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

[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.

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

That too.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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).

Tim, please keep the phishing hook out. I just stated a plain fact that she has likely destroyed emails relating to these issues. If she deemed any issue concerning the Foundation and not SOS business (based on her own list of keywords) then she destroyed it, not any debate on that. There are likely no emails to show any impropriety for this reason, unless they come from someone else.

 

[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).

Tim, please keep the phishing hook out. I just stated a plain fact that she has likely destroyed emails relating to these issues. If she deemed any issue concerning the Foundation and not SOS business (based on her own list of keywords) then she destroyed it, not any debate on that. There are likely no emails to show any impropriety for this reason, unless they come from someone else.

the article you posted didn't mention the emails. You did. You've attemptrd to tie it to the foundation several times now.

 

[timschochet]

Chris Christie playing the age card:

Of course he's going to see things differently from Hillary Clinton because they're from "different generations".

 

[Ookie Pringle]

Interesting

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/20/book-on-clinton-cash-reportedly-claims-foreign-donors-got-state-dept-favors/

Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign is just one week out of the gate, but already a supposedly bombshell book threatens to rock her candidacy.

The New York Times reported Monday that the book, set for release on May 5, will make new claims about donations to the Clinton Foundation by foreign donors. Specifically, the book reportedly claims foreign entities that donated to the foundation -- and that gave former President Bill Clinton high-dollar speaking fees -- in turn received favors from the Clinton State Department.

Author Peter Schweizer reportedly claims to have found a "pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds."

According to the Times, which got an advance copy of the book, Schweizer's examples include a Colombia free-trade agreement that helped a major donor and projects in the wake of the 2010 Haiti earthquake.

A Clinton spokesman told the Times the book is "twisting previously known facts into absurd conspiracy theories."

The book, "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich," could nevertheless mark the second major political headache for Clinton's budding campaign. Weeks before she announced her candidacy, reports surfaced that she exclusively used a personal email account, and server, while secretary of state. Under pressure, Clinton held a press conference to explain her actions, but transparency questions continue to loom over her bid after she announced it a week ago.

Critics have long questioned, as well, the family foundation's history of foreign donations and whether donors got any benefits in return. Republicans are eagerly anticipating the release of the book.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., himself a 2016 White House candidate, claimed earlier this month that "big news" is coming on the foundation.

"I think there are things that went on at the Clinton Foundation that are going to shock people," he said, in response to a question from Fox News in New Hampshire. "And I think they're going to make people question whether or not she ought to run for president."

According to the Times, he and other members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee were briefed on the book's contents.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'd be blown away if there were not protections in place to ensure the type of improprieties IK alluded to were cured. It's not as if this is unforeseeable.

 

[timschochet]

I'd be blown away if there were not protections in place to ensure the type of improprieties IK alluded to were cured. It's not as if this is unforeseeable.

thats what I figure too. When Obama chose Clinton to be S of S, he was choosing a major political figure with the foundation and her husband's speaking fees already in place. No doubt this was all discussed and negotiated. This notion that Hillary used the State Department as her personal fiefdom, doling out favors in return for monies being channeled into her foundation (which could then be used for nefarious purposes) seems awfully silly. Still, I'm sure this book will sell a lot of copies in the usual places.

 

[Chadstroma]

The Columbian Free Trade deal, if anything, lagged and took longer than it should have. I can't see this as being special treatment or difference in policy unless the donors cash actually got things moving. (in this case, that would be a good thing)

 

[McGarnicle]

I'd be blown away if there were not protections in place to ensure the type of improprieties IK alluded to were cured. It's not as if this is unforeseeable.

thats what I figure too. When Obama chose Clinton to be S of S, he was choosing a major political figure with the foundation and her husband's speaking fees already in place. No doubt this was all discussed and negotiated. This notion that Hillary used the State Department as her personal fiefdom, doling out favors in return for monies being channeled into her foundation (which could then be used for nefarious purposes) seems awfully silly. Still, I'm sure this book will sell a lot of copies in the usual places.

Just more of the vast right-wing conspiracy, right?

 

[timschochet]

I'd be blown away if there were not protections in place to ensure the type of improprieties IK alluded to were cured. It's not as if this is unforeseeable.

thats what I figure too. When Obama chose Clinton to be S of S, he was choosing a major political figure with the foundation and her husband's speaking fees already in place. No doubt this was all discussed and negotiated. This notion that Hillary used the State Department as her personal fiefdom, doling out favors in return for monies being channeled into her foundation (which could then be used for nefarious purposes) seems awfully silly. Still, I'm sure this book will sell a lot of copies in the usual places.

Just more of the vast right-wing conspiracy, right?

no, more of the vast right wing willingness to BELIEVE in conspiracy. Not that plenty of left wingers dont engage in this too.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'd be blown away if there were not protections in place to ensure the type of improprieties IK alluded to were cured. It's not as if this is unforeseeable.

thats what I figure too. When Obama chose Clinton to be S of S, he was choosing a major political figure with the foundation and her husband's speaking fees already in place. No doubt this was all discussed and negotiated. This notion that Hillary used the State Department as her personal fiefdom, doling out favors in return for monies being channeled into her foundation (which could then be used for nefarious purposes) seems awfully silly. Still, I'm sure this book will sell a lot of copies in the usual places.

Just more of the vast right-wing conspiracy, right?

Conservatives just handed a million dollars in donations to some anonymous guy who promised he'd give it to a pizza place in Indiana that said they said they wouldn't cater a gay wedding. I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that right-wingers are easy marks.

If anything I'd fault this author for putting in way too much effort. Just put a sign outside your place of business that says "Hillary Clinton is the Lesbian Antichrist" and wait for the money to come rolling in.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints thinks the emails show proof of Clinton giving favors for foundation contributions...).

Tim, please keep the phishing hook out. I just stated a plain fact that she has likely destroyed emails relating to these issues. If she deemed any issue concerning the Foundation and not SOS business (based on her own list of keywords) then she destroyed it, not any debate on that. There are likely no emails to show any impropriety for this reason, unless they come from someone else.

the article you posted didn't mention the emails. You did. You've attemptrd to tie it to the foundation several times now.

Tim you keep asking for proof and evidence, emails are the first line of proof and evidence in every civil and criminal case these days.

 

[The Commish]

I'd be blown away if there were not protections in place to ensure the type of improprieties IK alluded to were cured. It's not as if this is unforeseeable.

thats what I figure too. When Obama chose Clinton to be S of S, he was choosing a major political figure with the foundation and her husband's speaking fees already in place. No doubt this was all discussed and negotiated. This notion that Hillary used the State Department as her personal fiefdom, doling out favors in return for monies being channeled into her foundation (which could then be used for nefarious purposes) seems awfully silly. Still, I'm sure this book will sell a lot of copies in the usual places.

This is the part of you that I really do like Tim and I'm not being a smartass in saying such. The part that gives everyone the benefit of the doubt in every event. I honestly wish I was more like this. I wish I could be a "innocent until proven guilty" guy with our politicians, but I'm not. Given all the garbage I've seen come out of Washington, I am conditioned to assume it's shady until proven otherwise.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Apparently one distinction the book makes is laying out payments directly to the Clintons.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'd be blown away if there were not protections in place to ensure the type of improprieties IK alluded to were cured. It's not as if this is unforeseeable.

thats what I figure too. When Obama chose Clinton to be S of S, he was choosing a major political figure with the foundation and her husband's speaking fees already in place. No doubt this was all discussed and negotiated. This notion that Hillary used the State Department as her personal fiefdom, doling out favors in return for monies being channeled into her foundation (which could then be used for nefarious purposes) seems awfully silly. Still, I'm sure this book will sell a lot of copies in the usual places.

State Department walks back claim on Clinton Foundation reviewThe State Department is stepping back from a spokeswoman’s comment last week suggesting that the agency’s ethics lawyers signed off on donations to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

Asked at a daily briefing Thursday about the foundation’s failure to submit a $500,000 donation from the country of Algeria for a conflict of interest review in 2010, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters that the department did such reviews whenever the non-profit founded by former President Bill Clinton sent in information about a potential gift.

