Hillary Clinton on the FACT list...

[SillyAmerican]

The Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust (FACT) filed a complaint against Hillary Clinton.

"As evidenced from her recently released emails, it appears that then Secretary Hillary Clinton gave a private company special access to the State Department based upon the company’s relationships with Secretary Clinton’s family members and donors to the Clinton Foundation.  The ethics rules simply do not permit government employees to give this type of preferential treatment." (The specific family member in question being her son-in-law).

http://media.wix.com/ugd/65db76_058c199460714689b1679e22d380b6b3.pdf

Comments?

[Fusionmunster]

This is the "Hillary forwarded an Email to someone and asked them to look into but nothing ever became of it" thing again, right?

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Hillary is a Spin Doctor, putting self-serving favorable spin on everything she says.  That being the case, I find it hard to understand why she is considered so much more dishonest than a whole slew of folks running for the Presidency.

Has Hillary really lied more than, say, Mitt Romney did in 2012?  That might be an easy standard to discuss, given that Romney is the guy some folks think needs to be airlifted into the Republican National Convention to serve as the candidate emerging on top of a "brokered convention".  I don't like Hillary all that much, but I really can't see how she's this mega-liar when compared to the rhetoric of a great many of the GOP candidates, who have lied with impunity about Obama.

[SillyAmerican]

Hillary is a Spin Doctor, putting self-serving favorable spin on everything she says.  That being the case, I find it hard to understand why she is considered so much more dishonest than a whole slew of folks running for the Presidency.

Yeah, she lies a lot. The others do too. But the complaint specifically refers to the ethics rule requiring a government employee "shall act impartially and shall not give preferential treatment to any private individual or organization" when performing government duties.

So I guess the questions are as follows:

(a) do you think the ethics rule in question is clearly defined, fair, and should apply to the Secretary of State?

(b) do you think there's credible evidence that as SoS, Clinton gave preferential treatment to her son-in-law's company?  (Or is this yet another vast right-wing conspiracy?)

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Hillary is a Spin Doctor, putting self-serving favorable spin on everything she says.  That being the case, I find it hard to understand why she is considered so much more dishonest than a whole slew of folks running for the Presidency.

Yeah, she lies a lot. The others do too. But the complaint specifically refers to the ethics rule requiring a government employee "shall act impartially and shall not give preferential treatment to any private individual or organization" when performing government duties.

So I guess the questions are as follows:

(a) do you think the ethics rule in question is clearly defined, fair, and should apply to the Secretary of State?

(b) do you think there's credible evidence that as SoS, Clinton gave preferential treatment to her son-in-law's company?  (Or is this yet another vast right-wing conspiracy?)

"Yes" to (a).

"Unsure" as to (b).

I certainly do not view Trey Gowdy and company as an impartial investigative body.  Their political motivations were open and unrestrained.  I also view "Benghazi" as an argument over the GOP losing a talking point in the 2012 election.  The issue of security at our Embassies wasn't REALLY the focus of that committee.  Besides, it's the HOST COUNTRY that is supposed to provide the security for our Embassies anywhere in the World; it's not as if we have a division of Marines in every foreign nation defending our Embassies.  If a nation cannot provide security for our Embassies, we don't (or shouldn't) keep one open in those countries.  That's how it works, but that fact seems to have been lost in the political maelstrom.

[SillyAmerican]

I certainly do not view Trey Gowdy and company as an impartial investigative body.  Their political motivations were open and unrestrained.  I also view "Benghazi" as an argument over the GOP losing a talking point in the 2012 election.  The issue of security at our Embassies wasn't REALLY the focus of that committee.  Besides, it's the HOST COUNTRY that is supposed to provide the security for our Embassies anywhere in the World; it's not as if we have a division of Marines in every foreign nation defending our Embassies.  If a nation cannot provide security for our Embassies, we don't (or shouldn't) keep one open in those countries.  That's how it works, but that fact seems to have been lost in the political maelstrom.

Agreed. But it really bothers me that we had an ambassador in a hotspot country that knew there was a security issue, asked the State Department for help, and was basically ignored. That fact seems to have been lost in the political maelstrom as well.