What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich Conway said:
Exactly.  I posted the list of the last twenty or so candidates in this thread, and Hillary clearly fell in the bottom half.  And really, I think we can summarily ignore anyone who claims Hillary has a better resume than GHWB had.
Click to expand...
Very few have federal legislative and executive experience.  Very few have foreign policy experience.  She may not have the longevity of service in Congress, but she's definitely  very well qualified and it's arguable who has the better resume between her and anyone else in the last 50 years.    

 
Sinn Fein said:
Good thing she is not measured by the lives lost/displaced/disrupted by her policies, huh?

I am trying to think if there is anyone, short of Muhammad, who has made a bigger mess of the Middle East.
Click to expand...
It's not like she's the one that created a Zionist state.  Nor did she remove Saddam from power.

ETA - also, those were the choices of the President.  She may make recommendations, but the buck stops with Obama.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713 said:
Very few have federal legislative and executive experience.  Very few have foreign policy experience.  She may not have the longevity of service in Congress, but she's definitely  very well qualified and it's arguable who has the better resume between her and anyone else in the last 50 years.    
Click to expand...
Bernie Madoff likely has a great resume too.

 
I hired a manager back in February that had an awesome resume and interviewed very well.

In May I had to fire her. It was either that or lose half our staff who were going to quit because they couldn't stand working for her. She was also insubordinate to our requests, going so far as saying "this is how I do it, it works for me. I'm not changing that." 

I am so thankful that nightmare is behind us. 

 
Politician Spock said:
I hired a manager back in February that had an awesome resume and interviewed very well.

In May I had to fire her. It was either that or lose half our staff who were going to quit because they couldn't stand working for her. She was also insubordinate to our requests, going so far as saying "this is how I do it, it works for me. I'm not changing that." 

I am so thankful that nightmare is behind us. 
Click to expand...
Keep us posted.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Good thing she is not measured by the lives lost/displaced/disrupted by her policies, huh?

I am trying to think if there is anyone, short of Muhammad, who has made a bigger mess of the Middle East.
Click to expand...
People who have made a mess of the middle east:

1. Muhammad
2. Genghis Khan
3. Mongke Khan
4. Ogedei Khan
5. Like, a dozen other guys named "Khan". Seriously, they were bad dudes.
50. George Bush
51. Hillary Clinton

 
dparker713 said:
It's not like she's the one that created a Zionist state.  Nor did she remove Saddam from power.

ETA - also, those were the choices of the President.  She may make recommendations, but the buck stops with Obama.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

The delusion of Clintonites knows no bounds.  If anything right happens in the world - its because of Clinton.  If she ####s up - meh, that stuff is not her fault.

 
Sinn Fein said:
:lmao:

The delusion of Clintonites knows no bounds.  If anything right happens in the world - its because of Clinton.  If she ####s up - meh, that stuff is not her fault.
Click to expand...
What's funny about this post is that it's the exact opposite of the truth. If anything, it's the Clinton haters who blame her for everything that goes wrong and give her no credit whatsoever. 

Your last post is evidence of this. In a few short sentences you blamed Hillary Clinton for everything that has gone wrong in the Middle East, which only displays your dislike of her, rather than your level of expertise on the subject matter. 

 
timschochet said:
What's funny about this post is that it's the exact opposite of the truth. If anything, it's the Clinton haters who blame her for everything that goes wrong and give her no credit whatsoever. 

Your last post is evidence of this. In a few short sentences you blamed Hillary Clinton for everything that has gone wrong in the Middle East, which only displays your dislike of her, rather than your level of expertise on the subject matter. 
Click to expand...
The fact you use the term "Clinton hater" indicates you're a Clinton sycophant. All anyone ever asks is that people be realistic and recognize truths and facts.

Why anyone loves or hates any politician I have no idea. IMO they are all equally replaceable and not particularly special. They are public servants, emphasis on the servant.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Comey established no such thing. Hillary's last job is measured by the relations between the US and the world during her tenure, not by how her emails were handled. 

And your other statement is just completely wrong as well. 
Click to expand...
He said that she could not recognize classified information marked or unmarked. That's pretty much incompetence for a SOS.

 
In email probe, echoes of another time prosecutors weighed charging Hillary Clinton with a crime


Over the course of 16 hours, prosecutors and FBI agents agonized over whether to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime. In the end, after weighing every ounce of evidence, examining piles of documents and gaming out whether a jury would ever convict her, the group made its wrenching decision: no charges.

