HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » AP: Clinton Opened State...

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 02:16 PM

 

AP: Clinton Opened State Department Office to Dozens of Corporate Donors, Dem Fundraisers

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/11/30/clinton_opened_state_department_office_to_dozens_of_corporate_donors_dem_fundraisers_128879.html

WASHINGTON (AP) As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton opened her office to dozens of influential Democratic party fundraisers, former Clinton administration and campaign loyalists, and corporate donors to her family's global charity, according to State Department calendars obtained by The Associated Press.

The woman who would become a 2016 presidential candidate met or spoke by phone with nearly 100 corporate executives, Clinton charity donors and political supporters during her four years at the State Department between 2009 and 2013, records show. Many of those meetings and calls, formally scheduled by her aides, involved heads of companies and organizations that were pursuing business or private interests with the Obama administration at the time, including with the State Department while Clinton was in charge.

In addition, at least 60 of those who met with Clinton have donated or pledged program commitments to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. A dozen have been among Hillary Clinton's most reliable political fundraisers, bundling more than $100,000 in donations during her failed 2008 presidential campaign or providing larger amounts to Clinton-allied super political action committees this time. And at least six entities represented in the meetings paid former President Bill Clinton lucrative fees for speeches.


The AP found no evidence of legal or ethical conflicts in Clinton's meetings, in its examination of 1,294 pages from the calendars. Her sit-downs with business leaders were not unique among recent secretaries of state, who sometimes called on corporate executives to aid in international affairs, according to archived documents.

But the difference with Clinton's meetings was that she was a 2008 presidential contender who was widely expected to try again in 2016. Her availability to luminaries from politics, business and charity shows the extent to which her office became a sounding board for their interests. And her ties with so many familiar faces from those intersecting worlds were complicated by their lucrative financial largess and political support over the years even during her State Department tenure for her campaigns and her husband's, and for her family's foundation.


This epitomizes Clinton and her campaign. Does she do things that are illegal? No. Are they shady? Absolutely. To her credit, she met with some influential people striving to better educational opportunities for kids around the world, which is great. But then she turns around and talks to folks from Pepsi Co. and others about international trade deals. And of course, all of these people are major donors to either her campaign or the Clinton Foundation. This includes heads of unions, at least one of which endorsed her candidacy in July.

I bolded the opening sentences of the last two paragraphs in the excerpt because they highlight what's wrong with this situation. It is an absolute conflict of interest to be dealing with so many influential and powerful people, and having them donate to your charitable organization, while gearing up a Presidential campaign. This is why Hillary Clinton comes off as untrustworthy.

56 replies, 3126 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 56 replies Author Time Post
Reply AP: Clinton Opened State Department Office to Dozens of Corporate Donors, Dem Fundraisers (Original post)
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 OP
berni_mccoy Nov 2015 #1
upaloopa Nov 2015 #2
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #3
George II Nov 2015 #27
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #28
George II Nov 2015 #36
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #39
George II Nov 2015 #40
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #41
George II Nov 2015 #44
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #45
fredamae Nov 2015 #4
JDPriestly Nov 2015 #42
Post removed Nov 2015 #47
Thinkingabout Nov 2015 #5
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #6
klook Nov 2015 #55
Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #56
bahrbearian Nov 2015 #7
SunSeeker Nov 2015 #8
bahrbearian Nov 2015 #9
SunSeeker Nov 2015 #13
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #17
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #10
SunSeeker Nov 2015 #12
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #14
SunSeeker Nov 2015 #16
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #18
SunSeeker Nov 2015 #20
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #21
SunSeeker Nov 2015 #22
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #23
SunSeeker Nov 2015 #24
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #26
SunSeeker Nov 2015 #30
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #35
askew Nov 2015 #31
SunSeeker Nov 2015 #33
frylock Nov 2015 #51
Laser102 Nov 2015 #37
JDPriestly Nov 2015 #46
tex-wyo-dem Nov 2015 #49
FreakinDJ Nov 2015 #11
UglyGreed Nov 2015 #15
Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2015 #19
Major Hogwash Nov 2015 #25
askew Nov 2015 #29
Todays_Illusion Nov 2015 #32
JDPriestly Nov 2015 #48
Todays_Illusion Nov 2015 #50
ibegurpard Nov 2015 #34
SoapBox Nov 2015 #38
jwirr Nov 2015 #43
Recoverin_Republican Nov 2015 #52
HerbChestnut Nov 2015 #53
Name removed Nov 2015 #54

Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 02:24 PM

1. Now we know where the push for the TPP came from...

 

She hand-crafted it for these corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to berni_mccoy (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 02:27 PM

2. Making up shit again

You should write the rest of the article since you know so much about it.
But then you don't know do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 02:32 PM

3. It's not unreasonable to think that the TPP was discussed during these meetings

 

At this point the evidence is just circumstantial, but it certainly appears these companies had influence on the state department and likely the TPP itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:03 PM

27. And it's not unreasonable to think that the TPP was NOT discussed, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #27)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:04 PM

28. When large corporations visited her office specifically to talk about international trade

 

I'd bet the former.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #28)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:23 PM

36. How do you know that "large corporations visited her office specifically.....

....to talk about international trade"? Unless I missed it, that's not mentioned in the article. Or did you just make that up?

I understand that Sanders has had several sit downs with two corporatists, Jerry Greenfield and Ben Cohen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #36)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:29 PM

39. Here you go

 

I'll concede that it is implied, but come on, what else would they talk about...

PepsiCo CEO Nooyi also had at least three scheduled contacts with Clinton. In February 2010, Nooyi and GE's Immelt met Clinton as part of the State Department's efforts to secure corporate money for an American pavilion in China's Shanghai Expo in May of that year.

PepsiCo spent $6.8 million in 2010 on government lobbying. Nooyi talked twice with Clinton by phone in 2012, a year when PepsiCo spent $3.3 million on lobbying Congress and federal agencies, including State Department officials, on issues such as trade pacts and Russia legislation.

PepsiCo spokesman Jon Banner declined to discuss conversations or meetings the firm's senior leaders may have had. A top executive with PepsiCo's main rival, Coca-Cola, which donated $5 million to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, also discussed the Shanghai event with Clinton in a 2009 conference call along with executives from PepsiCo and several other firms.

Nooyi is not a prominent Clinton political supporter, but PepsiCo has been active with the Clinton Foundation. PepsiCo's foundation pledged in 2008 to provide $7.6 million in grants to two water firms as a commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative. The Clinton charity also listed a PepsiCo Foundation donation of more than $100,000 in 2014, the same year the soda company's foundation announced a partnership under the charity to spur economic and social development in emerging nations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #39)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:35 PM

40. That is a MAJOR stretch! First, the article explains explicitly what the purpose of the meetings...

....with the PepsiCo and GE representatives was - "Nooyi and GE's Immelt met Clinton as part of the State Department's efforts to secure corporate money for an American pavilion in China's Shanghai Expo in May of that year."

And the article later pointed out that there was nothing found that was unethical or improper.

But these meetings provide a great opportunity to create yet another smear of Hillary Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #40)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:41 PM

41. It doesn't take much of an imagination to believe that million dollar donations influences someone.

 

If Hillary were a Republican, everyone here would be screaming the word 'Corruption' as loud as they could. And no, these meetings and donations are not illegal, but they sure are suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #41)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:47 PM

44. Unfortunately it does take a vivid imagination to impugn the ethics of a Democratic...

....candidate for President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #44)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:53 PM

45. Not when they have received millions of dollars in personal income...

 

...from the same corporations that also donated millions of dollars to their foundation. I don't care what party Hillary is from, if a presidential candidate has questionable financial ties to large corporations, that is something that needs to be discussed. And you're damn right I'm questioning her ethics. If we were talking about any other candidate currently running, especially if it were a Republican, this board would be exploding with calls of corruption. Companies like Pepsi and Exxon do not just donate millions of dollars out of the goodness of their hearts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 02:33 PM

4. Curious. Can HRC supporters unequivically state as fact

with credible documentation these events did not occur as some have speculated?
If you or others could/would that would ease concerns of "trust" so many have expressed.
Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:43 PM

42. If you think that is bad, just wait until the Republicans have molded and

cut and pasted and painted over and embroidered this story.

Hillary's meetings with the leaders of top corporations combined with the donations to the Clinton Foundation, the payments for speeches by Bill Clinton and then the campaign donations??????

If Hillary were a Republican candidate, the Hillary fans would be the first to say this was socialism for the corporations, otherwise known as Fascism or corruption.

Hillary fans: Open your eyes. Look at Hillary like as though she were any other candidate. What you would see is CORRUPTION or the stench and appearance thereof.

