More shady Clinton foundation stuff uncovered

[136or142]

I knew for a while that the media was going to be extremely tough on Hillary, much moreso than any other candidate, but they've far exceeded my expectations with these constant hit jobs. It's an unholy alliance between the "liberal media", the "nonpartisan media", and the "conservative media" to try to destroy her. At this point, I don't even think the liberal media cares if they get President Walker or Bush in the process. It will get them more clicks and ad revenue if there's a Republican president, after all.

If they keep it up, HRC will obviously run against the media as a number of Republican Presidential candidates have previously done with some success.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that nearly all of Chait's column has been debunked.

[136or142]

So are there any liberals/lefties who aren't troubled by this latest potential scandal? The only deflection I've seen is that without causal evidence of quid-pro-quo corruption, there is no issue. I find this interesting because it contradicts the typical liberal/left talking points on campaign finance.

To quote from noted liberal icons:

"Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority's apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences does not accord with the theory or reality of politics."

Justice Stevens, Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, at 448. (Joined by RBGinsburg OMG!)

"... It would have been quite remarkable if Congress had created a record detailing such behavior by its own Members. Proving that a specific vote was exchanged for a specific expenditure has always been next to impossible: Elected officials have diverse motivations, and no one will acknowledge that he sold a vote. Yet, even if ingratiation and access ... are not corruption themselves, they are necessary prerequisites to it; they can create both the opportunity for, and the appearance of, quid pro quo arrangements."

Justice Stevens, Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, at 455. (Joined by RBGinsburg OMG!)


"What has this to do with corruption? It has everything to do with corruption. Corruption breaks the constitutionally necessary “chain of communication” between the people and their representatives. It derails the essential speech-to-government-action tie. ... The “appearance of corruption” can make matters worse. It can lead the public to believe that its efforts to communicate with its representatives or to help sway public opinion have little purpose. And a cynical public can lose interest in political participation altogether."

Justice Breyer, McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 U.S. 1434, at 1468 (Joined by RB GINSBURG OMG!)


"Last week, Chief Justice John Roberts made clear that for the majority of this current Supreme Court, corruption means quid pro quo corruption. In other words, if it’s not punishable by a bribery statute, it’s not corruption. This is a reasonable mistake to make at a dinner party. But it’s a disastrous mistake to make for democracy, when the stakes are so high."

Zephyr Teachout, noted lefty challenger to the Dread Pirate Cuomo, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/what-john-roberts-doesnt-get-about-corruption-105683.html#ixzz3YO8uJisd


So is the appearance of corruption surrounding Hillary really a threat to our democracy, or are previous liberal concerns about influence peddling misguided? I mean, potentially trading uranium deposits for cash is pretty bad, even without a smoking gun. Dear Ruth Bader Ginsburg would certainly agree.

The only Republican Presidential candidate proposing a constitutional amendment on campaign finance is Lindsey Graham. I guess you're going to vote for him then.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, so that's what Chait's piece is about. When will the media stop throwing their toys out of the pram and accept that Warren isn't running and the Democratic primary won't be competitive?

I think they hardly try to hide their intentions by now. The next step is sponsoring push polls that ask people if they know that Hillary's hobby is torturing kittens.

I knew for a while that the media was going to be extremely tough on Hillary, much moreso than any other candidate, but they've far exceeded my expectations with these constant hit jobs. It's an unholy alliance between the "liberal media", the "nonpartisan media", and the "conservative media" to try to destroy her. At this point, I don't even think the liberal media cares if they get President Walker or Bush in the process. It will get them more clicks and ad revenue if there's a Republican president, after all.

you know, maybe if the entire media is "conspiring" against you, it's not actually conspiring and you're just wrong.

1.Ken Starr likely spent over $100 million on an investigation and could only turn up a stain on a dress. Nothing on Whitewater, nothing on "Travelgate" nothing on Vince Foster (I don't know if he investigated that), nothing on 'cattle futures'...  Yet the 'entire media' went on about them for years before and even after.

2.When the 'entire media' this time is peddling a story that with the exception of there being an obvious potential conflict of interest (which is no different than the conflict of interest inherent in any sizable campaign donation that are laughingly called 'free speech') has been entirely debunked, it certainly is fair to say that the 'entire media' (really just some of the national media) is on a feeding frenzy likely based in part on a witch hunt due to some dislike of HRC.

When those same media outlets produce stories on the fact that virtually every major Republican candidate for President has at least one billionaire backer and what those backers expect in return for their support, then I'll say that the media is being evenhanded.

That said:
1.I personally don't really care what 'the media' says.  There is ample evidence that these alleged scandals don't really drive many voters to change their support and that the impact of 'the media' in general is greatly overstated.

