Hillary Clinton's lies and scandals

[Bone]

@MaxTheVool

I’m not saying I think Hillary was right to support that law, or that I would support it myself. But I think given the pre-existing precedent for treating children differently when it comes to the first amendment (pornography), it doesn’t register very high for me on the better-protect-the-first-amendment scale. It certainly doesn’t seem like the action of someone who is just itching to get in there and impose though crimes.

Clinton isn’t a boogeyman here - I don’t think she’s trying to impose thought crimes or anything nefarious with her previous proposal. I just disagree vehemently with her stance. For me, it did register as an instance where the 1st amendment needed to be protected, and SCOTUS agreed. It’s nannyism and statist and to me those are very bad.

For instance, compare here quote to this from Donald Trump:

I’m going to stop you right there and just agree that yes Trump says stupid shit. What Clinton proposed was an actual law. This wasn’t meant to be a comparison.

[Voyager]

@Damuri_Ajashi

You think she was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to tell Goldman Sachs how their greed fucked up the global economy?

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.

[Voyager]

@msmith537

Didn’t he say that about Vietnam? How did that work out?

He was talking about Congress, and we have the Civil Rights Act to show for it.

[Moriarty]

@Starving_Artist

…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…

So I tracked down the scandal that this refers to. From the NY Times in 1996 (talk about a blast from the past!)

After nearly two years of searches and subpoenas, the White House said this evening that it had unexpectedly discovered copies of missing documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s law firm that describe her work for a failing savings and loan association in the 1980’s.

Federal and Congressional investigators have issued subpoenas for the documents since 1994, and the White House has said it did not have them. The originals disappeared from the Rose Law Firm, in which Mrs. Clinton was a partner, shortly before Mr. Clinton took office.

Dragging your feet in response to a subpoena is bad! I think we have another scandal. So far, it’s:

1. Airplane landing-gate
2. Subpoena-gate

Now, how do billing records from the 1980’s fit into the Whitewater scandal? I mean, once they were found, they demonstrated that…?

Hey, here’s another New York times article contemporary to the story.

The records detail Mrs. Clinton’s work on behalf of a troubled savings and loan association owned by James B. McDougal, the Clintons’ Whitewater partner, who was convicted of bank fraud last week in Arkansas.

Ok, so she represented a client who ran a savings and loan, who was later convicted if a crime. And this implicates Hillary how?

Oooh! Here’s a really long New York Times article, also from 1996, that surely will explain it.

For all but two years between 1979 and 1992, Bill Clinton was the governor of Arkansas and Hillary Rodham Clinton was the state’s first lady. She was also practicing law in Little Rock at the Rose Law Firm, the oldest in the state and one with deep and effective connections to the state’s power elite…in early 1985…she became a senior lawyer, called a billing partner, in Rose Law Firm’s account with James McDougal and his Madison savings and loan. Since 1978, she and her husband had been partners with McDougal and his wife, Susan, in the Whitewater real estate venture.

Hoo boy, this is going to be good!

It is an undisputed fact that Hillary Clinton became the billing partner for Rose Law Firm in its representation of James McDougal and Madison Guaranty on April 23, 1985, the day she visited McDougal at his office and arranged for him to pay the firm the $2,000-a-month retainer.

Go on…

The Times article noted that the Clintons were partners with McDougal in a land deal and that Hillary Clinton represented him in some dealings before the state agency that was under her husband’s patronage…The record shows there was an exchange of routine letters between her law firm and the state agency and that she called state Securities Commissioner Beverly Bassett Schaffer (then known as Beverly Bassett) on April 29, 1985, six days after McDougal put the Rose firm on retainer.

Making calls on behalf of a client…the nerve!

The billing records showed that she put in about 60 hours of work on the Madison account over a 15-month period. She billed Madison more than $6,000 at the firm’s top rate of $120 an hour. The first lady and her lawyers calculated her time on Madison as averaging about an hour a week and said that proved her contention that it was minimal

So she didn’t just represent a client…she billed him for the work!

According to the billing records, most of Hillary Clinton’s hours on the Madison account involved not the securities issue but a development in the swampland south of Little Rock that James McDougal pursued during a period from the fall of 1985 to the summer of 1986. His associate in that effort was Seth Ward, a cantankerous, semiretired businessman, who worked as a consultant to McDougal and helped him purchase the property. Ward also was the father-in-law of Webster L. Hubbell, Hillary Clinton’s partner and friend at the Rose Law Firm. The land enterprise was on a 1,050-acre tract where McDougal envisioned developing a microbrewery and a trailer park, among other things. It was commonly known as Castle Grande.

Talk about your dirty politics!

Transactions related to Castle Grande were at the heart of McDougal’s first trial in 1990, at which he was tried and acquitted on fraud charges.

What bank examiners call the “sham transactions” at Castle Grande – intended to artificially boost the profits at McDougal’s ailing thrift and allowing insiders to rake off huge commissions – were a major part of the federal criminal case that led to last week’s convictions on fraud charges of the McDougals and Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker.

