# HRC and the ethics thing.
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971
**Category:** Politics & Elections
**Created:** [March 5, 2016, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971 "2016-03-05T01:05:32Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2016, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/1 "2016-03-05T01:05:32Z")
Clearly I screwed up by not posting a version of this thread properly a while back.
People think they know the story because they’ve heard about “Benghazi!” Well, here are some of Hillary’s big ethical issues that you may not have heard of.
First, the Clinton Foundation. It’s not clear whether there’s a lot there, but this is where an indictment would probably come from if it came:
[“Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department”](http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187)
David Sirota & Andrew Perez in _International Business Times:_
> [@](#):
>
> Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure – derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) – represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.
>
> The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.
>
> American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.
>
> The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.
>
> […]
>
> The Clinton Foundation has not released an exact timetable of its donations, making it impossible to know whether money from foreign governments and defense contractors came into the organization before or after Hillary Clinton approved weapons deals that involved their interests. But news reports document that at least seven foreign governments that received State Department clearance for American arms did donate to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary: Algeria, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Thailand, Norway and Australia.
>
> […]
>
> Stephen Walt, a Harvard University professor of international affairs, told IBTimes that the intertwining financial relationships between the Clintons, defense contractors and foreign governments seeking weapons approvals is “a vivid example of a very big problem – the degree to which conflicts of interest have become endemic.”
>
> “It has troubled me all along that the Clinton Foundation was not being more scrupulous about who it would take money from and who it wouldn’t,” he said. “American foreign policy is better served if people responsible for it are not even remotely suspected of having these conflicts of interest. When George Marshall was secretary of state, nobody was worried about whether or not he would be distracted by donations to a foundation or to himself. This wasn’t an issue. And that was probably better.”
[“Hillary’s Campaign Is Built on a Shaky Foundation
Are conflicts of interest inevitable when the Clintons are involved?”](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/hillarys-campaign-is-built-on-a-shaky-foundation/388324/)
David A. Graham for the _Atlantic._
> [@](#):
>
> Hillary Clinton offers a depth of relationships with foreign leaders and a savvy that a Washington newcomer like Barack Obama (or Scott Walker) couldn’t hope to bring to the White House; but you might also get uncomfortable donations. Often enough, there’s no proof of serious malfeasance, either, just troubling questions. Both the emails and the donations fit that model. (One way to assess whether there was any tit-for-tat involving the foundation and the State Department would be if you could look at Hillary Clinton’s emails while she was secretary, which … right.)
I find the title of [“Hillary Clinton Does Not Have a Conflict-of-Interest Problem”](https://newrepublic.com/article/121701/hillarys-clinton-foundation-conflict-interest-vs-gop-superpacs) (Brian Beutler in _The New Republic)_ ironic.
> [@](#):
>
> Powerful people and governments gave Bill and the Clinton Foundation money over the years. Many of them had interests before the State Department. Some of them benefited from State Department policy. And to the extent that no evidence exists showing that Hillary Clinton directed that policy on behalf of her husband’s donors and solicitors, you can chalk it up to the fact that she probably deleted it.
>
> It’s a plausible story in a “Whoa, if true!” kind of way, and it doesn’t wear well on her, even if the policy decisions themselves are defensible on the merits. Writing at The Week, Michael Brendan Dougherty predicts that Clinton’s campaign is “going to be an unpleasant slog for liberals.”
>
> “[D]efending Hillary Clinton,” Dougherty continues, “will require constant mental effort to say that thus-and-so only looks bad, or to note that others engage in pay-to-play graft, too. It’s going to be exhausting and demoralizing.”
He continues:
> [@](#):
>
> Clinton can turn conflict-of-interest innuendo around on her Republican rivals, almost to a person.
>
> > [@nytimes](#):
> >
> > Unlike Ted Cruz, the Republican Senator from Texas who had four different families contribute to super PACs that will help him, Mr. Bush has gone about the fund-raising for the Right to Rise super PAC in a traditional fashion. He’s held a staggering number of fund-raising events since the beginning of the year.
> > Mr. Bush’s financial edge is somewhat less significant in an era in which people like Mr. Cruz and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida are able to raise substantial sums from single donors. But, even if the money does not guarantee that Mr. Bush will be the nominee, it will give him enough to last through a protracted nomination fight.