Why choose a candidate who is going to face a barrage of criticism and innuendo because of the potential corruption charges (hopefully, just in a potential preidential campaign not in a court) to which she has exposed herself?

It is crazy to support Hillary after these facts have come to light. The Republicans will, and appropriately so, have a hey-day with them.

Hey. They successfully made Jimmy Carter look like a loser. They impeached Bill Clinton. They slander Obama whose administration is as clean as any in the last couple of centuries constantly. What will they do to Hillary?

Don't vote for Hillary, at least not in the primary.

Votes for Hillary in the primary are wasted votes. She is not going to be able to explain this even if she did nothing wrong. It's just going to be devastating for her.

I'm sorry but she should have known better. Either you have a foundation and your husband accepts speaking fees from big corporations OR you run for president. You can't have it all, and Hillary is trying to have it all. That will not work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #2)


Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 02:36 PM

5. Will Sanders open up all of his finances to be investigated? Yes, we need to follow the money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 02:46 PM

6. Good luck tracking the 1million+ small donations he's received since the campaign began

 

Somehow I don't think $30 will be as influential as $250,000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 09:51 PM

55. Sanders, do my bidding! You owe me!

For my $30, I expect a .00001 percent tax break!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 1, 2015, 12:49 AM

56. Maybe there are those who thinks Hillart is worth $250,000 and some who think Sanders is worth $30

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 02:47 PM

7. Sanders money would take 1 day to investigate, Hillary. couple of years.

It is one tangled mess

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 02:51 PM

8. A potential presidential run does not preclude her from doing her job as SOS.

And meeting with this companies was part of her job as SOS, as the article notes: "Her sit-downs with business leaders were not unique among recent secretaries of state, who sometimes called on corporate executives to aid in international affairs, according to archived documents."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 02:54 PM

9. But But Condi, did it too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 03:04 PM

13. I'm guessing Condi did not meet with anyone about child labor.

From the article:

Teachers' union chief Weingarten met Clinton three times, in 2009, 2010 and 2012. Emails released by the State Department show that Weingarten's policy aide, Tina Flournoy, messaged Clinton at her private account in mid-September 2009 saying that "Randi and would like to visit you re: child labor issues if that's possible, whom should I contact to schedule?"

Clinton responded: "I would love to see you and Randi. I'm copying Lona (Clinton's scheduling aide) to see how soon we can schedule. Hope you're well."

Less than three weeks later, Weingarten and Flournoy now chief of staff to Bill Clinton met Hillary Clinton for a half hour, according to the calendars. That year, the union spent nearly $1 million lobbying the government on issues that included child labor in Uzbekistan. The union also spent at least $1 million in both 2010 and 2012, the other years Weingarten met with Clinton.

"We discussed a range of issues with Secretary Clinton including the growing refugee crisis, expanding access to education globally and curbing child labor practices," said Kate Childs Graham, speaking for the union.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/11/30/clinton_opened_state_department_office_to_dozens_of_corporate_donors_dem_fundraisers_128879.html


FOR SHAME!!! HILLARY TALKED WITH EDUCATORS ABOUT ENDING CHILD LABOR!!! ( )

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 03:10 PM

17. That's the best thing to come out of this article.

 

Unfortunately the rest borders on crony capitalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 02:56 PM

10. Yep, followed by the next paragraph...

 

Her availability to luminaries from politics, business and charity shows the extent to which her office became a sounding board for their interests. And her ties with so many familiar faces from those intersecting worlds were complicated by their lucrative financial largess and political support over the years even during her State Department tenure for her campaigns and her husband's, and for her family's foundation.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #10)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 02:58 PM

12. A wordy way of repeating the headline. Again, no substance. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #12)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 03:04 PM

14. Evidence is circumstantial, sure

 

But you have to admit that it raises some red flags, especially when many of those contacts have donated or outright endorsed her campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #14)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 03:10 PM

16. A LOT of people have donated or endorsed Hillary.

She has been in high levels of government a long time and knows a lot of people. And a LOT of people have with endorsed her or donated to her or Bill or the Clinton Foundation. It would be ridiculous, unnecessary and unworkable to suggest she not talk to all those people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #16)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 03:13 PM

18. The problem is who is donating and how much

 

Companies like Pepsi and Exxon donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Clinton Foundation while meeting privately with Hillary to discuss trade policy. If Hillary were a Republican we'd all be shouting 'Corruption!!!' from the rooftops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #18)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 03:19 PM

