HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » "This fire needs gas." (S...

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:00 PM

 

"This fire needs gas." (Sidney to Hillary, 10/26/2012)

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/19163

H: FYI, PAUL BLUMENTHAL. SID

From: Sidney Blumenthal
To: Hillary Clinton
Date: 2012-10-24 22:51
Subject: H: FYI, PAUL BLUMENTHAL. SID

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05797723
Date: 11/30/2015
RELEASE IN PART B6

From: Sidney Blumenthal
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 10:51 AM
To: Subject: Re: H: fyi, Paul Blumenthal. Sid

I am working very closely now with American Bridge. I dictated a script for Cher for an ad on women, will learn whether she agreed to do it; ordered a reel on Republican outrageous comments on women, which is done and will soon be released; number of other things TBD later, whatever I can think of. It's hit and miss. Biden needs to raise his decibel level on Republican rape rage and Romney as supporter, enabler and Profile in Cowardice. To wit: •318934.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/richard-mourdock-abortion_n_2 Will tell Klain and John Martilla (who remains close to Biden).

Can you get all the Democratic women senators to issue a joint statement about the Republican rape rage, women's rights and Romney's enabling and cowardice? This fire needs gas.

Original Message From: H <HDR22@clintonemail.com >
To: 'sbwhoeop
Sent: Fri, Oct 26, 2012 10:37 am
Subject: Re: H: fyi, Paul Blumenthal. Sid

Does anybody but us care?

From: Sidney Blumenthal
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2U12 1U:U2 Am Eastern btanaard Time
To: H
Subject: H: fyi, Paul Blumenthal. Sid

http:/ /www.huffingtonpost.com/ 2 oi2/io/ 25/american-crossroads-swift-boat n 2020651.html


The bold is my emphasis. This is one of the MANY email exchanges between the Secretary of State and the guy who Obama BANNED FROM HIS TEAM in 2009. (Source: New York Times, August 16, 2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/us/politics/16emanuel.html?_r=0.) Please note the following email showing the communication about not "outing" this directive being ignored...


SYDNEY BLUMENTHAL

From: Cheryl Mills
To: Hillary Clinton
Date: 2009-06-04 07:38
Subject: SYDNEY BLUMENTHAL

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05761825
Date: 06/30/2015 RELEASE IN FULL

From: Mills, Cheryl D <MillsCD©state.gov >
Sent Friday, June 05, 2009 11:02 PM
To:
Subject: Fw: Sydney Blumenthal

Fyi From: Crowley, Philip 3
To: Mills, Cheryl D
Sent: Fri Jun 05 19:38:20 2009
Subject: Sydney Blumenthal

FYI, we have heard from an AP reporter that Sydney outed himself about coming to the Department, mentioning it without realizing he was talking to someone who actually covers our building. PJ 34


No one gives "free" advice at these levels. The Clinton Foundation was paying Blumenthal $120k a year and Hillary was listening to him AGAINST OBAMA'S INSTRUCTIONS. One of the most damning is a complete analysis of Libya from April, 2011 that influenced her Libya decision making - https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/10115#efmBESCAL - and turned out to be WRONG.

Email storage bores me and I am a tech person. This isn't an email scandal - the email is what is called a PAPER TRAIL for inappropriate influence peddling.

You see, a former President of the United States (Bill Clinton) was using OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY (donations to his Foundation) to pay people to influence his WIFE'S DECISION MAKING WHILE SHE WAS SECRETARY OF STATE UNDER A DIFFERENT PRESIDENT AND SHE WASN'T DISCLOSING IT TO HER BOSS.

Money and access to the people in power - this is how a former President maintained his influence at the highest levels of government. And now he and his wife are going to be back there. Most members of this board will ignore this because "it's just an email scandal."

No. For the first time in recorded history, you can actually VIEW THE EVIDENCE TRAIL.

Here's a link -- https://search.wikileaks.org/advanced?q=Blumenthal+&exclude_words=&words_title_only=&words_content_only=&publication_type%5B%5D=42&sort=0#results

To be fair, this is stuff the Republicans have been doing for decades -- AND THAT IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.

Pretend for thirty seconds that the guy doing this crap was named George W. Bush Jr. and he was collecting millions of dollars from corporations, then using that money to pay people to push his "sponsors" agenda and subverting all of the rules about lobbyists and disclosure of interests with back door emails.