Nearly 20 years before FBI Director James B. Comey declared that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a criminal case against Clinton over her use of a private email server while secretary of state, Clinton narrowly escaped a similar legal peril amid the Whitewater investigation that engulfed much of her husband’s time as president.

While history remembers the 1990s probe led by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr for its pursuit of President Bill Clinton over the possibility he had lied under oath about his relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky, internal documents from the inquiry show how close prosecutors came to filing charges at that time against Hillary Clinton. They even drew up a draft indictment for Clinton, which has never been made public.

As in the email controversy of today, Clinton’s honesty was a central question facing investigators in 1998 as they weighed whether what they saw as shifting stories from Clinton amounted to an attempt to cover up misconduct. Like the events of today, Clinton was interviewed for hours by authorities. Unlike the email inquiry, in which Comey said Clinton’s status as a presidential candidate had no effect on the decision not to charge her, documents from the 1990s show how prosecutors weighed whether Clinton’s political popularity would make her more difficult to convict.

At issue then was legal work Clinton had performed in the 1980s while an attorney at Little Rock’s Rose Law Firm on behalf of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, which was owned by a business partner of the Clintons who was later convicted of fraud in connection with bad loans made by the thrift. Clinton said that her legal work was minimal and that she was unaware of the wrongdoing at Madison Guaranty.

...

The records of prosecutors’ 1998 deliberations were obtained by The Washington Post from the National Archives through a Freedom of Information Act request. The Archives declined to release copies of the draft indictment to The Post, saying that access to the document is “restricted.” Judicial Watch, a conservative advocacy group, has sued the Archives, seeking release of the indictment draft.

The released records include a memo, written by Starr’s team, summarizing the evidence against Clinton. The prosecutors noted that she made numerous sworn statements between January 1994 and February 1996 that they thought “reflected and embodied materially inaccurate stories.”

“The question, generally, is not whether the statements are inaccurate, but whether they are willfully so,” the prosecutors continued.

The records show the prosecutors had doubts about whether potential jurors would be swayed by a largely circumstantial case, particularly given Clinton’s stature as first lady.

Prosecutor Paul Rosenzweig laid out the odds for various outcomes in a memo to colleagues. He predicted a 2 percent chance that a judge would toss the case, then continued: “18 percent = Acquittal; 70 percent = Hung Jury; 10 percent = Conviction.”

...

In an interview, Rosenzweig said he had reflected on that 18-year-old decision while listening to Comey’s remarks last week. He said Comey’s decision was “very reminiscent” of the challenge that faced the Office of Independent Counsel team.

Rosenzweig said he had concluded in 1998 that seating a jury untainted by political bias was going to be so difficult as to make the chances for a conviction too low to proceed ethically with the case.

“This case was, for me, decided on factors external to guilt or innocence,” he said. “I think this case would have had a great chance of a sustained conviction if presented to 12 random people, about someone other than Mrs. Clinton. But that’s an impossible hypothetical.”

...

The drama of the 1998 decision was laid out in the 2010 book “The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr,” a definitive account of the Clinton impeachment saga by law professor Ken Gormley, who interviewed nearly all of the key players. Hillary Clinton did not speak with him.

Gormley wrote that prosecutors and FBI agents met to consider the matter at 8 a.m. on Monday, April 27, 1998, in a session that lasted until nearly midnight. The prosecutor who had led a four-year investigation of Hillary Clinton’s activities with the Rose Law Firm spent hours laying out for his colleagues the case that she had had more involvement in work that had facilitated illicit activity for Madison Guaranty and a troubled real estate project called Castle Grande than she had acknowledged.

Prosecutors discussed one of the more dramatic moments of the Whitewater era: the unexpected discovery of billing records from Clinton’s time as an attorney in a storage room on the third floor of the White House residence .

The records had been missing for two years, and White House aides had said they could not be located, even after an exhaustive search, in response to a subpoena.

The records had been found in 1996 by Hillary Clinton’s executive assistant, on a table in a room adjacent to Clinton’s office. Clinton had told Barbara Walters in a televised interview that she was glad the records had surfaced, and she chalked their disappearance up to a White House crammed with millions of pages of disorganized documents. “You know, a month ago, people were jumping up and down because the billing records were lost and they thought somebody might have destroyed them. Now the records are found, and they’re jumping up and down,” Clinton said.

