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

[Hang 10]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Bill also got money directly. So there's that.

Out of curiosity, why does Bill = Hillary, but George H Bush did not and does not = George W or Jeb Bush? Seems a little weird to be so obsessed with the legal income of a current candidate's husband which was donated largely to charitable enterprises but totally ignore the income of a current candidate's (not to mention a past president's) 91 year old father from virtually identical activities and sources, . I'm aware that a spouse and a son are not the same thing, but children stand to benefit from their parents' riches under both operation of law and as a practical matter too.

I think you answered your own question.

 

[TobiasFunke]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Bill also got money directly. So there's that.

Out of curiosity, why does Bill = Hillary, but George H Bush did not and does not = George W or Jeb Bush? Seems a little weird to be so obsessed with the legal income of a current candidate's husband which was donated largely to charitable enterprises but totally ignore the income of a current candidate's (not to mention a past president's) 91 year old father from virtually identical activities and sources, . I'm aware that a spouse and a son are not the same thing, but children stand to benefit from their parents' riches under both operation of law and as a practical matter too.

I think you answered your own question.

No I didn't, as I explained in the clause immediately following the text you bolded. There are a lot of differences between each of these cases- not just the exact nature of the family relationship but also who is paying the fees, whether/what percentage of the money goes to charitable causes, etc. But the fundamental principle- that the candidate is certain to see financial gain from the speaking fees- is the same. Thanks for your thoughtful response, though.

 

[saintfool]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Bill also got money directly. So there's that.

which, if I'm reading things correctly, indicates that he (and even Chelsea) put those fees into the charity too. not a SuperPAC but a charity?

 

[Hang 10]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Bill also got money directly. So there's that.

which, if I'm reading things correctly, indicates that he (and even Chelsea) put those fees into the charity too. not a SuperPAC but a charity?

No, Bill was giving speeches to people/countries/companies Hillary had business with at the state. He was paid directly and separately from donations to the Clinton foundation.

 

[Hang 10]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Bill also got money directly. So there's that.

Out of curiosity, why does Bill = Hillary, but George H Bush did not and does not = George W or Jeb Bush? Seems a little weird to be so obsessed with the legal income of a current candidate's husband which was donated largely to charitable enterprises but totally ignore the income of a current candidate's (not to mention a past president's) 91 year old father from virtually identical activities and sources, . I'm aware that a spouse and a son are not the same thing, but children stand to benefit from their parents' riches under both operation of law and as a practical matter too.

I think you answered your own question.

No I didn't, as I explained in the clause immediately following the text you bolded. There are a lot of differences between each of these cases- not just the exact nature of the family relationship but also who is paying the fees, whether/what percentage of the money goes to charitable causes, etc. But the fundamental principle- that the candidate is certain to see financial gain from the speaking fees- is the same. Thanks for your thoughtful response, though.

Sorry I didn't give my response a lot of time but your question was dumb and you already know the answer to it. Spouses in many cases share the same bank account. The money their spouse earns benefits them directly. But you already knew that.

 

[timschochet]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Im a regular in this thread and I've never understood it.

a charity that has Blumenthal on the payroll to dig up dirt

a charity that has Huma oi the payroll while she's working full time at state

Who else are we going to find is on the payroll?

The Clintons paid themselves handsomely out of the charity for one. If one were to dig I'm sure there would be a great deal of slush money rolling around to folks for political tasks.

Let's not forget most of those speaking fees went to the Clintons personally and not to the charity. A good example of this was the quid pro quo with UBS in which Bill took home 1.5 mil after Hillary intervened in their criminal case.

The bolded is complete conjecture. There is no evidence of ANY quid pro quos that took place while Hillary was Secretary of State.

 

[timschochet]

Tobias don't waste your time. None of these guys have been able to prove any connection whatsoever between Bill's earnings for speeches and Hillary's actions as Secretary of State. Nor have they been able to prove that Bill and Hillary used their foundation as a slush fund. Nor have they been able to prove that Blumenthal or Huma or anyone else received monies from the foundation for anything other than working for the foundation. Nor have they been able to prove that Hillary committed any wrongdoing with regard to the email server.

All of this is complete suggestiveness, wishful thinking, a "when there's smoke, there's gotta be fire!" mentality, and a strong desire to bring down Hillary Clinton. It won't work.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Im a regular in this thread and I've never understood it.

a charity that has Blumenthal on the payroll to dig up dirt

a charity that has Huma oi the payroll while she's working full time at state

Who else are we going to find is on the payroll?

The Clintons paid themselves handsomely out of the charity for one. If one were to dig I'm sure there would be a great deal of slush money rolling around to folks for political tasks.

Let's not forget most of those speaking fees went to the Clintons personally and not to the charity. A good example of this was the quid pro quo with UBS in which Bill took home 1.5 mil after Hillary intervened in their criminal case.

The bolded is complete conjecture. There is no evidence of ANY quid pro quos that took place while Hillary was Secretary of State.

There is also something called "pay to play". It's somewhat different but basically it means that persons or corporations (or here countries) give politicians benefits, ie money, property, things or services or even just entertainment, so that they have access and gain favorability generally. Now, down here, that kind of thing has been prosecuted. It's the difference between giving money in hand while receiving/giving something in the other. The persons involved do not have to say 'this for that' but they are in general paying into a system that provides them benefit. The only question then is if in it's within a regulated system (ie campaign finance) or outside it (ie personal gain).

 

[timschochet]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Im a regular in this thread and I've never understood it.

a charity that has Blumenthal on the payroll to dig up dirt

a charity that has Huma oi the payroll while she's working full time at state

Who else are we going to find is on the payroll?