In a sense, it was Castle Grande that is the connection between Hillary Clinton and the national savings and loan scandal that ultimately cost American taxpayers billions of dollars.

Ah ha! Now it comes together. She was responsible for a fraudulent land deal! Except…

Hillary Clinton has not been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Castle Grande and was not implicated in the trial. Her name was barely mentioned, coming up only when McDougal was asked about how the Rose Law Firm was retained. Lawyers often work legitimately on the edge of transactions that later prove to be questionable.

Yeah, I’m back to square one. Can somebody help a brother out?

[JohnT]

@ITR_champion

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, 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?

The “special exception” is yours, not Hillary’s. You’re the one claiming that receiving $175k from Microsoft is somehow unique to her and her alone, and this sum represents that she is “bought” by them and other donors.

I’m certainly not saying that this is a big deal - you are. And, to you, yeah, you’d possibly sell your soul for $175k but for a couple worth $125m combined? That’s the equivalent of $70 of a $50k salary. Would you sell your soul for $70?

But how about for the organizations? Is a $200k speech a significant investment for a company that pulls in $90 billion a year in sales? Is it even a significant percentage of the investment of what they spend on politics? On lobbying? On campaigning?

Fortunately for you, ITR, I come loaded with facts, so you don’t have to worry about all that pesky research, and you can now rest easy about HRC vis-à-vis every other politician ever:

Verisgn, a company that donates heavily to Republicans and their causes with their $1m in campaign donations since 1990 (running about 80% Repub, 20% Dem).

They also lobby a fair amount, with $24 million being spent since 1998. The $175k HRC got represents .6% of total lobbying+campaign funds and 22% of what was given Republican candidates.

VeriSign Inc Profile: Summary

Microsoft, a company that has spent $34m in campaign donations (since 1990) and $140m in lobbying (since 1998). $18.5 million of that went to the Dems, $14.8 went to the Repubs. Hillary’s $175k represents .9% of that given to Dems, 1.1% of that given to Repubs, and .1% of the total spent on lobbying and campaigning.

Microsoft Corp Profile: Summary

Salesforce, $2,2m in campaign contributions since 2000, $3.1m in lobbying expenses.

Here’s your vast Left-Wing Conspiracy! While they are not big spenders compared to MS, up to 80% of all donations have gone to the Democrats. Hell, Salesforce apparently demanded a refund of $25k from a Republican back in 2006… wonder what that was about.

Still… HRC’s $200k is 9% of what they’ve given to all candidates and 3.7% of their total political funding.

Salesforce.Com Profile: Summary

Goldman. $55 million in contributions since 1990, $43 million in lobbying since 1998. $25 million given to Repubs, $27 million to the Dems (GS is located in NYS, after all.) 2008 proved the deciding advantage, as GS gave $4.9m to Dems and only $1.7m to Repubs.

HRC, HRC… this is all about her, right? Anyway, her $200k comes down to .7% of funds given to Dems, .7% of funds given to Repubs, and .2% of all money spent on politics by GS since the 90s.

But… I’ve heard they gave her $100 million for her speech, in concession she will sign over a 20=year lease on the State of Arkansas. It was on Coast to Coast!

Goldman Sachs Profile: Summary

BHP Billiton, Not a major player on the DC scene, they have spent “just” $66k on contributions and $2.4 million on lobbying. Very Republican company, over $40k of the $66k went to the R side of the ticket. But, sure, her ratios of 3X their entire campaign budget since 1990 is excessive, and her 8% of all lobbying funds should make tin hats the world over buzz in excitement,

BHP Group Profile: Summary

Oracle, $16m in campaign donations (since 1990), $80m in lobbying since 1998. You keep hearing about these Lefty Silicon Valley firms but the big spenders seem to spread the wealth… $3.8 million went to Dems, $3.9m to Repubs.

HRC’s %’s: 5% of Dem $, 5% of Repub money, .2% of all money spent on politics.

Oracle Corp Profile: Summary

Dell, $5 million in campaign contributions (70% Repub), $30 million in lobbying. HRC: 20% of Dems, 5.7% of Republican contributions, 4% of all contributions, and .5% of all Dell political spending.

Dell Technologies Profile: Summary

Kuwait America Foundation. Can’t find anything on these people at Open Secrets, however their website contains a picture of this group with Hillary Clinton! Got her! And, uh, George W. Bush too, it seems like. Oh… Colin Powell. And Norman Schwarzkopf, as well as Laura Bush. All supporters of, and supported by (in part) by the KAF.

Kuwait-America Foundation

Your bringing up this particular group as being shady could be construed as blatant xenophobia, but I’m a more forgiving sort. It wasn’t your article, after all.

[elucidator]

Maybe the reason these guys pay a million bucks to have somebody speak to them just so they can brag about it?

[China_Guy]

@JohnT

The “special exception” is yours, not Hillary’s. You’re the one claiming that receiving $175k from Microsoft is somehow unique to her and her alone, and this sum represents that she is “bought” by them and other donors.