“We like to review — and we have reviewed every donation that was submitted,” Psaki said.

However, there are no indications any Clinton Foundation donations were ever sent to the State Department for approval.

Asked about Psaki’s comment, another State Department spokesperson said Monday that the reviews the agency did were of paid speeches Bill Clinton was proposing to make and business deals he wanted to enter into. From 2009 to 2012, hundreds of speech requests and a handful of consulting deals were sent to State Department lawyers for sign off. The vast majority were approved.

“We received requests regarding speeches and consultancies of former President Clinton,” State spokesman Alec Gerlach said.

Clarifying Psaki's earlier comment, Gerlach said that State Department reviewed every request that came in, not every donation.

In her remarks last week, Psaki also said the State Department was not troubled that the Algeria gift was never flagged to State. “In this case, the fact that the process has – was not followed in this particular incident does not raise concerns with us,” the spokeswoman said.

The ethics agreement struck before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state in 2009 only required State Department review of donations to the Clinton Foundation under very limited circumstances: when a foreign government wanted to “materially” increase its giving to four specific Clinton Foundation programs.

Gifts from foreign governments to one program, the Clinton Global Initiative, were barred altogether, as were new gifts to the other four programs from governments that had not previously supported them.

The agreement did not require vetting of donations from individuals, whether foreign or U.S. citizens, or from private companies, but did require public disclosure of the names of donors on an annual basis. Part of the pact also required Bill Clinton to submit proposals for paid speeches as well as plans for consulting deals.

Both the Clinton camp and the State Department have noted that the agreement went beyond the requirements of the law.

In response to a Washington Post report about the Algeria gift, a foundation spokesman said the State Department “should…have been formally informed” about the donation. However, it’s unclear whether the text of the agreement actually required such vetting.

A foundation spokesman pushed back against criticism of the nonprofit on Monday, sending talking points to Clinton allies urging them to rebut "attacks on the Clinton Foundation" by stressing that the entity is "a world-class philanthropy" and that "every penny" of the Algeria gift went to helping Haiti recover from the devastating earthquake it experienced in 2010.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/03/state-department-walks-back-claim-on-clinton-foundation-203355.html

So, the answer to Tommy's question is, yes, there were protections in place, but the Clintons did not comply with them.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'd be blown away if there were not protections in place to ensure the type of improprieties IK alluded to were cured. It's not as if this is unforeseeable.

thats what I figure too. When Obama chose Clinton to be S of S, he was choosing a major political figure with the foundation and her husband's speaking fees already in place. No doubt this was all discussed and negotiated. This notion that Hillary used the State Department as her personal fiefdom, doling out favors in return for monies being channeled into her foundation (which could then be used for nefarious purposes) seems awfully silly. Still, I'm sure this book will sell a lot of copies in the usual places.

State Department walks back claim on Clinton Foundation reviewThe State Department is stepping back from a spokeswoman’s comment last week suggesting that the agency’s ethics lawyers signed off on donations to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

Asked at a daily briefing Thursday about the foundation’s failure to submit a $500,000 donation from the country of Algeria for a conflict of interest review in 2010, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters that the department did such reviews whenever the non-profit founded by former President Bill Clinton sent in information about a potential gift.

“We like to review — and we have reviewed every donation that was submitted,” Psaki said.

However, there are no indications any Clinton Foundation donations were ever sent to the State Department for approval.

Asked about Psaki’s comment, another State Department spokesperson said Monday that the reviews the agency did were of paid speeches Bill Clinton was proposing to make and business deals he wanted to enter into. From 2009 to 2012, hundreds of speech requests and a handful of consulting deals were sent to State Department lawyers for sign off. The vast majority were approved.

“We received requests regarding speeches and consultancies of former President Clinton,” State spokesman Alec Gerlach said.

Clarifying Psaki's earlier comment, Gerlach said that State Department reviewed every request that came in, not every donation.

In her remarks last week, Psaki also said the State Department was not troubled that the Algeria gift was never flagged to State. “In this case, the fact that the process has – was not followed in this particular incident does not raise concerns with us,” the spokeswoman said.

The ethics agreement struck before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state in 2009 only required State Department review of donations to the Clinton Foundation under very limited circumstances: when a foreign government wanted to “materially” increase its giving to four specific Clinton Foundation programs.

Gifts from foreign governments to one program, the Clinton Global Initiative, were barred altogether, as were new gifts to the other four programs from governments that had not previously supported them.

The agreement did not require vetting of donations from individuals, whether foreign or U.S. citizens, or from private companies, but did require public disclosure of the names of donors on an annual basis. Part of the pact also required Bill Clinton to submit proposals for paid speeches as well as plans for consulting deals.

Both the Clinton camp and the State Department have noted that the agreement went beyond the requirements of the law.

In response to a Washington Post report about the Algeria gift, a foundation spokesman said the State Department “should…have been formally informed” about the donation. However, it’s unclear whether the text of the agreement actually required such vetting.

A foundation spokesman pushed back against criticism of the nonprofit on Monday, sending talking points to Clinton allies urging them to rebut "attacks on the Clinton Foundation" by stressing that the entity is "a world-class philanthropy" and that "every penny" of the Algeria gift went to helping Haiti recover from the devastating earthquake it experienced in 2010.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/03/state-department-walks-back-claim-on-clinton-foundation-203355.html

So, the answer to Tommy's question is, yes, there were protections in place, but the Clintons did not comply with them.

So they might not have filed paperwork disclosing a one time charitable donation to a non-profit that went towards helping victims of a devastating earthquake and was published on the Foundation's web site? And they complied with disclosure requirements on many other gifts? And the entire framework for the disclosures was one that went well beyond the legal requirements in the first place? And there's no ties alleged to any subsequent policy change regarding the country that made the donation for earthquake relief?

Whoa. You've got her now, guys!

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Are Republicans really going to be able to make the Clinton foundation thing a campaign issue? It seems like making a big deal about this would go against their whole worldview involving campaign funds and corruption.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'd be blown away if there were not protections in place to ensure the type of improprieties IK alluded to were cured. It's not as if this is unforeseeable.

thats what I figure too. When Obama chose Clinton to be S of S, he was choosing a major political figure with the foundation and her husband's speaking fees already in place. No doubt this was all discussed and negotiated. This notion that Hillary used the State Department as her personal fiefdom, doling out favors in return for monies being channeled into her foundation (which could then be used for nefarious purposes) seems awfully silly. Still, I'm sure this book will sell a lot of copies in the usual places.

State Department walks back claim on Clinton Foundation reviewThe State Department is stepping back from a spokeswoman’s comment last week suggesting that the agency’s ethics lawyers signed off on donations to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

Asked at a daily briefing Thursday about the foundation’s failure to submit a $500,000 donation from the country of Algeria for a conflict of interest review in 2010, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters that the department did such reviews whenever the non-profit founded by former President Bill Clinton sent in information about a potential gift.

“We like to review — and we have reviewed every donation that was submitted,” Psaki said.

However, there are no indications any Clinton Foundation donations were ever sent to the State Department for approval.

Asked about Psaki’s comment, another State Department spokesperson said Monday that the reviews the agency did were of paid speeches Bill Clinton was proposing to make and business deals he wanted to enter into. From 2009 to 2012, hundreds of speech requests and a handful of consulting deals were sent to State Department lawyers for sign off. The vast majority were approved.

“We received requests regarding speeches and consultancies of former President Clinton,” State spokesman Alec Gerlach said.

Clarifying Psaki's earlier comment, Gerlach said that State Department reviewed every request that came in, not every donation.

In her remarks last week, Psaki also said the State Department was not troubled that the Algeria gift was never flagged to State. “In this case, the fact that the process has – was not followed in this particular incident does not raise concerns with us,” the spokeswoman said.

The ethics agreement struck before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state in 2009 only required State Department review of donations to the Clinton Foundation under very limited circumstances: when a foreign government wanted to “materially” increase its giving to four specific Clinton Foundation programs.

Gifts from foreign governments to one program, the Clinton Global Initiative, were barred altogether, as were new gifts to the other four programs from governments that had not previously supported them.