The Clintons paid themselves handsomely out of the charity for one. If one were to dig I'm sure there would be a great deal of slush money rolling around to folks for political tasks.

Let's not forget most of those speaking fees went to the Clintons personally and not to the charity. A good example of this was the quid pro quo with UBS in which Bill took home 1.5 mil after Hillary intervened in their criminal case.

The bolded is complete conjecture. There is no evidence of ANY quid pro quos that took place while Hillary was Secretary of State.

There is also something called "pay to play". It's somewhat different but basically it means that persons or corporations (or here countries) give politicians money, property, things or services so that they have access and gain favorability generally. Now, down here, that kind of thing has been prosecuted. It's the difference between giving money in hand while receiving/giving something in the other. The persons involved do not have to say 'this for that' but they are in general paying into a system that provides them benefit. The only question then is if in its a regulated system (ie campaign finance) or outside it (ie personal gain).

Prove it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Im a regular in this thread and I've never understood it.

a charity that has Blumenthal on the payroll to dig up dirt

a charity that has Huma oi the payroll while she's working full time at state

Who else are we going to find is on the payroll?

The Clintons paid themselves handsomely out of the charity for one. If one were to dig I'm sure there would be a great deal of slush money rolling around to folks for political tasks.

Let's not forget most of those speaking fees went to the Clintons personally and not to the charity. A good example of this was the quid pro quo with UBS in which Bill took home 1.5 mil after Hillary intervened in their criminal case.

The bolded is complete conjecture. There is no evidence of ANY quid pro quos that took place while Hillary was Secretary of State.

There is also something called "pay to play". It's somewhat different but basically it means that persons or corporations (or here countries) give politicians money, property, things or services so that they have access and gain favorability generally. Now, down here, that kind of thing has been prosecuted. It's the difference between giving money in hand while receiving/giving something in the other. The persons involved do not have to say 'this for that' but they are in general paying into a system that provides them benefit. The only question then is if in its a regulated system (ie campaign finance) or outside it (ie personal gain).

Prove it.

Pfft, I'm just saying there should possibly be an investigation, authorities prove things like that, you and I can't.

 

[Hang 10]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Im a regular in this thread and I've never understood it.

a charity that has Blumenthal on the payroll to dig up dirt

a charity that has Huma oi the payroll while she's working full time at state

Who else are we going to find is on the payroll?

The Clintons paid themselves handsomely out of the charity for one. If one were to dig I'm sure there would be a great deal of slush money rolling around to folks for political tasks.

Let's not forget most of those speaking fees went to the Clintons personally and not to the charity. A good example of this was the quid pro quo with UBS in which Bill took home 1.5 mil after Hillary intervened in their criminal case.

The bolded is complete conjecture. There is no evidence of ANY quid pro quos that took place while Hillary was Secretary of State.

There is also something called "pay to play". It's somewhat different but basically it means that persons or corporations (or here countries) give politicians money, property, things or services so that they have access and gain favorability generally. Now, down here, that kind of thing has been prosecuted. It's the difference between giving money in hand while receiving/giving something in the other. The persons involved do not have to say 'this for that' but they are in general paying into a system that provides them benefit. The only question then is if in its a regulated system (ie campaign finance) or outside it (ie personal gain).

Prove it.

Pfft, I'm just saying there should possibly be an investigation, authorities prove things like that, you and I can't.

He knows that. There's enough examples of a clear conflict of interest that there should be an investigation. That's the only way to prove it one way or the other.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Im a regular in this thread and I've never understood it.

a charity that has Blumenthal on the payroll to dig up dirt

a charity that has Huma oi the payroll while she's working full time at state

Who else are we going to find is on the payroll?

The Clintons paid themselves handsomely out of the charity for one. If one were to dig I'm sure there would be a great deal of slush money rolling around to folks for political tasks.

Let's not forget most of those speaking fees went to the Clintons personally and not to the charity. A good example of this was the quid pro quo with UBS in which Bill took home 1.5 mil after Hillary intervened in their criminal case.

The bolded is complete conjecture. There is no evidence of ANY quid pro quos that took place while Hillary was Secretary of State.

No, it's not conjecture. The payment that Sand mentioned actually did take place. At that point, the presumption becomes that it's a quid pro quo, and it should be up to Hillary to demonstrate otherwise.

This is why we have conflict-of-interest procedures.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Im a regular in this thread and I've never understood it.

a charity that has Blumenthal on the payroll to dig up dirt

a charity that has Huma oi the payroll while she's working full time at state

Who else are we going to find is on the payroll?

The Clintons paid themselves handsomely out of the charity for one. If one were to dig I'm sure there would be a great deal of slush money rolling around to folks for political tasks.

Let's not forget most of those speaking fees went to the Clintons personally and not to the charity. A good example of this was the quid pro quo with UBS in which Bill took home 1.5 mil after Hillary intervened in their criminal case.

The bolded is complete conjecture. There is no evidence of ANY quid pro quos that took place while Hillary was Secretary of State.

No, it's not conjecture. The payment that Sand mentioned actually did take place. At that point, the presumption becomes that it's a quid pro quo, and it should be up to Hillary to demonstrate otherwise.

This is why we have conflict-of-interest procedures.

It's so sad but I really had to laugh hearing Hillary say how she could not even pretend to inform the American people whom she intends to rule govern what she thinks about Keystone because you know there might be litigation but meanwhile she can take money from UBS while they're being prosecuted or the banks backing Keystone and even speak before them and with them. What are they talking about, Swiss crullers and CFL football?

