Hillary Clinton's lies and scandals

[Moriarty]

[QUOTE=LonghornDave]
Some of the stuff they do isn’t that hard to avoid. What other Secretaries of State have had trouble avoiding things like receiving millions of dollars in donations from the Saudis?
[/QUOTE]

Can you explain this further? From this Washington Post article (which is frankly critical of the Foundation’s receipt of money)

A review of foundation disclosures shows that at least two foreign governments — Germany and the United Arab Emirates — began giving in 2013 after the funding restrictions lapsed when Clinton left the Obama administration. Some foreign governments that had been supporting the foundation before Clinton was appointed, such as Saudi Arabia, did not give while she was in office and have since resumed donating.

(my emphasis)

And what are these funding restrictions they mention? The article explains that earlier (but, since they are the Clintons, there is a loophole):

Most of the contributions [during Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State] were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.

The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.

I don’t have a point to make. I’m just trying to be accurate.

@LonghornDave

He should have been damned selective about who he received money from. It’s not appropriate or ethical to have the spouse of the secretary of state receiving compensation and donations from foreign governments.

So I just found this article (which talks about the shit-ton of cash Clinton made from giving speeches), and mentions something I wasn’t aware of

When Hillary Clinton took over as Secretary of State, Bill Clinton’s attorney, David E. Kendall, drafted guidelines intended to help him avoid conflicts as he continued to accept payment for speeches.

“l am writing to describe the voluntary steps, above and beyond the requirements of law and ethics regulations, that President Clinton intends to take to assist Senator Clinton to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest with her duties as Secretary of State,” Kendall wrote.

The rules required the State Department’s ethics officials to review and approve speaking requests.

In practice, there were few if any instances where ethics officials inside the State Department asked the former president to refuse to accept payment for a speech. Hundreds of pages of emails, first obtained through a Freedom of Information request by the right-leaning group Judicial Watch, show that requests from Clinton’s personal office to the State Department for approval of speaking engagements were almost always granted…

One instance where the State Department did raise questions about a speech recipient came in 2012, when President Clinton requested to speak at an aviation conference sponsored in part by an organization called the Shanghai Airport Authority. The audience was billed as “6,000 business leaders, government officials, and high net worth individuals.” The State Department ethics officer, Kathryn Youel Page, flagged the request in an email back to the former president’s office indicating the sponsor had ties to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government.

“I don’t believe we’ve previously cleared acceptance of fees from PRC-linked entities, but could consider this variation,” she wrote.

Clinton did not accept the fee.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Czarcasm

Thank you ever much for the constant reminders as to what we think. I don’t know what we would do if it weren’t for conservatives telling us what we think about things-ghod knows we libruls have absolutely no idea what our own opinions are about anything. :rolleyes:
Here’s a thought: Why don’t you stick with giving your own opinions about Clinton, and let the opinions Liberals have about her come straight from the mouths of maybe…Liberals?

So I’m a conservative? How do you figure? I might not be a lock step liberal but outside of the gun issue, I am pretty sure I fall left of the aisle. Mistrust of Hillary is a bipartisan position.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Czarcasm

And while you’re at it, Damuri, could you tell us our opinion about foreign aid?

Well its refreshing to see that you are willing to go to other sources outside the Hillary campaign to tell you what to think.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@CarnalK

Yeesh. Damuri is obviously giving his impression of why a Liberal would object to Clinton. Pretending he is showing off his mind reading skills of all Liberals is so fucking silly.

I’m a liberal by any rational definition of the word (which more and more frequently does not coincide with what is going on on this board). I never claimed to speak for ALL liberals but if you don’t think that there is liberal objection to Hillary then you are not facing reality.

I could just as easily have said “liberals criticize Israel for their treatment of the Palestinians” and noone would respond “Oh Really? thank you for telling us what ALL liberals think”

I’m sorry if the rest of the folks on the left don’t share your view of Hillary Clinton. We saw this rabid brand of Hillarymania in 2008 and we are seeing it again today. The best that can be said about Hillary Clinton is that she is smart, hard working, competent, supportive of women’s issues, theoretically to the left of center and she is a woman. But she has given us every reason to believe that she is a plutocrat.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@JohnT

No, “Hillary Clinton’s lies and scandals” is the topic of this thread. How does her receiving $200k from an organization that has given 10X that amount to her opposition amount to a scandal or a lie?

They gave 2 million to Bernie?

[Airbeck]

@Damuri_Ajashi

They gave 2 million to Bernie?

Ah, the old pretending to misunderstand another posters comment. This one never gets old…

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bone

MPAA doesn’t carry the force of law.

Wait so a 10 year old can buy tickets and watch an NC-17 movie without any repercussion to anyone?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Voyager

Do you think they paid to be told how wonderful they are?
Having helped choose lots of speakers for conferences (mostly free) it is probably more so that the organizers can get props for getting powerful people, with a dollop of hope that a personal connection might help the bank get their way some time in the future.