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

[BrainGlutton]

@MindsEye_Watering

Wow. I’m a Liberal and I didn’t know that I didn’t trust her on anything other than women’s issues. Did I miss a memo?

What else should I, as a Liberal, know about Mrs. Clinton?

She’s a neoliberal.

[ITR_champion]

[Quote=JohnT]
The “special exception” is yours, not Hillary’s. You’re the one claiming that receiving $175k from Microsoft is somehow unique to her and her alone,
[/quote]

I don’t recall claiming that. Can you tell me in which of my posts I said that “receiving $175k from Microsoft is somehow unique to her and her alone”?

[drewder]

Personally I don’t understand how feminist women can vote for a woman who has spent her life destroying women who have accused her husband of various sexual crimes.

[Moriarty]

@drewder

Personally I don’t understand how feminist women can vote for a woman who has spent her life destroying women who have accused her husband of various sexual crimes.

Examples, please! (I’m making a list).

[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?

[JohnT]

@ITR_champion

I don’t recall claiming that. Can you tell me in which of my posts I said that “receiving $175k from Microsoft is somehow unique to her and her alone”?

“why would we expect there to be a special exception solely for the case of Hillary Clinton”

You’re the one saying there is some sort of special exception solely for HRC. Nobody else is making this claim, yet you ask the question as if this is a proven assumption. It is… by you, not others.

[ITR_champion]

Well, JohnT, let’s go over this. You accused me of making a claim:

[Quote=JohnT]
You’re the one claiming that receiving $175k from Microsoft is somehow unique to her and her alone,
[/quote]

Now in fact I never said any such thing. When I asked you when I said that, you posted this quote from me in #39: “why would we expect there to be a special exception solely for the case of Hillary Clinton”. Anyone who reads what I wrote in that post will immediately see that you ripped the quote out of context, and that I never said what you’re trying to pin on me. I did not say that “receiving $175k from Microsoft is somehow unique to her”. I said that the Clintons received that money from Microsoft; I didn’t say anything about the uniqueness of their money-grubbing. Indeed in my first post in this thread, I said that all politicians were corrupt and sleazy.

But I guess straw man arguments and taking quotes out of context is the best you have to offer.

[Bone]

@MaxTheVool

For instance, compare here quote to this from Donald Trump:

“We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way.”

That’s not really proposing anything specific, so it’s hard to claim that it’s meaningfully violating the first amendment. But the implications of the mind that would hold that position are far scarier to me than someone going overboard trying to protect children from violent imagery. (Using that as an example of a comment that I DO find disturbing from a first amendment perspective, not just trying to say that Trump is worse.)

Just to come back to this for a moment, consider Trumps poorly crafted statement with Clinton’s, expressing similar ideas:

"We’re going to have to have more support from our friends in the technology world to deny online space, just as we have to destroy their would-be caliphate, we have to deny them online space and this is complicated.

“You’re going to hear all of the usual complaints,” she said. “Freedom of speech … but if we truly are in a war against terrorism and we are truly looking for ways to shut off their funding, shut off the flow of foreign fighters, than we’ve got to shut off their means of communication.”

Hers is more articulate but they are talking about the same thing. Hillary has had a long history of supporting censorship and that to me is much more important than who she gets donations from.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@drewder

Personally I don’t understand how feminist women can vote for a woman who has spent her life destroying women who have accused her husband of various sexual crimes.

And don’t forget how she’s in league with the shape-shifting lizard people! There’s always that!

[Bridget_Burke]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Its not that we thin that people who test the wind will be too compliant with the will of the public. Its that we think they are just telling us what we want to hear. They have no core principles that we are voting for, that the product may not perform as advertised.

I think a lot of Liberals think that Hillary will continue to help the rich and powerful stay that way.

Is Hilary the most perfect Liberal? Nope. But she’s a better option than Bernie, who came so late to national politics. Too bad he spent all those years as an “Independent”–neither trying to improve the Democratic party nor working to create a third option.

And she’s far better than Trump. It makes me happy to see the fear she strikes into the hearts of our Usual Suspects. They might have preferred one of the other Republican losers–but The Donald is Their Guy now. (Does that incoherent first paragraph refer to him?)

[Starving_Artist]

I don’t know of very many ‘usual suspects’ around here who plan to vote for Trump. I’ve mentioned several times that I intend to vote for Her Harridanship.

[RitterSport]

Just writing to thank the OP for putting this thread together. I was thinking about doing something similar, but the OP did it better than I would have. I keep reading here and in every comment thread about a Hillary Clinton article on the NY Times about how corrupt she is, how many crimes she’s gotten away with, and I’ve just never seen it.

So far, it looks like it’s all much ado about nothing.

It may have been here or it may have been Krugman who wrote “Sometimes when there’s smoke, there’s a smoke machine.”

[Czarcasm]

@Starving_Artist

I don’t know of very many ‘usual suspects’ around here who plan to vote for Trump. I’ve mentioned several times that I intend to vote for Her Harridanship.

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.