Starr’s team suspected that Clinton might have orchestrated the mysterious reappearance of the documents.

“There is a circumstantial case that the records were left on the table by Hillary Clinton,” the prosecutors wrote. The memo described how the lawyers had interviewed everyone else with access to the room where the records were found, then concluded: “She is the only individual in the White House who had a significant interest in them.”

...

In her 2003 memoir “Living History,” Clinton rejected the allegation that she had tried to hide the records. She wrote that she thought the documents had been lost until her assistant found them. “I certainly had no reason to conceal them and regretted that they had not been found earlier,” Clinton wrote.

Starr’s team also considered how Clinton probably would have had numerous advantages if a trial took place, as expected, in Arkansas or Washington, where jurors were likely to be supportive of the first lady.

...
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-email-probe-echoes-of-another-time-prosecutors-weighed-charging-hillary-clinton-with-a-crime/2016/07/09/5bbeb7c8-4498-11e6-88d0-6adee48be8bc_story.html

- Hillary has continually done DUMB stuff, if not criminal.

- Normal humans do not play by these rules. Try not paying your income taxes and then tell the IRS when they come after you that you never intended to not pay them. Tell us how that goes.

- Representing a bank before a board of her husband's appointees in an attempt to garner approval of an illegal loan to itself was DUMB, stupid, careless, reckless, and indicates someone who has no idea what is ethical, proper or procedural correct in the work that she does. That is THE best argument that can be made for her.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Inside the FBI Investigation of Hillary Clinton’s E-Mail


...

Comey’s first brush with them came when Bill Clinton was president. Looking to get back into government after a stint in private practice, Comey signed on as deputy special counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee. In 1996, after months of work, Comey came to some damning conclusions: Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment: she and her husband had tried to hide their roles in two other matters under investigation by law enforcement. Taken together, the interference by White House officials, which included destruction of documents, amounted to “far more than just aggressive lawyering or political naiveté,” Comey and his fellow investigators concluded. It constituted “a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.”

...
Click to expand...
http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pressure grows on Clinton aides to lose security clearances


Pressure is growing on the State Department to revoke the security clearances of several of Hillary Clinton’s closest aides, potentially jeopardizing her ability to name her own national security team should she become president.

The move could force Clinton to make an uncomfortable choice: abandon longtime advisers or face another political maelstrom by overriding the White House security agency.

It’s not clear if Clinton or longtime aides Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan still hold active security clearances. The information is protected under the Privacy Act and absent permission from each person, the only way it can be made public is if State sees an overriding public interest in disclosing it — an unlikely scenario.

None of the aides implicated in the probe — Abedin, Sullivan and Cheryl Mills — are still employed at State. That makes it unlikely that they continue to hold security clearances, awarded on a need-to-know basis.
But department spokesman John Kirby said earlier this week that former officials could still face “administrative sanctions” for past actions — sanctions that could in theory make it incredibly difficult to be approved for security clearance in the future.

Clinton, should she be elected president, would be functionally exempt from security vetting as a constitutional officer — it’s “the reason it was always indictment or bust” with Clinton, said Bradley Moss, a lawyer who specializes in classified information cases. The only circumstance in which she’s likely to become a “federal employee” again is if she’s elected president.

But for Abedin and Sullivan, the loss or rejection of their security credentials would be a career-ender in Washington.

And according to several lawyers who specialize in security clearances, anyone with the kind of documented track record that now dogs Abedin and Sullivan would struggle to retain their access to restricted information. Although no one was charged, FBI Director James Comey was unequivocal that Clinton and her aides acted “extremely carelessly.”

“If a client came to me with these kinds of allegations related to their prior use of classified information, I would say, ‘You have less than a 20 percent chance of surviving,’” Moss said.

Comey on Tuesday rejected criminal charges against Clinton or her aides, but he laid out a damning litany of violations, including the transmission of classified information through her private, unsecured email server. 

Two days after the FBI director's remarks, the State Department announced that it was reopening its internal investigation into how Clinton and her staff handled classified information. 

...Normally, the decision to approve or deny security clearance rests with the employing federal agency. In the case of White House staff, both the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Administration’s Personnel Security Division would likely be involved.

The guidelines that officials use are standard across government. They provide a framework of concerns that agencies are allowed to consider when deciding whether to grant access — and prior history of mishandling classified information would certainly fall within the scope of a permitted concern, Moss said.

