At my workplace, I’m the only left-leaning individual of a group of about 15 co-workers. I constantly hear my colleagues harping on H Clinton’s scandalous behavior and corrupt past. I’ve been forwarded e-mails from family with titles like “10 Scandals Involving Hillary Clinton You May Have Forgotten” or “Hillary’s 22 Biggest Scandals Ever”, but when looking through these lists, I just see a lot of insinuation and statements like “Clinton accepted donations from A, and then A was appointed as a board member at company B, and the gov’t eventually gave a contract to company B.” Stuff that may look scandalous, but could actually be quite innocent. My question is, is there any evidence of actual nefarious behavior by Clinton?
I wouldn’t be surprised if there were actual scandals in Clinton’s past, but they were drowned out by her political enemies constantly making stuff up to try to get something to stick. I personally can’t tell which is which anymore, so I generally ignore them all. I’m probably not the only one.
I mean, when you get to the point where your husband, state governor and POTUS, is accused of being the mastermind behind multiple murders as a drug kingpin, the irrationality tends to become sort of a background buzz after a while.
Like Leaper said.
And then one has to eventually wonder why she is not in jail. The inconvenient fact is because a lot of what she was accused did not pan out or was exaggerated so much that many just gave up on the scandal peddlers. Of course I did say many, because there will be always some that will always like to consume empty calories or old baloney.
Yeah, there are some real issue that could certainly be scandals.
For example, the Clinton futures trading was, um, interesting. Long story short, the Clintons invested 1,000. It turned into 100,000 in 10 months. They were trading cattle futures. After the 10 months, the Clintons stopped trading futures. The odds of this occuring are very, very low, like 1 in 31 trillion.
Note, some of the trades involved companies that a) had ties to Clinton (Tyson) and b) some state decisions went in Tysons favor. Linky.
Also, gotta love that Mrs. Clinton claims she made these amazing profits by…wait for it…reading the Wall Street Journal.
Hillary has been “just about to be indicted” for 25 years now, almost my entire lifetime. I guess it isn’t impossible that this is the scandal that actually ends up being legit, but at this point I just kinda ignore them as background noise. So far, for all I can tell, all they’ve uncovered is way more detail regarding the sexual habits of her husband then I, or anyone else, wanted to know.
Ah yes, you see what happens for not reading other cites?
From the article I cited already:
As for her investment, IIRC there were reports that She actually was not as successful as it was reported before.
I missed this cite, ran out of edit time:
Um, not *purely, *no.
As I understand it, she made enemies in the Washington press corps in 1993, when she closed the White House West Wing to the press. They sort of turned on her, and then Rush Limbaugh picked up the stories dug up and ran with them.
But she was financially tied to an Arkansas S&L owner who went to prison, and I suppose she may have been protected from prosecution by her political position. :shrug:
She seems to have considered conflicts of interest nothing to worry about, which I guess is how they played in Little Rock. That pattern continued with the Clinton Foundation & her State Department. Maybe there’s nothing illegal, but it’s not smart behavior, and the Clintons have been criticized for it, but not stopped. Still no prosecutions, but the FBI is supposedly investigating.
At this point, I assume there is some fire behind the smoke in those two cases, even if some of the *other *smoke is being blown by a vast right-wing conspiracy.
(I think she’s a dangerous candidate to nominate, but when I say this, I’m a “hater.” OK.)
Every discussion I’ve ever had about Hillary’s Evil Deeds has ended with some version of either “no smoke without fire” or “I could tell you but then I’d have to kill you”.
I wish I could say no. However, there are skeletons in the closet of just about every past and potential president.
As she has admitted, the eMail thing isn’t good, despite it being exaggerated by the GOP:
Consider this 22 year old article on the “the Clintons’ approach to investing, which involved little cash and large amounts of expert advice from well-connected friends:”
My feeling is that if you are in the public eye, you should ignore investment opportunities and advice not easily available to the general public. Nowadays I suspect the Clintons are careful about that. Decades ago, they weren’t careful enough for my taste.
Rubio has made arguably worse mistakes, and more recently:
All in all, and all that really matters, she is nowhere near too ethically challenged to make a good POTUS. Bill was a good POTUS, and I’m sure she’s not one whit more corrupt or dishonest than Slick Willie (as he used to be known in Arkansas).
I could tell you but then the Clintons would have me killed!
The truth is somewhere in the middle. Hillary Clinton’s ethical issues are quite real, but she’s never crossed the line into pure illegality. Basically, her theory of ethics is that if “it’s allowed”, it’s fine.