20. Talking to people who donated money for HIV drugs for poor countries is not "Corruption!!!"

You are repeating a Republican talking point. This is straight out of that piece of trash, Clinton Cash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #20)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 03:24 PM

21. There is good with the bad.

 

In the OP, I praised Hillary for meeting with a union leader who wanted to expand educational opportunities for kids around the world. That type of stuff is great, and if her dealings were limited to folks like that then there wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately, she has also met, and accepted donations from, large for-profit corporations who clearly have an agenda. There are two sides to this coin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #21)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 03:44 PM

22. Everyone has an agenda. Hillary could not refuse to talk to all corporations. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #22)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 03:47 PM

23. Sure, but she could have refused their money

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #23)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 03:53 PM

24. None of them gave HER money when she was SoS. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #24)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 03:58 PM

26. They sure did when she was out of office.

 

To the tune of millions of dollars. And many large donations were made to the Clinton Foundation while she was SoS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Reply #26)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:07 PM

30. Donations to her campaign made when she was not SoS are perfectly legal.

Donations to the Clinton Foundation were not made to her; it went to charity work, such as HIV drugs, Haiti relief, etc.

Until we have public financing of elections, ALL candidates will need donations. To unilaterally disarm would hand the White House to the GOP.

What you are complaining about is our system of financing elections. I agree with you. It sucks. But until we have public financing of elections, I see no reason to refuse otherwise legal donations. We've tried that and had our butts handed to us. Ask Russ Feingold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #30)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:14 PM

35. I said nothing of legality.

 

Nobody is questioning that the donations are legal. What the article, and many others, are questioning is whether they're ethical. That, of course, is up to one's own opinion, but I am always weary of corporations giving large sums of money to political candidates or their organizations. It reeks of corruption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #24)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:09 PM

31. A lot of them had her husband speak at their companies for money and/or donate $ to CF.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askew (Reply #31)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:11 PM

33. Wanna talk about Bernie's wife and where she got her money and job appointments? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #33)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 06:52 PM

51. Sure. Let's do that..

what have you got?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:24 PM

37. Hillary and Bill Clinton are well connected after spending over twenty years in politics.

The rich and famous all know Bill and Hillary Clinton. So what? I would expect the former President and former First Lady, senator, and SOS to have these friends and acquaintances. They didn't live under a rock during all their careers. What the hell is the problem? They've shaken a lot of hands and had meals with a lot of people and made a lot of friends. Isn't that part of the job? I would be suspicious of them if they didn't have these connections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 05:09 PM

46. Tell that to the right-wing conspiracy guys.

The Clintons???????

It's downright stupid to run for president after doing all this big business with corporations like that.

Downright stupid. And I hate to use that word, "stupid," but Hillary is just begging for trouble with her run for the White House.

Bernie is a much better bet for winning in 2016 at this point.

The Republicans will make hay out of this. There is no way she can run from the innuendo and smearing.

It may be very unfair to Hillary, but that is how politics works.

In my view, her campaign is pretty hopeless at this point.

This appears to be socialism for the corporations, otherwise known as Fascism, writ large and in indelible ink.

Hillary may or may not have done anything "wrong." Her "guilt" or "innocence" is not the point. The point is that she is going to be placed on the defensive because of these ties and the mere APPEARANCE OF CORRUPTION. That will give the Republicans a license to go after her personally and avoid a discussion of the issues.

She should drop out of the primary race right now. I will not feel sorry for her when the propaganda against her starts if she does not end her campaign now.

She is just asking for trouble. I have no sympathy for her. She will drag the entire Democratic Party down with her. Bill did not have to dally about with Monica Lewinsky, but he did. And it hurt the Democratic Party.

Now the appearance of corruption with Hillary.

This is a big problem.

Again, the issue is not whether she did anything wrong but whether it appears that she might have done something wrong.

If you don't believe me, talk to Gary Hart about this. He probably did nothing wrong either. But an attractive young woman sat on his lap. It looked bad. There was hte appearance of scandal. His campaign was ended.

Hillary should end her campaign right now. If she does get into office, the Republicans will make her life absolutely miserable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #46)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 05:48 PM

49. This appearance of corruption seems to be a pattern with her...

Another example: the stupid move to use a private email server for official SoS business. Again, probably not illegal, but really low hanging fruit for RW attacks of corruption.