The agreement did not require vetting of donations from individuals, whether foreign or U.S. citizens, or from private companies, but did require public disclosure of the names of donors on an annual basis. Part of the pact also required Bill Clinton to submit proposals for paid speeches as well as plans for consulting deals.

Both the Clinton camp and the State Department have noted that the agreement went beyond the requirements of the law.

In response to a Washington Post report about the Algeria gift, a foundation spokesman said the State Department “should…have been formally informed” about the donation. However, it’s unclear whether the text of the agreement actually required such vetting.

A foundation spokesman pushed back against criticism of the nonprofit on Monday, sending talking points to Clinton allies urging them to rebut "attacks on the Clinton Foundation" by stressing that the entity is "a world-class philanthropy" and that "every penny" of the Algeria gift went to helping Haiti recover from the devastating earthquake it experienced in 2010.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/03/state-department-walks-back-claim-on-clinton-foundation-203355.html

So, the answer to Tommy's question is, yes, there were protections in place, but the Clintons did not comply with them.

So they might not have filed paperwork disclosing a one time charitable donation to a non-profit that went towards helping victims of a devastating earthquake and was published on the Foundation's web site? And they complied with disclosure requirements on many other gifts? And the entire framework for the disclosures was one that went well beyond the legal requirements in the first place? And there's no ties alleged to any subsequent policy change regarding the country that made the donation for earthquake relief?

Whoa. You've got her now, guys!

Tobias, it's not a gotcha moment. Tommy asked if the donations were being vetted, the article says for the most part they were not. That's it.

 

[rockaction]

This thread got too serious. Needs some laughter. Go ahead, press the button.

http://freebeacon.com/hillary-laugh-button/

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'd be blown away if there were not protections in place to ensure the type of improprieties IK alluded to were cured. It's not as if this is unforeseeable.

thats what I figure too. When Obama chose Clinton to be S of S, he was choosing a major political figure with the foundation and her husband's speaking fees already in place. No doubt this was all discussed and negotiated. This notion that Hillary used the State Department as her personal fiefdom, doling out favors in return for monies being channeled into her foundation (which could then be used for nefarious purposes) seems awfully silly. Still, I'm sure this book will sell a lot of copies in the usual places.

State Department walks back claim on Clinton Foundation reviewThe State Department is stepping back from a spokeswoman’s comment last week suggesting that the agency’s ethics lawyers signed off on donations to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

Asked at a daily briefing Thursday about the foundation’s failure to submit a $500,000 donation from the country of Algeria for a conflict of interest review in 2010, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters that the department did such reviews whenever the non-profit founded by former President Bill Clinton sent in information about a potential gift.

“We like to review — and we have reviewed every donation that was submitted,” Psaki said.

However, there are no indications any Clinton Foundation donations were ever sent to the State Department for approval.

Asked about Psaki’s comment, another State Department spokesperson said Monday that the reviews the agency did were of paid speeches Bill Clinton was proposing to make and business deals he wanted to enter into. From 2009 to 2012, hundreds of speech requests and a handful of consulting deals were sent to State Department lawyers for sign off. The vast majority were approved.

“We received requests regarding speeches and consultancies of former President Clinton,” State spokesman Alec Gerlach said.

Clarifying Psaki's earlier comment, Gerlach said that State Department reviewed every request that came in, not every donation.

In her remarks last week, Psaki also said the State Department was not troubled that the Algeria gift was never flagged to State. “In this case, the fact that the process has – was not followed in this particular incident does not raise concerns with us,” the spokeswoman said.

The ethics agreement struck before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state in 2009 only required State Department review of donations to the Clinton Foundation under very limited circumstances: when a foreign government wanted to “materially” increase its giving to four specific Clinton Foundation programs.

Gifts from foreign governments to one program, the Clinton Global Initiative, were barred altogether, as were new gifts to the other four programs from governments that had not previously supported them.

The agreement did not require vetting of donations from individuals, whether foreign or U.S. citizens, or from private companies, but did require public disclosure of the names of donors on an annual basis. Part of the pact also required Bill Clinton to submit proposals for paid speeches as well as plans for consulting deals.

Both the Clinton camp and the State Department have noted that the agreement went beyond the requirements of the law.

In response to a Washington Post report about the Algeria gift, a foundation spokesman said the State Department “should…have been formally informed” about the donation. However, it’s unclear whether the text of the agreement actually required such vetting.

A foundation spokesman pushed back against criticism of the nonprofit on Monday, sending talking points to Clinton allies urging them to rebut "attacks on the Clinton Foundation" by stressing that the entity is "a world-class philanthropy" and that "every penny" of the Algeria gift went to helping Haiti recover from the devastating earthquake it experienced in 2010.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/03/state-department-walks-back-claim-on-clinton-foundation-203355.html

So, the answer to Tommy's question is, yes, there were protections in place, but the Clintons did not comply with them.

So they might not have filed paperwork disclosing a one time charitable donation to a non-profit that went towards helping victims of a devastating earthquake and was published on the Foundation's web site? And they complied with disclosure requirements on many other gifts? And the entire framework for the disclosures was one that went well beyond the legal requirements in the first place? And there's no ties alleged to any subsequent policy change regarding the country that made the donation for earthquake relief?

Whoa. You've got her now, guys!

Tobias, it's not a gotcha moment. Tommy asked if the donations were being vetted, the article says for the most part they were not. That's it.

Well, Tommy asked if there were protections in place, not if every donation was vetted. The answer to the question he actually asked is yes. There was an agreement between Clinton and the administration for the review of certain new donations or significant increases in donations that might give the appearance of a conflict of interest. The agreement went well beyond the legal requirements. Also the article only mentions one donation that was not "vetted"- the Algeria one for Haiti earthquakes that was posted on the Foundation web site.

 

[The Commish]

Are Republicans really going to be able to make the Clinton foundation thing a campaign issue? It seems like making a big deal about this would go against their whole worldview involving campaign funds and corruption.

Wondering the same thing honestly. Seems like many other fish to fry. Not sure why they'd choose this to over.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'd be blown away if there were not protections in place to ensure the type of improprieties IK alluded to were cured. It's not as if this is unforeseeable.

thats what I figure too. When Obama chose Clinton to be S of S, he was choosing a major political figure with the foundation and her husband's speaking fees already in place. No doubt this was all discussed and negotiated. This notion that Hillary used the State Department as her personal fiefdom, doling out favors in return for monies being channeled into her foundation (which could then be used for nefarious purposes) seems awfully silly. Still, I'm sure this book will sell a lot of copies in the usual places.

State Department walks back claim on Clinton Foundation reviewThe State Department is stepping back from a spokeswoman’s comment last week suggesting that the agency’s ethics lawyers signed off on donations to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

Asked at a daily briefing Thursday about the foundation’s failure to submit a $500,000 donation from the country of Algeria for a conflict of interest review in 2010, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters that the department did such reviews whenever the non-profit founded by former President Bill Clinton sent in information about a potential gift.

“We like to review — and we have reviewed every donation that was submitted,” Psaki said.

However, there are no indications any Clinton Foundation donations were ever sent to the State Department for approval.

Asked about Psaki’s comment, another State Department spokesperson said Monday that the reviews the agency did were of paid speeches Bill Clinton was proposing to make and business deals he wanted to enter into. From 2009 to 2012, hundreds of speech requests and a handful of consulting deals were sent to State Department lawyers for sign off. The vast majority were approved.

“We received requests regarding speeches and consultancies of former President Clinton,” State spokesman Alec Gerlach said.

Clarifying Psaki's earlier comment, Gerlach said that State Department reviewed every request that came in, not every donation.

In her remarks last week, Psaki also said the State Department was not troubled that the Algeria gift was never flagged to State. “In this case, the fact that the process has – was not followed in this particular incident does not raise concerns with us,” the spokeswoman said.

The ethics agreement struck before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state in 2009 only required State Department review of donations to the Clinton Foundation under very limited circumstances: when a foreign government wanted to “materially” increase its giving to four specific Clinton Foundation programs.

Gifts from foreign governments to one program, the Clinton Global Initiative, were barred altogether, as were new gifts to the other four programs from governments that had not previously supported them.