2.If 'the media' continues to go after HRC in such an overtly biased negative way, it will obviously allow her to run against them, which has been used to frequently great effect by many previous candidates.

[136or142]

Adam, how has the conflict of interest been debunked?

I agree the Republican candidates have done comparable things and in the cases of Bush and Walker they've been covered by the media. What really makes Hillary Clinton different is that her and Bill Clinton are more famous than any Republican candidate so covering this new revelation means more business for them. That may be a greedy motive but it's not the same as an anti-Hillary bias. The Christie camp was alleging bias with the deluge of Bridgegate coverage but the reality was probably it just got viewers and clicks.

1.Please reread what I wrote. I said everything "except the potential conflict of interest" has been debunked.  The potential for conflict of interest is obvious on its face.  

2.I've not seen any national media reports of this on Walker at all, and the coverage of Bush has certainly not been the feeding frenzy it is with HRC. The most recent story on Walker I've seen is that he must be a great Christian because he is the son of a preacher man.

[136or142]

so not interested in another 1.5 to 9.5 years of this

That's ok. If the traditional media keeps behaving like this I doubt they'll still be around anywhere near 9.5 years from now.

[136or142]

Adam, how has the conflict of interest been debunked?

I agree the Republican candidates have done comparable things and in the cases of Bush and Walker they've been covered by the media. What really makes Hillary Clinton different is that her and Bill Clinton are more famous than any Republican candidate so covering this new revelation means more business for them. That may be a greedy motive but it's not the same as an anti-Hillary bias. The Christie camp was alleging bias with the deluge of Bridgegate coverage but the reality was probably it just got viewers and clicks.

1.Please reread what I wrote. I said everything "except the potential conflict of interest" has been debunked.  The potential for conflict of interest is obvious on its face.  

Sorry, I did misread that.

2.I've not seen any national media reports of this on Walker at all, and the coverage of Bush has certainly not been the feeding frenzy it is with HRC. The most recent story on Walker I've seen is that he must be a great Christian because he is the son of a preacher man.

And your point is taken here too. I have read stories about similar behavior from Walker, Bush Rubio but it hasn't gotten anywhere near the national and frenetic energy the coverage of this has. And a GOP candidate's landing of a billionaire donor is reported as a boost in the horserace rather than a conflict of interest just like the one they are freaking out over here. That is true.

Thanks for this.  The only person I'm aware of who apologizes for making factual mistakes is...myself. (Not to toot my own horn or anything, not too much anyway. )

[136or142]

Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation broke the law.

I'm having to remind myself that it's not the 1990s again.

Well dont.  Because today unlike the 1990s the NYT and the WaPo are saying Hillary is corrupt. It isnt the vast right wing conspiracy going after Hillary but the Paper of Record.

I consider real corruption to be lying a nation into a war of choice that destabilized a region and then handling the aftermath of the war with incredible incompetence.

Maybe that's just me.

[136or142]

Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation broke the law.

I'm having to remind myself that it's not the 1990s again.

Well dont.  Because today unlike the 1990s the NYT and the WaPo are saying Hillary is corrupt. It isnt the vast right wing conspiracy going after Hillary but the Paper of Record.

I consider real corruption to be lying a nation into a war of choice that destabilized a region and then handling the aftermath of the war with incredible incompetence.

Maybe that's just me.

Only that? Is that it? Nothing lesser? You dont consider selling influence in the State Dept to be corruption? So you have only one definition of corruption then.

If it actually occurred, then yes, that would be corruption.  But, all there is is circumstantial evidence that has been nearly all debunked.  Of course, it is no better or worse corruption than the modern campaign finance system.

You don't consider lying a nation into war to be worse than 'selling influence'?

[136or142]

Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation broke the law.

I'm having to remind myself that it's not the 1990s again.

Well dont.  Because today unlike the 1990s the NYT and the WaPo are saying Hillary is corrupt. It isnt the vast right wing conspiracy going after Hillary but the Paper of Record.

I consider real corruption to be lying a nation into a war of choice that destabilized a region and then handling the aftermath of the war with incredible incompetence.

Maybe that's just me.

Only that? Is that it? Nothing lesser? You dont consider selling influence in the State Dept to be corruption? So you have only one definition of corruption then.

If it actually occurred, then yes, that would be corruption.  But, all there is is circumstantial evidence that has been nearly all debunked.  Of course, it is no better or worse corruption than the modern campaign finance system.

You don't consider lying a nation into war to be worse than 'selling influence'?

None of it has been debunked, nice try though.

Actually it has been.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The media never beats on a dead horse?  I see no evidence outside of the usual right wing hyper partisans on Breitabart and the Wall Street Journal  that anybody aside of the usual dimwitted Washington journalists give a rat's ass about this phony scandal.