Do you feel outraged? Well, the power of a name is that former President Bill Clinton and First Lady/Senator/Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did it instead, and a significant number of people who should KNOW BETTER want to put the pair of them BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE.

95 replies, 5584 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 95 replies Author Time Post
Reply "This fire needs gas." (Sidney to Hillary, 10/26/2012) (Original post)
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 OP
geek tragedy Mar 2016 #1
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #2
UglyGreed Mar 2016 #11
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #17
UglyGreed Mar 2016 #18
morningfog Mar 2016 #7
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #10
geek tragedy Mar 2016 #12
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #14
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #24
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #25
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #26
geek tragedy Mar 2016 #27
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #29
840high Mar 2016 #53
Skwmom Mar 2016 #3
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #8
Skwmom Mar 2016 #73
grasswire Mar 2016 #67
FlatBaroque Mar 2016 #89
FlatBaroque Mar 2016 #4
elehhhhna Mar 2016 #5
Raster Mar 2016 #52
leftofcool Mar 2016 #6
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #15
amborin Mar 2016 #86
Cheese Sandwich Mar 2016 #9
polly7 Mar 2016 #23
grasswire Mar 2016 #68
amborin Mar 2016 #87
WillyT Mar 2016 #13
think Mar 2016 #16
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #20
think Mar 2016 #21
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #22
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #31
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #32
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #33
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #34
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #35
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #36
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #37
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #38
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #39
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #40
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #41
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #43
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #44
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #45
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #46
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #47
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #48
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #49
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #79
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #82
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #83
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #84
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #88
840high Mar 2016 #56
840high Mar 2016 #55
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #58
840high Mar 2016 #61
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #62
840high Mar 2016 #64
DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2016 #72
amborin Mar 2016 #85
840high Mar 2016 #54
grasswire Mar 2016 #69
pangaia Mar 2016 #78
nenagh Mar 2016 #19
Kittycat Mar 2016 #28
840high Mar 2016 #57
Babel_17 Mar 2016 #30
EndElectoral Mar 2016 #42
ViseGrip Mar 2016 #50
840high Mar 2016 #59
cantbeserious Mar 2016 #51
kristopher Mar 2016 #60
840high Mar 2016 #63
BreakfastClub Mar 2016 #70
kristopher Mar 2016 #71
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #76
AzDar Mar 2016 #65
grasswire Mar 2016 #66
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #80
Oilwellian Mar 2016 #90
KoKo Mar 2016 #93
amborin Mar 2016 #95
Uncle Joe Mar 2016 #74
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #75
Uncle Joe Mar 2016 #77
Waiting For Everyman Mar 2016 #81
Gwhittey Mar 2016 #91
grasswire Mar 2016 #94
MaeScott Mar 2016 #92

Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:01 PM

1. so now Bernie fans are upset about Hillary getting emails advising

 

her to help defeat Republicans in 2012?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:05 PM

2. Read to the end - INFLUENCE PEDDLING.

 

Back door ways to break rules about lobbying and financial disclosure of interests.

Unethical stuff. Maybe it is just "business as usual" but if Obama bans someone, and you still do business with him, it means Obama wasn't actually in charge.

Think that through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:31 PM

11. Wow former Sanders supporters

are so vengeful huh???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UglyGreed (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:48 PM

17. Dude, I think a lot more is explained about why the "Independent"

 

guy who isn't beholden to the establishment Dems is the only real contender against this "anointed" candidate.

This stuff is probably just "normal day at the office" to the beltway folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:55 PM

18. I hear you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:26 PM

7. Why don't you just say, "so now YOU..." Instead of Bernie fans?

 

It would go a long way. We aren't monolothic single mind. Just as I assume Hillary people aren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:30 PM

10. Two things

 

this has not one thing about being upset.

Sidney Blumenthal was not a State Department employee, ergo had no clearances, He had as many clearances as you do.

He was handling at the very least confidential NO-FOR marked documents, Some he had access to had higher classification as well.

There are people serving jail terms for shit like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:32 PM

12. "UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05797723 " nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #12)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:36 PM

14. No, he was handing confidencial NO FOR

 

documents.

