Salon Magazine: Hillary Cant Explain Cash Donations

[bobloblaw]

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/

Salon opens up on Hildawg.

Hillary took cash donations from foreign countries that needed State Dept approval for arms sales.

[Beet]

The Clinton Foundation and the State Department are both huge entities, and it's not difficult to compile lists of other huge entities (such as governments allied to the U.S.) who've done business with both. That doesn't prove quid pro quo.

As for the general increase in arms exports, it was presidential policy with the goal of "helping the country's allies shoulder more of the burden of international security". So the general increase was driven not byState Department policy.

Finally, if we exclude the "separate" Pentagon-brokered deals Sirota writes of, the increase in arms deals approved by the State Department in the 20 countries that he lists was about 84% (according to figures published by the International Business Times), compared to 80% for all countries, not a significant difference.

That leaves the "separate" Pentagon-brokered deals involving 16 of the countries - but if those deals were brokered by the Pentagon, how could Hillary have controlled them? The Pentagon is a much bigger and more influential entity than the State Department. And how often does the State Department decline to approve deals that the Pentagon has already put together? And what role does the Secretary of State play in what is undoubtedly a highly bureaucratic process? Somehow I doubt that it's a personal judgement call by the Secretary, but it might be.

Basically, this article is dark-sounding and makes all sorts of vague suggestions and innuendos, but never really shines any light through the haze that is the U.S. arms export control process and whether Hillary did anything wrong as SoS in relation to it...

[Ebsy]

You're right; she can't explain her misdoings because there don't appear to have been any.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The blob posting anti-Hillary hit-pieces is about as surprising and noteworthy as krazey railing against teacher unions.

[bobloblaw]

You're right; she can't explain her misdoings because there don't appear to have been any.

Yeah, just like Christie and the bridge....no smoking gun.

[bobloblaw]

The blob posting anti-Hillary hit-pieces is about as surprising and noteworthy as krazey railing against teacher unions.

Anti Hillary hit pieces from Salon??? If the Clintons are losing their allies in the media from the 90s, they are losing their base voters too.

[RFayette]

The blob posting anti-Hillary hit-pieces is about as surprising and noteworthy as krazey railing against teacher unions.

Anti Hillary hit pieces from Salon??? If the Clintons are losing their allies in the media from the 90s, they are losing their base voters too.

Salon is an  true leftist publishing outlet IIRC.  Hardly an outlet Hillary needs support from. 

[Ebsy]

Salon was a glorified blog in the 90s.

[bobloblaw]

The blob posting anti-Hillary hit-pieces is about as surprising and noteworthy as krazey railing against teacher unions.

Anti Hillary hit pieces from Salon??? If the Clintons are losing their allies in the media from the 90s, they are losing their base voters too.

Salon is an  true leftist publishing outlet IIRC.  Hardly an outlet Hillary needs support from. 

If her left wing, crumbles, she cant win. Nor can Bush without the right

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of course Salon isn't going to like Hillary. They're the entire liberal media.

[RFayette]

The blob posting anti-Hillary hit-pieces is about as surprising and noteworthy as krazey railing against teacher unions.

Anti Hillary hit pieces from Salon??? If the Clintons are losing their allies in the media from the 90s, they are losing their base voters too.

Salon is an  true leftist publishing outlet IIRC.  Hardly an outlet Hillary needs support from. 

If her left wing, crumbles, she cant win. Nor can Bush without the right

True Leftists != the "left wing" in the United States.

Average Democrats, like teachers' union members, African Americans, and suburban women, in general, are not as extreme as Salon and couldn't care less what it thinks. 

[TJ in Oregon]

The blob posting anti-Hillary hit-pieces is about as surprising and noteworthy as krazey railing against teacher unions.

Anti Hillary hit pieces from Salon??? If the Clintons are losing their allies in the media from the 90s, they are losing their base voters too.

Salon is an  true leftist publishing outlet IIRC.  Hardly an outlet Hillary needs support from. 

If her left wing, crumbles, she cant win. Nor can Bush without the right

True Leftists != the "left wing" in the United States.

Average Democrats, like teachers' union members, African Americans, and suburban women, in general, are not as extreme as Salon and couldn't care less what it thinks. 

I don't think they'll mind much when it writes about Republicans

But you're right in that most Democratic voters won't care about its critiques of Hillary.

[King]

She doesn't have to explain the donations. The real explanation is that it doesn't matter.

The media is painting this as if the State Department awarded a contract. That is fundamentally dishonest.

The State Department had no influence on the decision. They simply sent a representative to The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States along with a dozen other agencies both federal and the state of Utah.

The State Department is only a research entity in these matters. The best Hillary could do for them is order the representative to hide any shady acts against the interest of U.S. national security by the company so that they could not be negatively damaged in the bidding process. The media has uncovered no such thing or even hinted to researching it.

The fact that you don't see CIFUS mentioned on any article related to this "scandal" only shows how unbelievable retarded and useless the United States press has become. These websites of supposedly intelligent media outlets are writing pages in a supposed information age with supposed unlimited resources and supposed unprecedented editorial freedom, yet are omitting facts that would have been included in a 60 second bulletin on the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite 40 years ago because their research is so poor that they aren't even aware of them

It does not matter who or what entity donated to The Clinton Foundation. It had no influence on the proceedings because the Clintons had no legal ability to influence on the proceedings.

[bedstuy]

Hey media, wake me when you actually find something. 

[IceSpear]

Hey media, wake me when you actually find something. 

Prepare to sleep forever.

[bobloblaw]

Hey media, wake me when you actually find something. 

You talking about Chris Christie?

[bedstuy]

Hey media, wake me when you actually find something. 

You talking about Chris Christie?

They did find something there during the GW Bridgegate scandal.