The agreement did not require vetting of donations from individuals, whether foreign or U.S. citizens, or from private companies, but did require public disclosure of the names of donors on an annual basis. Part of the pact also required Bill Clinton to submit proposals for paid speeches as well as plans for consulting deals.

Both the Clinton camp and the State Department have noted that the agreement went beyond the requirements of the law.

In response to a Washington Post report about the Algeria gift, a foundation spokesman said the State Department “should…have been formally informed” about the donation. However, it’s unclear whether the text of the agreement actually required such vetting.

A foundation spokesman pushed back against criticism of the nonprofit on Monday, sending talking points to Clinton allies urging them to rebut "attacks on the Clinton Foundation" by stressing that the entity is "a world-class philanthropy" and that "every penny" of the Algeria gift went to helping Haiti recover from the devastating earthquake it experienced in 2010.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/03/state-department-walks-back-claim-on-clinton-foundation-203355.html

So, the answer to Tommy's question is, yes, there were protections in place, but the Clintons did not comply with them.

So they might not have filed paperwork disclosing a one time charitable donation to a non-profit that went towards helping victims of a devastating earthquake and was published on the Foundation's web site? And they complied with disclosure requirements on many other gifts? And the entire framework for the disclosures was one that went well beyond the legal requirements in the first place? And there's no ties alleged to any subsequent policy change regarding the country that made the donation for earthquake relief?

Whoa. You've got her now, guys!

Tobias, it's not a gotcha moment. Tommy asked if the donations were being vetted, the article says for the most part they were not. That's it.

Well, Tommy asked if there were protections in place, not if every donation was vetted. The answer to the question he actually asked is yes. There was an agreement between Clinton and the administration for the review of certain new donations or significant increases in donations that might give the appearance of a conflict of interest. The agreement went well beyond the legal requirements. Also the article only mentions one donation that was not "vetted"- the Algeria one for Haiti earthquakes that was posted on the Foundation web site.

Ok, sorry I said it wrong the second time.

The first time I said, a you did, that there was a process in place. After that maybe we should backtrack, State initially said they had vetted, ie "signed off" on, any donations and speaking fees. In reality as you point out the requirements for reporting were low and in actuality "there are no indications any Clinton Foundation donations were ever sent to the State Department for approval." - So that leaves a very large number of donations and speaking fees not covered by the agreement and also not submitted to the vetting/reporting process, no?

 

[Apple Jack]

Are Republicans really going to be able to make the Clinton foundation thing a campaign issue? It seems like making a big deal about this would go against their whole worldview involving campaign funds and corruption.

Wondering the same thing honestly. Seems like many other fish to fry. Not sure why they'd choose this to over.

Oh they'll hit them all and countless imaginary others. Then turn around and say see look how many things she did. We talked about them so y'know....scandal.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Are Republicans really going to be able to make the Clinton foundation thing a campaign issue? It seems like making a big deal about this would go against their whole worldview involving campaign funds and corruption.

Wondering the same thing honestly. Seems like many other fish to fry. Not sure why they'd choose this to over.

Oh they'll hit them all and countless imaginary others. Then turn around and say see look how many things she did. We talked about them so y'know....scandal.

Good lord, this is so silly.

How many Democrats really believe the Clintons are squeaky clean and beyond this kind of thing? We know the Clintons - ie Bill, in community with Hillary - were receiving speaking fees and consulting/business deals, right? And these sometimes may have involved countries, or foreign persons or corporations potentially affected by State Department decisions, right? We all agree with this?

The disagreement is whether / if we know for sure whether there were or were not any "deals", ie quid pro quo, pay to play, situations? So there was no corruption, everything was on the up and up, even though this was going on, that's the whole enchilada, right?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Less than a year after Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, former President Bill Clinton asked the State Department to approve a paid, videotaped speech he was asked to make at a gala in Shanghai, sponsored by a Chinese sports foundation.

Wealthy hedge fund manager Kai Jiang wanted to pay the former president an undisclosed amount through a charity fund set up by his wife, Crystal Huang, a Chinese TV and film star who regularly serves as fodder for the Chinese tabloids.

But unlike hundreds of big-dollar Bill Clinton speeches that sailed through a State Department ethics approval process while Hillary Clinton served as America’s top diplomat, this one raised a note of caution that the Chinese government might actually be funding the speech or planning to profit from it.

The inconclusive bureaucratic back and forth — with weeks of emails asking for greater detail — made clear the difficulties the government faced getting information about Bill Clinton’s far-flung moneymaking efforts through an ethics review process Hillary Clinton agreed to when she joined President Barack Obama’s Cabinet.

In hundreds of documents released to POLITICO under the Freedom of Information Act, not a single case appears where the State Department explicitly rejected a Bill Clinton speech. Instead, the records show State Department lawyers acted on sparse information about business proposals and speech requests and were under the gun to approve the proposals promptly. The ethics agreement did not require that Clinton provide the estimated income from his private arrangements, making it difficult for ethics officials to tell whether his services were properly valued.

The proposed China speech and one consulting deal with a major player in Middle East policy are the only examples in the released documents where serious concerns were registered. The records include requests to speak to investment groups, colleges and foreign entities.

The records also highlight a blind spot in the ethics deal the Clintons and the Obama transition team hammered out in 2008 with the involvement of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: While the pact subjected Bill Clinton’s moneymaking activities to official review, it imposed no vetting on donations to the Clinton Foundation by individuals or private companies in the U.S. or abroad.

Concerns about individuals seeking influence by dropping money in both buckets arose soon after the first few Bill Clinton speech proposals landed at Foggy Bottom. In a 2009 memo greenlighting those talks, a State Department ethics official specifically asked about possible links between President Clinton’s speaking engagements and donations to the Clinton Foundation. However, the released documents show no evidence that the question was addressed.

“In future requests, I would suggest including a statement listing whether or not any of the proposed sponsors of a speaking event have made a donation to the Clinton Foundation and, if so, the amount and date,” wrote Jim Thessin, then the State Department’s top ethics approver and No. 2 lawyer.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ethics-approval-came-easily-at-hillary-clintons-state-department-115468.html#ixzz3XsITBPrR

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Are Republicans really going to be able to make the Clinton foundation thing a campaign issue? It seems like making a big deal about this would go against their whole worldview involving campaign funds and corruption.

Wondering the same thing honestly. Seems like many other fish to fry. Not sure why they'd choose this to over.

Oh they'll hit them all and countless imaginary others. Then turn around and say see look how many things she did. We talked about them so y'know....scandal.

Good lord, this is so silly.

How many Democrats really believe the Clintons are squeaky clean and beyond this kind of thing? We know the Clintons - ie Bill, in community with Hillary - were receiving speaking fees and consulting/business deals, right? And these sometimes may have involved countries, or foreign persons or corporations potentially affected by State Department decisions, right? We all agree with this?

The disagreement is whether / if we know for sure whether there were or were not any "deals", ie quid pro quo, pay to play, situations? So there was no corruption, everything was on the up and up, even though this was going on, that's the whole enchilada, right?

I'm not disagreeing with anything. I'm just pointing out that it will be difficult for Republicans to argue "contributing large sums to the Clinton Foundation is corrupting." Because for the last ten years or so they've been arguing that large contributions to parties and SuperPACs and multiple candidates do not corrupt.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Are Republicans really going to be able to make the Clinton foundation thing a campaign issue? It seems like making a big deal about this would go against their whole worldview involving campaign funds and corruption.

Wondering the same thing honestly. Seems like many other fish to fry. Not sure why they'd choose this to over.

Oh they'll hit them all and countless imaginary others. Then turn around and say see look how many things she did. We talked about them so y'know....scandal.

Good lord, this is so silly.

How many Democrats really believe the Clintons are squeaky clean and beyond this kind of thing? We know the Clintons - ie Bill, in community with Hillary - were receiving speaking fees and consulting/business deals, right? And these sometimes may have involved countries, or foreign persons or corporations potentially affected by State Department decisions, right? We all agree with this?

The disagreement is whether / if we know for sure whether there were or were not any "deals", ie quid pro quo, pay to play, situations? So there was no corruption, everything was on the up and up, even though this was going on, that's the whole enchilada, right?