>
> Speaking as one of the aforementioned aghast liberals, this isn’t intended as a tu quoque defense of Clinton’s activities. It’s a question of basic political mechanics. Will any of Hillary Clinton’s potential rivals be able to criticize her over questionable donors, without exposing themselves?
Leave aside for a minute that the GOP will not be above hypocrisy in their accusations. Note who is not mentioned there. Trump is self-financed.
I read the IBTimes story about a month ago, and it really scared me. Forget “baked in negatives.” We are now talking about the appearance of “high crimes.” And it doesn’t have to be true, it just has to be credible. We can expect this to be the story of the election, and it will put Democrats in the position of defending corruption. Because we can’t prove it’s false, and oh, yeah, maybe she did cover it up.
And what really scares me is that she’d probably be elected anyway, and then what?
One, she’d have the Sword of Damocles hanging over her administration. How would she govern? What would she give up to save her own neck, or whom?
Two, we’d be normalizing the idea of voting for corruption in the Democratic Party. That’s a dangerous precedent.
Three, I personally have an ethical line here: I can’t vote for someone whom is as far as I can tell guilty of high crimes, unless the alternative is so awful that I really, really have to. I am a very serious consequentialist, and endorsing this level of influence peddling is not something I do cheaply.
That’s why I’ve been so insistent that she’s a bad nominee.
Um, better end this post here.
---
### Author:  [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2016, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/2 "2016-03-05T01:09:19Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Will any of Hillary Clinton’s potential rivals be able to criticize her over questionable donors, without exposing themselves?
> [@](#):
>
> Note who is not mentioned there. Trump is self-financed.
But, Trump _wants_ to expose himself.
---
### Author:  [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2016, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/3 "2016-03-05T01:12:59Z")
Yeah it’s too bad you didn’t post this a month ago, then you might have stopped her now inevitable nomination. Oh well.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2016, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/4 "2016-03-05T01:23:14Z")
I have to wonder why this from about a year ago did not stop her. Could it be that they expected yet another “where there is smoke there is fire” talking point?
It turns out that it has been investigated, but again it looks like yet another typical Clinton scandal, Typical as in not really as damning as reported and missing that the target of the investigations is not what their sources promise.
After a year of that “there’s no proof of serious malfeasance, either, just troubling questions.” (a quote from the one article cited by the OP) so far we got this:
[http://www.reuters.com/article/us-clinton-foundation-idUSKCN0VK2K9](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-clinton-foundation-idUSKCN0VK2K9)
> [@](#):
>
> The Post quoted an unnamed foundation representative as saying the initial document request had been narrowed by investigators and that the foundation was not the focus of the probe. It said there was no indication that the investigators were looking at Clinton.
>
> “The full scope and status of the inquiry, conducted by the State Department’s inspector general, were not clear from the material correspondence reviewed by the Washington Post,” the paper said.
> \*\*
> Sources familiar with investigations into the controversy surrounding Clinton’s private email server said they had no reason to believe any government agency was conducting any kind of inquiry into possible criminal violations related to the former secretary of state.\*\*
---
### Author:  [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2016, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/5 "2016-03-05T01:24:19Z")
And of course there’s Madison Guaranty.
> **[Hillary Clinton and Madison Guaranty: Conflict of Interest or Bum Rap?](http://hillaryclintonquarterly.com/madisonguaranty.htm)**
>
> Hillary Clinton's critics claimed that her representation of Madison Guarantee S&L was a conflict of interest
Hillary was in private practice when her husband was governor. Her firm represented a Savings & Loan, which was regulated by the state, and in which she and Bill may have invested? Or they didn’t invest, but they were former partners of the owner, who’d given them a sort of crypto-donation in a weaselly way. It’s all very tangled. The FDIC judged that they were in the clear, apparently. But the owner of the S&L went to prison, the next governor of Arkansas later did too, and the Clintons got off. It was eyebrow-raising.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2016, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/6 "2016-03-05T01:27:12Z")
Last updated in 2013. Regarding a case from the 60’s and the 90’s where evidence was lacking.
I mean, are we trying here?
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2016, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/7 "2016-03-05T01:44:32Z")
Dang keyboard, I meant to say that the last quote came form a source that was last updated in 2013. Regarding a case from the **80** ’s and the 90’s where evidence was lacking.