If someone is denied, there is an administrative appeals process but no right to judicial review.

But in theory, a President Clinton could override any concerns that the OPM or the Office of Administration might have.

“If the president wants somebody cleared, somebody’s gonna get cleared. That’s just the bottom line,” said Bill Savarino, a D.C. lawyer who also specializes in security clearances.

If Clinton does exercise that authority, Savarino says, it would likely happen behind the scenes — and “there’s not a damn thing anyone can do about it because the president is the one that sets [national security policy].”

But given the public attention that the issue has drawn — largely thanks to Republican outcry — it’s likely the appearance of Abedin and Sullivan on Clinton’s staff wouldn’t go unnoticed.

“It would be controversial to say the least,” said Moss. He described such a presidential override as “unprecedented,” although he noted that the mere presence of Abedin and Sullivan on Clinton’s staff wouldn’t be definitive proof that she had intervened in the clearance process.

...Even Comey — carefully apolitical in his public statements — has hinted that Clinton and her aides could face repercussions beyond the judicial system.

“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences,” Comey said during a summary of his findings that concluded with his decision not to recommend charges.

“To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”
Click to expand...
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/287070-pressure-grows-on-clinton-aides-to-lose-security-clearances

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Politician Spock said:
Managing classified information may not be the purpose of the job of SoS, but it is a fundamental requirement of the job. She failed. 
Click to expand...
Do you think there should be an existing IT infrastructure in place so that the SoS and other officials aren't left to their own devices on determining technology/security? It seems like a bit of a "gotcha" approach, IT should be handled by the appropriate level IT professionals. In fact, the best network/IT professionals in the world work for the U.S. government, and we (taxpayers) are settling for this level of professionalism? It's a fiasco that doesn't seem specific to just Hillary Clinton. 

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Do you think there should be an existing IT infrastructure in place so that the SoS and other officials aren't left to their own devices on determining technology/security? It seems like a bit of a "gotcha" approach, IT should be handled by the appropriate level IT professionals. In fact, the best network/IT professionals in the world work for the U.S. government, and we (taxpayers) are settling for this level of professionalism? It's a fiasco that doesn't seem specific to just Hillary Clinton. 
Click to expand...
Yes, of course IT professionals provided by the government should be providing politicians their services, just as politicians shouldn't be doing their own service on the cars they ride in. Hillary's decision to have her own was careless. 

 
ABC/Washington Post Poll about the FBI's decision not to charge Hillary.

http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1144a58Clintonemails.pdf

56% disapprove of the decision not to charge her while 35% approve of the FBI's decision

57% are worried about what she will do if elected President

Probably by far the most important question of the poll, Does the outcome of this issue change likelihood of supporting Hillary?

  • 10% more likely to support her
  • 28% less likely to support her
  • 58% no difference

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Do you think there should be an existing IT infrastructure in place so that the SoS and other officials aren't left to their own devices on determining technology/security? It seems like a bit of a "gotcha" approach, IT should be handled by the appropriate level IT professionals. In fact, the best network/IT professionals in the world work for the U.S. government, and we (taxpayers) are settling for this level of professionalism? It's a fiasco that doesn't seem specific to just Hillary Clinton. 
Click to expand...
This existed for Hillary. She purposefully avoided it which is part of the reason she got in trouble. The FBI found that Hillary had no security support staff, either IT or physically guarding the server.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Oh, so now she intentionally put it on the open internet. :lol:   Was it in her blog, the SOS journal?
Click to expand...
Any device connected to the internet is on the open internet. However, whether or not the data on the device, such as email, is accessible to anyone depends on the degree to which the data is locked down. There are varying levels of degrees to which data can be locked. Federal requirements are pretty strict. Hillary's server fell way short. 

 
squistion said:
Oh, so now she intentionally put it on the open internet. :lol:   Was it in her blog, the SOS journal?
Click to expand...
Her email was accessible by the web. As Spock mentions the level of encryption is important, for a good bit Hillary's email was unencrypted. The aide who originally set up her site and server - not an IT guy - published the Windows OS information on the web as well so pretty much the whole recipe for front door or backdoor access was there the whole time (we know this because news and tech sites like WaPo reported all this in March 2015 when it all blew up).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Squiz, just as an example, Abedin testified in her deposition that Hillary's little desktop station at State (for accessing email via the web) did not even have a password. I take it that was for the computer, who knows what the web portal had.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Baloney Sandwich said:
ABC/Washington Post Poll about the FBI's decision not to charge Hillary.

http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1144a58Clintonemails.pdf

56% disapprove of the decision not to charge her while 35% approve of the FBI's decision

57% are worried about what she will do if elected President

Probably by far the most important question of the poll, Does the outcome of this issue change likelihood of supporting Hillary?