I'm not disagreeing with anything. I'm just pointing out that it will be difficult for Republicans to argue "contributing large sums to the Clinton Foundation is corrupting." Because for the last ten years or so they've been arguing that large contributions to parties and SuperPACs and multiple candidates do not corrupt.

It's kind of a Romney/Obamacare situation. Romney arguing against the ACA was not very effective because, you know, he created version 1.0 in Ma. The whole line from both sides might be hypocritical though because I don't think people are going to buy this theme about Hillary being the "champion" tilting at Wall Street and PAC's either.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Are Republicans really going to be able to make the Clinton foundation thing a campaign issue? It seems like making a big deal about this would go against their whole worldview involving campaign funds and corruption.

Wondering the same thing honestly. Seems like many other fish to fry. Not sure why they'd choose this to over.

Oh they'll hit them all and countless imaginary others. Then turn around and say see look how many things she did. We talked about them so y'know....scandal.

Good lord, this is so silly.

How many Democrats really believe the Clintons are squeaky clean and beyond this kind of thing? We know the Clintons - ie Bill, in community with Hillary - were receiving speaking fees and consulting/business deals, right? And these sometimes may have involved countries, or foreign persons or corporations potentially affected by State Department decisions, right? We all agree with this?

The disagreement is whether / if we know for sure whether there were or were not any "deals", ie quid pro quo, pay to play, situations? So there was no corruption, everything was on the up and up, even though this was going on, that's the whole enchilada, right?

I'm not disagreeing with anything. I'm just pointing out that it will be difficult for Republicans to argue "contributing large sums to the Clinton Foundation is corrupting." Because for the last ten years or so they've been arguing that large contributions to parties and SuperPACs and multiple candidates do not corrupt.

So what? People make mutually-contradicting arguments all the time. As long it motivates your base, it doesn't matter if you're being intellectually consistent.

Not that it should be that way, of course.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'd be blown away if there were not protections in place to ensure the type of improprieties IK alluded to were cured. It's not as if this is unforeseeable.

thats what I figure too. When Obama chose Clinton to be S of S, he was choosing a major political figure with the foundation and her husband's speaking fees already in place. No doubt this was all discussed and negotiated. This notion that Hillary used the State Department as her personal fiefdom, doling out favors in return for monies being channeled into her foundation (which could then be used for nefarious purposes) seems awfully silly. Still, I'm sure this book will sell a lot of copies in the usual places.

It baffles me as to why anybody would find that silly. Good old-fashioned bribery has a long and glorious history in American politics. And these sorts of charges have followed the Clintons in particular around for a long time. I think you're being a little naïve.

 

[The Commish]

Are Republicans really going to be able to make the Clinton foundation thing a campaign issue? It seems like making a big deal about this would go against their whole worldview involving campaign funds and corruption.

Wondering the same thing honestly. Seems like many other fish to fry. Not sure why they'd choose this to over.

Oh they'll hit them all and countless imaginary others. Then turn around and say see look how many things she did. We talked about them so y'know....scandal.

Good lord, this is so silly.

How many Democrats really believe the Clintons are squeaky clean and beyond this kind of thing? We know the Clintons - ie Bill, in community with Hillary - were receiving speaking fees and consulting/business deals, right? And these sometimes may have involved countries, or foreign persons or corporations potentially affected by State Department decisions, right? We all agree with this?

The disagreement is whether / if we know for sure whether there were or were not any "deals", ie quid pro quo, pay to play, situations? So there was no corruption, everything was on the up and up, even though this was going on, that's the whole enchilada, right?

Politically, I don't get it. If there was something going on, what impact would it have other than giving an example of political corruption? Is the idea that this is a level of corruption above and beyond the standard?

 

[cstu]

Politically, I don't get it. If there was something going on, what impact would it have other than giving an example of political corruption? Is the idea that this is a level of corruption above and beyond the standard?

The mistake the Republican made was to demonize the Clintons to the point that unless Hillary is exposed as a member of an ISIS cell the voters are going to at anything new that pops up.

 

[timschochet]

I'd be blown away if there were not protections in place to ensure the type of improprieties IK alluded to were cured. It's not as if this is unforeseeable.

thats what I figure too. When Obama chose Clinton to be S of S, he was choosing a major political figure with the foundation and her husband's speaking fees already in place. No doubt this was all discussed and negotiated. This notion that Hillary used the State Department as her personal fiefdom, doling out favors in return for monies being channeled into her foundation (which could then be used for nefarious purposes) seems awfully silly. Still, I'm sure this book will sell a lot of copies in the usual places.

It baffles me as to why anybody would find that silly. Good old-fashioned bribery has a long and glorious history in American politics. And these sorts of charges have followed the Clintons in particular around for a long time. I think you're being a little naïve.

It's silly because Secretary of State is not the type of position where favors can be doled out on the sly without people noticing. It's like being made the COO of a large corporation already in place, with thousands of employees already doing their jobs, and a CEO (in this case Obama) setting a certain direction which your job is to make happen as smoothly as possible. It's about as far removed from a corrupt fiefdom as possible. Even if Hillary had wanted to be corrupt in such a position, it's difficult to see how she could have done it- take the Columbia trade deal for example, which was mentioned in the article Saints posted- that deal had been negotiated for a decade or more by long term public servants, part of a longstanding policy of both Democratic and Republican Presidents to pursue these sorts of agreements, and held up by certain congressmen and senators from both parties who wanted certain details included protecting manufacturing and agrarian concerns in their various districts, etc. There was very little Hillary could have done as S of S to either hamper or speed up such an agreement.

In addition, we're not dealing with direct campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton. We're dealing with money that went to a Foundation, which keeps all records of monies received and spent and which is fully accounted for. So again unless somebody has evidence of corruption within the foundation itself and money being funneled from it to Hillary or Bill's pocketbook or campaign funds, I don't see the point of making this connection.

Finally as to your point that "these charges have followed the Clintons around"; that's true, but they're never found guilty of anything and there's no doubt that they're huge political targets. I've never been one of those "where there's smoke there's fire" people. I'm a huge fan of Clinton conspiracy theories. I read em all, no matter how absurd they get. Other than Bill having sex with other women and lying under oath about it, I've never seen any real evidence to back up a single charge made in over 25 years of trying.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

Are Republicans really going to be able to make the Clinton foundation thing a campaign issue? It seems like making a big deal about this would go against their whole worldview involving campaign funds and corruption.

Wondering the same thing honestly. Seems like many other fish to fry. Not sure why they'd choose this to over.

Oh they'll hit them all and countless imaginary others. Then turn around and say see look how many things she did. We talked about them so y'know....scandal.

Good lord, this is so silly.

How many Democrats really believe the Clintons are squeaky clean and beyond this kind of thing? We know the Clintons - ie Bill, in community with Hillary - were receiving speaking fees and consulting/business deals, right? And these sometimes may have involved countries, or foreign persons or corporations potentially affected by State Department decisions, right? We all agree with this?

The disagreement is whether / if we know for sure whether there were or were not any "deals", ie quid pro quo, pay to play, situations? So there was no corruption, everything was on the up and up, even though this was going on, that's the whole enchilada, right?

Politically, I don't get it. If there was something going on, what impact would it have other than giving an example of political corruption? Is the idea that this is a level of corruption above and beyond the standard?

If they have been in office more than a term, it is very likely there has been political corruption. If we are going down that path, let's first focus on how cozy Scalia and Thomas are with the Koch brothers (google it).

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'd be blown away if there were not protections in place to ensure the type of improprieties IK alluded to were cured. It's not as if this is unforeseeable.

thats what I figure too. When Obama chose Clinton to be S of S, he was choosing a major political figure with the foundation and her husband's speaking fees already in place. No doubt this was all discussed and negotiated. This notion that Hillary used the State Department as her personal fiefdom, doling out favors in return for monies being channeled into her foundation (which could then be used for nefarious purposes) seems awfully silly. Still, I'm sure this book will sell a lot of copies in the usual places.

