able yo prove the connection beyond just money received to the foundation. Thousands of State Department employees worked on and pushed for almost all of the transactions that went on while Hillary was S of S. These are public servants who work under Democrats and Republicans.

Yup. We're not talking about campaign donations here. Unless they show some massive policy benefit to a donor that Clinton forced through even though career diplomats fought it they have zilch.

At this point all these non-scandals seem to be backfiring and making Hillary look like some sort of survivor. They couldn't pin anything on her with Whitewater, they couldn't pin anything on her with Benghazi, and now this. Even the one thing that kind of troubled me, the e-mail scandal, wasn't sold well and seems all but vanished from the public radar in favor of breathless reports criticizing her Chipotle visit. Meanwhile the polling data just gets better and better for her.

 

[timschochet]

Sounds like complete and total BS to me for the same reasons I've stated before. They had better be able yo prove the connection beyond just money received to the foundation. Thousands of State Department employees worked on and pushed for almost all of the transactions that went on while Hillary was S of S. These are public servants who work under Democrats and Republicans.

This sorta feels like one of those "If you take away his longest run of 50 yards, he only rushed for 30" SP types of comments

Not at all. Show me the 50 yard run though. I'm not seeing it.

 

[Jim11]

Hillary's lovers from an impeccible source.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/exclusive-hillary-clinton-lesbian-lovers-named-secret-emails

http://blindgossip.com/?p=70684

Hillary Clinton isn’t just caught in a political scandal over her missing emails from her stint as secretary of state – she’s also terrified of personal revelations about a secret lesbian lifestyle!

Now a world-exclusive investigation by The National ENQUIRER reveals that some of the presidential candidate’s famously “deleted” emails are packed full of lesbian references and her lovers’ names.

 

[timschochet]

Hillary's lovers from an impeccible source.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/exclusive-hillary-clinton-lesbian-lovers-named-secret-emails

http://blindgossip.com/?p=70684

Hillary Clinton isnt just caught in a political scandal over her missing emails from her stint as secretary of state shes also terrified of personal revelations about a secret lesbian lifestyle!

Now a world-exclusive investigation by The National ENQUIRER reveals that some of the presidential candidates famously deleted emails are packed full of lesbian references and her lovers names.

Cool.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Sounds like complete and total BS to me for the same reasons I've stated before. They had better be able yo prove the connection beyond just money received to the foundation. Thousands of State Department employees worked on and pushed for almost all of the transactions that went on while Hillary was S of S. These are public servants who work under Democrats and Republicans.

You're right. I'm sure the appearance of impropriety here is really all just an honest misunderstanding. Clearly the Clintons deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to stuff like this.

 

[timschochet]

Sounds like complete and total BS to me for the same reasons I've stated before. They had better be able yo prove the connection beyond just money received to the foundation. Thousands of State Department employees worked on and pushed for almost all of the transactions that went on while Hillary was S of S. These are public servants who work under Democrats and Republicans.

You're right. I'm sure the appearance of impropriety here is really all just an honest misunderstanding. Clearly the Clintons deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to stuff like this.

what appearance of impropriety?

 

[The Commish]

Sounds like complete and total BS to me for the same reasons I've stated before. They had better be able yo prove the connection beyond just money received to the foundation. Thousands of State Department employees worked on and pushed for almost all of the transactions that went on while Hillary was S of S. These are public servants who work under Democrats and Republicans.

This sorta feels like one of those "If you take away his longest run of 50 yards, he only rushed for 30" SP types of comments

Not at all. Show me the 50 yard run though. I'm not seeing it.

Money would be the 50 yard run. You follow the money in politics. If it's campaign donations and intended as such, I don't see the reason for the monies to be filtered through the foundation. None of their (the foundation's) stated goals are campaign finance. I'm not saying this is a huge scandal or anything. Honestly, I couldn't care less. I'm just interested in the dynamic between her defenders and detractors. I want to see which group will knot themselves the quickest.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Sounds like complete and total BS to me for the same reasons I've stated before. They had better be able yo prove the connection beyond just money received to the foundation. Thousands of State Department employees worked on and pushed for almost all of the transactions that went on while Hillary was S of S. These are public servants who work under Democrats and Republicans.

