# Mrs Clinton's vulnerabilities which could be exploited in a Primary **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 23, 2015, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376 "2015-04-23T18:45:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376/81 "2015-04-28T14:17:53Z")
> [@GoodOmens](#): > > Would you please define “ties” in this context? [See here.](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-hillary-clintons-religion-and-politics) > [@](#): > > Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Which is another name for [The Family](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Family). ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376/82 "2015-04-28T15:36:07Z")
Attacking the source is cheap and intended to assuage those who want to believe. Schweizer is not the lone source and other media outlets have followed up on his allegations. I’m guessing the next talking point will be “we did nothing illegal so there’s nothing to see here!” as if skating the line of bribery but not crossing it is okay. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376/83 "2015-04-28T15:43:24Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Attacking the source is cheap and intended to assuage those who want to believe. Schweizer is not the lone source and other media outlets have followed up on his allegations. > > I’m guessing the next talking point will be “we did nothing illegal so there’s nothing to see here!” as if skating the line of bribery but not crossing it is okay. The next talking point will probably be “what actual evidence is there that Clinton or the foundation broke the law?”. It’s my question too. ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376/84 "2015-04-28T15:45:20Z")
Very amused to see the same people who were utterly convinced that publishing an open letter disagreeing with the President’s Iran policy is “treason” because “only the President may make foreign policy” asking where the violation of the law is in selling Russia policy to the highest bidder. In less dramatic areas, filing a false tax return is a crime that will get a normal person prosecuted. Hillary is very used to ignoring laws, so she just gets to skip past that and argue about the particulars of the uranium deal. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376/85 "2015-04-28T17:16:44Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Attacking the source Already explained. Pointing out the lack of supporting evidence is defending _against_ an attack. If the attack continues nonetheless, as this one has _it_ is personal. _Capisce_? > [@](#): > > I’m guessing the next talking point will be “we did nothing illegal so there’s nothing to see here!” as if skating the line of bribery but not crossing it is okay. Acting legally is generally thought to be a \*good \*thing, yes. :rolleyes: Please proceed. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376/86 "2015-04-28T19:37:41Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The next talking point will probably be “what actual evidence is there that Clinton or the foundation broke the law?”. It’s my question too. Breaking the law goes way past fitness for office. If she did break the law, we wouldn’t even be debating whether she should be President. We’d be debating if she’d fare better than Martha Stewart did in prison. The standard for rejecting a candidate falls well short of lawbreaking. We expect more from our candidates than merely not breaking the law. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376/87 "2015-04-28T19:50:34Z")
“We”? You do too? Really wanna go there, do ya? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376/88 "2015-04-28T21:30:22Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Breaking the law goes way past fitness for office. If she did break the law, we wouldn’t even be debating whether she should be President. We’d be debating if she’d fare better than Martha Stewart did in prison. > > The standard for rejecting a candidate falls well short of lawbreaking. We expect more from our candidates than merely not breaking the law. So what evidence exists that Hillary Clinton has behaved unethically or unsuitably in this regard? It better me more than something like “she hasn’t responded to questions about the scandal”. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376/89 "2015-04-28T21:37:59Z")
She broke her agreement with the President that the Clinton Foundation would not take foreign donations. THe companies that donated wanted something, and got it. Proving quid pro quo, not easy, but she has no right to run for office, so we don’t have to prove quid pro quo. If we could, she’d be in cuffs right now. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376/90 "2015-04-28T21:47:18Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > She broke her agreement with the President that the Clinton Foundation would not take foreign donations. Cite this – the agreement she made with the President and that the Clinton Foundation took foreign donations with her knowledge. > [@](#): > > THe companies that donated wanted something, and got it. Cite what they wanted, and cite what they got. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376/91 "2015-04-28T21:52:12Z")
Boy, you sure lawyer things. It’s THEIR foundation. Have they punished anyone? Then they are accountable. And please stop playing dumb. Don’t accuse me of laziness when you fail to come into this thread with even the most basic facts, gleaned from stories that people a lot less informed than you all over the country have read or heard reporting on: > **[Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal (Published 2015)](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)** > > As the Russian atomic energy agency gradually took charge of a company that controls one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States, a stream of cash made its way to the former president’s charitable organization. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376/92 "2015-04-28T21:57:13Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Boy, you sure lawyer things. Boy, you sure make a lot of uncited assertions. And when you do cite, they often don’t support your point. > [@](#): > > It’s THEIR foundation. Have they punished anyone? Then they are accountable. This probably sounded like it made a point in your mind, but I can’t tell what these sentences and rhetorical unanswered question are supposed to say together. > [@](#): > > And please stop playing dumb. Don’t accuse me of laziness when you fail to come into this thread with even the most basic facts, gleaned from stories that people a lot less informed than you all over the country have read or heard reporting on: > > [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&\_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0) I’ve read the article, and it doesn’t say that the Clinton donation took foreign donations with her knowledge, and it doesn’t say that the companies “wanted something, and got it”. It cites events that may or may not be related to each other but provides no evidence that they are related. It’s high-level JAQing off. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376/93 "2015-04-28T22:06:57Z")