State Department walks back claim on Clinton Foundation reviewThe State Department is stepping back from a spokeswoman’s comment last week suggesting that the agency’s ethics lawyers signed off on donations to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

Asked at a daily briefing Thursday about the foundation’s failure to submit a $500,000 donation from the country of Algeria for a conflict of interest review in 2010, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters that the department did such reviews whenever the non-profit founded by former President Bill Clinton sent in information about a potential gift.

“We like to review — and we have reviewed every donation that was submitted,” Psaki said.

However, there are no indications any Clinton Foundation donations were ever sent to the State Department for approval.

Asked about Psaki’s comment, another State Department spokesperson said Monday that the reviews the agency did were of paid speeches Bill Clinton was proposing to make and business deals he wanted to enter into. From 2009 to 2012, hundreds of speech requests and a handful of consulting deals were sent to State Department lawyers for sign off. The vast majority were approved.

“We received requests regarding speeches and consultancies of former President Clinton,” State spokesman Alec Gerlach said.

Clarifying Psaki's earlier comment, Gerlach said that State Department reviewed every request that came in, not every donation.

In her remarks last week, Psaki also said the State Department was not troubled that the Algeria gift was never flagged to State. “In this case, the fact that the process has – was not followed in this particular incident does not raise concerns with us,” the spokeswoman said.

The ethics agreement struck before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state in 2009 only required State Department review of donations to the Clinton Foundation under very limited circumstances: when a foreign government wanted to “materially” increase its giving to four specific Clinton Foundation programs.

Gifts from foreign governments to one program, the Clinton Global Initiative, were barred altogether, as were new gifts to the other four programs from governments that had not previously supported them.

The agreement did not require vetting of donations from individuals, whether foreign or U.S. citizens, or from private companies, but did require public disclosure of the names of donors on an annual basis. Part of the pact also required Bill Clinton to submit proposals for paid speeches as well as plans for consulting deals.

Both the Clinton camp and the State Department have noted that the agreement went beyond the requirements of the law.

In response to a Washington Post report about the Algeria gift, a foundation spokesman said the State Department “should…have been formally informed” about the donation. However, it’s unclear whether the text of the agreement actually required such vetting.

A foundation spokesman pushed back against criticism of the nonprofit on Monday, sending talking points to Clinton allies urging them to rebut "attacks on the Clinton Foundation" by stressing that the entity is "a world-class philanthropy" and that "every penny" of the Algeria gift went to helping Haiti recover from the devastating earthquake it experienced in 2010.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/03/state-department-walks-back-claim-on-clinton-foundation-203355.html

So, the answer to Tommy's question is, yes, there were protections in place, but the Clintons did not comply with them.

So they might not have filed paperwork disclosing a one time charitable donation to a non-profit that went towards helping victims of a devastating earthquake and was published on the Foundation's web site? And they complied with disclosure requirements on many other gifts? And the entire framework for the disclosures was one that went well beyond the legal requirements in the first place? And there's no ties alleged to any subsequent policy change regarding the country that made the donation for earthquake relief?

Whoa. You've got her now, guys!

Tobias, it's not a gotcha moment. Tommy asked if the donations were being vetted, the article says for the most part they were not. That's it.

Well, Tommy asked if there were protections in place, not if every donation was vetted. The answer to the question he actually asked is yes. There was an agreement between Clinton and the administration for the review of certain new donations or significant increases in donations that might give the appearance of a conflict of interest. The agreement went well beyond the legal requirements. Also the article only mentions one donation that was not "vetted"- the Algeria one for Haiti earthquakes that was posted on the Foundation web site.

Ok, sorry I said it wrong the second time.

The first time I said, a you did, that there was a process in place. After that maybe we should backtrack, State initially said they had vetted, ie "signed off" on, any donations and speaking fees. In reality as you point out the requirements for reporting were low and in actuality "there are no indications any Clinton Foundation donations were ever sent to the State Department for approval." - So that leaves a very large number of donations and speaking fees not covered by the agreement and also not submitted to the vetting/reporting process, no?

Sound like those were submitted for the vetting/reporting process, per the hyperlink in the article.

From 30,000 feet, I just don't see anything here at all. As tim said, there's no specific allegation or even evidence of bribery, nothing showing an unusual donation pattern tied to a shift in policy or any other favorable action at State. There's no allegations that disclosure laws were broken or regulations were violated. There's a charitable organization that shares her name taking money to do good, and that's about the extent of it unless someone shows one of those things I just mentioned.

It's not like I'm #1 Fan of Hillary Clinton here, I thought there was something to the email scandal and it made me look at her with increased skepticism, and I thought it could be sold to the public too. But this is a nothing story unless there's more coming. What are you gonna do, ask why charitable giving like donations to Haitian earthquake victims wasn't subjected to greater restriction that might have chilled those sorts of donations? That's not really a good look.

 

[The Commish]

Politically, I don't get it. If there was something going on, what impact would it have other than giving an example of political corruption? Is the idea that this is a level of corruption above and beyond the standard?

The mistake the Republican made was to demonize the Clintons to the point that unless Hillary is exposed as a member of an ISIS cell the voters are going to at anything new that pops up.

Yeah, I tend to agree...anything new will be a "big whoooop" kind of reaction. The honk left will vote for her (which is pretty funny), the honk right will vote against her. Those in the middle (either moderate Ds/Rs or independents) will look at the whole. I just don't see the point of pointing this new stuff out when there's so much history to vett through.

 

[timschochet]

Dear Miguel,

If you want me to sign off on that trade agreement, you need to come up with a few more dollars for the Foundation. Bill wants to take a trip to China, all expenses paid. Oh and give me your sister's phone number. She's very hot and I want to get to know her better.

I have attached the cake recipe you wanted.

Love,

Hillary.

PS- Delete this after you read it, OK?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Are Republicans really going to be able to make the Clinton foundation thing a campaign issue? It seems like making a big deal about this would go against their whole worldview involving campaign funds and corruption.

Wondering the same thing honestly. Seems like many other fish to fry. Not sure why they'd choose this to over.

Oh they'll hit them all and countless imaginary others. Then turn around and say see look how many things she did. We talked about them so y'know....scandal.

Good lord, this is so silly.

How many Democrats really believe the Clintons are squeaky clean and beyond this kind of thing? We know the Clintons - ie Bill, in community with Hillary - were receiving speaking fees and consulting/business deals, right? And these sometimes may have involved countries, or foreign persons or corporations potentially affected by State Department decisions, right? We all agree with this?

The disagreement is whether / if we know for sure whether there were or were not any "deals", ie quid pro quo, pay to play, situations? So there was no corruption, everything was on the up and up, even though this was going on, that's the whole enchilada, right?

Politically, I don't get it. If there was something going on, what impact would it have other than giving an example of political corruption? Is the idea that this is a level of corruption above and beyond the standard?

Right, two different things going on, the facts and the issues, and then the political impact.

Politically vs the Clintons the GOP constantly gets itself in the situation of trying to get the Clintons in a "gotcha" moment, when in fact it's extremely difficult unless they are actually investigated and then actually charged and convicted. Then the Clintons' get to flail away with their 'right wing conspiracy' shillelagh.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'd be blown away if there were not protections in place to ensure the type of improprieties IK alluded to were cured. It's not as if this is unforeseeable.

thats what I figure too. When Obama chose Clinton to be S of S, he was choosing a major political figure with the foundation and her husband's speaking fees already in place. No doubt this was all discussed and negotiated. This notion that Hillary used the State Department as her personal fiefdom, doling out favors in return for monies being channeled into her foundation (which could then be used for nefarious purposes) seems awfully silly. Still, I'm sure this book will sell a lot of copies in the usual places.

It baffles me as to why anybody would find that silly. Good old-fashioned bribery has a long and glorious history in American politics. And these sorts of charges have followed the Clintons in particular around for a long time. I think you're being a little naïve.

