# Hillary Clinton's lies and scandals **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 24, 2016, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523 "2016-05-24T04:00:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/21 "2016-05-24T11:27:15Z")
I hear a lot on these boards about how Liberals just don’t trust her and won’t vote for her because of all those supposed scandals…but I don’t seem to hear it from the actual _Liberals_. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/22 "2016-05-24T11:34:44Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > For quite a while people have been complaining that we elect presidents based on whether we’d like to have a beer with then, not smarts or competence. Now we have a competent candidate who may not be super-likable, these same people are having a fit. > I don’t know if she is a bitch, but I hope she is. Obama would have done a bit better if he tried it. As LBJ, the master, said, get them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow. I’ve never found her likable - and horrible as it sounds - is the women in power aren’t likeable thing. I’ve been socialized to associate it with words like “shrill” and “bitchy” - when I examine my feelings I find myself more disappointed with myself than Hillary. The one person I know who knows her says that in person, in a meeting one on one (or one on several) or seated next to her at a conference, she comes across as warm, sincere, and funny. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/23 "2016-05-24T11:42:51Z")
I hear time and time again that in private, she is warm, genuine, funny, and sincere. There’s no question that she’s intelligent and hardworking. For doing the job of being president, there may be nobody more ready to step in and hit the ground running. For doing the job of running for president, she is terrible. She has none of her husband’s talents for public speaking or leadership. As for the “lies and scandals”, I don’t buy any of it. After all these countless investigations on Benghazi, they still can’t point to a specific act that she did or didn’t do and say there’s the smoking gun. As for the emails, I find it very hard to give two shits. Or even one. Whitewater- meh. Who cares? Those who think she killed someone are totally off the rails. They work with the Republican base because the Republican base is both stupid and crazy. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/24 "2016-05-24T11:43:15Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I hear a lot on these boards about how Liberals just don’t trust her and won’t vote for her because of all those supposed scandals…but I don’t seem to hear it from the actual _Liberals_. I’m a proud liberal (when did that become a bad word, by the way? It’s used as an insult on many occasions). And she’s got my vote. I really hope she wins. And I hope it’s a fucking landslide of Reagan proportions. I just want to see the Usual Suspects (some of whom have appeared in this very thread, but I won’t mention any names) try to rationalize how the Great Fool’s-Gold-Plated Hope of the Republicans could have been beaten like he was dating Chris Brown. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/25 "2016-05-24T11:53:45Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Conservatives are going to hate her for whatever reason is convenient. Ask yourself why liberals/Democrats don’t like her. They don’t like her because she seems to need to look at polling data before she can answer any question or stake out any position. A lesson learned from the early 1990s when the Clintons foolishly assumed that after winning the presidential election in the “year of the woman” when California ended up with two female senators that they had a ‘mandate.’ President Obama was taught a similar lesson in 2009 and 2010. Winning elections – much less winning in polls :rolleyes: – isn’t the same as winning over voters while you’re in office. And failing to do that means certain defeat and being forced to negotiate with an opposition that can seriously derail your legislative agenda. Poll reading is not a lack of character; it’s what smart people do. Poll reading doesn’t mean someone’s abandoning a fight altogether, it means they’re going to be smarter about which fights to fight now, and which ones to shelve until later. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/26 "2016-05-24T11:55:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Ask yourself why liberals/Democrats don’t like her. Right after you show us that’s true, okay? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/27 "2016-05-24T11:58:50Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > For doing the job of running for president, she is terrible. She has none of her husband’s talents for public speaking or leadership. That says more about voters than candidates. After all these decades, literally, of the Republicans trying to manufacture something that will stick, she’s bulletproof. There is nobody left to convince, either way. There is nothing there, but those who want to believe there is are going to believe it anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Randolph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Randolph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randolph)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/28 "2016-05-24T13:06:51Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I hear a lot on these boards about how Liberals just don’t trust her and won’t vote for her because of all those supposed scandals…but I don’t seem to hear it from the actual _Liberals_. Sometimes you need a degree of separation to unskew things with accuracy. Emotions clouding the view of the weak-minded and such. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/29 "2016-05-24T13:30:17Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > I’m a proud liberal (when did that become a bad word, by the way? It’s used as an insult on many occasions). 1980’s. Particularly, imho, during Bush v. Dukakis. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/30 "2016-05-24T13:32:26Z")
The GOP scandal machine has done Hillary a huge favor. Their ridiculous charges have made her look like a victim instead of shady politician without the judgment required to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Her high polling negatives are largely due to partisanship but also in a lesser degree spread among the people who realize you don’t buy a house that smells like smoke even if it’s never been on fire. This is going to be an interesting election cycle, two candidates who will accuse each other of various improprieties and both refusing to answer questions about them. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/31 "2016-05-24T13:35:50Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > For quite a while people have been complaining that we elect presidents based on whether we’d like to have a beer with then, not smarts or competence. I never understood that logic. Head down to your local pub. See any presidential candidates there? > [@Voyager](#): > > Now we have a competent candidate who may not be super-likable, these same people are having a fit. > I don’t know if she is a bitch, but I hope she is. Obama would have done a bit better if he tried it. As LBJ, the master, said, get them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow. Didn’t he say that about Vietnam? How did that work out? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/32 "2016-05-24T13:36:37Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > I always found this complaint a little amusing. I mean technically, we elect representatives not rulers, but somebody who follows the polls is considered bad. Like somebody who changes their stance depending on what the people want is a moral coward. It’s funny what people decide to cling to as important for a good dep Yes and no. We elect people to make judgement about things where we often lack enough info to know what the right answer is. For that, we depend on them having some set of principles that we can reliably depend on. Now, one might complain that all politicians are fakes. True. But some are better fakes than others, and she’s not a very good fake. She is, for lack of a better word, not a very good politician. You’d think that would be a compliment, but it doesn’t seem to work that way. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/33 "2016-05-24T13:40:56Z")
Better yet, their constantly screaming scandal, scandal, scandal has kinda make the whole country deaf to their bullshit! Like the boy who cried wolf. If they had her, dead to rights, on videotape, doing something illegal and or nefarious, still no one would really believe it. I mean they so altered that video of the Planned Parenthood, that no one can really take them seriously anymore. (Yes, I know it wasn’t the larger ‘them’, but they still flogged it around like it was an authentic thing!) ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/34 "2016-05-24T13:45:19Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > As for the “lies and scandals”, I don’t buy any of it. After all these countless investigations on Benghazi, they still can’t point to a specific act that she did or didn’t do and say there’s the smoking gun. As for the emails, I find it very hard to give two shits. Or even one. Whitewater- meh. Who cares? Those who think she killed someone are totally off the rails. They work with the Republican base because the Republican base is both stupid and crazy. She gets blasted for standing by her husband and not being a traditional wife. She gets blasted for being a socialist and speaking to Goldman Sachs She gets blasted for attempting to deliver health care reform in 1993-94 and yet we’re also told that she has no real accomplishments until 2001. She gets blamed for her spouses infidelities, a tact that would not work with any other human on the planet. She is called politically ruthless for her and Bill’s aggrandizement, however she has raised $2 billion+ for other Democrats. Which, according to the party that argued successfully before the Supreme Court that “Money = Speech”, indicates that Hillary apparently corrupt, immoral, or something. You are entirely correct, **Bob** : There is, and has been, no smoking gun. And if some Brian Williams bullshit is the best that **Starving Artist** can bring to the table, well, that pretty much says it all. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/35 "2016-05-24T13:52:19Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I don’t know what she got hammered on during their days in Arkansas, but when I first began to notice her alienating people was when she made some remark about not staying at home, baking cookies and standing by her man (paraphrased). Plus she has an incredibly smug face, demeanor and way of speaking, and that put a lot of people off. Then the biggie: she tried to take over the nation’s health care under the auspices of being married to the president. People really resented that. Then there’s the feeling that she knew and didn’t care about her husband’s philandering, and then attempted to blame Bill’s alleged (and ultimately proven) contretemps over Monica Lewinsky on a ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ to bring down her husband. And then there’s the constant chicanery and stonewalling that went on in the White House every time an investigation was attempted on the two of them, with evidence mysteriously disappearing only to be discovered later in their living quarters, etc., etc., etc. The impression has been that the two of them are crooked as hell, but being lawyers, devious enough to know what they can get away with without being arrested. > > And then there are Hillary’s blatant lies, even about having lied: > > [Cite](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/campaign-2016-hillary-clinton-ive-always-tried-to-tell-the-truth/) > > What kind of bullshit is that? This is exactly the kind of equivocation and double-talk that have turned so many people against her. Notice first of all her attempt to shift the question of lying to one of leveling. Not the same thing. And then she “always tried” to tell the truth? More bullshit. Either you tell the truth or you don’t. What she’s really saying is the as long as it isn’t inexpedient in some way she’ll tell the truth. > > Except she lied many, many times during her previous campaign about how she and Chelsea landed in Bosnia and had to run for their cars under a hail of sniper fire, only to be exposed for lying about it when the comedian Sinbad spoke out about having been there too and there was no sniper fire. Hillary then lied and tried to pass it off as a one-time thing, saying she was exhausted from campaigning and merely ‘misspoke’, apparently unaware that everything is recorded these days and many instances were found where she’d told the same story time and again to different audiences. Plus, I’ve been pretty damn tired on occasion in my life, but I don’t believe I ever imagined myself to have come under sniper fire or any other thing that never happened. So she lied about being shot at, and then lied about how many times she’d said it, then lied about why she said it in the first place, and then lied again when she told Scott Pelly she’s always been truthful in the past. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the Clintons lie like they breathe - easily and constantly. > > And yes, Hillary’s a bitch behind the scenes and everyone knows it. That cat was let out of the bag way back in the 90s when Connie Chung conned Newt Gingrich’s mother into revealing what her son had told her about what Hillary was really like. Given the way liberals hate it when someone has power of any kind, I’m surprised to see them glossing over the way she uses her position to act like an asshole to people who have no choice but to take it. (And why you think her husband’s philandering makes it okay to be shitty to secret service agents or anyone else is anyone’s guess, but as for me, I was brought up to believe it’s wrong to behave badly to other people just because I’m in a bad mood or something’s troubling me, so I naturally think it’s wrong when somebody like her does it.) > > She and her husband are both crooked as hell and pretty much everyone knows it. But just like Bill’s behavior toward women drew bupkis from feminists, they’re allowed to get away with it because they’re ‘on the right side’ politically. “Everyone knows it” is just more bullshit from somebody with no facts to draw on. Have you met her? I have. And she was very pleasant to this peon, despite Mrs. Gingrich’s tell-all :rolleyes:. If they’re “crooked”, why have neither of them been accused in court? Oh right, a vast conspiracy. As for the foundation donations that somebody mentioned, those sorts of donations are tax deductible. Many questionable people use donations to avoid paying anything to the government. This includes both of the Koch brothers (David Koch has museum and performance center wings named for him) and every other billionaire who would rather give his money to anyone other than the government, particularly if it furthers his own agenda. At least the Clinton Foundation is doing some good with the money, unlike Americans for Prosperity and the like. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/36 "2016-05-24T14:36:44Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Hillary Clinton has one of the highest disapproval ratings of anyone who could realistically become president (Trump’s is higher, of course, but I digress). And it seems like it’s conventional wisdom why - she’s a liar; she’s crooked; her entire public life has been marked by scandal and corruption. Hell, she had one of her close friends (which one? take you pick!) killed! > > Well, I don’t buy it. > > None of it. It’s all just a smear campaign that has dogged her since her husband was governor of Arkansas. > > While she has certainly made mistakes, misstatements, and blunders, she doesn’t show a pattern of lying, and she’s not an incompetent fool. While she has been politically connected (and politics is dirty), she is not corrupt. While she is married to a serial adulterer, she is not responsible for Bill’s foibles. > > I know there are names…Benghazi, Emails, Whitewater, Travel Gate…don’t forget travel gate! But for the life of me I can’t figure out where substance lies with any of them. They all depend on a conviction that Hillary acts in bad faith, and imputes motives and assumes facts without evidence. > > And when I couple that clean slate with her stellar education, her knowledge of governance, her travels around the world, her reasonableness, and her likelihood of continuing the positive direction of the past 8 years, I find myself ready to vote for her. (Trump makes it a slam dunk). > > So help me be a good and decent Doper by fighting my ignorance. Why am I wrong? You’re right. Besides the typically political bullshit thrown at her, I can’t but feel a lot of sexism. I expect that from the Right; they’re nakedly bigoted. But there’s still a lot of sexism from the Left. And in some ways it’s worse because it’s mostly unconscious. The complaints about her talking to bankers and taking money from bankers. That feels familiar: you can’t trust a woman who talks to other men. And you certainly can’t trust a woman who accepts gifts to not acquiesce to the giver. I feel that the “warhawk” complaints are a rehashed version of aggressive women are bitches. The progressive purity tests are a reincarnation of the virgin/whore dichotomy. A woman has to be pristine or else she’s despicable. Every complaint about Hillary can be rationalized, but the big picture feels exactly like a glass ceiling. Sure, a woman can be president. But not this one–because “reasons”. It’s bullshit coming from the Right and bullshit coming from the Left. ---
**Author:** ![Nonsuch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nonsuch/32/2922_2.png) [@Nonsuch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nonsuch)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/37 "2016-05-24T14:47:15Z")
WRT to Starving Artist’s cite, the equivocating language is actually the result of HRC being \*too truthful, \*not the reverse. No, really. First of all, props to Jimmy Carter and all, but any president who goes out and says he would _never_ lie to the American people is a dumbass; he’s either ignorant, naive or being willfully disingenuous. I assume he realized it once he actually took office. Anyway, Hillary Clinton knows enough to know that _of course_ the president is sometimes going to have to lie. All she has to do is give the politician’s pro forma answer: “Well Brian, I can tell you I will never lie to the American people either.” But she can’t because she knows _it isn’t fucking true,_ and it has nothing to do with being a serial fabulist; it’s just the nature of the job. So she attempts to tell something more approximating the truth: “I’m going to try to be straight with you all, but let’s face it, things don’t always work out that way, so let’s be realistic about this, 'k?” Of course she can’t say the real truth: “Brian, I’m pretty sure at some point, I’m going to have to lie to the American people, whether it’s to pacify an ally, keep the public from panicking or protect a military operation overseas. All I can promise is to keep it to a minimum.” No politician, not even Donald Trump, can get away with saying that. So what comes out sounds equivocating and ass-covering when it’s actually as close to the truth as a pol today can get away with. This is the tragic irony of Hillary Clinton: her so-called mealy-mouthed language comes from an inability to grossly oversimplify issues (a flaw not shared by either Trump or Sanders). People claim they want politicians to talk to them like adults and not dumb things down or blow smoke up their asses; the reality, as always, is rather different. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/38 "2016-05-24T15:15:12Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > …I first began to notice her alienating people was when she made some remark about not staying at home, baking cookies and standing by her man (paraphrased). Plus she has an incredibly smug face, demeanor and way of speaking, and that put a lot of people off. Then the biggie: she tried to take over the nation’s health care under the auspices of being married to the president. People really resented that. Then there’s the feeling that she knew and didn’t care about her husband’s philandering, and then attempted to blame Bill’s alleged (and ultimately proven) contretemps over Monica Lewinsky on a ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ to bring down her husband. So, no scandals, then? > [@](#): > > And then there’s the constant chicanery and stonewalling that went on in the White House every time an investigation was attempted on the two of them, with evidence mysteriously disappearing only to be discovered later in their living quarters, etc., etc., etc. This is what I’m trying to get at! Since you and I don’t draw conclusions without facts, can you please provide facts to show me the “constant chicanery and stonewalling”, and show me what evidence disappeared only to be discovered in their living quarters (I’m not playing gotcha…I’m not familiar with this)? I don’t know what “etc., etc., etc.” refers to, but can you please elaborate on that, too? > [@](#): > > The impression has been that the two of them are crooked as hell, but being lawyers, devious enough to know what they can get away with without being arrested. Again, I am not sure how people form that impression. I truly don’t get the idea that “lawyers” have some secret tactics to get away with crimes. I went to law school, and I never got that handbook (admittedly, it wasn’t an Ivy League school). > [@](#): > > And then there are Hillary’s blatant lies, even about having lied What part of your Hillary quote is a “blatant lie”? > [@](#): > > What kind of bullshit is that? This is exactly the kind of equivocation and double-talk that have turned so many people against her. Was it a blatant lie, as you said earlier, or was it equivocation and double talk, as you now say? I’m not following your critique. > [@](#): > > Except she lied many, many times during her previous campaign about how she and Chelsea landed in Bosnia and had to run for their cars under a hail of sniper fire, only to be exposed for lying about it when the comedian Sinbad spoke out about having been there too and there was no sniper fire. Hey, we got one! I’ll slap a “gate” on the end while you get the articles of impeachment ready! Anything else? > [@](#): > > And yes, Hillary’s a bitch behind the scenes and everyone knows it…She and her husband are both crooked as hell and pretty much everyone knows it. Does everyone “know it” because it’s a reputation that has been cultivated for decades, or are there facts to support the conclusions (not gossip from someone’s mother about what her son - a demonstrated liar - said about a rival)? That’s what I am trying to determine. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/39 "2016-05-24T15:19:21Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > But as I noted in my OP, in order for any of this to rise to the level of a scandal you have to impute motives without evidence. You can make guesses that this all “means something”, but that’s all they are: guesses. Indeed. But there’s such a thing as intelligent guesses. When rivers of money flow towards a politician, and then the politician does things or promises to do things friendly to the sources of those money, people are bound to be suspicious. They are bound to guess that it’s not a coincidence, and that the donors are donating in hope of getting something in return. Then when reading stories [like this one](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0), they are bound to find it suspicious. Or to quote from the article by Simon Head I linked to earlier: These payments to Bill Clinton in 2010 included: $175,000 from VeriSign Corporation, which was engaged in lobbying at the State Department on cybersecurity and Internet taxation; $175,000 from Microsoft, which was lobbying the government on the issuance of immigrant work visas; $200,000 from SalesForce, a firm that lobbied the government on digital security issues, among other things. In 2011, these payments included: $200,000 from Goldman Sachs, which was lobbying on the Budget Control Act; and $200,000 from PhRMA, the trade association representing drug companies, which was seeking special trade protections for US-innovated drugs in the Trans-Pacific Partnership then being negotiated. And in 2012, payments included: $200,000 from the National Retail Federation, which was lobbying at the State Department on legislation to fight Chinese currency manipulation; $175,000 from BHP Billiton, which wanted the government to protect its mining interests in Gabon; $200,000 from Oracle, which, like Microsoft, was seeking the government to issue work visas and measures dealing with cyber-espionage; and $300,000 from Dell Corporation, which was lobbying the State Department to protest tariffs imposed by European countries on its computers. During Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, US defense corporations and their overseas clients also contributed between $54 and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation. (Because the foundation discloses a range of values within which the contributions of particular donors might fall, only minimum and maximum estimates can be given.) In the same period, these US defense corporations and their overseas government clients also paid a total of $625,000 to Bill Clinton in speaking fees. In March 2011, for example, Bill Clinton was paid $175,000 by the Kuwait America Foundation to be the guest of honor and keynote speaker at its annual Washington gala. Among the sponsors were Boeing and the government of Kuwait, through its Washington embassy. Shortly before, the State Department, under Hillary Clinton, had authorized a $693 million deal to provide Kuwait with Boeing’s Globemaster military transport aircraft. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton had the statutory duty to rule on whether proposed arms deals with foreign governments were in the US’s national interest. So Bill and Hillary bring in all kinds of money from companies and groups that are actively lobbying the federal government, companies whose financial well-being depends on getting contracts and favorable regulations from the government. It doesn’t look good. In response, you and other Hillary defenders say there’s no solid evidence of Hillary doing anything wrong. That sounds a lot like the stereotypical corrupt politician on _The Simpsons_ yelling “No way you can’t prove nothin’!” For that matter, whenever the topic of money influencing in politics in general is mentioned, most Democrats seem to take the influence for granted. If corporations and trade groups are donating enormous sums, then _of course_ they are expecting to get something in return. The only question is, why would we expect there to be a special exception solely for the case of Hillary Clinton? ---
**Author:** ![Eugene\_of\_Sandwich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c37758/32.png) [@Eugene\_of\_Sandwich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eugene_of_Sandwich)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2016, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523/40 "2016-05-24T15:31:21Z")
Hillary For Prison 2016. It’s time we clean up the mess in DC. And that includes everybody. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-clintons-lies-and-scandals/755523.md?page=3)