When you make your response to my questions, could you clarify what you mean when you use the phrase “conflict of interest?” Because I think you are using the term in a different way than it is commonly used.
And boy, I don’t think you have any idea what “publicly financed” campaign systems are about. None at all.
So, benevolent oligarchs with blind trusts?
Interesting.
Neither did I. Conflict of interest will seldom result in a criminal conviction. But the rules about conflict of interest are spelled out from the Office of Government Ethics.
Again, I am not talking about her personal interests, but her private interests. There is a distinction and it is the one spelled out above. If Clinton was a devoted stamp collector and she directed her staff to give access to fellow stamp collectors that would be acting on her personal interests but not create a conflict of interest.
Donors do get access. That’s true. It’s true in appointed positions and it’s true in elected positions. It’s true in Washington and in state capitals and in cities and counties and school boards and every other political position at every level. And not just donors. You get access if you belong to the same party. Or same country club. Or same bowling league. Or same church. Or same stamp group. You get access if your kids go to the same schools, if you share a dentist, if your cousin knows someone. You get access if you shop at the same stores, buy from the same auto dealer, hire the same lawn maintenance people. You get access if you take your vacations on the same island, own a summer house on the same lake, go skiing on the same mountain, stop in at the same film festivals, and cosplay together at the same Comic-cons.
This has been true forever. It’s the reason that outsiders of every type have made it one of their first goals to get someone who has sameness into politics. They not only are likely the have to same backgrounds and therefore understand the same needs, they will provide access that the insiders will not. The Irish did it, then the Germans, then the Italians, then the Jews, then the Puerto Ricans, then the Chinese, then the Japanese, then the blacks, then the Muslims, then the gays, then the Mormons, though perhaps not in that exact order.
You cannot legislate people out of meeting people of like sameness. You can draw up formal rules for conflicts of interest, which have to be narrow and specific or else they ban all human activity.
Or you can whine about all the unfairness of the world and blame Them, whether the wealthy are Them or the latest immigrant group is Them. Sometimes that is legitimate and sometimes it’s political bias.
In this case, it looks to me a lot like political bias. You can disagree. You probably have a totally different perception of fairness than I do. But you nailed it in your OP.
Yes, exactly.
I, too, am curious as to how someone is supposed to get elected when we don’t finance their campaigns with tax dollars and we make it illegal for them to solicit or accept donations for their campaign funds. I suppose that you’re just not allowed to run for office unless you’re a member of the 2% (local/state races), 1% (House of Representatives or Senate), or an independently wealthy billionaire (President)?
Maybe we could force the broadcast networks to run ads for which they’re not paid? I don’t think they’d like that much though, and there might be constitutional problems there. All campaign staff must be volunteers? So, all campaigns will look like Trump’s.
I get where you’re coming from. You want a civil service and legislature that isn’t beholden to anyone, doesn’t take taxpayer money to get elected, and doesn’t have even the whiff of a scandal. Those are all noble goals, but would require extreme changes to the world as it is in order to come about, and the law of unintended consequences looms large over it.
Based on the Washington Post report, they mentioned that the AP had only a partial list. The implication is clear, the WP looked at the whole list.
Or they did the math:
158 appointments/4 years = 39 appointments a year. For the Secretary of State.
And realized the AP didn’t have anywhere near enough data to make the point made.
But DID the WP look at the whole list?
Do they actually HAVE the whole list?
Because the story I’ve gotten so far is the AP only worked with WHAT they had. Otherwise why am I hearing stories about the AP saying such and the State Department not releasing all (or at least most) of it?
And IFFF the WP had the whole list…well, what ARE their numbers?
Its like me telling you your engineering calculations are all fubarred but not telling you how…
And if the AP does not have the whole list…that shits on the State Department for NOT releasing it.
Do you understand that the interests of the Clinton Foundation are not the same as the interests of the United States? They may legitimately overlap but Hillary’s personal interests are not per se the the interests of the United States just because she is Secretary of State. Those donations had already served her personal interests before the meetings were granted or held, this places the onus on her to ensure that those meeting do not even appear to be in exchange for those donations otherwise she makes the United States foreign policy appear to be for sale.