It's silly because Secretary of State is not the type of position where favors can be doled out on the sly without people noticing. It's like being made the COO of a large corporation already in place, with thousands of employees already doing their jobs, and a CEO (in this case Obama) setting a certain direction which your job is to make happen as smoothly as possible. It's about as far removed from a corrupt fiefdom as possible. Even if Hillary had wanted to be corrupt in such a position, it's difficult to see how she could have done it- take the Columbia trade deal for example, which was mentioned in the article Saints posted- that deal had been negotiated for a decade or more by long term public servants, part of a longstanding policy of both Democratic and Republican Presidents to pursue these sorts of agreements, and held up by certain congressmen and senators from both parties who wanted certain details included protecting manufacturing and agrarian concerns in their various districts, etc. There was very little Hillary could have done as S of S to either hamper or speed up such an agreement.

In addition, we're not dealing with direct campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton. We're dealing with money that went to a Foundation, which keeps all records of monies received and spent and which is fully accounted for. So again unless somebody has evidence of corruption within the foundation itself and money being funneled from it to Hillary or Bill's pocketbook or campaign funds, I don't see the point of making this connection.

Finally as to your point that "these charges have followed the Clintons around"; that's true, but they're never found guilty of anything and there's no doubt that they're huge political targets. I've never been one of those "where there's smoke there's fire" people. I'm a huge fan of Clinton conspiracy theories. I read em all, no matter how absurd they get. Other than Bill having sex with other women and lying under oath about it, I've never seen any real evidence to back up a single charge made in over 25 years of trying.

Wait. You're saying that it's not possible for a COO of a large corporation to dole out favors? Really?

 

[The Commish]

I'd be blown away if there were not protections in place to ensure the type of improprieties IK alluded to were cured. It's not as if this is unforeseeable.

thats what I figure too. When Obama chose Clinton to be S of S, he was choosing a major political figure with the foundation and her husband's speaking fees already in place. No doubt this was all discussed and negotiated. This notion that Hillary used the State Department as her personal fiefdom, doling out favors in return for monies being channeled into her foundation (which could then be used for nefarious purposes) seems awfully silly. Still, I'm sure this book will sell a lot of copies in the usual places.

It baffles me as to why anybody would find that silly. Good old-fashioned bribery has a long and glorious history in American politics. And these sorts of charges have followed the Clintons in particular around for a long time. I think you're being a little naïve.

It's silly because Secretary of State is not the type of position where favors can be doled out on the sly without people noticing. It's like being made the COO of a large corporation already in place, with thousands of employees already doing their jobs, and a CEO (in this case Obama) setting a certain direction which your job is to make happen as smoothly as possible. It's about as far removed from a corrupt fiefdom as possible. Even if Hillary had wanted to be corrupt in such a position, it's difficult to see how she could have done it- take the Columbia trade deal for example, which was mentioned in the article Saints posted- that deal had been negotiated for a decade or more by long term public servants, part of a longstanding policy of both Democratic and Republican Presidents to pursue these sorts of agreements, and held up by certain congressmen and senators from both parties who wanted certain details included protecting manufacturing and agrarian concerns in their various districts, etc. There was very little Hillary could have done as S of S to either hamper or speed up such an agreement. In addition, we're not dealing with direct campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton. We're dealing with money that went to a Foundation, which keeps all records of monies received and spent and which is fully accounted for. So again unless somebody has evidence of corruption within the foundation itself and money being funneled from it to Hillary or Bill's pocketbook or campaign funds, I don't see the point of making this connection.

Finally as to your point that "these charges have followed the Clintons around"; that's true, but they're never found guilty of anything and there's no doubt that they're huge political targets. I've never been one of those "where there's smoke there's fire" people. I'm a huge fan of Clinton conspiracy theories. I read em all, no matter how absurd they get. Other than Bill having sex with other women and lying under oath about it, I've never seen any real evidence to back up a single charge made in over 25 years of trying.

Where is this world?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Finally as to your point that "these charges have followed the Clintons around"; that's true, but they're never found guilty of anything and there's no doubt that they're huge political targets. I've never been one of those "where there's smoke there's fire" people. I'm a huge fan of Clinton conspiracy theories. I read em all, no matter how absurd they get. Other than Bill having sex with other women and lying under oath about it, I've never seen any real evidence to back up a single charge made in over 25 years of trying.

This is probably a big part of our disagreement. I'm generally of the view that when somebody gets accused of the same basic thing (in this case, corruption) over and over and over again, there's a very high likelihood that one or more of those charges is accurate.

Since you brought it up, the Lewinksy thing is a good example of what I'm talking about. Bill was accused of womanizing and/or sexual harassment approximately a million times. He always denied every charge and there was never a smoking gun, until there finally was one and he was caught lying through his teeth. People who are faithful spouses generally don't get accused of sexual wrongdoing over and over. Similarly, people who are scrupulous and honest in doing their jobs generally don't get accused of corruption all the time. Maybe there are some good counterexamples, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

 

[Ookie Pringle]

I'd be blown away if there were not protections in place to ensure the type of improprieties IK alluded to were cured. It's not as if this is unforeseeable.

thats what I figure too. When Obama chose Clinton to be S of S, he was choosing a major political figure with the foundation and her husband's speaking fees already in place. No doubt this was all discussed and negotiated. This notion that Hillary used the State Department as her personal fiefdom, doling out favors in return for monies being channeled into her foundation (which could then be used for nefarious purposes) seems awfully silly. Still, I'm sure this book will sell a lot of copies in the usual places.

It baffles me as to why anybody would find that silly. Good old-fashioned bribery has a long and glorious history in American politics. And these sorts of charges have followed the Clintons in particular around for a long time. I think you're being a little naïve.

It's silly because Secretary of State is not the type of position where favors can be doled out on the sly without people noticing. It's like being made the COO of a large corporation already in place, with thousands of employees already doing their jobs, and a CEO (in this case Obama) setting a certain direction which your job is to make happen as smoothly as possible. It's about as far removed from a corrupt fiefdom as possible. Even if Hillary had wanted to be corrupt in such a position, it's difficult to see how she could have done it- take the Columbia trade deal for example, which was mentioned in the article Saints posted- that deal had been negotiated for a decade or more by long term public servants, part of a longstanding policy of both Democratic and Republican Presidents to pursue these sorts of agreements, and held up by certain congressmen and senators from both parties who wanted certain details included protecting manufacturing and agrarian concerns in their various districts, etc. There was very little Hillary could have done as S of S to either hamper or speed up such an agreement. In addition, we're not dealing with direct campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton. We're dealing with money that went to a Foundation, which keeps all records of monies received and spent and which is fully accounted for. So again unless somebody has evidence of corruption within the foundation itself and money being funneled from it to Hillary or Bill's pocketbook or campaign funds, I don't see the point of making this connection.

Finally as to your point that "these charges have followed the Clintons around"; that's true, but they're never found guilty of anything and there's no doubt that they're huge political targets. I've never been one of those "where there's smoke there's fire" people. I'm a huge fan of Clinton conspiracy theories. I read em all, no matter how absurd they get. Other than Bill having sex with other women and lying under oath about it, I've never seen any real evidence to back up a single charge made in over 25 years of trying.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Are Republicans really going to be able to make the Clinton foundation thing a campaign issue? It seems like making a big deal about this would go against their whole worldview involving campaign funds and corruption.

Wondering the same thing honestly. Seems like many other fish to fry. Not sure why they'd choose this to over.

Oh they'll hit them all and countless imaginary others. Then turn around and say see look how many things she did. We talked about them so y'know....scandal.

Good lord, this is so silly.

How many Democrats really believe the Clintons are squeaky clean and beyond this kind of thing? We know the Clintons - ie Bill, in community with Hillary - were receiving speaking fees and consulting/business deals, right? And these sometimes may have involved countries, or foreign persons or corporations potentially affected by State Department decisions, right? We all agree with this?

The disagreement is whether / if we know for sure whether there were or were not any "deals", ie quid pro quo, pay to play, situations? So there was no corruption, everything was on the up and up, even though this was going on, that's the whole enchilada, right?

I'm not disagreeing with anything. I'm just pointing out that it will be difficult for Republicans to argue "contributing large sums to the Clinton Foundation is corrupting." Because for the last ten years or so they've been arguing that large contributions to parties and SuperPACs and multiple candidates do not corrupt.