You're right. I'm sure the appearance of impropriety here is really all just an honest misunderstanding. Clearly the Clintons deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to stuff like this.

If it's between the Clintons and their detractors, the Clintons probably do deserve the benefit of the doubt. And the public is giving it to them. Something about a boy and crying wolf comes to mind.

 

[roadkill1292]

Hillary's lovers from an impeccible source.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/exclusive-hillary-clinton-lesbian-lovers-named-secret-emails

http://blindgossip.com/?p=70684

Hillary Clinton isn’t just caught in a political scandal over her missing emails from her stint as secretary of state – she’s also terrified of personal revelations about a secret lesbian lifestyle!

Now a world-exclusive investigation by The National ENQUIRER reveals that some of the presidential candidate’s famously “deleted” emails are packed full of lesbian references and her lovers’ names.

Who knew Jim could make a joke?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Sounds like complete and total BS to me for the same reasons I've stated before. They had better be able yo prove the connection beyond just money received to the foundation. Thousands of State Department employees worked on and pushed for almost all of the transactions that went on while Hillary was S of S. These are public servants who work under Democrats and Republicans.

You're right. I'm sure the appearance of impropriety here is really all just an honest misunderstanding. Clearly the Clintons deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to stuff like this.

what appearance of impropriety?

You don't see any possible issue that could arise from having a family member accepting six-figure speaking fees while you're serving as Secretary of State? Even if you're doing absolutely nothing out of line and keeping those payments totally compartmentalized away from your job, anybody with the most rudimentary ethical reasoning skills would see that it looks kind of fishy.

By policy, I personally am forced to disclose exactly these sorts of conflicts of interest every year as a condition of my contract, and I'm a professor who has no ability to do anything of any substance. She's a cabinet official.

 

[timschochet]

Saints thinks the emails show proof of Clinton giving favors for foundation contributions, but Jim thinks they are messages to her lesbian lovers. Perhaps it's a combination of the two? (Along with baking recipes).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sounds like complete and total BS to me for the same reasons I've stated before. They had better be able yo prove the connection beyond just money received to the foundation. Thousands of State Department employees worked on and pushed for almost all of the transactions that went on while Hillary was S of S. These are public servants who work under Democrats and Republicans.

You're right. I'm sure the appearance of impropriety here is really all just an honest misunderstanding. Clearly the Clintons deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to stuff like this.

what appearance of impropriety?

We know we won't see any US AG investigation and no one who needs convincing will accept the conclusions of a Republican committee. - I don't think the book does anything. Any connections will have to be laid out by the likes of NYT, WaPo, Newsweek, or maybe a 60 Minutes or CNN for anyone to reach any conclusions. The kind of impropriety that would be required is Foundation funds going to either the Clintons' personal use or to their campaign's use, which would be illegal in any event.

However, just to answer your question: the appearance of impropriety is the same which formed the basis for her agreeing - and the Obama administration requiring - that when she became SOS that the Foundation would sometimes limit and sometimes reject donations from foreign nations and entities. It's also the reason for the Constitutional prohibition. And it's the same reason she has stepped down from the Foundation now. Hillary also personally signed such an agreement with the WH, so she personally acknowledged that.

 

[timschochet]

Sounds like complete and total BS to me for the same reasons I've stated before. They had better be able yo prove the connection beyond just money received to the foundation. Thousands of State Department employees worked on and pushed for almost all of the transactions that went on while Hillary was S of S. These are public servants who work under Democrats and Republicans.

You're right. I'm sure the appearance of impropriety here is really all just an honest misunderstanding. Clearly the Clintons deserve the benefit of the doubt when it comes to stuff like this.

what appearance of impropriety?

You don't see any possible issue that could arise from having a family member accepting six-figure speaking fees while you're serving as Secretary of State? Even if you're doing absolutely nothing out of line and keeping those payments totally compartmentalized away from your job, anybody with the most rudimentary ethical reasoning skills would see that it looks kind of fishy.

By policy, I personally am forced to disclose exactly these sorts of conflicts of interest every year as a condition of my contract, and I'm a professor who has no ability to do anything of any substance. She's a cabinet official.

Are we talking about speaking fees? I thought we were discussing the foundation?