 

[TobiasFunke]

Tobias don't waste your time. None of these guys have been able to prove any connection whatsoever between Bill's earnings for speeches and Hillary's actions as Secretary of State. Nor have they been able to prove that Bill and Hillary used their foundation as a slush fund. Nor have they been able to prove that Blumenthal or Huma or anyone else received monies from the foundation for anything other than working for the foundation. Nor have they been able to prove that Hillary committed any wrongdoing with regard to the email server.

All of this is complete suggestiveness, wishful thinking, a "when there's smoke, there's gotta be fire!" mentality, and a strong desire to bring down Hillary Clinton. It won't work.

I'm no fan of Hillary. The email scandal troubles me quite a bit. I'd vote for Biden over her, and I'd even consider voting for a GOP candidate over her if the GOP hadn't spent the last several decades opposing my participation in democracy as a resident of the District of Columbia.

But yeah, this whole conflict of interest with speaking fees thing rings hollow. It's standard operating procedure for all ex-presidents. Chasing too many indirect connections down a rabbit hole and not even bothering to question whether other candidates present similar problems. It drowns out the legitimate concerns and creates a "boy who cried wolf" problem when it comes to Hilary; something that was already a problem for her opponents after Whitewater and Benghazi.

 

[TobiasFunke]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Im a regular in this thread and I've never understood it.

a charity that has Blumenthal on the payroll to dig up dirt

a charity that has Huma oi the payroll while she's working full time at state

Who else are we going to find is on the payroll?

The Clintons paid themselves handsomely out of the charity for one. If one were to dig I'm sure there would be a great deal of slush money rolling around to folks for political tasks.

Let's not forget most of those speaking fees went to the Clintons personally and not to the charity. A good example of this was the quid pro quo with UBS in which Bill took home 1.5 mil after Hillary intervened in their criminal case.

The bolded is complete conjecture. There is no evidence of ANY quid pro quos that took place while Hillary was Secretary of State.

No, it's not conjecture. The payment that Sand mentioned actually did take place. At that point, the presumption becomes that it's a quid pro quo, and it should be up to Hillary to demonstrate otherwise.

This is why we have conflict-of-interest procedures.

It's so sad but I really had to laugh hearing Hillary say how she could not even pretend to inform the American people whom she intends to rule govern what she thinks about Keystone because you know there might be litigation but meanwhile she can take money from UBS while they're being prosecuted or the banks backing Keystone and even speak before them and with them. What are they talking about, Swiss crullers and CFL football?

See, this is another example of too much noise drowning out legitimate concerns. The Keystone thing is nonsense (I have no problem with her current silence, she's in a very unusual position as the Sec of State during the bulk of the review of a still-undetermined application), and trying to argue that taking money from "banks backing Keystone" is some sort of hypocrisy is a ridiculous stretch. It's a bank. Banks back a lot of projects, and everybody takes money from them. Settle down.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Im a regular in this thread and I've never understood it.

a charity that has Blumenthal on the payroll to dig up dirt

a charity that has Huma oi the payroll while she's working full time at state

Who else are we going to find is on the payroll?

The Clintons paid themselves handsomely out of the charity for one. If one were to dig I'm sure there would be a great deal of slush money rolling around to folks for political tasks.

Let's not forget most of those speaking fees went to the Clintons personally and not to the charity. A good example of this was the quid pro quo with UBS in which Bill took home 1.5 mil after Hillary intervened in their criminal case.

The bolded is complete conjecture. There is no evidence of ANY quid pro quos that took place while Hillary was Secretary of State.

No, it's not conjecture. The payment that Sand mentioned actually did take place. At that point, the presumption becomes that it's a quid pro quo, and it should be up to Hillary to demonstrate otherwise.

This is why we have conflict-of-interest procedures.

It's so sad but I really had to laugh hearing Hillary say how she could not even pretend to inform the American people whom she intends to rule govern what she thinks about Keystone because you know there might be litigation but meanwhile she can take money from UBS while they're being prosecuted or the banks backing Keystone and even speak before them and with them. What are they talking about, Swiss crullers and CFL football?

See, this is another example of too much noise drowning out legitimate concerns. The Keystone thing is nonsense (I have no problem with her current silence, she's in a very unusual position as the Sec of State during the bulk of the review of a still-undetermined application), and trying to argue that taking money from "banks backing Keystone" is some sort of hypocrisy is a ridiculous stretch. It's a bank. Banks back a lot of projects, and everybody takes money from them. Settle down.

Ok that's fine, that's a value judgment. I don't think that officials and likely soon to be officials should be receiving money, actual personal payment, from companies with profit motives in their personal decisions. I think it's bad enough when it's campaign contributions, but personal payments with the fig leaf of a 20 minute speech, and amounting to numbers like millions? - No, personally, I don't like it. But if you personally feel ok about it I won't try to change your mind.

 

[Slapdash]

That "every" politician takes money from banks is a significant problem.

 

[saintfool]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Bill also got money directly. So there's that.

which, if I'm reading things correctly, indicates that he (and even Chelsea) put those fees into the charity too. not a SuperPAC but a charity?

No, Bill was giving speeches to people/countries/companies Hillary had business with at the state. He was paid directly and separately from donations to the Clinton foundation.

i'd like to understand this better but i'm having trouble finding information of this particular fact. now, i get where Bill would get paid by folks trying to ingratiate themselves and curry favor with Hillary who in turn might lean on *whoever* to make things happen for them. it's my understanding he just directed fees to the CGF though.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Bill also got money directly. So there's that.

which, if I'm reading things correctly, indicates that he (and even Chelsea) put those fees into the charity too. not a SuperPAC but a charity?