But she is pretty brazen, it’s not like you have to look hard to find legitimately questionable behavior on her part. if you want my opinion on the 22 scandals:
- IRS audits- Typical of administrations and Obama’s was worse.
- Covering for Bill- Oh yeah. Feminist indeed. Women should be believed, unless they slept with Bill, in which case they are sluts.
- Looting the White House- small potatoes, but yes, it did actually happen. The Clinton administration’s last day and the immediate aftermath were widely panned by Republicans and Democrats alike as pretty shameful stuff.
- Filegate- Mostly BS.
- Muslim Brotherhood Princess- Mostly BS, and the parts that are true aren’t really Abedin’s fault. You can’t control who your family is and you can’t be expected to disown them.
- Vince Foster- Total, unadulterated BS and probably the biggest reason so many people don’t believe Republicans when they engage in scandalmongering against the Clintons.
- Emailgate- Jury is still out, but it looks pretty shady.
- Chinagate- Bad policy motivated by campaign donations, not a real scandal, just the kind of crap Bernie Sanders keeps harping on. But like they say, sometimes the biggest outrages are what is legal.
- Travelgate- More of the same. Not a big scandal, but the Clintons moneygrub as shamelessly as anyone.
- Whitewater- Complex, not all that important, and I could never be bothered to understand it. It’s just not important enough.
- Landing under sniper fire- Yep, she lied. She does that a lot.
- Missing Rose Law firm records- who knows, the records were missing.
- Pardongate- another last day scandal that even Democrats harshly criticized.
- Cattle futures- Another one I can’t be bothered to care about, because a lot of politicians make money this way. You’d think they were all Warren Buffet times 100 the way politicians magically make big money on investments.
- Body count- Utter BS, like Vince Foster.
- Saul Alinsky- More BS.
- Child rapist- This one’s legit. Not a scandal per se, but an insight into how some lawyers think.
- Iranian fundraising- Never heard of this one, so I don’t know.
19.Clinton Foundation- Once again, a pretty new scandal so the jury is out, but there’s no question they took a ton of money from entities with business before the government.
- Benghazi- Mistakes were made. I used to be a harsh Clinton critic on Benghazi(actually, more Obama than Clinton), but now I just think it was a not that unusual government cockup that had more to do with miscommunication and turf wars and poor judgement by the ambassador. The “it was a movie” thing though does count against her. Another bigtime lie.
- Peter Franklin- who?
- Giftgate- Okay, now I’m just tired.
So basically, she does nothing outright illegal, but she does lie very easily and thinks there’s nothing wrong with taking tons of money from entities trying to buy influence with a future Clinton administration. Other than that, she’s like most politicians. The only thing that probably makes her different is that she seems to use every mostly legal tool at her disposal to benefit herself, whereas most politicans tend to specialize.
And, of course, the best link on that page is to Snopes.
Neither could Ken Starr. He spent years investigating it, and in the end seemed to think it had something to do with blowjobs.
Yeah, that’s why I totally get why some people think that it’s all just made up stories by Republicans, but she is actually pretty shady, and the mainstream press has done a lot of work uncovering her shadiness. If the GOP had just sat back and let the media do its job, they would have taken the Clintons down themselves. But the GOP had to go too far, and it produced a rallying effect around them.
It’s the old adage, “never interfere while someone is destroying themselves”. She’s her own worst enemy. Let her do the job of taking herself down, with a big assist from the NY Times.
Well, there you go again, making points that actually change the past.
What a surprise, as it happened the big lie came from Fox news, not the early confusion, but telling others only one part of the news, the reality was that there was a lot of confusion then and contradictory reports made the administration fall sincerely for some wrong info. However some of the attackers did report that it was motivated in part by the anti-Islam online video
The consensus later was that indeed the attack was planned before and no good connection could be made with the movie, but I would not be surprised that part of the confusion came because the movie did offend many Libyans and what the movie did was just create an opportunity too good to miss for the terrorists.
On edit: No adaher the media has not been good, just good at parroting right wing talking points that are not accurate.
See post #11.
GIGO, quoting Media Matters in defending the Clintons isn’t going to convince anyone who isn’t already a believer. Presumably you could find at least a slightly more objective source somewhere.
its insinuation; of course the GOP would do it because Clinton was a threat (and one that followed thru) to rob them of the electoral votes of suburban states, hence why they don’t win landslides like from 1968-1988, and only won more votes than a Democrat at the Prez level once in the last quarter century.
The far-left also spreads these lies to try to discredit the “DLC-wing” of the Democratic party (see Sanders fans online).