Truly a stupid move on Hillary's part.

Sometimes I think she thinks she's Teflon and can get away with anything. It's catching up to her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 02:57 PM

11. Nothing to see here folks now move along

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 03:06 PM

15. Collecting a paycheck while

collecting donors..... nice work if you can get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 03:14 PM

19. Oh, c'mon. Those investors...er..donors were there to talk about baseball or knitting or

 

recipes. Perish the thought that they were there and investing..er..donating with an expectation of something in return.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 03:57 PM

25. Business as usual. Big business, and YOU aren't a member of their club!

Get used to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:07 PM

29. Not a bit surprised by this. Hillary had staffers who were working for her at State, while also

working for her foundation and her big donors. It is all one big slush fund to help her and her husband out monetarily and with her future election.

There is a never-ending pile of stories waiting to come out about conflicts of interest with the Clinton Foundation, the State Dept, and the Clintons' personal wealth.

One of the many reasons I didn't want Hillary in Obama's administration. The Clintons have always played fast and loose with ethics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:09 PM

32. But somehow AP never got around to pointing out the "investigative," committes in Congress were tax

paid political attacks against Hillary and any possible Democratic elected.


And please, why does DU keep posting and carrying conservative attack propaganda?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Todays_Illusion (Reply #32)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 05:31 PM

48. This "propaganda" isea going to play a possibly decisive role in the 2016 election

if Hillary is our nominee.

We need to be discussing the viability of her campaign in the light of this.

DU is going to be easy on her about this compared to what the Republicans will do with it.

Hillary complained about the vast Republican conspiracy. Well she didn't have to invite the kind of propaganda against her that she will meet in 2016 if she is the candidate.

She should not be running.

It's not a matter of whether she did something wrong. It is a matter of whether there is the appearance that she did something wrong.

The measure is politics, not a courtroom.

In a courtroom, you can question evidence on all sorts of bases: relevance, hearsay, etc. But Hillary will be judged by a different measure. Her honesty, her trustworthiness, her greed, her corruption, her tendency to favor some over others, he sense of indebtedness to those who play ball with her, her vindictiveness toward those who do not play ball with her -- all those character traits will become the center or at least a center of the campaign in 2016 if she is the candidate.

Hillary is a lousy choice to lead the Democratic ticket in 2016. This suggestion or appearance of corruption will taint the entire Democratic Party and ticket if she is the nominee.

Think twice about voting for Hillary. No. Think a dozen times about it. Because she has so much baggage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #48)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 06:33 PM

50. Don't worry, to borrow a pharse, the conservatives backing Republicans have binders and binders of

attack items, if they didn't they would just make them up.

There is a good chance Hillary will end up being the Republican candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:11 PM

34. Oh Dear

If we'd just shut up on Democratic Underground then no one would be putting out stories like this right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:26 PM

38. And just food for thought...

Or is that money for thought...

She and Willie will be hosting that DNC Fundraiser in NYC on Dec. 17...$35,000 per plate...option to donate another $10k! Sting as the entertainment. Hob-Knob time!

I strongly doubt that those out of work or on food assistance will be there...Banksters? Jamie Dimon?

And how many of of those dollars raised, will help Bernie? DWS...answers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 04:45 PM

43. Anyone heard any more about those corrected tax forms

for the last 4 years? She said they were a mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 07:05 PM

52. yes, it's very clear, HRC is the DEVIL incarnate. and she is the only high ranking government

official who ever talked with corporate CEOs and other influential people. LOL

here's an important paragraph:

[font size="+1"]The AP found no evidence of legal or ethical conflicts in Clinton's meetings, in its examination of 1,294 pages from the calendars. Her sit-downs with business leaders were not unique among recent secretaries of state, who sometimes called on corporate executives to aid in international affairs, according to archived documents.[/font]



.... or we could place more importance on [font size="+1"]possible[/font] motives which are only limited by our imaginations.... than we do on actual deeds and contingent results, actual evidence of something that was actually done that was nefarious or illegal.

[font size="+1"].... but where's the fun in that?[/font]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recoverin_Republican (Reply #52)

Mon Nov 30, 2015, 07:25 PM

53. I actually highlighted that same paragraph in the OP

 

The real problem is the transfer of money from those corporations to either the Clinton Foundation or Hillary herself once she left office. It's a blatant conflict of interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HerbChestnut (Original post)

Reply to this thread