---
### Author:  [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2016, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/8 "2016-03-05T01:50:06Z")
Yeah, the 1980’s, not the 1960’s.
Look, there’s not a lot of obvious criminality. There’s enough to make her _look_ crooked to those who aren’t already in the Clinton fan club.
There are policy concerns, of course. Was the CIA running weapons to Syria through Libya, somehow? How does that even work?
> **[CIA 'running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked'](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/10218288/CIA-running-arms-smuggling-team-in-Benghazi-when-consulate-was-attacked.html)**
>
> The CIA has been subjecting operatives to monthly polygraph tests in an attempt to suppress details of a reported US arms smuggling operation in Benghazi that was ongoing when its ambassador was killed by a mob in the city last year, according to...
Why did she torpedo peace talks in Syria? Or was that someone else at State?
> **[Hillary Clinton and the Syrian Bloodbath](https://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/14/hillary-clinton-and-syrian-bloodbath)**
>
> In the Milwaukee debate, Hillary Clinton took pride in her role in a recent UN Security Council resolution on a Syrian ceasefire:
> But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution. At the core of that...
Did she even run her own State Department, or was she window dressing? Also, just how big of a hawk is she?
[https://harpers.org/archive/2014/10/stop-hillary-2/9/](https://harpers.org/archive/2014/10/stop-hillary-2/9/)
Did she really think Saddam Hussein was tied to Al Qaeda? Did she have a reason for that? Or does she just say stupid stuff?
[https://harpers.org/archive/2014/10/stop-hillary-2/8/](https://harpers.org/archive/2014/10/stop-hillary-2/8/)
But on the ethics things, it’s a lot of “stinky but probably legal, maybe.”
And while the common “dumb guy” voter may not understand the nature of some of the ethics accusations, he can understand this:
Hillary is a crook. Hillary is for sale. Hillary and Bill grubbed Wal-Mart and Goldman Sachs and Citigroup for millions of dollars, and got rich off it, and then the economy went off a cliff, and you lost your career, your pension, and your home. Now, we don’t have a record of her voting to bail out Wall Street and let Main Street drown, like Obama did, like some of the Democrats who are endorsing her did. But the only reason for that is that she was busy selling the policies of the US State Department to the kings of Arabia in exchange for money they gave Bill.
Sound bad enough? Sound worse than Scandinavian-style socialism yet?
Sorry, kids, you better pray the Bernie wave has a big crest to come. Heck, you better join it.
---
### Author:  [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2016, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/9 "2016-03-05T01:59:34Z")
Those not already on the Clinton fan club already think she is crooked. Most of them still prefer her to Trump, or any other of the losers from the GOP really. I don’t see what the point in trying to smear our nominee is.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2016, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/10 "2016-03-05T02:03:07Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#):
>
> Hillary is a crook. Hillary is for sale. Hillary and Bill grubbed Wal-Mart and Goldman Sachs and Citigroup for millions of dollars, and got rich off it, and then the economy went off a cliff, and you lost your career, your pension, and your home.
Not going to chase for more debunkings until you disown the sorry items you posted early.
Really there is a reason to do so, back in other subject (that the Republicans love too) I do have a lot of disdain of climate change deniers that never remove or drop talking points from their sites that were debunked or had no good evidence to make them even half a talking point.
Reason being that then I put the makers of those sites in the column of just being wrong all the time.
So far what I have seen is that no, Hillary is not a crook, in reality most of the bloggers out there pushing the idea that she is are the crooks themselves. You need better evidence or sources than that.
---
### Author:  [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2016, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/11 "2016-03-05T02:05:57Z")
But but but … there are allegations! It looks bad (to those who already won’t vote for her and are looking for reasons to say why). Who knows what might show up?
Nah, the GOP forces will try with much more vigor than this.
Have been for decades.
As much as **foolsguinea** may want to (s)he just doesn’t have the vicious streak to be the effective oppo hit person. But that wolf has been cried so many times with her the oppo work will mostly come up against glazed eyes, especially on the heels of her attackers having spent so much time first trying to convince everyone about what a liar and scumbag each of the _other of them_ is.