No, Bill was giving speeches to people/countries/companies Hillary had business with at the state. He was paid directly and separately from donations to the Clinton foundation.

i'd like to understand this better but i'm having trouble finding information of this particular fact. now, i get where Bill would get paid by folks trying to ingratiate themselves and curry favor with Hillary who in turn might lean on *whoever* to make things happen for them. it's my understanding he just directed fees to the CGF though.

One thing that happened is that one of the accounting adjustments that occurred (aside from the 5 years of returns which must be refiled because of heretofor undisclosed donors) is that the Foundation revealed they paid out something like $25 million in fees to Bill Clinton and his LLC. So Bill Clinton passed income to the Foundation and the Foundation passed income back to Clinton.

 

[TobiasFunke]

That "every" politician takes money from banks is a significant problem.

Sure, that's a reasonable position. But that's not a Hillary problem, it's a campaign finance problem.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That "every" politician takes money from banks is a significant problem.

Trying to be really super-neutral here, but there is a difference between a bank loaning a person money via a mortgage or a business, or say a bank loaning a candidate money for a campaign (happens), and a bank that gives a candidate or official money, actual cash, when they have pending policy decisions before them. The "everybody gets money bank" thing isn't really what's happening here.

The Keystone backing banks lets face it have untold million at stake and they hire Hillary to speak for what 30 minutes and she then speaks privately with them, and altogether they pay her well over a million for that, at least.

And UBS and other Swiss banks, and btw their clients who might be exposed, pay the Clintons and their Foundation millions and they may have hundreds of millions at stake and a criminal prosecution at issue to boot.

Sorry, this isn't like they just got a loan for Hyundai.

eta - the distinction between campaign finance (eg Sen. Menendez) doesn't help either because someone can be prosecuted for doing official favors for legal campaign contributions all the same, but what really gets me is that some people really don't expect politicians to even comply with the legal framework, to the extent it exists; instead the argument is that politicians and officials should just avoid the whole system and are free to receive cash, as much as they want, from anyone.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That "every" politician takes money from banks is a significant problem.

Sure, that's a reasonable position. But that's not a Hillary problem, it's a campaign finance problem.

I remember Edward Edwards' defense in the DeBartolo prosecution that there was nothing criminal about receiving cash or walking around with money. He had a point, he still went to jail.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

But yeah, this whole conflict of interest with speaking fees thing rings hollow. It's standard operating procedure for all ex-presidents.

I get that it's routine for ex-Presidents. But Bill Clinton isn't like other ex-Presidents. His spouse is in a position to act on policies that directly affect the people who are paying him. That is, in fact, a conflict of interest. Like I said either earlier in this thread or one of the other threads on this, it's not a nuanced or intellectually interesting example of a conflict of interest -- it's a boring, clear-cut, obvious as the day is long conflict of interest.

First ladies have a lots of speaking engagements too. Does Michelle Obama get paid by groups who would be affected by the actions of her husband's administration? Did Laura Bush? If the answer is yes, then I'll concede that that gives Hilary a little breathing room on this one, although it's still a pretty sketchy practice. If the answer is no, then how come it's so hard to the Clintons to live by the same standards as everybody else?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

That "every" politician takes money from banks is a significant problem.

Sure, that's a reasonable position. But that's not a Hillary problem, it's a campaign finance problem.

This isn't even a campaign finance issue. It's not that Hillary was building a political war chest through Bill's speaking engagements. It's that she was enriching herself, personally.

 

[DocHolliday]

But yeah, this whole conflict of interest with speaking fees thing rings hollow. It's standard operating procedure for all ex-presidents.

I get that it's routine for ex-Presidents. But Bill Clinton isn't like other ex-Presidents. His spouse is in a position to act on policies that directly affect the people who are paying him. That is, in fact, a conflict of interest. Like I said either earlier in this thread or one of the other threads on this, it's not a nuanced or intellectually interesting example of a conflict of interest -- it's a boring, clear-cut, obvious as the day is long conflict of interest.

First ladies have a lots of speaking engagements too. Does Michelle Obama get paid by groups who would be affected by the actions of her husband's administration? Did Laura Bush? If the answer is yes, then I'll concede that that gives Hilary a little breathing room on this one, although it's still a pretty sketchy practice. If the answer is no, then how come it's so hard to the Clintons to live by the same standards as everybody else?

Didn't Obama discuss the possibility of conflicts of interest with Hillary when she became SOS?

 

[DocHolliday]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Bill also got money directly. So there's that.

which, if I'm reading things correctly, indicates that he (and even Chelsea) put those fees into the charity too. not a SuperPAC but a charity?

No, Bill was giving speeches to people/countries/companies Hillary had business with at the state. He was paid directly and separately from donations to the Clinton foundation.

Hillary supporters simply do not want to process this fact.

 

[Slapdash]

That "every" politician takes money from banks is a significant problem.

Sure, that's a reasonable position. But that's not a Hillary problem, it's a campaign finance problem.

It is a problem for Hillary relative to Bernie.

 

[saintfool]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Bill also got money directly. So there's that.

which, if I'm reading things correctly, indicates that he (and even Chelsea) put those fees into the charity too. not a SuperPAC but a charity?

No, Bill was giving speeches to people/countries/companies Hillary had business with at the state. He was paid directly and separately from donations to the Clinton foundation.

i'd like to understand this better but i'm having trouble finding information of this particular fact. now, i get where Bill would get paid by folks trying to ingratiate themselves and curry favor with Hillary who in turn might lean on *whoever* to make things happen for them. it's my understanding he just directed fees to the CGF though.