  • 10% more likely to support her
  • 28% less likely to support her
  • 58% no difference
Click to expand...
The problem is that the there really isn't another option; even if you could vote for the other party and don't vote blindly, what percentage of the public find Donald Trump even qualified to hold the office? I believe that 28% either already didn't like her and wouldn't have voted for her or split between those who may hold their nose when voting for her.

 
Hillary better keep her eye on the ball. As part of their official platform, Republicans are planning to support Law Enforcement with the direct accusation that Democrats do not support LE. This is dangerous territory for Hillary, if she allows Trump to solely own "support for LE" as his own. It's a despicable implication, IMO, that either party would claim ownership of something that's so obviously broadly supported by everyone regardless of stupid party affiliation. It's more politics of demonization and divisiveness.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Hillary better keep her eye on the ball. As part of their official platform, Republicans are planning to support Law Enforcement with the direct accusation that Democrats do not support LE. This is dangerous territory for Hillary, if she allows Trump to solely own "support for LE" as his own. It's a despicable implication, IMO, that either party would claim ownership of something that's so obviously broadly supported by everyone regardless of stupid party affiliation. It's more politics of demonization and divisiveness.
Click to expand...
Our politicians do need to support Law Enforcement more. Fairly obvious statement, but some politicians love to pander.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Hillary better keep her eye on the ball. As part of their official platform, Republicans are planning to support Law Enforcement with the direct accusation that Democrats do not support LE. This is dangerous territory for Hillary, if she allows Trump to solely own "support for LE" as his own. It's a despicable implication, IMO, that either party would claim ownership of something that's so obviously broadly supported by everyone regardless of stupid party affiliation. It's more politics of demonization and divisiveness.
Click to expand...
The GOP is going to position themselves as the law and order party?  Geez, there is a new one.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This existed for Hillary. She purposefully avoided it which is part of the reason she got in trouble. The FBI found that Hillary had no security support staff, either IT or physically guarding the server.
Click to expand...
The good IT people don't work for State.  Outside of a select few agencies, the IT of our government is not particularly good.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Do you think there should be an existing IT infrastructure in place so that the SoS and other officials aren't left to their own devices on determining technology/security? It seems like a bit of a "gotcha" approach, IT should be handled by the appropriate level IT professionals. In fact, the best network/IT professionals in the world work for the U.S. government, and we (taxpayers) are settling for this level of professionalism? It's a fiasco that doesn't seem specific to just Hillary Clinton. 
Click to expand...
Not a great defense when she circumvented the government IT staff... :whistle:

And, perhaps more significantly - if the IT infrastructure is sub-par, then it ultimately falls to the SOS, as head of the department, to ensure that steps are being taken to upgrade.  She had under-secretary's who would be directly responsible - but she had responsibility to manage those under her to ensure it was being done properly.

 
I have never worked at a company where if someone had set up their own server and done any type of official work that they wouldn't have been walked out the door the second it was detected.  I would bet that her stupid server trick was the reason the rest of the government got hacked during Operation Panda.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Hillary better keep her eye on the ball. As part of their official platform, Republicans are planning to support Law Enforcement with the direct accusation that Democrats do not support LE. This is dangerous territory for Hillary, if she allows Trump to solely own "support for LE" as his own. It's a despicable implication, IMO, that either party would claim ownership of something that's so obviously broadly supported by everyone regardless of stupid party affiliation. It's more politics of demonization and divisiveness.
Click to expand...
This is exactly how Richard Nixon won in 1968. It's what I've been most afraid of from the beginning- if Trump was going to win this is how he will do it. 

Of course I didn't predict the police shootings last week. But I am concerned about protests at the Republican convention which could get violent. Just as in 1968, the more the public sees violent, chaotic protest, the more they will favor a strong arm approach. 