Also, a prediction of what will happen in the future is not even evidence.

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1.Anybody who still supports the Republican Party after the Bush/Cheney years and the war based on lies, the tax cuts for the 'haves and have mores', the global warming denialism,  the handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the failure of SEC Chair Christopher Cox to stop the financial corruption that led to the great recession and on and on, is in NO position to lecture anybody about 'moral and intellectual bankruptcy.'

The only ones morally and intellectually bankrupt are the Bush/Cheney Administration and all of their enablers, such as yourself.

So, please do us all a favor and go crawl back under your rock.

2.The only thing I hate is willful stupidity.

[136or142]

1.I look forward to you supporting Bush when the author of "Clinton Cash" goes after him.

I've shown on here and other boards that my primary concern is for the truth, the whole truth.. If Schweizer lies about Jeb Bush as he has lied about HRC, I will defend Jeb if others don't.

2.I know youre a partisan hack when you bring up Katrina. What exactly did Bush do wrong in Katrina? When the people of LA had a chance to vote, they threw out the Gov and Mayor of NOLA. Tell me EXACTLY what Bush did wrong.

The mayor of New Orleans was corrupt.  "Heck of a job Brownie" did nothing wrong?  While the state and city government were also incompetent, there is no question FEMA was incompetent and only a partisan hack such as yourself would attempt to deny that.

3.You should hate Obama, he signed 99.9% of Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts into law. Why didnt the Dems raise taxes when they had a chance in 2009-10?

The Dems reversed the tax cuts for the 'haves and have mores.'  Whether they should have reversed all the tax cuts in a time of recession can be debated.

4.Hillary vote for the war, enough said.

She mistakenly believed that the President would not lie to her on matters such as this.  I don't fault her for that.  I do fault her for failing to read the intelligence reports, as Bob Graham who voted against the war did,  that would have shown to her that the Bush Administration was lying.

At least she admitted her vote was a mistake.

5.The climate is changing and will always change. For some reason you think the climate should be static. What I deny is that passing legislation will some how stop the climate from changing. And that taxpayers and the USA in particular must be poorer to keep the climate exactly as is.

The issue is what in calculus is called the 'rate of change.'   Obviously you, like Ted Cruz, no nothing about calculus.  Global warming is already costing the United States and the world far more than reducing CO2 emissions ever would.

6.The stupidly is all spewing from you.

I have to believe you intentionally screwed up your grammar about stupidity. If not, that's pretty stupid (and even pretty 'stupidly.')

[136or142]

"I look forward to you supporting Bush when the author of "Clinton Cash" goes after him."

From the George Noory Sucks board (George Noory is the sad host of Coast to Coast):

One poster wrote:
"jeb was elected governor of florida in 1998.  One of the first things he did was submit a bill to the legislature to change the cabinet from 7 elected officials to 4 elected officials.  The legislature passed his bill and the Florida cabinet was reduced to 4 elected officials. The agencies of the formerly elected positions were placed under the remaining cabinet officials.  One of the officials changed to an appointed position rather than an elected position was the Secretary of State. An important thing to know about this official and agency is that it oversees the elections in Florida. Also important is to note that this agency was placed under the governors office and this official, from that point onward, is appointed by the governor. 
 
So the governor of florida, starting in 1999, began appointing Florida's secretary of state. In 2000 we had the presidential election where florida was the deciding state.  Kathryn Harris, the appointed secretary of state and overseer of the election process in Florida, was beholden to the governor and did his bidding.  Of course the debachle worked in w's favor.   

Looking back, I think jeb was very calculating (if not corrupt) to submit a bill which takes the elections process in florida and places it directly under the purview of the governors office.  I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but when I pondered over this series of events, it gave me pause..."

To which I replied:
"1.The decision to remove the Secretary of State as an elected position was due to a statewide referendum. The "Restructuring the State Cabinet" referendum passed 55.5%-44.5% in 1998. I don't know who was behind it, but it did pass by a popular vote.

2.Katherine Harris was the last elected Florida Secretary of State.  Her unpopularity even among some, I gather, ethical Republicans was evident by how poorly she did running in a heavily Republican district for Congress and winning by only 10% in 2002 and then her run for the U.S Senate in 2006 when, it what is normally a very close state in elections, she received only 39% of the vote.  To be sure, 2006 was a wave Democratic year, but 39% is just sad.

That said, her decision to  likely illegally purge thousands of mainly African Americans from the voter roles in the state certainly was corrupt and, if it emerges, that Jeb Bush knew anything about it, or played a role in it, it could destroy his candidacy."

I'm as partisan as anybody else here but I take my belief in being honest very seriously.