One thing that happened is that one of the accounting adjustments that occurred (aside from the 5 years of returns which must be refiled because of heretofor undisclosed donors) is that the Foundation revealed they paid out something like $25 million in fees to Bill Clinton and his LLC. So Bill Clinton passed income to the Foundation and the Foundation passed income back to Clinton.

there are a couple of things in the mix here which are quite distinct for me. i'm not finding anything where Bill is getting directly paid by the foundation. he's not even receiving a "salary". i don't have a problem with them hoarding cash for the foundation. if the plan is for the charity to exist long after they die (which given their ages could happen soon-ish) then they should be in total collection mode. they'll get too old to earn those kinds of fees and the money will dry up.

now, the part where entities are trying to curry favor by giving to the foundation is quite simply gross. even if nothing happens, it does smack of impropriety and raises eyebrows. they should be smarter and more self aware.

i lived in NYC when Hillary was senator. i don't recall it being a den of shadows under her watch. i guess i sort of think that is kind of illustrative of my expectations for her presidency.

 

[Sand]

i'm not a regular in this thread but i just want to understand something a little better. regarding the Clinton speeches, the fact that the money went to their charity points to their ruthlessness? millions of dollars in speaking fees directed towards a charity that fights childhood obesity, climate change and promoting women's issues makes them truly awful?

Im a regular in this thread and I've never understood it.

a charity that has Blumenthal on the payroll to dig up dirt

a charity that has Huma oi the payroll while she's working full time at state

Who else are we going to find is on the payroll?

The Clintons paid themselves handsomely out of the charity for one. If one were to dig I'm sure there would be a great deal of slush money rolling around to folks for political tasks.Let's not forget most of those speaking fees went to the Clintons personally and not to the charity. A good example of this was the quid pro quo with UBS in which Bill took home 1.5 mil after Hillary intervened in their criminal case.

The bolded is complete conjecture. There is no evidence of ANY quid pro quos that took place while Hillary was Secretary of State.

I'm sure the timing of the huge increase in donations to the Foundation and the 1.5 M in Bill's pocket right after Hillary took the very unusual setup of intervening in the UBS investigation were just coincidental.

Even if her $1000/hr lawyer could likely spring her from a direct quid pro quo charge here the facts and timing are right there for anyone to see. And when you're running for president it is about both impropriety and appearance of impropriety.

This reeks.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I'm sure the timing of the huge increase in donations to the Foundation and the 1.5 M in Bill's pocket right after Hillary took the very unusual setup of intervening in the UBS investigation were just coincidental.Even if her $1000/hr lawyer could likely spring her from a direct quid pro quo charge here the facts and timing are right there for anyone to see. And when you're running for president it is about both impropriety and appearance of impropriety.

This reeks.

I googled this because I'm not all that familiar with it and was unable to find any actual evidence of Clinton intervening in the Justice Department/IRS investigation. Is there any evidence? It appears that all the claims of intervention are based on a WSJ story asserting that she did so, but I can't find any details on the nature of this intervention. Is there any evidence that Clinton spoke with Justice or the IRS during the negotiatons? Or even that the settlement was particularly lenient on UBS as compared with similar matters? There may well be evidence of both of these things that I just couldn't find in a 5 minute googling- like I said, I'm not really familiar with it.

ETA: I don't like what I've read about it. I'm not trying to defend the payment or say that it's not worthy of suspicion. Just trying to separate fact from opinion and sort out what the WSJ means when it says she "intervened."

 

[[icon]]

News outlets now reporting that Hillary uploaded 23 gigabytes of top-secret government documents to her personal Dropbox Pro account starting in 2010, citing the convenience of "having all her files in one place". She reportedly went on to state that she "Doesn't see the problem, because she used a password with more than 8 digits that featured both a number AND an symbol".

 

[jon_mx]

A normal federal employee would be fired and face jail time with the conflicts of these financial relationships and job responsibilities. A direct relationship does not have to be proven.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good. Point.

 

[avoiding injuries]

She reportedly went on to state that she "Doesn't see the problem, because she used a password with more than 8 digits that featured both a number AND an symbol".

God, she's so stupid.

 

[rockaction]

She reportedly went on to state that she "Doesn't see the problem, because she used a password with more than 8 digits that featured both a number AND an symbol".

God, she's so stupid.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

She reportedly went on to state that she "Doesn't see the problem, because she used a password with more than 8 digits that featured both a number AND an symbol".

God, she's so stupid.

Oh my.

 

[saintfool]

A normal federal employee would be fired and face jail time with the conflicts of these financial relationships and job responsibilities. A direct relationship does not have to be proven.

i read somewhere that during her time as SOS, the internal ethics review board at the SD was consulted for some of these. if their own ethics panel gave her the green light for some or all then i'm not sure that your statement is true.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm sure the timing of the huge increase in donations to the Foundation and the 1.5 M in Bill's pocket right after Hillary took the very unusual setup of intervening in the UBS investigation were just coincidental.Even if her $1000/hr lawyer could likely spring her from a direct quid pro quo charge here the facts and timing are right there for anyone to see. And when you're running for president it is about both impropriety and appearance of impropriety.

This reeks.

I googled this because I'm not all that familiar with it and was unable to find any actual evidence of Clinton intervening in the Justice Department/IRS investigation. Is there any evidence? It appears that all the claims of intervention are based on a WSJ story asserting that she did so, but I can't find any details on the nature of this intervention. Is there any evidence that Clinton spoke with Justice or the IRS during the negotiatons? Or even that the settlement was particularly lenient on UBS as compared with similar matters? There may well be evidence of both of these things that I just couldn't find in a 5 minute googling- like I said, I'm not really familiar with it.

ETA: I don't like what I've read about it. I'm not trying to defend the payment or say that it's not worthy of suspicion. Just trying to separate fact from opinion and sort out what the WSJ means when it says she "intervened."