You can go look for them at the state department FOIA room. Wiki leaks and the WSJ have an easier to use database.

https://foia.state.gov/search/search.aspx

I urge you to do that. I have. So you will be wasting ones and zeroes when you tell me none of this was classified. and some was born classified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:27 PM

24. Does this mean I am REALLY understanding this?

 

You deal with this stuff - did I get it right?

Or is this a misunderstanding of "how things get done" because I am not a part of the sausage making process?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #24)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:33 PM

25. I have talked with people who have

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:51 PM

26. Also, I feel very stupid for missing this...

 

But would you do me a favor and double check what the rules are on discuissing campaign stuff on official email? I seem to remember this being a big no-no, but maybe that rule doesn't apply to staff?

Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #26)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:53 PM

27. you really haven't been paying any attention, have you?

 

the entire nontroversy over her emails is the fact she wasn't using an official email account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #27)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 07:00 PM

29. I thought it was an unsecured private network?

 

Last edited Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:58 PM - Edit history (1)

But still being used for government business because 30k emails?

Which I still don't understand - did she still use the "official account" so she could get the other emails from her boss?

ON EDIT: Sorry for the confusion - I think the changing versions of the story has confused me a bit. I am focusing on the CONTENT of the emails in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 11:54 PM

53. Did you miss the part where

 

she disobeyed Obama?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:06 PM

3. The email scandal pales in comparison but I'm fully expecting the State Dept to whitewash


everything. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skwmom (Reply #3)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:29 PM

8. I think all of us are so used to ignoring the Republican outrage machine

 

that the idea there may actually be a REAL PROBLEM is completely foreign.

I listened to the Romney attack on Trump (candidly giggling with glee) and he called out Hillary for "crony capitalism at its worst" or some such phrasing.

It makes me puke in my mouth a little to say this, but he wasn't lying.

I hate the idea of Republicans being right about anything, but part of me knew. I didn't want to know, but it's been trickling in for a while now.

It's "pay to play" at the highest levels - the selling of influence, access and power.

Cleaning house every four to eight years should keep it manageable, but with Bush Sr virtually running things for 12 years (Reagan's 8 with the bullet injuries, then his 4), followed by the return of the same players during Bush Junior, we now have "return of the Clintons" who apparently never really went away....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #8)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 09:05 AM

73. Well, as an American is was thrilling to hear a foreign dictator (or one of his staff) when asked


about a dictatorship hit back with corruption and crony capitalism.

I'm not sure who it was that was interviewed. It was only a very brief piece. It took place at the trade conference in California.

Did you ever think we would be lectured by a foreign dictatorship?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skwmom (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 02:39 AM

67. The email scandal is a fig leaf...

....or, in political terms, a "limited hangout".

Framed in the finest Rovian way to deflect attention from a real crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #67)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 03:47 PM

89. Do you believe we will learn

The nature of the underlying crime?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:11 PM

4. I imagine a White House where Lanny Davis, Syd Blumenthal, Debbie Wasserman

Rahm Emanuel, Bibi Netanyahu can all run around unfettered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:17 PM

5. don't forget arne fuckup duncan

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 11:52 PM

52. don't forget "doctor" kissinger

Welcome to Maison Blanc...

...tonight you'll be staying in the War Criminal Suite...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:22 PM

6. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftofcool (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:42 PM

15. I understand. It's COMPLICATED and complicated things are boring.

 

Hmm. How to explain it so it makes sense to the easily bored?

Okay. Let's try this:

There are RULES about lobbying. They are boring and complicated, but bottom line is that Obama wants to know whose agenda you are pushing when you offer an opinion.

Bill Clinton paid a man who also got money from a client in another country. This man gave Bill's wife "free advice" which is called ACCESS. He did not have permission to LOBBY her. There was no disclosure of his financial interests. It was all just "friendly, free advice" even though he had been specifically BANNED from access to the Obama administration.

Bill did not use his own money to pay this man. He took money from donors and used it to pay the banned lobbyist because they were friends. Do you pay your friends for free advice? Writing a check to people gives you power over them.

Bill had power over the man who was giving his wife advice. His wife was working for someone else and she listened to the family friend who was getting money from her family. They all broke the rules about disclosure of financial interests. This is called corruption.

Corruption is BAD.