That’s not the point. The post I was responding to said something about preaching to the sinners rather than the choir. I call bullshit on that. She wasn’t hired to help them straighten out their moral compass. She was hired because it was good for their ego and i would bet real money that she spent some of that speech time stroking their egos.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@China_Guy

Let’s be real clear. “Microsoft” does not mean the CEO invited Hillary nor wrote a check. “Microsoft” in this instance means the MSFT PAC, which is made up of employees that feel for the cause and donate their money. An awful lot of MSFT employees don’t agree with having a PAC. But, hey, Microsoft matches employees charitable donations (up to a certain limit, IIRC $12000/year) and employees have raised over $1B so far in the history of MSFT.

So, when “Microsoft” donates money or has a speaker, outsiders might thing that it’s a corporate thing. When the Microsoft PAC arranges the event or donates the money, it’s no different that a random group such as “right to rise” making donations except that Microsoft corporate matches it.

ex employee that was in the majority of employees that don’t think Microsoft should have a PAC precisely because politics should per personal without a conflict of interest. YMMV

You realize that a PAC is not a charitable organization right? Microsoft might be matching donations to the PAC but it is not deductible by the corporation and it is disclosable in many cases.

[JohnT]

@Damuri_Ajashi

They gave 2 million to Bernie?

The Republicans.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@asahi

Who the fuck cares that a candidate’s getting money from corporations or political action committees that have corporate support? Seriously, considering the average person checks “NO” on their IRS 1040 form when asked whether they’d like to support public campaigns, why is this such a big deal?

When the average federal politician spends more time with political donors than constituents, its a problem. There is a broad perception that money has become too influential in politics and that reliance on big donors leads to a bias in favor of those big donors.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Czarcasm

We must have a very elite group of Republicans here at the SDMB, then. This “unelectable” candidate is about to become the Republican choice to run for President this November, and this happened because a clear majority of Republicans voted for him. This leads me to assume one of two things:

1. Either the Republicans on this board are like the Republicans out there, and when push comes to shove what they say doesn’t matter-they will vote to stick it to the Democrats no matter what, or
2. They will stick to their guns and vote as they claim they will, which shows that they are not very representative of Republicans at this time.

Hey, the Republican party moved (it seemed like they were actually sprinting) away from me over a decade ago, I know plenty of conservatives who feel that the party has moved away from them recently. The Republican party is continuing to make land speed records in its sprint to the right and the Democrats are doing their darndest to occupy all that space that is being left unclaimed on the right.

[Johnny_Ace]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I’m sorry if the rest of the folks on the left don’t share your view of Hillary Clinton. We saw this rabid brand of Hillarymania in 2008 and we are seeing it again today. The best that can be said about Hillary Clinton is that she is smart, hard working, competent, supportive of women’s issues, theoretically to the left of center and she is a woman. But she has given us every reason to believe that she is a plutocrat.

Yeah watch out for all those rabid Hillary supporters protesting Trump and getting violent and arrested.

But once again, what makes you think you can or do speak for ‘the rest of the liberals?’

[JohnT]

“she is smart, hard working, competent, supportive of women’s issues, theoretically to the left of center and she is a woman.”

Yeah, wouldn’t want somebody like that in the White House, would we? :rolleyes:

[adaher]

It’s about to get even worse:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/27/origin_of_key_clinton_emails_from_report_are_a_mystery_130696.html

WASHINGTON (AP) – Since her use of a private email server was made public last year, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has insisted she turned over all work-related emails to the State Department to be released to the public.

But after 14 months of public scrutiny and the release of tens of thousands of emails, an agency watchdog’s discovery of at least three previously undisclosed emails has renewed concerns that Clinton was not completely forthcoming when she turned over a trove of 55,000 pages of emails. And the revelation has spawned fresh criticism from presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
The three messages include Clinton’s own explanation of why she wanted her emails kept private: In a November 2010 email, Clinton worried that her personal messages could become accessible to outsiders. The messages appear to have been found among electronic files of four former top Clinton State Department aides.

Two other messages a year later divulged possible security weaknesses in the home email system she used while secretary of state. The Clinton campaign has previously denied that her home server was compromised.

[ElvisL1ves]

@adaher

It’s about to get even worse

You mean there are still some voters’ minds left to be changed on the subject? Then no, it isn’t.

[adaher]

You’re not even close to being right. Most polls are showing 15-20% undecided or voting third party.

[ElvisL1ves]

They’re Republicans who haven’t yet faced up to their being part of The Party of Trump yet.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Airbeck

Ah, the old pretending to misunderstand another posters comment. This one never gets old…

No its just a reminder that her opponent right now is Bernie not Trump.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@JohnT

“she is smart, hard working, competent, supportive of women’s issues, theoretically to the left of center and she is a woman.”

Yeah, wouldn’t want somebody like that in the White House, would we? :rolleyes:

Well, its not like I’m not going to vote for her but her connections to large donors bothers me. It bothers me enough that if that I would be willing to lose an election over it if the Republican candidate was someone like Mitt Romney or John McCain.