A few things going on with UBS & Switzerland which people may not realized.

- Teneo is a private investment firm, among its clients was UBS. Teneo paid Bill Clinton a salary and some more money went to his LLC, we don't know how much. Meanwhile Huma Abedin also worked for State, the Foundation and Teneo. The director of Teneo is Doug Band, Bill Clinton's former WH aide. Not like an advisor aide, like an aide who calls the limo and brings in coffee kind of aide.

- The Clinton Health Access Initiative also received a donation from Switzerland, the country, which was not reported and not reviewed by State.

- Clinton Foundation received ~$81 million from the clients of one Swiss bank, HSBC.

- The CF was in partnership with at least 6 such banks under investigation.

On the nature of the "intervention" for UBS ( I had the same question actually) here is The Atlantic:

Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the ClintonsThe Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

As McClatchy noted last month in a more broadly focused article that also mentions UBS, “Ten of the world’s biggest financial institutions––including UBS, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs––have hired Bill Clinton numerous times since 2004 to speak for fees totaling more than $6.4 million. Hillary Clinton also has accepted speaking fees from at least one bank. And along with an 11th bank, the French giant BNP Paribas, the financial goliaths also donated as much as $24.9 million to the Clinton Foundation––the family’s global charity set up to tackle causes from the AIDS epidemic in Africa to climate change.”

So it's apparently not stated what the "intervention" was exactly but it sounds like out of nowhere State stepped into an investigation that they had no role in and arranged a settlement with far less penalty, almost minimal, than what would have been due. That would probably take a FOIA request to delve into, presuming of course that Hillary actually saved her own emails and those of her aides on the subject.

Then the Clintons got $1.5 million, the CF donations went up ten times in one year, and the CF got a $32 million loan.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A normal federal employee would be fired and face jail time with the conflicts of these financial relationships and job responsibilities. A direct relationship does not have to be proven.

i read somewhere that during her time as SOS, the internal ethics review board at the SD was consulted for some of these. if their own ethics panel gave her the green light for some or all then i'm not sure that your statement is true.

Actually one of the issues that has come up is that many payments were not reported. The donation from the Swiss government noted above is one of them. One branch of the CF had somewhere around 1100 donations that were entirely unreported. Other donors, like the Giustra group in Canada, itself received donations which were then passed through to the CF and these also were not reported because you know, different entity. In other cases the details of the donor or payor were reported only after the fact. - Also I don't think it was exactly a board, though I could be wrong on that.

 

[MaxThreshold]

She reportedly went on to state that she "Doesn't see the problem, because she used a password with more than 8 digits that featured both a number AND an symbol".

God, she's so stupid.

I bet I can guess: Clinton@16

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm sure the timing of the huge increase in donations to the Foundation and the 1.5 M in Bill's pocket right after Hillary took the very unusual setup of intervening in the UBS investigation were just coincidental.Even if her $1000/hr lawyer could likely spring her from a direct quid pro quo charge here the facts and timing are right there for anyone to see. And when you're running for president it is about both impropriety and appearance of impropriety.

This reeks.

I googled this because I'm not all that familiar with it and was unable to find any actual evidence of Clinton intervening in the Justice Department/IRS investigation. Is there any evidence? It appears that all the claims of intervention are based on a WSJ story asserting that she did so, but I can't find any details on the nature of this intervention. Is there any evidence that Clinton spoke with Justice or the IRS during the negotiatons? Or even that the settlement was particularly lenient on UBS as compared with similar matters? There may well be evidence of both of these things that I just couldn't find in a 5 minute googling- like I said, I'm not really familiar with it.

ETA: I don't like what I've read about it. I'm not trying to defend the payment or say that it's not worthy of suspicion. Just trying to separate fact from opinion and sort out what the WSJ means when it says she "intervened."

Not directed at you, just commenting on this particular topic. I literally don't understand why the conflict of interest created by Bill's speaking engagements hasn't been a bigger issue. When I say that, I don't mean it as a figure of speech. I truly think that I might be overlooking something obvious that would explain why nobody's really running with with this story.

For example, the whole Benghazi thing was mostly stupid. The administration made a mistake in blaming that attack on a youtube video, but I do think the overwhelming majority of the criticism directed at Hillary was misplaced and obviously partisan. And she's been victimized by other ridiculous accusations in the past (e.g. Vince Foster) that fall into the "Obama is a secret Muslim" bucket of craziness. But it seems obvious to me that there is a problem with having Spouse A get paid by a company/government/whoever that is in a position to receive assistance from Spouse B. I have to disclose this kind of thing every year in my job, and I'm a nobody. How was this not an issue for the Clintons earlier?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

An aide who had been with the Clintons since the 1990s, Justin Cooper, registered the domain name, clintonemail.com, which had a server linked to the Clintons’ home address in Chappaqua, N.Y. Obtaining an account from that domain became a symbol of status within the family’s inner circle, conferring prestige and closeness to the secretary.

...In earlier years, Mrs. Clinton’s account at clintonemail.com was connected to a server registered to the Clintons’ Chappaqua home in the name of Eric P. Hothem. Mr. Hothem, a former aide to the Clintons, now works in finance in Washington, according to regulatory disclosure documents.

Mr. Hothem, whose name was misspelled in Internet records, did not return a message left on Wednesday with an assistant at his office. Mr. Cooper, whose name is on the clintonemail.com domain registration, now works at Teneo Holdings, a corporate advisory firm with a broad array of global business clients partly run by Douglas J. Band, a former adviser to Bill Clinton.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/politics/membership-in-clintons-email-domain-is-remembered-as-a-mark-of-status.html

In 2008, responsibility for the system was held by Justin Cooper, a longtime aide to the former president who served as a personal assistant and helped research at least two of his books. Cooper had no security clearance and no particular expertise in safeguarding computers, according to three people briefed on the server setup. Cooper declined to comment.

