THen there’s the millions in speaking fees Bill made from companies with business before the State Dept.
An op-ed in the WSJ points out that the administration has considered what evidence there is already sufficient grounds for prosecution in the past:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-double-standard-windfall-for-the-clintons-1430176314
If the Foreign Corrupt Practices laws are subject to enforcement this arbitrary, they should probably be repealed.
The WSJ editorial page? Really?
There are no lips foamier than theirs on the subject of Clintons. As you may not know but should.
And you know why not to respond to an attack, especially an evidenceless one - it only legitimizes it, it does not make it go away.
That’s what Dukakis thought. You know there’s another reason not to respond.
Any other reason requires evidence to be taken seriously. Your party’s hatred, and the fear that drives it, are not evidence.
IOW you’re promoting a personal attack, and it’s transparent to all who do not share your personal opinion of the Clintons’ personal character, an opinion which does not require facts to sustain it.
I’d just point out that Obama’s Truth Squad was rebutting attacks that few ever heard. Did they give legitimacy to those attacks by responding to them?
Ever since Dukakis’ defeat, it’s been conventional wisdom in political circles that attacks cannot go unchallenged. Either Clinton believes this conventional wisdom is wrong, or she really does not have any credible response.
Such attacks generally had a kernel of fact to them, however distorted and spun your side made them. Factless allegations about personal character, such as the one you’ve been manfully trying to promote here, cannot be refuted but must not be legitimized - the smart move is to appeal to adults by being one and ignoring or laughing them off.
It has?
When come back, bring facts. And pie, don’t forget the pie.
Okay, so the birther allegations had a shred of truth to them and the Clinton foundation accusations have absolutely no credibility?
Oh, that’s what you were referring to? Something even O’Reilly had to distance himself from? Tell us, don’t you ever feel ashamed of the party that nevertheless enjoys your absolute, unquestioning loyalty? Ever?
Without supporting facts, no. You come back, but no bring.
I don’t even need to debate you on this because public perception is already set. It’s up to you to figure out how to explain why what looks so bad isn’t actually bad. Since the Clintons have utterly failed to even attempt to do so, I doubt you’ll do better.
But there are facts, the facts have been laid out by several legitimate media organizations, the most respected media organizations in the world in fact, so for you to say there are just no facts is not even worth responding to.
And it doesn’t look good for you at all, whether or not you realize it.
Is that an admission that you got nothing, once again? Do you really not get that “public perception” applies to you too? That it’s shaped by a literally decades-long agenda of trying to find something to finally get the Clintons for? That they keep emerging even more popular than ever, while you guys, well, do the opposite? There’s a word for doing something repeatedly and expecting a different result. And it doesn’t support a claim to be capable of responsible governance.
A quick summary would have taken you far less typing than all this handwaving bluster.
Latest news is that a Canadian affiliate of the Clinton Foundation has been funneling anonymous donations into the group, from over 1100 people. This looks so much like a bribery/quid pro quo situation, I’m starting to wonder how deeply in denial Hillary’s supports have to be to pretend that she’s done nothing wrong.
Seriously, if it can be shown that interested parties (companies, foreign governments, whoever) were giving money to influence State Department decisions, then the Clintons could very well spend their golden years in a federal prison. This is a situation that prima fascia suggests real criminal activity has been ocurring.
ETA: Look up a link yourself. It should be easy to find. My lunch is over.
What would be the quid for 1100 Canadians?
So I did look it up, and I’m a bit confused.
A Canadian charity took 1,110 donations from non-US persons (presumably mainly Canadians). Then they donated most of that money to the Clinton Foundation. They did not tell the Clinton Foundation (or anybody else) the names of those donors . The foundation claims that they did not release those names because of Canadian law (either federal or provincial) that required them not to. Some third parties think they are being overly cautious. Now they are going about getting permission from the largest donors so they can release the names.
So I have a few questions:
-
If the Clinton Foundation didn’t know the names of the donors, how could their be quid pro quo?
-
If the largest donors names are released, does that not satisfy at least the spirit of the disclosure agreement made between the Obama administration and Clinton?
-
Do you really, honestly, think that this is the type of thing that voters care about? Voters assume politicians are at least somewhat corrupt - have since Nixon. It will require something significantly more smoking gunnish than this to move the needle at all, IMO.
I can’t wait to order my “Hillary 2016 - Probably Not Worse Than Nixon” bumper sticker.
Voters don’t care about one story like this. But if this type of reporting is constant, and builds on already established perceptions, it’s very damaging. If there’s one thing we know for sure, it’s that the last new story we heard(which was today, BTW) won’t be the last. There will be many more over the coming months. Some of it will be bullshit from right-wing sources. Others will be legitimate stories from the mainstream media.
Perhaps you could get one made as a hat band.
These “scandals” are all pretty weak sauce. Of course, nothing Hillary has done even registers on a radar calibrated for Nixon. Despite 2 1/2 years of desperately trying to milk Benghazi dead for political points, it simply hasn’t moved the needle. The email nonsense matters even less. The uranium deal, a tenth of that. News flash- the Russians already have nukes. No deal the Clintons could make would make any difference in the nuclear balance.
We are all in agreement that Hillary is probably not worse than Nixon. I just look forward to her embracing this ambitious message on shirts, mugs, commercials, etc.
THe scandals aren’t Watergate level, but this current scandal is at least at the Cheney/Haliburton level.
Oh hardy har har. Seriously- you’re comparing Hillary to a guy that authorized torture and lied to start a war that killed hundreds of thousands in order to make a windfall for his company?