Here’s the thing: the professional oppo research have been doing their best for decades and this weak crap is the best they’ve got and a bunch of already discredited shit. Sanders has never been been seriously oppo’ed before. Who knows what might look bad when you get the GOP professionals unleashed? He has zero experience at dealing with that sort of campaign.
If there really was anything that was seriously ugly to be found then the GOP would have found and used it by now. They are not holding anything for an October surprise.
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2016, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/12 "2016-03-05T02:10:02Z")
Where there’s smoke, sometimes there’s a smoke generator.
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2016, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/13 "2016-03-05T02:36:03Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#):
>
> That’s why I’ve been so insistent that she’s a bad nominee.
The alternative is a Republican.
In a normal year, that might be a flip response. This is not a normal year. Put aside the well-made points of others that the Clintons have been subject to a constant barrage of hate for over 20 years by legions of foes without any of them managing to uncover an actual proven scandal. Her negatives were well-known and acknowledged by everyone.
Sanders had zero chance to win the nomination. I’ve been saying that for a year. It remains true. I’ve said, in fact, that Clinton had a 100% chance of winning the nomination and a 100% chance of winning the election.
The alternative is a Republican.
What should be done now? What could have been done a year ago? Other than the eternal Democratic handwringing instead of wanting to win the Presidency, what are you saying that is worth the hearing? Do you have a point?
I do. The alternative is a Republican. That trumps your point, and I’m not being ironic.
---
### Author:  [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2016, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/14 "2016-03-05T02:39:12Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#):
>
> Hillary is a crook. Hillary is for sale. Hillary and Bill grubbed Wal-Mart and Goldman Sachs and Citigroup for millions of dollars, and got rich off it, and then the economy went off a cliff, and you lost your career, your pension, and your home. Now, we don’t have a record of her voting to bail out Wall Street and let Main Street drown, like Obama did, like some of the Democrats who are endorsing her did. But the only reason for that is that she was busy selling the policies of the US State Department to the kings of Arabia in exchange for money they gave Bill.
>
> Sound bad enough? Sound worse than Scandinavian-style socialism yet?
>
> Sorry, kids, you better pray the Bernie wave has a big crest to come. Heck, you better join it.
Well, that towering edifice of innuendo you’ve built has certainly convinced me to throw my vote to Trump in the General. Texas primary’s already over so your helpful post is a little too late for that, you see.
Meanwhile, got to confess I have no idea what “selling the policies of the US State Department to the kings of Arabia” even means.
Actually, though, can someone explain to me how this notorious criminal has somehow carried out all these heinous crimes, over decades, in the face of numerous, repeated and very expensive investigations by groups of people who practically made careers of figuring out a way to nail her (and Bill) to the jailhouse wall? If she really is the crook some say, she’s a frickin’ Bond villain.
---
### Author:  [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2016, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/15 "2016-03-05T04:55:56Z")
OK, I understand, been wasting my time with this brick wall long enough.
---
### Author:  [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2016, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/16 "2016-03-05T05:27:37Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#):
>
> OK, I understand, been wasting my time with this brick wall long enough.
All in all.
---
### Author:  [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2016, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/17 "2016-03-05T05:47:16Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#):
>
> OK, I understand, been wasting my time with this brick wall long enough.
In your own OP you conceded the accusations might not be true. But you’re arguing that the accusations alone, regardless of whether they’re true or not, should be enough to cause Clinton to withdraw.
And that’s absurd. There’s no candidate who could meet the standard of never being the subject of an accusation. The fact that several of us recognize this doesn’t make us a brick wall.
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2016, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/18 "2016-03-05T16:09:09Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#):
>
> OK, I understand, been wasting my time with this brick wall long enough.
We all thank you.
But maybe you’d be good enough to tell us who you’re going to vote for that meets your lofty moral values so the rest of us lesser mortals can be edified.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2016, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/19 "2016-03-05T16:11:55Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#):
>
> We all thank you.
>
> But maybe you’d be good enough to tell us who you’re going to vote for that meets your lofty moral values so the rest of us lesser mortals can be edified.
Bern, baby, Bern!
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2016, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971/20 "2016-03-05T16:26:52Z")
It isn’t a brick wall. It’s a Hall of Mirrors.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hrc-and-the-ethics-thing/747971.md?page=2)