True, it does not say that the foundation took foreign donations with her knowledge, however, she is accountable for it regardless. Especially since there’s no evidence anyone was punished. No one has yet been punished for the foundation’s reporting screwups that Reuters found either. But you’re wrong that companies didn’t get what they wanted: > [@](#): > > Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors. Now maybe you don’t have a problem with the fact that the Clintons got rich primarily because companies that wanted to make powerful friends gave them money. I suspect a majority of voters will be a little more leery of a couple that made their money that way. And as we saw with Romney, how one makes their money can be a pretty big deal. This looks much worse than what Romney did. The Clintons actually would be nearly dead broke if they hadn’t been able to leverage their influence into a heck of a lot of cash. More importantly, here’s why I said the Clinton campaign thinks you’re stupid: > [@](#): > > The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting. The Clinton campaign, rather than answering the allegations, wants to make this all about Schweizer. It’s their standard playbook. But as the NY Times points out, they did their own digging. I wondered earlier why the Times would take a book by a right-wing author seriously. That would be because they did their own checking and found that there is actually something there. By trying to make this about the author, they are playing the voters for fools. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376/94 "2015-04-28T22:14:10Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > True, it does not say that the foundation took foreign donations with her knowledge, however, she is accountable for it regardless. Especially since there’s no evidence anyone was punished. No one has yet been punished for the foundation’s reporting screwups that Reuters found either. That’s a non-existent piece of evidence. Whether or not they throw someone under the bus tells us nothing about whether there was actual wrongdoing. Organizations that did something wrong often “punish” someone to deflect blame, and organizations that did nothing wrong (or did nothing wrong beyond honest mistakes) often don’t punish anyone publicly _because no one (in the instance) deserves to be publicly chastised_. > [@](#): > > But you’re wrong that companies didn’t get what they wanted: Your quote doesn’t have anything to say about this. “Big company has business success” and “big company donated to Clinton Foundation” tell us nothing that we don’t already know about what the company wants. It’s trivial to say that a company wants business success – if you think they wanted something _specific_, and got that something, than provide a cite. > [@](#): > > Now maybe you don’t have a problem with the fact that the Clintons got rich primarily because companies that wanted to make powerful friends gave them money. I suspect a majority of voters will be a little more leery of a couple that made their money that way. And as we saw with Romney, how one makes their money can be a pretty big deal. This looks much worse than what Romney did. The Clintons actually would be nearly dead broke if they hadn’t been able to leverage their influence into a heck of a lot of cash. Are you saying the Clinton’s built their personal wealth from companies’ donations, or their foundation got a lot of money? Those are awfully different assertions. > [@](#): > > More importantly, here’s why I said the Clinton campaign thinks you’re stupid: > > > [@](#): > > > > The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting. > > The Clinton campaign, rather than answering the allegations, wants to make this all about Schweizer. It’s their standard playbook. But as the NY Times points out, they did their own digging. I wondered earlier why the Times would take a book by a right-wing author seriously. That would be because they did their own checking and found that there is actually something there. > > By trying to make this about the author, they are playing the voters for fools. They are doing standard scandal-response. _You can’t read minds_. Stop trying to dig out what Democrats are thinking – you’re _terrible_ at it. Are any of their assertions about Schweizer false? Has Schweizer actually provided support for the link between Hillary as SoS and this deal? What is the actual evidence, including some sort of semblance of a link, for wrongdoing? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376/95 "2015-04-28T22:19:48Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That’s a non-existent piece of evidence. Whether or not they throw someone under the bus tells us nothing about whether there was actual wrongdoing. Organizations that did something wrong often “punish” someone to deflect blame, and organizations that did nothing wrong (or did nothing wrong beyond honest mistakes) often don’t punish anyone publicly _because no one (in the instance) deserves to be publicly chastised_. The foundation continued to take foreign donations. Someone messed up, or it was done intentionally. The media will still be digging, so we’ll find out more soon enough. > [@](#): > > Your quote doesn’t have anything to say about this. “Big company has business success” and “big company donated to Clinton Foundation” tell us nothing that we don’t already know about what the company wants. It’s trivial to say that a company wants business success – if you think they wanted something _specific_, and got that something, than provide a cite. They wanted approval to make the deal. A committee Mrs. Clinton sat on had the power to nix it. > [@](#): > > Are you saying the Clinton’s built their personal wealth from companies’ donations, or their foundation got a lot of money? Those are awfully different assertions. Their wealth was built primarily from Bill Clinton’s speaking fees, which often coincided with foundation donations. As in the Uranium One case, where he earned $500,000 to give a speech. I’m sure they just wanted to hear his thoughts, experienced businessman and investor that he was. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376/96 "2015-04-28T22:21:36Z")
Schweizer is a right-wing author. It is true that his book does not prove illegality. Those facts are not nearly as relevant as the NY Times, Washington Post, and Reuters’ reporting, which the Clinton campaign has so far refused to address. They came out of their bunker just long enough for an ad hominem, then retreated back in again. They won’t be able to actually campaign for President forever that way. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376/97 "2015-04-28T22:40:37Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > They came out of their bunker just long enough for an ad hominem, then retreated back in again. They won’t be able to actually campaign for President forever that way. Huh? Media outlets and book-flogging writers with no evidence don’t campaign for President. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376/98 "2015-04-28T22:46:52Z")
I was referring to the Clinton campaign, which has been hiding on the issue other than to attack the author. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376/99 "2015-04-28T22:53:27Z")
I’m trying to help you identify just who has facts on their side and who is making baseless, insinuating personal attacks. You’re more than a bit unclear on those points. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Quatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bc8723/32.png) [@Mr\_Quatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Quatro)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2015, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376/100 "2015-04-28T23:11:50Z")
The problem with Bill Clinton being paid $500,000 for a speaking engagement in the former USSR (was that cash by the way) has been resolved. Win one lose one:[http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.528460](http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.528460) > [@](#): > > JNF backs out of $500,000 speaking fee for Bill Clinton at Peres event > > Following public criticism of the large sum provided to the former U.S. president who is > scheduled to be the keynote speaker at a gala dinner honoring President Peres, JNF cancels its participation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mrs-clintons-vulnerabilities-which-could-be-exploited-in-a-primary/718376.md?page=6)