Does that help?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #15)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 11:14 AM

86. Yes, all of this; but, additionally, even Syd were not on any payrolls, it was unacceptable to

take input (aka advice) from him about anything, especially about Libya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:30 PM

9. All I know is Hillary's policies in the middle east lead to spread of ISIS and terrorism everywhere

 

Made us less safe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #9)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:27 PM

23. And caused horror and suffering we can never even imagine for millions.

Also, now for Africa with Boko Haram, Yemen with Saudi Arabia's war-crimes using the weapons they got in return for donations to her Foundation ............ and Honduras, and Haiti. Makes my skin crawl. How many people - children, innocents on this earth have been horribly killed, maimed, made homeless, are starving and suffering because of her decisions using Blumenthal and Davis and Kissenger and all her other 'advisers'? It's fucked up! Clinton people - elect her if you must (and my apologies to all Sanders supporters for that) but keep her the fuck away from the rest of the world!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #23)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 02:41 AM

68. And Haiti. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cheese Sandwich (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 11:14 AM

87. and led to genocide against black Africans in Libya, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:33 PM

13. K & R !!!

 




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 05:46 PM

16. Hillary using the GOP playbook. Not surprised...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #16)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:14 PM

20. "He brings a kinife, you bring a gun. He brings a gun , you bring a bazooka."

*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #20)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:19 PM

21. The OP is about Obama banning Sidney Blumenthal from having any involvement in the govt

 

In your scenario Hillary nuked Obama....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #21)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:25 PM

22. El Sid was offering advice to screw the Rethuglicans.

I don't believe our beloved president is so small he would forbid someone he liked from having contact with someone he dislikes.

We all have or had friends not all our friends like...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:16 PM

31. That was ONE of the many emails; he was a BANNED person

 

when it came to State Department business, and there can be no doubt he was getting information he should not have been seeing while she was getting information from a man her husband was paying.

I am still on the confused side about the whole "email scandal" and thus focused on the content that she was consulting with a person (lobbyist?) without disclosing to her boss appropriately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #31)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:18 PM

32. Do you/did you ask your boss who you can be friends with?

Thank you in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #32)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:20 PM

33. I do not discuss confidential information about my job with my friends.

 

Nor does my husband give them money for the "free" advice they give me.

Do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #33)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:21 PM

34. Do I what?

I welcome the counsel of a virtual panoply of people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #34)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:56 PM

35. Do you share confidential information from your job with friends?

 

Does your husband give them money for "free advice" for you?

A lot of Blumenthal emails to Hillary at one am - https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/19365 (I copied some more, but my machine burped - just search the wiki under emails for "September 2012 attack Sid"

He was still sharing Libyan Intel in January 2013: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12098

Also a weird thing with different date stamps "sent 09/10/2012" and but really sent "09/12/2012" which is probably a computer time stamp set wrong?

But my bigger point is Obama said No Blumenthal Dealings with the State Department. These emails aren't scheduling dinner plans - they are inappropriate influence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #35)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 09:58 PM

36. I solicit advice from everyone.

"Let a thousand flowers bloom."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #36)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:04 PM

37. I don't when it comes to confidential information.

 

As an IT person I regularly am exposed to data that is highly confidential, including data about salaries, health, finance and industry trade secrets. Perhaps this life experience is why I am horrified by the extraordinary bad judgment displayed in the ongoing breach of confidentiality, and you are not.



Not sure why Obama isn't taking her out for this - he had to know what she was doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #37)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:06 PM

38. Maybe because he genuinely likes her and doesn't look for picayune reasons to crucify her?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #38)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:29 PM

39. I think there is more going on, but I don't know what.

 

He isn't stopping the FBI investigation and according to a different thread yesterday, they have extradited a hacker who has VERY BAD back-and-forth between Blumenthal and Hillary.

I think this is going to be one of those "the cover up is the crime". Personally, I think Hillary has created "email fatigue" and most people aren't going to bother doing a search on the wiki leaks page because the majority is just mundane crap. Even the Blumenthal stuff wouldn't be a big deal *if he worked for the state department* but he didn't and Hillary didn't disclose her (faulty conflict of interest) source. They trusted her, and she screwed them pretty badly.

With the latest little scandal ("leaking" that Obama wants Bernie out now, which Obama has promptly categorically denied), I don't see him crowning her as a guaranteed successor.