Hothem works at JP Morgan as a bondbroker now. Cooper works at Teneo, Band-Clinton investment firm.

So the entirety of our Secretary of State's email server setup was registered to and managed by two persons in private financial banking and finance.

 

[cstu]

Not directed at you, just commenting on this particular topic. I literally don't understand why the conflict of interest created by Bill's speaking engagements hasn't been a bigger issue. When I say that, I don't mean it as a figure of speech. I truly think that I might be overlooking something obvious that would explain why nobody's really running with with this story.

Bill has the right to give speeches while his wife is SOS and no one has proven that she did anything corrupt.

 

[squidrope]

Tobias don't waste your time. None of these guys have been able to prove any connection whatsoever between Bill's earnings for speeches and Hillary's actions as Secretary of State. Nor have they been able to prove that Bill and Hillary used their foundation as a slush fund. Nor have they been able to prove that Blumenthal or Huma or anyone else received monies from the foundation for anything other than working for the foundation. Nor have they been able to prove that Hillary committed any wrongdoing with regard to the email server.

All of this is complete suggestiveness, wishful thinking, a "when there's smoke, there's gotta be fire!" mentality, and a strong desire to bring down Hillary Clinton. It won't work.

LOL

Keep fighting the good fight timmay!

You've really got me doubting that anything less than wholesome is going on here.

She's as dirty as they come yet you'll still vote for her because she has a D next to her name.

Shame on you.

 

[Mister CIA]

Not directed at you, just commenting on this particular topic. I literally don't understand why the conflict of interest created by Bill's speaking engagements hasn't been a bigger issue. When I say that, I don't mean it as a figure of speech. I truly think that I might be overlooking something obvious that would explain why nobody's really running with with this story.

Bill has the right to give speeches while his wife is SOS and no one has proven that she did anything corrupt.

Correct on both accounts, but neither has anything to do with blatant conflict of interest. It's there plain as day.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So considering the latest news from WaPo that the FBI has been looking at the "setup" of Hillary's email rig (ie not just the security of the "system"), what exactly did the NYT get wrong again? It looks like the first report was exactly right.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I googled this because I'm not all that familiar with it and was unable to find any actual evidence of Clinton intervening in the Justice Department/IRS investigation. Is there any evidence? It appears that all the claims of intervention are based on a WSJ story asserting that she did so, but I can't find any details on the nature of this intervention. Is there any evidence that Clinton spoke with Justice or the IRS during the negotiatons? Or even that the settlement was particularly lenient on UBS as compared with similar matters? There may well be evidence of both of these things that I just couldn't find in a 5 minute googling- like I said, I'm not really familiar with it.

ETA: I don't like what I've read about it. I'm not trying to defend the payment or say that it's not worthy of suspicion. Just trying to separate fact from opinion and sort out what the WSJ means when it says she "intervened."

A few things going on with UBS & Switzerland which people may not realized.

- Teneo is a private investment firm, among its clients was UBS. Teneo paid Bill Clinton a salary and some more money went to his LLC, we don't know how much. Meanwhile Huma Abedin also worked for State, the Foundation and Teneo. The director of Teneo is Doug Band, Bill Clinton's former WH aide. Not like an advisor aide, like an aide who calls the limo and brings in coffee kind of aide.

- The Clinton Health Access Initiative also received a donation from Switzerland, the country, which was not reported and not reviewed by State.

- Clinton Foundation received ~$81 million from the clients of one Swiss bank, HSBC.

- The CF was in partnership with at least 6 such banks under investigation.

On the nature of the "intervention" for UBS ( I had the same question actually) here is The Atlantic:

Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the ClintonsThe Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

As McClatchy noted last month in a more broadly focused article that also mentions UBS, “Ten of the world’s biggest financial institutions––including UBS, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs––have hired Bill Clinton numerous times since 2004 to speak for fees totaling more than $6.4 million. Hillary Clinton also has accepted speaking fees from at least one bank. And along with an 11th bank, the French giant BNP Paribas, the financial goliaths also donated as much as $24.9 million to the Clinton Foundation––the family’s global charity set up to tackle causes from the AIDS epidemic in Africa to climate change.”

So it's apparently not stated what the "intervention" was exactly but it sounds like out of nowhere State stepped into an investigation that they had no role in and arranged a settlement with far less penalty, almost minimal, than what would have been due. That would probably take a FOIA request to delve into, presuming of course that Hillary actually saved her own emails and those of her aides on the subject.

Then the Clintons got $1.5 million, the CF donations went up ten times in one year, and the CF got a $32 million loan.

Why does it sound like that? I don't see that anywhere in your quotes. That's what I want to know- how did she intervene? And was the settlement that far out of whack with other settlements? Obviously it was less than DOJ sought- that's how every settlement works.

And sure, as Ivan says, even allowing for the appearance of impropriety is sloppy and worthy of condemnation, same as the private email stuff. I don't like any of it. I'm not a fan and as I've said before I wish I wasn't being forced to vote for her by the behavior of the GOP of late.