Fyi FatGuy, The Atlantic is echoing your comments...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/not-all-republicans/390912/

GOP Candidates Discover the Problems With Money in PoliticsIt's not just Democrats who are critical of the current state of campaign finance. Lindsey Graham, Chris Christie, and Ted Cruz have their own complaints.
"You're going to have money dumped in this election cycle that's going to turn off the American people. There's going to be a need and a movement to try to control the money in politics."

That wouldn't be a revolutionary statement from a Democratic politician. But it's not from a Democratic politician. It's from Senator Lindsey Graham, a 2016 Republican presidential hopeful. Graham has some personal reasons for speaking out against big money—he'll struggle to match the top-tier GOP candidates' fundraising—and has voted for campaign-finance laws in the past, but he's not the only one doing so.

As The Washington Post's Matea Gold notes, Chris Christie has been offering a tempered critique of the emerging world of campaign finance in the aftermath of the Citizens United, SpeechNow, and McCutcheon court cases. “I think what is corrupting in this potentially is we don’t know where the money is coming from,” the New Jersey governor said in New Hampshire.

Graham and Christie may come from the more moderate side of the party, but Ted Cruz—who most assuredly does not—also seems to find the whole business distasteful.

“I’ve told my six-year-old daughter, ‘Running for office is real simple: you just surgically disconnect your shame sensor,’” he said. “Because you spend every day asking people for money. You walk up and say, ‘How are you doing, sir? Can I have money? Great to see you, lovely shirt, please give me money.’ That’s what running for office is like.”

But Cruz immediately followed that comment up with a qualification that's essential to the way this debate functions on the right, telling Politico that he thinks that hassle is worth it, since the alternative—limiting contributions—would curtail freedom. Cruz stunned the political world this month with the revelation that a network of four super PACs to support him had already raised $31 million.

These divisions within the Republican Party seem to be the product of a movement to deregulate campaign finance that has achieved stunning victories over the last 15 years. If the movement isn't quite a victim of its own success, it now faces some disarray bred by winning so quickly and completely. Having triumphed, conservatives aren't unified on where to go next.

...
At the same time, a forthcoming book by Peter Schweizer has excited the political world with allegations of quid pro quos, in which foreign governments gave to the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton, then serving as secretary of state, did them favors—essentially alleging bribery in foreign affairs. The Clinton campaign said there's nothing to the allegations.

Democratic and Republican super PACs are already lining up to attack the book or to use it to attack Clinton, respectively. The implication of Schweizer's argument is awkward for the groups poised to pour millions into publicizing its allegations, though. Shadowy organizations funded by multimillionaires, many of which scrupulously cover up their sources of donations, are going to pour huge amounts of money into trying to sway the democratic process—all in an attempt to prove that huge, insufficiently transparent infusions of cash from wealthy donors can corrupt a public servant’s policy decisions. Is this irony lost on the donors and the candidates they back, or does it simply not bother them?

 

[RCon]

Are Republicans really going to be able to make the Clinton foundation thing a campaign issue? It seems like making a big deal about this would go against their whole worldview involving campaign funds and corruption.

Wondering the same thing honestly. Seems like many other fish to fry. Not sure why they'd choose this to over.

Sure, this is almost certainly silly. However, as campaign politics go, there's no harm in having some low-level bloggers throw out every possible "scandal" and see what sticks. If it doesn't stick, the real candidates can ignore it. If it sticks, and someone manages to make something out of it...

 

[The Commish]

Are Republicans really going to be able to make the Clinton foundation thing a campaign issue? It seems like making a big deal about this would go against their whole worldview involving campaign funds and corruption.

Wondering the same thing honestly. Seems like many other fish to fry. Not sure why they'd choose this to over.

Sure, this is almost certainly silly. However, as campaign politics go, there's no harm in having some low-level bloggers throw out every possible "scandal" and see what sticks. If it doesn't stick, the real candidates can ignore it. If it sticks, and someone manages to make something out of it...

I get this approach if it's a new/unfamiliar candidate, but Clinton? Don't need more than what's already been provided and substantiated over the years IMO.

 

[tommyboy]

Plus the fact she uses a walker

 

[FlapJacks]

We've reached a modern age of scandal where the quid pro quos are hidden under so many layers of complexity, that fir the big timers, and those who doing it right strategically, they will never get caught. In the days of Carter and Nixon, there was honor amongst thieves....now it's whatver crap you can get away with and with your cheerleading section enabling the most irrational and farcical defenses to pass muster. Volume overrides content, because, frankly, most people are too stupid to think critically.

 

[Chadstroma]

I'd be blown away if there were not protections in place to ensure the type of improprieties IK alluded to were cured. It's not as if this is unforeseeable.

thats what I figure too. When Obama chose Clinton to be S of S, he was choosing a major political figure with the foundation and her husband's speaking fees already in place. No doubt this was all discussed and negotiated. This notion that Hillary used the State Department as her personal fiefdom, doling out favors in return for monies being channeled into her foundation (which could then be used for nefarious purposes) seems awfully silly. Still, I'm sure this book will sell a lot of copies in the usual places.

It baffles me as to why anybody would find that silly. Good old-fashioned bribery has a long and glorious history in American politics. And these sorts of charges have followed the Clintons in particular around for a long time. I think you're being a little naïve.

It's silly because Secretary of State is not the type of position where favors can be doled out on the sly without people noticing. It's like being made the COO of a large corporation already in place, with thousands of employees already doing their jobs, and a CEO (in this case Obama) setting a certain direction which your job is to make happen as smoothly as possible. It's about as far removed from a corrupt fiefdom as possible. Even if Hillary had wanted to be corrupt in such a position, it's difficult to see how she could have done it- take the Columbia trade deal for example, which was mentioned in the article Saints posted- that deal had been negotiated for a decade or more by long term public servants, part of a longstanding policy of both Democratic and Republican Presidents to pursue these sorts of agreements, and held up by certain congressmen and senators from both parties who wanted certain details included protecting manufacturing and agrarian concerns in their various districts, etc. There was very little Hillary could have done as S of S to either hamper or speed up such an agreement.

In addition, we're not dealing with direct campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton. We're dealing with money that went to a Foundation, which keeps all records of monies received and spent and which is fully accounted for. So again unless somebody has evidence of corruption within the foundation itself and money being funneled from it to Hillary or Bill's pocketbook or campaign funds, I don't see the point of making this connection.

Finally as to your point that "these charges have followed the Clintons around"; that's true, but they're never found guilty of anything and there's no doubt that they're huge political targets. I've never been one of those "where there's smoke there's fire" people. I'm a huge fan of Clinton conspiracy theories. I read em all, no matter how absurd they get. Other than Bill having sex with other women and lying under oath about it, I've never seen any real evidence to back up a single charge made in over 25 years of trying.

Wait. You're saying that it's not possible for a COO of a large corporation to dole out favors? Really?

Kinda kills the rest of the post whether or not there is even a good point to be made later.

 

[Chadstroma]

Dear Miguel,

If you want me to sign off on that trade agreement, you need to come up with a few more dollars for the Foundation. Bill wants to take a trip to China, all expenses paid. Oh and give me your sister's phone number. She's very hot and I want to get to know her better.

I have attached the cake recipe you wanted.

Love,

Hillary.

PS- Delete this after you read it, OK?

sent via iPad

 

[squistion]

Dear Miguel,

If you want me to sign off on that trade agreement, you need to come up with a few more dollars for the Foundation. Bill wants to take a trip to China, all expenses paid. Oh and give me your sister's phone number. She's very hot and I want to get to know her better.

I have attached the cake recipe you wanted.

Love,

Hillary.

PS- Delete this after you read it, OK?

 

[McGarnicle]

We've reached a modern age of scandal where the quid pro quos are hidden under so many layers of complexity, that fir the big timers, and those who doing it right strategically, they will never get caught. In the days of Carter and Nixon, there was honor amongst thieves....now it's whatver crap you can get away with and with your cheerleading section enabling the most irrational and farcical defenses to pass muster. Volume overrides content, because, frankly, most people are too stupid to think critically.

Worse still, lots of liberals don't even care if she's dishonest and unethical. She's their only ticket to keeping the White House. The ends justify the means. Moderates are the only ones who do think critically in elections imo. The extremists will vote for Hitler if that's what it takes.