He isn't an idiot. He knows what the Clinton Foundation has been doing. I guess the question is whether Obama's legacy will include cleaning up this kind of corruption, or whether he wants to sign up for the graft when he's done, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #39)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:33 PM

40. What is the Clinton foundation doing?

I suspect it does what most foundations do; it does good for others while providing sinecures for a few of those associated with it. It's only when all it does is engage in the latter that it becomes a problem. The Clinton Foundation doesn't do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #40)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 10:59 PM

41. If I understand this correctly (and I may be wrong)

 

they are basically a money laundering operation for influence peddling.

Here is a 2013 New York Times article - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/14/us/politics/unease-at-clinton-foundation-over-finances-and-ambitions.html?hp&_r=0

I should have bookmarked a DU thread detailing out donations by countries that then had positive financial dealings with Secretary Clinton, but I didn't. A Haiti based website was full of wrath because the money that was supposed to benefit their country disappeared in a blatant boondoggle. They seem to be there for the purpose of paying people - Blumenthal received $120k a year from then - and their ACTUAL charitable activities seem to involve holding fundraisers?

I contrast this with former President Carter and his work with Habitat for Humanity. It makes no sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #41)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 11:04 PM

43. Res ipsa loquitur

Contact & General Information
Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation
1271 Avenue of the Americas
42nd Floor
New York, NY 10020
www.clintonfoundation.org
Tax Status: 501(c)3
Other Names
Clinton Foundation
Clinton Global Initiative
Clinton Health Access Initiative
William J. Clinton Foundation
Charities often solicit donors under multiple names. CharityWatch is aware of this charity soliciting donors using the above names.
RATING: A


https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #43)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 11:14 PM

44. Ha! Found one of the DU links!

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128075899

There were more - just use the DU search with "Clinton Foundation" because regular Google auto fills with "scandal" and probably a bunch are right wing sites, so who wants to sort through it?

Going to bed now - will check for your reply in the morning (if one is required from me).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #44)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 11:18 PM

45. I will rely on a neutral agency and not value laden posters with ideological axes to grind.

Is that or is that not what fair people do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #45)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 11:30 PM

46. There is a link to the source - that article is not written by the DUer.

 

There are also, as I said, A TON of articles on Google.

This one from The Atlantic is quote excellent - http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

Bed, now! Really!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #46)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 11:33 PM

47. Why should I accept the word of this or that writer and not the word...

Why should I accept the word of this or that writer and not the word of this or that review agency?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #47)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 11:38 PM

48. That question is answered in The Atlantic article link I gave you.

 

If the Clinton Foundation’s strength is President Clinton’s endless intellectual omnivorousness, its weakness is the distractibility and lack of interest in detail that sometimes come with it. On a philanthropic level, the foundation gets decent ratings from outside review groups, though critics charge that it’s too diffuse to do much good, that the money has not always achieved what it was intended to, and that in some cases the money doesn’t seem to have achieved its intended purpose. The foundation made errors in its tax returns it has to correct. Overall, however, the essential questions about the Clinton Foundation come down to two, related issues. The first is the seemingly unavoidable conflicts of interest: How did the Clintons’ charitable work intersect with their for-profit speeches? How did their speeches intersect with Hillary Clinton’s work at the State Department? Were there quid-pro-quos involving U.S. policy? The second, connected question is about disclosure. When Clinton became secretary, she agreed that the foundation would make certain disclosures, which it’s now clear it didn’t always do. And the looming questions about Clinton’s State Department emails make it harder to answer those questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #48)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 11:42 PM

49. You are giving me the subjective analysis of a value laden author.

I will continue to defer to the objective analyses of neutral rating agencies. That's the fair approach. It happens to be the logical approach as well. It's a veritable twofer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #49)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 10:11 AM

79. I think the quote I provided addressed the issues you raised.

 

Here is a fun article for you (currently on the DU front page) discussing $131M in donations after Bill helped seal a deal for $350M in uranium mines?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511518163

Probably totally on the up-and-up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #79)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 10:19 AM

82. I am not surprised by the callousness of the comfortable toward the afflicted.

I suspect the poor HIV victims who are being treated because of the Clinton Foundation or the kids in impoverished parts of Africa who aren't literally pooping themselves to death from dysentery think differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #82)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 10:48 AM

83. Sigh. Except for...

 

http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/clinton-foundation-distributed-useless-drugs-to-aids-patients/

Please note that article was from a year ago (before the race was in full swing).