But there is a huge difference between being sloppy in such a way that allows for the appearance of impropriety and actual impropriety. And you shouldn't need a FOIA request to explain the nature of an intervention if the WSJ already characterized it as such. They should have a basis for saying that before they say it. Otherwise the characterization starts to look like yet another case of the media taking unfounded shots at Clinton ... something that's not limited to the Murdoch empire and right-wing bloggers, as we saw last week with the NYT's sloppy work and halfhearted correction on the DOJ investigation last week.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tobias the best I can see where State's role comes in was in the Senate testimony by the UBS rep:

Mr. Chairman, the John Doe summons is fundamentally a dispute between the IRS and the Swiss Government. UBS believes this dispute should be resolved through diplomatic discussions between the two governments, and we will continue to support actively such discussions. But we respectfully submit that the IRS is attempting to resolve this diplomatic dispute in a courtroom, which is neither productive nor proper.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111shrg49492/html/CHRG-111shrg49492.htm

My guess is this is where the Swiss government and UBS asked Hillary to step in. As you can see in the hearing testimony Senators did not agree with that.

That hearing was March 4, 2009. As reported by the WSJ and others Hillary met with the Swiss foreign minister on March 6, 2009. On July 31, 2009 Hillary and the Swiss FM jointly issued a statement on the settlement.

Clearly Hillary became involved in an arena where the Senators did not think necessary as they believed it to be an issue solely for the US courts. Hopefully that helps. Looking at that hearing transcript what it looks like is that Hillary took the side of UBS and the Swiss and went against Levin and the other Senators pressing the case. Let's also keep in mind that besides the money received by the Clintons and the Foundation from UBS itself, the CF has received tens of millions from persons holding accounts with investigated Swiss banks so not only was there a conflict as to UBS but also as to many donors, several among the CF's largest, directly giving to the CF.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The NYTimes is terse and succinct in its reporting of the WaPo story:

Lawyer: Gov't Investigating Device Storage of Clinton EmailsFederal investigators have begun looking into the security of devices on which Hillary Rodham Clinton's private email was stored when she was secretary of state, Clinton's attorney confirmed Wednesday.

"We are actively cooperating" with the investigation, attorney David Kendall said in a statement.

The inspector general of the U.S. intelligence community alerted the FBI last month to concerns that classified information was included in emails that went through Clinton's personal home server. The referral to the Justice Department did not seek a criminal probe and did not specifically target Clinton.

"Quite predictably, after the ICIG made a referral to ensure that materials remain properly stored, the government is seeking assurance about the storage of those materials," Kendall said in his statement.

The Washington Post, which first reported the FBI's involvement, said that the FBI has asked Kendall about the security of a thumb drive containing copies of Clinton's work emails sent during her tenure as secretary of state, which is in his possession. The Post cited two anonymous government officials, who said that the FBI was not targeting Clinton.

Clinton's emails have been under scrutiny since The Associated Press revealed in March that she used a private "homebrew" server traced to her Chappaqua, New York, home while she was the top U.S. diplomat. Government and congressional investigators have been trying to determine whether she sent or received classified information on unsecured email.

Last month, the inspector general of the intelligence community, I. Charles McCullough III, revealed that he had found four emails containing classified information while reviewing a limited sample of 40 of the tens of thousands of emails provided by Clinton. Those four messages were not marked as classified but should have been handled as such because they contained classified information at the time they were sent, the inspector general said.

"This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system," according to a joint statement from the inspectors general for the intelligence community and State Department.

McCullough has also expressed concerns about the security of the thumb drive in Kendall's possession, and has sought copies of the 30,000 emails in State Department possession so that it can make sure that enough controls are in place to protect national security information.

Clinton has maintained that she never sent classified information on her personal email account, which she said in March she used as a matter of convenience to limit her number of electronic devices. She has also repeatedly defended her email usage, saying her private server had "numerous safeguards" and placing responsibility for releasing the documents on the State Department.

A spokesman for Clinton's presidential campaign tweeted Tuesday that news of the FBI's interest in the email set-up "doesn't change anything ... IG sent ask to DOJ to confirm emails are secure."

"IG request was noncriminal & didnt accuse Clinton of wrongdoing," spokesman Brian Fallon tweeted. "FBI is 'not targeting her.'"

An FBI spokesman contacted Tuesday night by The Associated Press declined to comment.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner was asked last week whether the department would be "open" to having the FBI examine the thumb drive.

"We've made sure that the documents at her lawyers' are in a secure setting, but I'm not going to speak to what the FBI should or shouldn't do," Toner responded.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/08/04/us/politics/ap-us-clinton-emails-fbi.html?_r=0

How is this in any way different from the first NYT report?

They were told to pull back on two things: 1. the description of the referral as "criminal"; and 2. the phrase "Hillary's use" was changed to "in connection with".

Now the FBI is not the Geek Squad, they don't set up your Wifi or make sure your Norton settings are good. The FBI investigates possible criminal wrongdoing. The initial NYT story didn't say Hillary was a target either.

Nothing has changed.

What should happen if in the course of its investigation - in which they speak to the campaign aide / Teneo consultant who set up Hillary's server, and who we know did not have clearance and had no tech security knowledge, in speaking to the IT guy who handled the setup apparently insufficiently, the Denver vendor who was asked to handle the backup and the exchange, to Hillary's lawyer whom we know did not meet security or clearance standards - when these people are asked who instructed them to handle the data in this particular way? Are these people going to lie to the FBI? No, everything they did, every single thing, was done at the behest of Hillarys instructions.

And we know that mishandling classified information on an unauthorized server, drive or location is illegal and definitely a fireable or punishable offense in the executive branch.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Today State informed one of the FOIA courts that State on July 31st (for the first time and only following a court order) instructed Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, through their lawyers, to return all copies of public records, including in electronic/native form, to State. They are not permitted to retain copies but must go to State if they want to review their documents.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/08-06-15-JW-v-State-Hillary-Huma-Mills-letters-013631.pdf

No word yet on State's instruction to Hillary, that response is due by tomorrow.