If it means using my tax dollars to profit anyone then I do understand. What on earth do you consider public financing to be?
Now we are getting indeed in the territory that it is you the one that has to get support for what you claim now. Again the point I made was a different one and it was to deal wit the claims that the other poster made.
No, you are claiming by way of “implication” that the WP has the whole list (I am guessing you mean meeting calendar or some such as I am).
Well, lets hear it.
AP (as far as I can tell from random news) is that they have X amount of calendar/meeting data and here are their results. That is AP’s story. Let me repeat that. That is AP’s story.
You claim the WP has more.
Lets hear it.
This is absurd. We (you/the WP/ Hillary) have evidence that it isn’t as bad as it seems. But we haven’t/can’t release it yet!
Good grief.
PS. If my responses to your post are NOTthe point you are making…well, quit making your point badly, restate the point, or at least quit gripping about my posts and I’ll STFU about your responses to my posts as well.
I take your point about the difference between personal and private interests. I think there are private interests for Hillary in the Clinton Foundation but the Ethics rules stated may not include that. You and I do have different ideas about what is scandalous, and what fairness should be about, though I am sure my ideal standards will never adopted or even widely regarded.
Absolutely.
And where we find evidence of compromise or actual influence on policy, the person(s) responsible should absolutely be held to account.
Your tax dollars already profit lots and lots of people. Specifically those tax dollars that go towards paying the salaries of various elected and appointed officials. Are you opposed to that as well? Or just the financing of election campaigns?
Are you kidding me? I posted the actual rules from the actual government and you’re using a generalized statement from Wikipedia whose wording is nowhere in those rules?
We don’t have trial by Wikipedia yet.
ETA: Your ideal standards can never be adopted. They are literally impossible in human society.
Yes, nearly everyone who’s sane enough to support Ms Clinton regards your standards as silly. Also, we donciser she was unwise about her e-mail but it’s no damn “scandal.”
So, you prefer Trump. Bless your heart.
To me, whether or not some poobah donated to the Clinton Fund in order to get a meeting is a separate question from whether HRC personally benefitted from that contribution.
Like people who donate to a party or campaign fund, we can debate forever whether this donation is because they want access. Pretty much, for big donations, of course they do. And, if I read this whole thread right, people pretty much think domestic funding of campaigns, even when the transaction includes expected access, is more or less politics as usual…but, if the money goes to a charitable organization and is spent on excellent international needs, HRC or any other similarly positioned candidate, should blow their brains out to avoid the embarrassment of being charged with influence peddling???
I do not prefer Trump. This is the most baseless of arguments in this matter, that Hillary may do anything, is accountable to no one, simply because Trump is the worse alternative.
Speaking of baseless arguments, when are you going to stop bandying about an AP report that reputable news outlets are denouncing?
Your ideal standards will NEVER be practical.
However, the GOAL is certainly worth striving for…
Again, I feel I must point out to all those that go “yeah, but other politicians do the same thing with donors/blahhh blahh blahhh”
There are two things that make this different.
The whole legal/illegal thing regarding donations and donors and politicians and meetings and such are about donations from USA (Team America Fuck Yeah) citizens (corporations).
When such donations are from FOREIGN folks that is a whole nuther issue…and not just ethically but LEGALLY and PROCEDURALLY…
And when such FOREIGN donations involve somebody involved in high level gubment FOREIGN shit…like ughhh somebody sorta in charge of that shit…like the freaking SECRETARY OF STATE…
Yeah, that crap looks bad and is bad just because it looks bad if for no other reason (not to even mention the other reasons).
That was not posted in response to you. In that post and my previous discussion I did not state that Hillary had a conflict of interest as defined by the government rules you posted. And this is not a trial.
The impossiblity of my ideals does not equate to having no ideals.
Shitty reporting by the AP.
In my view, this is a problem (and still a relatively minor one) if and when there is evidence that she took meetings that she wouldn’t otherwise have taken. At the barest minimum, this means showing a connection between the donation and the meeting–like showing that if you donate, you’re more likely to get a meeting. Right now, there’s not even enough data to show that. So it’s a big nothingburger.
This story is one that only resonates among people who are already quite anti-Clinton.