Look, I'm an optimist. If you are a charitable giver, please accept my gratitude. I am much more cynical about so much of the charitable upper echelon after my time with American Red Cross (ten year volunteer/went to Hurricane Katrina), and March of Dimes (cursed be their names) based on my work with the Preemie Growth Project. I have been given a choice: believe the marketing team, or my lying eyes.

I have the utmost respect for President Jimmy Carter. I think President Bill Clinton *wanted* to be like him, but just couldn't handle the boredom of retirement, and thus started "tinkering" for his friends. Plus, they gave him money - isn't it nice when people give you money?

It just looks like cronyism and corruption to the rest of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #83)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 10:56 AM

84. In my initial post I conceded that there is "cronyism" involved in foundation administration.

One has to weigh the cronyism that permeates a foundation against the overall good they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #84)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 11:52 AM

88. I understand. And maybe this is all just how "business" is done.

 

Sausage making and all that. I think you have a good heart, and I appreciate that you are trying to do the best you can with the information you have.

Thank you for talking with me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #41)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 12:04 AM

56. +1

 


That's why the FBI is looking into the Foundation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #38)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 12:02 AM

55. I sincerely doubt that.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #55)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 12:07 AM

58. Are you friend with President Obama

Are you friends with President Obama?


Thank you in advance.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #58)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 12:37 AM

61. Are you?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #61)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 12:38 AM

62. I asked you first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #62)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:52 AM

64. My opinion was formed by

 

reading many articles on this. How was your opinion formed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 840high (Reply #64)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 06:11 AM

72. By reading articles and

By reading articles and books by the president's closest confidantes including Believer by David Axelrod.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #36)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 11:08 AM

85. OK that SoS was taking advice from a crony w/o any creds, who had biz interests in Libya?

and doing so behind Obama's back?

it's bad enough that she was dissing Obama, who had banned Blumenthal from all State Dept. and WH affairs; but the really unacceptable events were her taking ongoing input regarding Libya from him. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to become a career state department/foreign service employee? Years of education, foreign language competence, difficult exams, etc. And she's taking decision-making advice from this guy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #22)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 12:01 AM

54. He specifically did with Sid.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #22)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 02:42 AM

69. you must be very naive..

..or you haven't read much about Blumenthal and Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #20)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 09:38 AM

78. Great way to live one's life. Yea, you bet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:11 PM

19. K&R, Ida Briggs...K&R...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 06:59 PM

28. They don't care what the Clinton's were doing with our tax dollars

Or what countries she was bartering with on behalf of Bill's clients. Or what countries she was overthrowing to get what ever corporate claim for her donors. They just want Madame president. Blinders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kittycat (Reply #28)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 12:06 AM

57. They view Clinton first and country last.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 07:15 PM

30. You get to the nub of things at the end of your post

And no, it's not alright when we do it. Part of the reason Republican administrations get away with having horrific things happening is because our party's top elected officials know we're always just a tad short in the credibility department to fully take on these administrations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 11:03 PM

42. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 11:50 PM

50. Hillary would have been fired by Obama if he knew this then

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ViseGrip (Reply #50)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 12:08 AM

59. You are forgetting his legacy

 

is very important to him. I think he'd rather wait and see what FBI comes up with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Thu Mar 17, 2016, 11:52 PM

51. Duplicity Is As Duplicity Does

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 12:10 AM

60. Drip, Drip, Drip,,,, gush... drip... drip.. Gush....

I can't understand anyone supporting Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #60)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 01:50 AM

63. I can't either. How can

 

someone put a candidate before country?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #60)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 02:51 AM

70. I guess if you believed this nonsense, it would be hard to understand. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BreakfastClub (Reply #70)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 03:17 AM

71. What nonsense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BreakfastClub (Reply #70)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 09:30 AM

76. Please explain the nonsense part.

 

I have been trying to keep to facts, but interpretation is obviously key.

Do you find the $120k a year Clinton Foundation payments to Blumenthal innocuous and justifiable? Etc. Please share.

I am not a politician, and I could be wrong. Please share where the logic train breaks down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 02:03 AM

65. Jeez.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 02:36 AM

66. plus...the intel on Libya that Blumenthal was feeding to Hillary was faulty.