 
Notes on a scandal



The Democratic nominee needs to change the way she operates


THE former secretary of state and her colleagues were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information”. Hillary Clinton, who in August said she “did not send classified material”, in fact used her home-brew IT system in eight e-mail chains containing material that someone in her position should have known was classified top-secret. There was no direct evidence that her own e-mail account was compromised, but she sent and received e-mails in “the territory of sophisticated adversaries” and the accounts of some people with whom she corresponded were indeed hacked, opening a possible route for foreign spies into Mrs Clinton’s in-box. Delivering his verdict on a year-long investigation, the FBI’s director, James Comey, sounded like someone who was laying out the case for the prosecution.



It turned out that Mrs Clinton will not be charged—because Mr Comey concluded that her mistakes were neither intentional nor the result of malice towards the United States, and because the attorney-general, Loretta Lynch, said that she would follow the FBI’s lead. In legal terms, the matter is closed.



At one level, that is a relief. An indictment might have shifted the odds of winning the presidential race decisively in favour of Donald Trump.

In terms of Mrs Clinton’s character, however, the matter is very much open and it is troubling. Mr Trump’s awfulness does not excuse Mrs Clinton’s shiftiness. Were she an aspiring staffer on the National Security Council, her career would now be over. Were she an ambassador awaiting confirmation, the Senate would reject her. America classifies too much information, admittedly, but much of it is classified for a reason: in some cases, to protect the identities of people who spy for America. Whatever caused Mrs Clinton to bend the rules, whether it was convenience, an IT flub or an active desire to keep her e-mail archive away from congressional subpoenas, her actions deserve condemnation.

This poses a risk to the campaign. Mrs Clinton is running for office on the grounds of being competent, responsible and prudent—the polar opposite of Mr Trump. To act carelessly and rashly was reckless. To appear reluctant to acknowledge her error, and then to have been found by Mr Comey to be wrong about the details, was unworthy of her.

Shortly after the primary campaign, the last time a pollster asked the question, Americans were more likely to call Mr Trump than Mrs Clinton honest and trustworthy. The numbers on voting intentions have been stable since the primaries concluded. Mrs Clinton has enjoyed an advantage of about five percentage points in the popular vote. Some believe that Mrs Clinton’s numbers on trust are so poor that they cannot go much lower. Because of her foolish misconduct, that proposition will now be tested.

Malware

The scandal ought to influence how Mrs Clinton runs her White House, if she does indeed find herself occupying the Oval Office in January next year. The temptations there will be different: plenty of people will be looking after her smartphones and e-mail servers. But when it comes to policing grey areas such as fundraising, the informal access granted to old friends, or the revolving-door from influence to employment and back again that White House staffers pass through, Mrs Clinton needs someone nearby who is not of her tribe. Whoever it is must impress on her and her entourage that in politics, the appearance of impropriety can cause as much harm as impropriety itself. Unfortunately, there is a lot of evidence that this is something Mrs Clinton tends to overlook.
Click to expand...
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21701763-democratic-nominee-needs-change-way-she-operates-notes-scandal?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/notesonascandal

- The Economist.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Canadian affiliate charity of Clinton Foundation defends expenses


A Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation that has raised millions from mining executives has spent far more on salaries and administrative costs than charitable programming in the two most recent years for which numbers are available, according to financial statements from the Canada Revenue Agency.

The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada), a registered charity based in Vancouver, B.C., devoted $737,441 — amounting to 78 per cent of its expenditures — to management and administration in 2014. The amount includes spending on office supplies and expenses, salaries and professional and consulting fees.

That same year, according to the return filed to the Canada Revenue Agency and published online, the organization devoted $205,419 to charitable programs, accounting for 22 per cent of its expenditures.


A similar ratio — 72 per cent to management and administration costs and 28 per cent to charitable programs — is in the 2013 return.

...The charity said its staff in Canada — four full-time positions in 2014, according to the return — works on “partnership development and marketing, investor prospecting, and finance” in co-ordination with the American-based team.

The Canadian charity would not provide the name of the spokesperson who communicated by email with The Canadian Press.

...CGEP Canada came under scrutiny last year after it was revealed it had not disclosed the identities of roughly 1,100 donors.

This was controversial because in 2008, the Clinton Foundation signed an ethics agreement with the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama that it would reveal the identities of all its contributors as a way to avoid the perception of conflicts of interest when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state.

...
Click to expand...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-affiliate-charity-of-clinton-foundation-defends-expenses/article30845665/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
254K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top