...and Hillary was turning around and using it for pressuring Obama to make war on Gaddafi with flawed intel. Because...war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #66)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 10:12 AM

80. Can I get a link for that?

 

Please and thank you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #80)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 04:35 PM

90. Here's one...

The Clinton Server has already yielded some fruit: a blockbuster report by the New York Times reveals that Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton ally, provided misleading and/or inaccurate memos on Libya to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the hopes of creating favorable conditions for his private company to sign contracts with the new Libyan government.

Blumenthal had direct access to Clinton’s Secret Email due to his close relationship with the family: he served in Bill Clinton‘s administration as a senior advisor, worked on Hillary’s 2008 campaign (and pulled tactics that eventually got him frozen out of the Obama State Department), and, at the time of the emails, held numerous jobs: somehow, he was an employee of the Clinton Foundation and happened to be an adviser for the Constellations Group, a private consulting company that hoped to “pursue business leads in Libya”.

While the Constellations Group was on the ground in Libya — and, by the looks at it, failing miserably in their attempts to build a relationship with the transition government — Blumenthal relied on their reports to write intelligence memos to Hillary, who then sent them around to senior State Department officials. Not only did Blumenthal’s reports lack the rigorous fact-checking and vetting that other intel memos must undergo, they just seemed plain inaccurate to her staff. “Some of Mr. Blumenthal’s memos urged Mrs. Clinton to consider rumors that other American diplomats knew at the time to be false,” the Times noted. “Not infrequently, Mrs. Clinton’s subordinates replied to the memos with polite skepticism.

Here are some highlights:

In April 2012, [U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens] took issue with a Blumenthal memo raising the prospect that the Libyan branch of the Muslim Brotherhood was poised to make gains in the coming parliamentary elections. The Brotherhood fared poorly in the voting.

Another American diplomat read the memo, noting that Mrs. Clinton’s source appeared to have confused Libyan politicians with the same surname.

Mrs. Clinton herself sometimes seemed skeptical. After reading a March 2012 memo from Mr. Blumenthal, describing a plan by French and British intelligence officials to encourage tribal leaders in eastern Libya to declare a “semiautonomous” zone there, Mrs. Clinton wrote to Mr. Sullivan, “This one strains credulity.”

[Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan] agreed, telling Mrs. Clinton, “It seems like a thin conspiracy theory.”

But the skepticism did not seem to sour Mrs. Clinton on Mr. Blumenthal. She continued to forward Mr. Blumenthal’s memos, often appending a note: “Useful insight” or “We should get this around asap.”


http://www.mediaite.com/online/clintons-private-emails-reveal-she-used-faulty-intel-from-ally-with-biz-interests-in-libya/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #90)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 04:54 PM

93. Recommend, Plus: Ida's and others links about Blumenthal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #90)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:10 PM

95. this is all so outrageoulsy bad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 09:15 AM

74. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, IdaBriggs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #74)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 09:25 AM

75. Most welcome, Uncle Joe.

 

It is very convoluted, so I hope I explained my understanding clearly!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #75)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 09:30 AM

77. You did fine by me.

Peace to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 10:16 AM

81. The sharks are all planning another feeding frenzy of graft,

just like they had in the crash of 2007-08. Connect the dots to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511518163#top

I bet Obama is in the payoffs on this one. They'll sell everything we have left that isn't nailed down, and maybe that too.

The Clintons can't get back in the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 04:49 PM

91. I think Obama is scared of Watergate

 

So he is not going to try and cover this up. Too much info is already out there thanks to the hacker. If he never hacked the email servers all this stuff would been sweep under the rug. But now Obama has to step back and when his Pres Sec made mistake of commenting about it claiming it was nothing, Obama ordered the AG to say something. This is how WH has done things for years. Instead of Press Sec back tracking the statement they just have AG back off it for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gwhittey (Reply #91)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 05:31 PM

94. well, he is in some jeopardy

How would you like to be POTUS and learn that your secretary of state is running a rogue operation right under your nose? That she exposed communications of national security import to hacking? That she had a money tree financing her rogue shop and it was funded by foreign donors?

I suspect he is playing a long game here, and will let the FBI do what it will, and will NOT stand in the way of the AG who must prosecute or get a plea deal from HRC.

At least I hope that's his plan. I would be awfully disenchanted to learn that he was playing the game, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 04:50 PM

92. Kicked. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread