pledges truth and mentions he "says what he means and means what he says". Yet, his entire tenure as Governor has been marred by being dishonest, reneging on things that he pledged as absolute, lying, etc.
pledges truth and mentions he "says what he means and means what he says". Yet, his entire tenure as Governor has been marred by being dishonest, reneging on things that he pledged as absolute, lying, etc.
pledges truth and mentions he "says what he means and means what he says". Yet, his entire tenure as Governor has been marred by being dishonest, reneging on things that he pledged as absolute, lying, etc.
You can be blunt and still be underhanded. They're not mutually exclusive.
pledges truth and mentions he "says what he means and means what he says". Yet, his entire tenure as Governor has been marred by being dishonest, reneging on things that he pledged as absolute, lying, etc.
You can be blunt and still be underhanded. They're not mutually exclusive.
after the GWB scandal. That one really angered me.
After the dust cleared, that was on par with some of HRC's lesser scandals. My biggest issue with him was his "promise" to fix the state pension system only to reduce contributions to it to balance the budget like every other politician.
he's the only one with moderate bonafides and much name recognition. I don't think he has a chance in hell of winning, but if he handles it right he could restore some of his profile nationally and maybe finagle a job if the Republicans take the WH. Also just interested from a political standpoint to see how he handles a primary where he is expected to veer rightward.
Could you imagine Christie trying to work with Congress? Â
His style is not what this country needs. It may play at the state level where most legislators aint shit, but not with the US Congress. If you thought Obama had bad relations with the legislative branch, just wait for President Christie.
His came and went in 2012. Had he jumped in, he would have won the nomination. Beating Obama might have been a different story, but he would have been a much better candidate than Romney.
if the Democrats weren't in only slightly worse shape. The best candidate is Clinton, whose stock has plummeted in the last 8 years.
It's sad they can't come up with a single viable candidate to run against her.
Also sad that out of 17(?) R candidates, it's hard to find much that's appealing.
I actually like a couple of them and could live with a few more.
At the bottom for me currently are Trump, Christie, Pataki, then I guess Santorum. Then there is another second to bottom tier with Huckabee and Cruz, and on some days Carson. I'm probably blanking on a couple others but I think that there are things to like (and dislike) about the rest.
pledges truth and mentions he "says what he means and means what he says". Yet, his entire tenure as Governor has been marred by being dishonest, reneging on things that he pledged as absolute, lying, etc.
You can be blunt and still be underhanded. They're not mutually exclusive.
Dunedin - He's not blunt. He just lies. The issue isn't his bluntness. Blunt would be fine, if he told the truth. He just flat out lied just about every step of the way. And, in my eyes, these aren't typical empty campaign promise lies. He has egregiously lied and cheated the state several ways and times over in very serious fashion.
Who is the bigger liar?
Who is the bigger phony?
Who is the better leader?
Who would win in a debate?
I think:
Who is the bigger liar? Christie
Who is the bigger phony? Christie
Who is the better leader? UNKNOWN
Who would win in a debate? Christie - I think he will bullshit better, which means he will better fool the American public. When Hilary speaks, she will just come across as disingenuous and people will be muttering "bitch" under their breath, whether it is warranted or not.
RE: RE: RE: RE: that's the body is someone who has spent Â
pledges truth and mentions he "says what he means and means what he says". Yet, his entire tenure as Governor has been marred by being dishonest, reneging on things that he pledged as absolute, lying, etc.
You can be blunt and still be underhanded. They're not mutually exclusive.
Dunedin - He's not blunt. He just lies. The issue isn't his bluntness. Blunt would be fine, if he told the truth. He just flat out lied just about every step of the way. And, in my eyes, these aren't typical empty campaign promise lies. He has egregiously lied and cheated the state several ways and times over in very serious fashion.
Any more than his predecessors? McGreevy handed his boyfriend a six figure sinecure for which he was woefully unqualified. Florio had plenty of whispers.
Who is the bigger liar?
Who is the bigger phony?
Who is the better leader?
Who would win in a debate?
I think:
Who is the bigger liar? Christie
Who is the bigger phony? Christie
Who is the better leader? UNKNOWN
Who would win in a debate? Christie - I think he will bullshit better, which means he will better fool the American public. When Hilary speaks, she will just come across as disingenuous and people will be muttering "bitch" under their breath, whether it is warranted or not.
I don't know Christie's history well enough to say, but if he says one honest thing or one non-self-serving thing, then I think he has a leg up. Geez, what a low bar we have nowadays.
The one good thing about Christie is that you can say he is dishonest and vote for another candidate to be the nominee. You can make the choice and not have it be a sacrifice of your own integrity. I saw a distressing poll last week which said that the majority of Americans (I think it was in the 52-59% range believe that Hillary is dishonest and and untrustworthy. Also by a majority, people will vote for her for President. What does that say about the overlap? Not really about Hillary or the next election, but I honestly believe that we are at a weird crisis point culturally or societally where honesty is no longer considered a virtue (or at least an important one). We are all pretty much "win the game, no matter how you get there".
daily it bothers me that so many, even in the media think its okay to make fun of Christies appearance/weight. To stereotype him as being "a lazy fuck", it just seems totally wrong in this time of hyper political correctness.
I think that says more about her competition than about what people actually think about her or how they will vote. Lesser of all evils is what politics seems to have turned into over the last 2 decades.
that hid a personal email server to bypass government security/record keeping and then deleted tens of thousands of emails, then lied about how she only wanted one phone device when there are pictures of her with multiple devices. How can you even think about voting for this level of dishonesty!
Add the Clinton foundation pay for play schemes, her record as Secretary of State (Russian Reset, Benghazi anyone), she was the biggest cheer leader for the Iraq war and now she complains about what bad shape the country is in when she has been in a leadership position for the past 20 years!!
that hid a personal email server to bypass government security/record keeping and then deleted tens of thousands of emails, then lied about how she only wanted one phone device when there are pictures of her with multiple devices. How can you even think about voting for this level of dishonesty!
Add the Clinton foundation pay for play schemes, her record as Secretary of State (Russian Reset, Benghazi anyone), she was the biggest cheer leader for the Iraq war and now she complains about what bad shape the country is in when she has been in a leadership position for the past 20 years!!
daily it bothers me that so many, even in the media think its okay to make fun of Christies appearance/weight. To stereotype him as being "a lazy fuck", it just seems totally wrong in this time of hyper political correctness.
Right--you want to say whatever you want about the other guys, but when it hits home it seems unfair.
RE: Knowing people that struggle with their weight Â
daily it bothers me that so many, even in the media think its okay to make fun of Christies appearance/weight. To stereotype him as being "a lazy fuck", it just seems totally wrong in this time of hyper political correctness.
Apparently, you, too, missed the recent thread about obesity where Brett, I, and a few others did a fair amount of sniping at each other (thus the lazy, fat fuck reference to Brett, who used my genetics (among other factors) argument to very mildly prong me.
I know Brett has a reputation for "pronging" guys here, but this is all in fun. I guess I'm one of the few who reads every thread and does considerable cross-referencing.
is how HRC was legally able to do her job at Secretary of State given the conflicts of interest due to her ties to the Clinton Foundation.
Any USG employee above GS-13 has to annually fill out a detailed ethics questionaire listing all outside business and investment relationships. I did so myself and had to explain to USG ethics lawyers what BBI was and who advertised on it. Given the general nature of the ad networks, I was not forced to recuse myself from issues within my portfolio. But how in the hell did the State Department ethics office allow HRC to legally conduct certain activities?
Really? You don't think it's a scandal that four Americans were left completely unprotected in an American consulate, including the American Ambassador, in a country experiencing a Civil War? Meanwhile if you visit Tokyo, the American Embassy is an armed encampment.
In all my years in international relations, I've never heard of an American Ambassador being left unprotected in a foreign country, let alone one going through a civil conflict.
But the facts are Hillary and her State Department failed to give the compound the added security it requested numerous times and a bi-partisan report says the same. The buck stops with Hillary. The part of the administration lying about what caused it is a separate issue.
From the Washington Post:
A long-delayed Senate Intelligence Committee report released Wednesday faulted both the State Department and the intelligence community for not preventing attacks on two outposts in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, in 2012.
is how HRC was legally able to do her job at Secretary of State given the conflicts of interest due to her ties to the Clinton Foundation.
Any USG employee above GS-13 has to annually fill out a detailed ethics questionaire listing all outside business and investment relationships. I did so myself and had to explain to USG ethics lawyers what BBI was and who advertised on it. Given the general nature of the ad networks, I was not forced to recuse myself from issues within my portfolio. But how in the hell did the State Department ethics office allow HRC to legally conduct certain activities?
Easily, don't list your conflicts and they won't ask you to recuse yourself! :)
I have no idea what you are talking about with Palin.
Regarding your second point, you're entitled to your opinion, but I find you lack of concern regarding HRC ethics more than a little disconcerting. I also find it hypocritical that the same wealth/disconnect with the "little people" that you allege to be within the Republican domain.
I've supported both Democrats and Republicans in my life, but I doubt you have done the same.
There's no point in arguing with the wing nuts of this country. After 3 years, numerous hearings and committees, and nothing was found. But they'll keep beating that drum.
daily it bothers me that so many, even in the media think its okay to make fun of Christies appearance/weight. To stereotype him as being "a lazy fuck", it just seems totally wrong in this time of hyper political correctness.
Apparently, you, too, missed the recent thread about obesity where Brett, I, and a few others did a fair amount of sniping at each other (thus the lazy, fat fuck reference to Brett, who used my genetics (among other factors) argument to very mildly prong me.
I know Brett has a reputation for "pronging" guys here, but this is all in fun. I guess I'm one of the few who reads every thread and does considerable cross-referencing.
Plenty has been found. For one, the Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya already testified as such as a whistle blower. But hey, that doesn't fit your narrative.
given his belief that his shit dont stink, I can only imagine what a proper national level hatchet team will turn up on him.
Deej - They've been at it since November 2012. The only thing that's stuck is the gift his aides gave them
I dont know that anyone has been properly incentivized to ruin him just yet. My sense is that he has a very loose sense of what is appropriate to spend state money on (e.g. the helicopter flights, the food bill).
Im not actively rooting against him. As a Dem the guy I fear is Walker -- I think he's fantastic politically and then when he gets in office is brutally effective.
I just posted an article by the liberal Washington Post that explains how a bi-partisan committee found that the department that Hillary Clinton is in charge of was negligent and could have prevented the murders of our ambassador and special forces had they read their damn emails and acted yet you will continue the typical liberal lies that its all a conspiracy by Republicans.
So HRC's ethics don't concern you? Strange. I guess only party matters to you.
Eric, I'm not going to get embroiled in this except to ask one question of you and others:
Do you see any of the candidates, from either party, as NOT being ethically challenged? Shit, they're politicians, flexible ethics are their stock in trade. What would truly identify someone who was only about Party would be to claim that only someone from their Party is the exception..
So HRC's ethics don't concern you? Strange. I guess only party matters to you.
Eric, I'm not going to get embroiled in this except to ask one question of you and others:
Do you see any of the candidates, from either party, as NOT being ethically challenged? Shit, they're politicians, flexible ethics are their stock in trade. What would truly identify someone who was only about Party would be to claim that only someone from their Party is the exception..
I'm in agreement. Both HRC/Christie have more concerns than past candidates, IMO.
RE: RE: RE: Knowing people that struggle with their weight Â
daily it bothers me that so many, even in the media think its okay to make fun of Christies appearance/weight. To stereotype him as being "a lazy fuck", it just seems totally wrong in this time of hyper political correctness.
Apparently, you, too, missed the recent thread about obesity where Brett, I, and a few others did a fair amount of sniping at each other (thus the lazy, fat fuck reference to Brett, who used my genetics (among other factors) argument to very mildly prong me.
I know Brett has a reputation for "pronging" guys here, but this is all in fun. I guess I'm one of the few who reads every thread and does considerable cross-referencing.
Now, do you and Crispy get it at last? (JFC!)
You fucking bastard:
Quote:
the lazy, fat fuck reference to Brett
Clever.
No reason to bring my parents (or lack thereof) into this! And yes, I thought it was kind of clever, at that!
So HRC's ethics don't concern you? Strange. I guess only party matters to you.
The problem you have with us democrats is that there have been so many MASSIVE CLINTON SCANDALS that amounted to nothing that we're desensitized to the massive Clinton scandal of the week. Didnt the GOP House committee effectively clear Clinton re Benghazi? It just seemed like another in the line of Vince Foster, Whitewater, the very very evil blowjob, etc.
Cry wolf enough and you'll have to deal with the consequences if/when a real scandal happens.
If you don't see a wide ethical gulf between HRC and other Democratic and Republican candidates, then we're not going to agree on much.
I'd vote for Bernie Sanders over HRC.
I see them all as unethical and basically, untrustworthy. It doesn't stop me from voting, but it does make it very difficult. I vote for moderates; I can't countenance either extreme. I just have to make what I think is the best choice for my interests when I do cast a ballot. I don't respect anyone who doesn't vote their own self-interest.
knows that 92 percent of Democrats can see themselves voting for her in a poll out last week. Is there a Republican that has that commitment? The question is how many Republicans will come out to vote against HRC? How big of a turnout will she get from Democrats. That is what it comes down to everything else is noise and window dressing for the next 16 months. Billions of $$ spent, billions of words talked or written
Collecting millions of dollars from foreign governments while you are serving as Secretary of State is extremely bad....just like Iran-Contra was for Reagan. I could care less if the President gets a blow job, but I care if our government officials are selling influence to foreign governments, regardless of whether they are friendly or not.
There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I’ve followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. . . . I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount the political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way part of this decision.
Hillary addresses Code Pink, March 7, 2003.
The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.
Is few rational people believe HRC knew there was such a security defect that American lives would be lost. Whether she knew and what she knew becomes irrelevant because the side yelling about it wants to make her appear as some unethical evil bitch but in reality she had no motive for not increasing security....THat is why it is a non starter...
Bush and Cheney had documents cross their desk called OBL looking to attack the United states. Clinton told them it was the biggest threat...They ignored it...lied to start a war etc...
Benghazi is the rights attempt to flip that coin on the left but as usual the right are like a bunch or dorks who just don't get it when the game is over
Sorry, but my perspective on Benghazi comes from my 25 years of working with our Embassies overseas.
I don't know who to "blame" for it, but in all my work experience, I have never heard of an Ambassador being completely left unprotected like that in a foreign country, let alone one facing a high level of violence.
President's appoint ambassadors. So I assume the President or someone high on his team knew and liked our Ambassador in Libya. I don't understand why he was in the consulate (and not the Embassy) in the first place and why he had no Marine escort. Again, that's common everywhere else.
I'm not saying it's Hilliary's fault, but someone fucked up. And four people are dead because of it.
No doubt someone fucked up....The problem is yelling and screaming on the right trying to hang it on HRC's head as if she said "fuck those guys"....
No one believes that and the yelling and screaming turns peoples attention away from what may have happened...and the rights media outlet Fox and talk radio with yell about Benghazi because it is red meat to the right but it turns off the rest of people....because ultimately no one believes HRC was incompetent here or at fault in any intentional manner....and the yelling makes people not want to look into it...
Collecting millions of dollars from foreign governments while you are serving as Secretary of State is extremely bad....just like Iran-Contra was for Reagan. I could care less if the President gets a blow job, but I care if our government officials are selling influence to foreign governments, regardless of whether they are friendly or not.
See, this is where you lose me. She wasnt lining her pockets, she wasnt profiting politically, and indeed, she wasnt even involved in the CGI until after she left office. You're confusing her and her husband.
This is just more of the it's not okay if the Clintons do it schtick. Essentially every elected politician in this country takes "campaign contributions" from people who have business before the politician. Everyone bemoans it (except the 5 conservatives on the Supreme Court), but no one is here arguing that it is a scandal that should prevent those politicians from holding office. But Hilary's husband has a CHARITY that takes donations from foreign nations and suddenly Hilary is crooked. That's beyond a double standard to me.
I think looking hard at this charity is going to be another fools errand..It is possibly the most or one of a few most recognizable charities in the world....
And Iran Contra ultimately put crack cocaine on the street....That who thing was incredibly ridiculous involving the CIA and drug lords...insane shit
Obviously there are those who will use it for political gain, but the thing that should concern everyone is the Administration hasn't been very forthright about all of this from the very beginning and only started to come clean about some of it AFTER the election.
What reeks is all of the "the e-mails got lost", the "servers were destroyed" stuff from the various scandals (i.e., IRS, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation). It smells really bad.
If some pedophile or other criminal sent and later deleted some incriminating e-mails, I guarantee they would somehow retrieve them.
Why you see "the right" and now other more moderates getting concerned is one incident after another where the truth appears to be obfruscated.
And from Day 1, every USG employee from a Cabinet Secretary to a lowly professional assistant is told NEVER to use personal e-mail (let alone servers) for work and especially classified work. We go through that training every year (including SEPARATE TRAINING for the use of information technology and classified material).
Sorry, but my perspective on Benghazi comes from my 25 years of working with our Embassies overseas.
I don't know who to "blame" for it, but in all my work experience, I have never heard of an Ambassador being completely left unprotected like that in a foreign country, let alone one facing a high level of violence.
President's appoint ambassadors. So I assume the President or someone high on his team knew and liked our Ambassador in Libya. I don't understand why he was in the consulate (and not the Embassy) in the first place and why he had no Marine escort. Again, that's common everywhere else.
I'm not saying it's Hilliary's fault, but someone fucked up. And four people are dead because of it.
I don't know what to think about Benghazi. I tended to think the scandal was Obamas lie about the video in a pre-election message packaging. I don't know about Clintons culpability in security. I do know that Sheryl Atkinson documented clintons aides parsing through documents prior to the Congressional investigation. And I do know that the Blumenthal emails are smoking guns about her saying she turned over all correspond nice, proving the lie. That I think is disconcerting. But as far as the safety goes, is it really clear. I suppose if ambassadors are fungible and it doesn't make any difference if one dies or not, then security is not a high priority. But that would be more setting the tone as opposed to directing day to day operations.
I think secretary of State is slightly different Â
Then your run of the mill government employee....I don't know all the details here so I would be speaking out of turn but I really doubt this is going to turn into anything....I think some here are right with the boy who cried wolf syndrome in regards to HRC....
I also think she is smarter then the scandals people try to put on her...
Collecting millions of dollars from foreign governments while you are serving as Secretary of State is extremely bad....just like Iran-Contra was for Reagan. I could care less if the President gets a blow job, but I care if our government officials are selling influence to foreign governments, regardless of whether they are friendly or not.
See, this is where you lose me. She wasnt lining her pockets, she wasnt profiting politically, and indeed, she wasnt even involved in the CGI until after she left office. You're confusing her and her husband.
This is just more of the it's not okay if the Clintons do it schtick. Essentially every elected politician in this country takes "campaign contributions" from people who have business before the politician. Everyone bemoans it (except the 5 conservatives on the Supreme Court), but no one is here arguing that it is a scandal that should prevent those politicians from holding office. But Hilary's husband has a CHARITY that takes donations from foreign nations and suddenly Hilary is crooked. That's beyond a double standard to me.
Deej, do you really feel that the money Bill makes from speeches is completely divorced from Hillary? I know my wife seems to feel that money I make is hers to have. But our relationship might be different.
But charity rating organizations can't even rate the Clinton Foundation as a charity because it's so non-transparent.
And yes, politicians accept money all of time for influence. But when it is billions of dollars coming from foreign countries, including those with business in front of the State Department, that is a conflict of interest.
Again, 99.9 percent of USG employees would have been told by their agencies' ethics attorneys that they would have to recuse themselves or get rid of the interest that was causing the conflict. It's not allowed.
Hell, as a USG employee, the most a foreign or domestic person or organization could spend on me for lunch was $20.
I suppose if ambassadors are fungible and it doesn't make any difference if one dies or not, then security is not a high priority. But that would be more setting the tone as opposed to directing day to day operations.
It's not different. It's why some nominees for Cabinet positions withdrawal their names from consideration. They don't want to sell off business interests.
Enriching the Clintons while getting favorable State Dept treatment Â
"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.
Eric: You post makes no sense to me. Politicians accept money for influence all the time you say... but some how only when Hilary does it it is a conflict of interest?? If anything, there is less/no conflict of interest with Hilary, since it is a charity (i.e. not her personal finances or her political campaign), and it isnt even her charity.
Also, it isnt billions in foreign government money. And you keep talking about what is required of USG employees, when (1) she isnt one (she is a political appointee), and (2) she isnt personally benefiting. Your 5:59 post makes even less sense. And your 6:08 post again confuses business and charity interests.
Bill: Yes, I think Bill Clinton would make a killing on the speaking tour regardless of whether Hilary was SoS. Other than American conservatives, the whole world thinks he's a rock star.
I don't understand is why other Democrats are not getting in the race. HRC is extremely beatable. She's not a a good campaigner (we saw that too back in 2008). Plus she hasall of this baggage (whether you agree that is legit baggage or not is moot...it is baggage). And the Democrats have a great shot to win the Presidency again. For the life of me, I can't figure out why someone else besides Sanders isn't already in the race.
Because her family was receiving the money while she was a Cabinet Secretary. She's not allowed to do that. At least, on the books, she's not allowed to do that. She has to recuse herself or not do it.
Secondly, it's not clear how charitable the charity really is. That's not some "right wing" conspiracy garbage. Those charity ratings orgs can't rate the charity.
I don't understand is why other Democrats are not getting in the race. HRC is extremely beatable. She's not a a good campaigner (we saw that too back in 2008). Plus she hasall of this baggage (whether you agree that is legit baggage or not is moot...it is baggage). And the Democrats have a great shot to win the Presidency again. For the life of me, I can't figure out why someone else besides Sanders isn't already in the race.
look at how small those numbers are for a charity that has raised money in the BILLIONS. 50k from Bahrain and Jamaica! Oh no, that bitch is arming Australia and Norway.
The only non-western democracies that are over $1 million are the Saudis (+97%), the Kuwaitis (+11%), and Morocco (+1%). So Morocco did no better, and we continued to be in bed the the House of Saud and the Kuwaitis. I wish we werent, but then again better the Saudis try to police that region than us.
Show me one shred of evidence that Clinton overruled the bureaucracy to aid these countries in arms sales. Because otherwise this article aint shit.
I don't understand is why other Democrats are not getting in the race. HRC is extremely beatable. She's not a a good campaigner (we saw that too back in 2008). Plus she hasall of this baggage (whether you agree that is legit baggage or not is moot...it is baggage). And the Democrats have a great shot to win the Presidency again. For the life of me, I can't figure out why someone else besides Sanders isn't already in the race.
...but she's not extremely beatable. Actually quite the opposite, and that's why not many are challenging her for the nomination.
Personally I'm skeptical that the Sos has no input on Â
about the Clinton Foundation? It's like the same Monday morning QBing done here AFTER the game is played. You all have the answers looking back, but nobody said boo while she was SoS. She runs for President, NOW you run around with your hair on fire claiming there was something unethical about it. Typical Minday Morning BBI bullshit
Not sure I buy that. She was supposed to be a shoe-in back 2008 too. She's not generating a lot of enthusiasm. That's why she's running so far to the left right now...she's trying to keep the Obama coalition together.
She has the money, but I think Democrats are looking for someone who inspires them more. It's hard to take her anti-big business claims seriously (Wall Street, FTA's, etc.).
And you honestly think the Clintons have not financially benefited from the Foundation's receipts?
Ah, there is the rub. You want me to assume that the Clintons are effectively stealing from the charity. Based on zero evidence. I guess because Vince Foster.
The American Institute of Philanthropy says 89% of the foundation's money goes towards charitable mission and gave the CF (the umbrella org) an "A".
I think a lot of the people criticizing the Clinton charity have no idea who the biggest donors are, have no idea what the charity does, and essentially just think Clinton = scumbag.
Yup, that's the rub. You're assuming the best and I'm assuming the worst. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
Regarding the charity ratings, I didn't know that. The last thing I read was they couldn't rate the charity but if what you posted is accurate, obviously what I read was wrong.
There was nothing in particular that she herself did that cost her the nomination, Obama just ran a flawless campaign - not many people would've beat him. That's why Hillary is inheriting much of Obama's old campaign staff for her run this time around.
Yup, that's the rub. You're assuming the best and I'm assuming the worst. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
Regarding the charity ratings, I didn't know that. The last thing I read was they couldn't rate the charity but if what you posted is accurate, obviously what I read was wrong.
I assume that Marco Rubio practices bestiality, Scott Walker owns slaves, and Rand Paul eats people. Therefore they're all unfit to be president.
A different org, Charity Navigator, says they cant rate the CF. That may be a fair position because of the structure.
but 1.8 billion Euros doesn't sound like all that much money for even a "broke" country to come up with. Is there a greater point Greece is trying to make?
I agree with a lot of your defense of HRC. But, I believe toy ate wrong about the political appointee point. That doesn't refuse the individual of rules for government employees. It is still government job. You are confusing elected official with the only government employee,it seems.
Sorry, but my perspective on Benghazi comes from my 25 years of working with our Embassies overseas.
I don't know who to "blame" for it, but in all my work experience, I have never heard of an Ambassador being completely left unprotected like that in a foreign country, let alone one facing a high level of violence.
President's appoint ambassadors. So I assume the President or someone high on his team knew and liked our Ambassador in Libya. I don't understand why he was in the consulate (and not the Embassy) in the first place and why he had no Marine escort. Again, that's common everywhere else.
I'm not saying it's Hilliary's fault, but someone fucked up. And four people are dead because of it.
Well there were about 7 committee hearings that looked into and saw no wrong doing sooo...
Obviously there are those who will use it for political gain, but the thing that should concern everyone is the Administration hasn't been very forthright about all of this from the very beginning and only started to come clean about some of it AFTER the election.
What reeks is all of the "the e-mails got lost", the "servers were destroyed" stuff from the various scandals (i.e., IRS, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation). It smells really bad.
If some pedophile or other criminal sent and later deleted some incriminating e-mails, I guarantee they would somehow retrieve them.
Why you see "the right" and now other more moderates getting concerned is one incident after another where the truth appears to be obfruscated.
And from Day 1, every USG employee from a Cabinet Secretary to a lowly professional assistant is told NEVER to use personal e-mail (let alone servers) for work and especially classified work. We go through that training every year (including SEPARATE TRAINING for the use of information technology and classified material).
There have been no scandals. Just because the other side tries to make a mountain out of a mole hill doesn't mean there is any validity to their claims. Benghazi and IRS have all been looked into and NOTHING has come of them with an opposition party doing the looking.
1) The Palin reference was to your snide retorts to me back when McCain selected her. You were gaga over her, telling me how she was going to pull in HRC voters, which was absurd at the time & even more laughable 7 years later.
2) Have I ever voted for a Republican nationally? No. Because the Republicans I'd vote for no longer exist. If people like Eisenhower, Rockefeller, etc. were still in the GOP, I'd consider it. But those men would find themselves in the Democratic Party today. Of the GOPers running, Pataki & Kasich seem the most same. And considering neither of them will likely be the nominee next November, that streak will continue.
3) To question my patriotism because, in your words, I put my party over my country is ridiculous. First of all, that's not true at all. I support the Democratic Party because I think their policies are, far & away, the best option for America's future. If they didn't, I wouldn't support them.
4) And I'm sure as hell not going to apologize to anybody-much less you-over supporting HRC. Do I like Bernie? Yes, I love him. I'd love for him to win. But I'm a realist & he's probably not going to win the nomination. She's going to be my party's standardbearer come next November. And I'm damn well going to support her.
5) Not every Democrat-myself included-supported the Iraq War. Hillary did, yes. But Obama didn't. Kennedy didn't. Feingold didn't. There was a loud & vocal arm of the Democratic Party that wanted nothing to do with a bar that completely took the eye of the ball & had nothing to do with 9/11.
6) The Clinton Foundation has done a lot of good. And I think that bears mentioning. Bill Clinton isn't the first, & he won't be the last, to use his position to make ungodly $.
7) You linked a CNN article about a Deputy Chief of Mission saying that Benghazi could have been avoided, like that's some type of smoking gun. The article is over 2 years old & nothing ever came of it. And I'm glad you know this man wouldn't lie, considering I'm sure you know him..
I don't understand is why other Democrats are not getting in the race. HRC is extremely beatable. She's not a a good campaigner (we saw that too back in 2008). Plus she hasall of this baggage (whether you agree that is legit baggage or not is moot...it is baggage). And the Democrats have a great shot to win the Presidency again. For the life of me, I can't figure out why someone else besides Sanders isn't already in the race.
O'Malley is in the race and Jim Webb might also jump in the race. Fact is though she will be incredibly hard to beat despite what you think. She has the machinery and has the money. It would take an Obama type of personality to knock her off and those don't come around very often.
I'm also not convinced that you can't blame her for the way she campaigned the last time. She doesn't seem natural at it (that doesn't mean she wouldn't be a good President, but there is a difference in being a campaigner).
She doesn't seem natural at it and I suspect she hates it. Some of the orchestrated interactions with hand-picked voters have been downright painful. And she obviously doesn't want to answer questions from the media (I'm torn about whether that is hurting her or helping her right now...I lean towards it helping her as she hasn't been real smooth in Q&A sessions to date).
But the country is so equally divided that once again, it will come down to a few states (or counties as Headhunter points out). Strange political system we have now where basically the bulk of the states don't really matter anymore as it is predetermined how they will vote.
I agree with a lot of your defense of HRC. But, I believe toy ate wrong about the political appointee point. That doesn't refuse the individual of rules for government employees. It is still government job. You are confusing elected official with the only government employee,it seems.
Totally fair. Look, I'll even admit that I'd be happier and she'd look cleaner if her husband wasnt getting all this foreign money for the charity (though the CF is doing great work). But I cant sit here and deal with shit like Eric assuming that the Clintons are stealing from the charity because I guess they're the Clintons.
Literally no factual support. Just presumed criminality. I.e. every other major Clinton scandal.
I'm also not convinced that you can't blame her for the way she campaigned the last time. She doesn't seem natural at it (that doesn't mean she wouldn't be a good President, but there is a difference in being a campaigner).
She doesn't seem natural at it and I suspect she hates it. Some of the orchestrated interactions with hand-picked voters have been downright painful. And she obviously doesn't want to answer questions from the media (I'm torn about whether that is hurting her or helping her right now...I lean towards it helping her as she hasn't been real smooth in Q&A sessions to date).
But the country is so equally divided that once again, it will come down to a few states (or counties as Headhunter points out). Strange political system we have now where basically the bulk of the states don't really matter anymore as it is predetermined how they will vote.
Shes ahead of everyone in the field so not speaking to the media is obviously not hurting her. Fact is she doesn't need to talk to the media right now. Its June 2015. There is a year and a half before the election and another 6 months before the first primary. It makes no sense to get out in front and answer questions when you don't have to.
Never liked Palin so that doesn't even sound like me. I may have said something to the effect that she'd pull the soccer moms (which she did).
I'm a big fan of Kasich...so we agree there.
You've always come across to me as a diehard social and economic liberal. I'm very surprised anyone like that would truly find much to like about HRC. I'm surprised her past and business associations don't bother you more.
Most liberal politicians supported the Iraq War. To say otherwise is simply not true.
Why would a DCM ruin his career over something like that?
I'd be more convinced of that if the e-mails didn't keep disappearing from each scandal.
How does an e-mail disappear by the way?
Bottom line is that there has been an opposition party looking into all of this and really doing nothing else but that. They've been throwing garbage against the wall to see what will stick and nothing has. In fact the opposite has happened and they've been exonerated. If there is no other evidence that has been found then there aren't any emails that would show anything different.
I'm not a huge HRC fan-I've said that multiple times on this site Â
I prefer Bernie to her. And I'll vote for him over her in the primaries. But I'm a realist; he's got little to no chance in hell of beating her. This isn't Obama 2007.
She's going to be the nominee, barring the unforeseen. And I'm going to be in her corner. Also, I think she's gotten a ton of flack with some stories that just don't pass the smell test in terms of real scandals.
Most liberal politicians supported the Iraq War. To say otherwise is simply not true.
That is absolutely not true. Most democrats did not vote for the Iraq so its impossible that most liberal politicians voted for the war. There was a strong liberal opposition to the Iraq War that was shouted down by shameless conservatives who questioned their patriotism for having doubts about the war. It was not a done deal no brainer type of vote. It was hotly debated and clearly it took lies and shenanigans from the administration to convince the public and politicians to go along with it.
The Electorial College has outlived its usefulness Â
we have 330 million and counting. To have a bunch of counties( I'm an Obama guy) determine the elections every 4 years is ridiculous. The popular vote decides, not ButtFuck Ohio and BlowJob County in Florida
to be folksy, and interact with people in a natural way that's on their level. But I don't think most liberal voters care so much about their candidate being someone they can have a beer with, so long as they don't act too elitist. I think if anything that was her biggest weakness last time she ran.
But i suspect that her campaign would have done some self scouting and make a point to at least come off less elitist this time around. Can't deny that there's a big experience advantage for candidates who have already ran for president and have already had their weaknesses exploited.
In checking the numbers, we're both right and wrong. About 60 percent of Senate Democrats voted for it and 60 percent of House Democrats voted against it.
In checking the numbers, we're both right and wrong. About 60 percent of Senate Democrats voted for it and 60 percent of House Democrats voted against it.
Well it was 29-21 Dems in favor in the Senate and it was 80 something to 120 something in the House. So it lost Dems overwhelmingly in the House and won Dems by a few votes in the Senate. Overall more Dems voted against it in the Congress than voted for it.
Regarding the charity ratings, I didn't know that. The last thing I read was they couldn't rate the charity but if what you posted is accurate, obviously what I read was wrong.
So I looked into this more. It is one of many rating entities, called Charity Navigator. CN is consider a/the leading charity rater, for some reason. I dont want to besmirch people at CN, because Im sure they mean well, but the entity seems like a crock of shit. They "rate" 8000 charities with an overall budget of $1.4 million. So $175/charity. Meaning whatever they do is essentially window dressing.
So what do they do? They look at a charity's Form 990 and their website. And they rate the charity. That's a very shitty way to rate charities in any meaningful sense. They probably do a good job exposing charities that dont spend enough on the charitable mission (i.e. those where 90% of the budget goes to fundraising); but are subject to criticism for the overfocus raw data. Otherwise useless.
So what is their beef with the Clinton charity? Essentially the complexity of the structure makes it hard for CN to do its usual evaluation (ie fast and dirty). CN makes clear that their inability to rate the Clinton charity is because CN:
Quote:
determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity.... A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.
I dont have a problem with that. The purpose of charity transparency is for donors to know that their money is well spent. The Clinton's venture a charity that raises money from huge donors, often for special projects. I assume that the the Gates Foundation wants transparency, the Clinton charity will give the Gates that look-see.
Who are largest donors to the Clinton's Foundation Â
February article listing the top seven. I could be wrong, but think it's doubtful that Bill Gates has been trying to bribe HRC. Washington Post - ( New Window )
Collecting millions of dollars from foreign governments while you are serving as Secretary of State is extremely bad....just like Iran-Contra was for Reagan. I could care less if the President gets a blow job, but I care if our government officials are selling influence to foreign governments, regardless of whether they are friendly or not.
I'm sure you were just as outraged over the Iran War and Cheney's Haliburton involvement correct? I mean that does not even cover the fact that one of the biggest violators of the Iraqi embargo (and Iran also), was a subsidiary Haliburton set-up to specifically have dealings with Iraq with regards to the "oil for food" that lead to millions of dollars lining Saddam's pockets and funding the military.
I know you were greatly outraged when this info came out prior to Cheneys second term as VP correct?
montanagiant time to stop getting your talking points from Â
mediamatters and daily kos and spreading lies. Same liberal lies like Bush lied about WMD, that he ignored memos of imminent attack, he let OBL go in Tora Bora, etc.
Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton
Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed.
the email thing isnt a scandal either. She did not violate regs in using her personal email address. It was standard practice for SoS's. In fact, Kerry appears to be the first SoS to primarily use a @state.gov address.
A lot of people have cited some reg that prohibited it, but that reg became effective after she left office.
So the rule was that if you use personal email for work that you're required to turn over the work emails to the agency. Hilary did that. She turned over 30k emails. She deemed another 30k emails to be non-work related (really, it was probably an aide).
What's the scandal? Conservatives dont believe her that the other 30k emails were personal. That's just a bald accusation, nothing more. But personal emails were never subject to the record keeping requirement, so if she had done the 30k pure work emails on the state.gov server, the other 30k would not be government records.
Moreover, just think about the purported scandal. Maybe I just know this as a commercial litigator who deals with discovery of electronically stored information all the time, but email is just about the dumbest thing you could try to make disappear. Because it is correspondence, SOMEONE ELSE HAS THE FUCKING EMAILS. Anyone she emailed or got emails from has their own copies. Then there are disk images, deleted but not written over files, temporary files, cloud backups (e.g. MIMECAST) that users often arent aware of or thought were eliminated, mobile devices, etc. It's just a nightmare to try to hide emails from a deep pocketed investigator. Link - ( New Window )
We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?
It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.
[...]
The Clinton Foundation provided Charity Navigator with the following reponse to the issues cited in the CN Watchlist entry.
For more information: The Clinton Foundation Memorandum
the email thing isnt a scandal either. She did not violate regs in using her personal email address. It was standard practice for SoS's. In fact, Kerry appears to be the first SoS to primarily use a @state.gov address.
A lot of people have cited some reg that prohibited it, but that reg became effective after she left office.
So the rule was that if you use personal email for work that you're required to turn over the work emails to the agency. Hilary did that. She turned over 30k emails. She deemed another 30k emails to be non-work related (really, it was probably an aide).
What's the scandal? Conservatives dont believe her that the other 30k emails were personal. That's just a bald accusation, nothing more. But personal emails were never subject to the record keeping requirement, so if she had done the 30k pure work emails on the state.gov server, the other 30k would not be government records.
Moreover, just think about the purported scandal. Maybe I just know this as a commercial litigator who deals with discovery of electronically stored information all the time, but email is just about the dumbest thing you could try to make disappear. Because it is correspondence, SOMEONE ELSE HAS THE FUCKING EMAILS. Anyone she emailed or got emails from has their own copies. Then there are disk images, deleted but not written over files, temporary files, cloud backups (e.g. MIMECAST) that users often arent aware of or thought were eliminated, mobile devices, etc. It's just a nightmare to try to hide emails from a deep pocketed investigator. Link - ( New Window )
She had a private server located in her house. I get that you're going to vote for her, but you don't have to bend over backwards to vindicate her. Like so much of what she did and does it was shady at best. And someone with Presidential aspirations who does something like this, and the issues with the Foundation funds despite her agreement with the White House, sends a very clear message that she thinks people will vote for her no matter how blurry her ethical lines.
Dune. She's bad because she's bad. I get it. You arent voting for her. Vince Foster, Whitewater, Lewinsky.
She used email in a manner that did not violate the regs. Powell used a personal email address for state business too. Strikes me as very odd that either would do so, but such as it is. She turned over her work related emails as required by rule. Any allegation that she did not turn over all work related emails is without basis in fact.
Dune. She's bad because she's bad. I get it. You arent voting for her. Vince Foster, Whitewater, Lewinsky.
She used email in a manner that did not violate the regs. Powell used a personal email address for state business too. Strikes me as very odd that either would do so, but such as it is. She turned over her work related emails as required by rule. Any allegation that she did not turn over all work related emails is without basis in fact.
Non-scandal.
Without basis in fact? The lack of a smoking gun does not mean that there is "no basis in fact." Why is she entitled to the benefit of the doubt? And Powell did not have a private email server set up in his house. IDGAF about Vince Foster or Lewinsky, but there are plenty of non-frothing Hillary stories that just look bad, far more than you would expect from someone with the ambitions she has had for the last 15 years.
mediamatters and daily kos and spreading lies. Same liberal lies like Bush lied about WMD, that he ignored memos of imminent attack, he let OBL go in Tora Bora, etc.
Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton
Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed.
So to sum up, this Kerry ad's implication that Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton is unfounded and the $2 million figure is flat wrong. Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton - ( New Window )
Well you know I did indeed do that, I looked at other claims of his profiteering and you might find this one interesting then since it actually is 6 years later and includes both his 2000 and 2001 filings:
(quote]That still leaves a total of $35.1 million earned from Halliburtion reported on the May 2001 filing. Of that total, just over $800,000 represents salary and bonus, which Cheney would have earned regardless of whether he joined the ticket or not. Many of the other categories were subject to some calculation and/or negotiation, as would happen in the case of any CEO who left a position early, so it seems fair to call the rest of the income he received an exit package.
So, if you subtract the salary and bonus from the larger amount, voila -- you get $34 million and change. So Matthews is right.
A footnote: Cheney's timing was impeccable. As the disclosure forms indicate, he held a large number of stock options, which means he had been given the right to purchase shares of the company for an old (and, hopefully for the holder of the options) lower price than the current market value. When the holder chooses to exercise those options, they can buy the shares at the low price and then sell them at the market price, pocketing the difference.
It's not clear when Cheney sold his stock options, but it likely was within weeks of his being named to the ticket -- a period when Halliburtion shares hit their 2000 peak, in the low-to-mid $50 range. By November 30, 2000, the stock had fallen to $33 a share. If he'd waited until then to sell, his payday would have been one-third lower, or roughly $14 million rather than $22 million.
But Cheney does appear to have had timing on his side, so we find Matthews' statement -- that Cheney had a payday of $34 million -- to be accurate. If anything, it may have been a bit low. Either way, we give it a rating of True.[/quote]
Your link you claim proves something, addresses some claim Kerry made regarding 2M, it does not even address what i questioned Eric about. You need to actually read the article, not skim a headline.
But It truly Is hilarious to read any kind of defense of this from some. If you honestly think that having an ex-CEO of Haliburton (by about one year) coming on board as VP, push for a war in Iraq, when just prior to being VP he was fighting against embargoes being applied, and then hiring the very same company he claimed was not violating the embargo (which he got caught lying about and used the excuse of "Well i can't know everything" as something actually valid) to a massive long term contract, is not wrong on face value alone, your being silly.
Prior to being VP, Cheney fought tooth and nail against any embargoes against Iraq and Iran. While named on as the VP he denied Haliburton having any dealings at all with Iraq circumnavigating the US embargo, which was found to be an absolute lie. Then, once elected he is all gung ho to abandon for the most part a war in Afghan, all for a make-believe story of WoMD (that have never been found) and who does he feel should be hired to handle the majority of logistics? His old company, holy shit who saw that coming?
Let me know if this helped you to understand it better link - ( New Window )
Oh, and the violating the agreement with the White House incantation Â
Lets look at the facts. It was an agreement with the Foundation, not Hilary. So what happened? The Foundation agreed to take no money from foreign governments that hadnt given to the foundation before Hilary became SOS without State's approval.
Following the Haiti earthquake the Algerian government gave 500k to the Clinton Foundation Haiti fund. As with all CF-Haiti donations, the money was distributed. The Foundation disclosed the donation on its website (ie didnt keep it a secret) but failed to get clearance from State per the agreement. It was a one time donation and Algeria has given nothing else.
So believe what you want. Maybe the Foundation didnt run this one donation by State as an oversight while steering money towards a human-fucking-tragedy. Maybe the error was that of some staffer at the Foundation, which Hilary had no day-to-day involvement in. Or maybe she's evil incarnate.
The vilification of the Clintons over their charity is just beyond the pale. The efforts of disgusting, ignorant animals. But dont take my word for it -- go read this oped by arch-conservative Newsmax CEO and CF donor Chris Ruddy.
Without basis in fact? The lack of a smoking gun does not mean that there is "no basis in fact." Why is she entitled to the benefit of the doubt? And Powell did not have a private email server set up in his house. IDGAF about Vince Foster or Lewinsky, but there are plenty of non-frothing Hillary stories that just look bad, far more than you would expect from someone with the ambitions she has had for the last 15 years.
Just listen to yourself. You sound like a stark raving crazy person. Having not broken any regs and turned over her 30k work related emails, your only answer is that she should do something more to disprove malfeasance? Like what, turn over emails that are NOT required to be turn over? What sort of dystopian worlds are you advocating for?
How do I know that Marco Rubio doesnt beat his wife? Why the fuck should he get the benefit of the doubt?
You people have nothing on Hilary, so you just list a lot of scandals that turn out to be nothing, and then say "wow, there is so much smoke she must be doing something wrong".
Never liked Palin so that doesn't even sound like me. I may have said something to the effect that she'd pull the soccer moms (which she did).
I'm a big fan of Kasich...so we agree there.
You've always come across to me as a diehard social and economic liberal. I'm very surprised anyone like that would truly find much to like about HRC. I'm surprised her past and business associations don't bother you more.
Most liberal politicians supported the Iraq War. To say otherwise is simply not true.
Why would a DCM ruin his career over something like that?
No they did not, they supported the Afghan war and were very hesitant regarding Iraq. Thus all the arguments that the sanctions were working. That argument was when the good ole' treasure trove of WoMD needing to be found before dirty bombs fell on our heads, was introduced. It was Colin Powells UN speech that pushed the hesitancy away. I mean who would ever think an admin would take unverified info from one questionable source as the be all to end all with regards to WoMD?
By the way here is Colin Powell's comments a few years later about making that speech:
Quote:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - The former secretary of state, Colin L. Powell, says in a television interview to be broadcast Friday that his 2003 speech to the United Nations, in which he gave a detailed description of Iraqi weapons programs that turned out not to exist, was "painful" for him personally and would be a permanent "blot" on his record.
"I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world," Mr. Powell told Barbara Walters of ABC News, adding that the presentation "will always be a part of my record."
Asked by Ms. Walters how painful this was for him, Mr. Powell replied: "It was painful. It's painful now." Asked further how he felt upon learning that he had been misled about the accuracy of intelligence on which he relied, Mr. Powell said, "Terrible." He added that it was "devastating" to learn later that some intelligence agents knew the information he had was unreliable but did not speak up.
It was this speech that turned the reluctance into acceptance because no one thought Powell would BS them
Without basis in fact? The lack of a smoking gun does not mean that there is "no basis in fact." Why is she entitled to the benefit of the doubt? And Powell did not have a private email server set up in his house. IDGAF about Vince Foster or Lewinsky, but there are plenty of non-frothing Hillary stories that just look bad, far more than you would expect from someone with the ambitions she has had for the last 15 years.
Just listen to yourself. You sound like a stark raving crazy person. Having not broken any regs and turned over her 30k work related emails, your only answer is that she should do something more to disprove malfeasance? Like what, turn over emails that are NOT required to be turn over? What sort of dystopian worlds are you advocating for?
How do I know that Marco Rubio doesnt beat his wife? Why the fuck should he get the benefit of the doubt?
You people have nothing on Hilary, so you just list a lot of scandals that turn out to be nothing, and then say "wow, there is so much smoke she must be doing something wrong".
Again, she made the decision to have a private server in her flipping house and then to comb through the emails and decide which ones needed to be turned over. Her decision. There is nothing stark-raving made about pointing out that it doesn't pass the smell test. There is something willfully obtuse about pretending that it does.
But only one has had close to 100M and all the govt entities her opponents could muster focused on them for the last 20 years.
And the end result is a jizzy dress
President Obama has been in the public eye for a decade or so, has he made one comparable foray into the ethical gray area? I'm not a fan of Obama, or Bernie or O'Malley for that matter, but you guys act as though this sort of stuff is normal when it doesn't seem to be for either the sitting President or any of the candidates.
RE: RE: RE: RE: That's a great content free post Â
Again, she made the decision to have a private server in her flipping house and then to comb through the emails and decide which ones needed to be turned over. Her decision. There is nothing stark-raving made about pointing out that it doesn't pass the smell test. There is something willfully obtuse about pretending that it does.
Actually, this is precisely what the regs then in effect called for. You were allowed to use private email, but if you did you had to turn over work emails. But Clinton I guess should have abided by rules that didnt exist. Even though Colin Powell didnt live by those same non-existent regs. Because smell test.
Again, you dont have misconduct, so you just flip the presumption. She must have been doing something wrong in -- complying with the relevant regulation.
Tell me the contrary story where another politician does what was then allowed -- using private email for public business -- then decides, fuck it, I'll turn over all my emails to the National Archives. My emails with my kids and husband. And friends. Because smell test.
RE: RE: I think the point in all of this is that they all have some skeletons Â
President Obama has been in the public eye for a decade or so, has he made one comparable foray into the ethical gray area? I'm not a fan of Obama, or Bernie or O'Malley for that matter, but you guys act as though this sort of stuff is normal when it doesn't seem to be for either the sitting President or any of the candidates.
Complying the the records regulation by turning over work emails but not turning over personal emails is not an ethical gray area. It is completely ethical.
RE: RE: I think the point in all of this is that they all have some skeletons Â
But only one has had close to 100M and all the govt entities her opponents could muster focused on them for the last 20 years.
And the end result is a jizzy dress
President Obama has been in the public eye for a decade or so, has he made one comparable foray into the ethical gray area? I'm not a fan of Obama, or Bernie or O'Malley for that matter, but you guys act as though this sort of stuff is normal when it doesn't seem to be for either the sitting President or any of the candidates.
That actually is a valid question and good observation regarding Obama. I don't know, he may be the aberration out of them all, and the rest are indeed the norm. Somewhat sad when you think about it
RE: RE: RE: I think the point in all of this is that they all have some skeletons Â
President Obama has been in the public eye for a decade or so, has he made one comparable foray into the ethical gray area? I'm not a fan of Obama, or Bernie or O'Malley for that matter, but you guys act as though this sort of stuff is normal when it doesn't seem to be for either the sitting President or any of the candidates.
Complying the the records regulation by turning over work emails but not turning over personal emails is not an ethical gray area. It is completely ethical.
Ok, but how do we know they were all personal emails? There should have been an independent person going through the emails to decide that. When you go into public office, especially a position like SOS, you have to be above suspicion. Sorry, but Hillary does not inspire confidence. She doesn't have integrity. But she's all you have so I can't blame you sticking up for her. But you are making a fool of yourself denying that there is nothing wrong with what she has done.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I think the point in all of this is that they all have some skeletons Â
Ok, but how do we know they were all personal emails? There should have been an independent person going through the emails to decide that. When you go into public office, especially a position like SOS, you have to be above suspicion.
WSJ: Mr. Bush’s spokeswoman said that emails from the private account unrelated to government business weren’t turned over to the state or preserved [...] But much like with Mrs. Clinton, the decision over which emails should be considered official and which remain private was made by Mr. Bush [...]When the Orlando Sentinel filed a public-records request for the emails from the private account about the legislative session, Mr. Rubio’s spokeswoman said they had been deleted [...] The law appears to have left it to Mr. Rubio and his staff to decide which material was significant enough to preserve from his private and government accounts, said Ms. Petersen of the watchdog group [...] Another likely GOP presidential candidate, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, used a private email account to conduct public business while he was Milwaukee County executive [...] Some members of the county executive staff had been unaware of the private email system, preventing them from retrieving records from it in responding to public-records requests Just an HRC thing? - ( New Window )
RE: RE: RE: RE: I think the point in all of this is that they all have some skeletons Â
Ok, but how do we know they were all personal emails? There should have been an independent person going through the emails to decide that. When you go into public office, especially a position like SOS, you have to be above suspicion. Sorry, but Hillary does not inspire confidence. She doesn't have integrity. But she's all you have so I can't blame you sticking up for her. But you are making a fool of yourself denying that there is nothing wrong with what she has done.
I dont think it's really fair to say that even though she complied with the reg, she should have submitted to a review of her personal emails -- when the reg doesnt call for that. I know I wouldnt just hand over my personal emails wholesale to a government archivist.
Why doesnt she have integrity? Because she's falsely accused of wrongdoing a lot? How can you be above suspicion when half the country takes and half-cocked allegation against you and runs with it. You cant control shit that people will make up about you.
What timeing more HRC emails released today and guess Â
what: Obama aides lied that they didnt know about her private email address:
President Barack Obama's top aides, including David Axelrod, communicated with Hillary Clinton at her private email address while she was secretary of state, new records show.
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel had also asked for Clinton's email address, and Clinton instructed her staff to give it to him.
Her use of private email was out of step with the State Department's rules against employees regularly using personal email for work purposes. And Obama officials -- including Axelrod -- had denied knowing that Clinton wasn't using a government email address. He told MSNBC this month that he would have asked questions about it if he'd been aware of her email habits
Axelrod lied or remembered incorrectly re Clinton's personal email use. That has nothing to do with HRC.
"Her use of private email was out of step with the State Department's rules against employees regularly using personal email for work purposes." That's an odd sentence in an oddly written piece. "Out of step" is a weird phrase with respect to a rule -- you violate a rule or you dont. "regularly" is also a weaselly word.
There was no policy, rule, or regulation prohibiting the use of personal email accounts at State. There was a cable to persons overseas saying that Google says people are hacking personal email accounts. In a best practices section about what "you and your family members" can do to promote email security, State recommended shit like: beware emails fishing for password resets, create strong passwords, "Avoid conducting official Deparment business from your personal e-mail accounts", and dont reveal your personal email address in your out of office. One thing -- auto forwarding to personal email accounts -- was expressly identified as violating department rules. Link - ( New Window )
I think she handled the emails horribly. I have still yet to hear a plausible explanation from her or her staff about why this happened. It mystifies me that HRC, a very bright & accomplished woman who probably was running for president in '16 the moment she conceded in '08, would put herself in this situation. And I don't think she'd send anything incriminating via email anyways.
But I don't think there's anything there there. But there are going to be these monthly releases for awhile. It'd be best for the Clinton camp if they were all released at one time, but it ain't happening.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: I think the point in all of this is that they all have some skeletons Â
Ok, but how do we know they were all personal emails? There should have been an independent person going through the emails to decide that. When you go into public office, especially a position like SOS, you have to be above suspicion. Sorry, but Hillary does not inspire confidence. She doesn't have integrity. But she's all you have so I can't blame you sticking up for her. But you are making a fool of yourself denying that there is nothing wrong with what she has done.
I dont think it's really fair to say that even though she complied with the reg, she should have submitted to a review of her personal emails -- when the reg doesnt call for that. I know I wouldnt just hand over my personal emails wholesale to a government archivist.
Why doesnt she have integrity? Because she's falsely accused of wrongdoing a lot? How can you be above suspicion when half the country takes and half-cocked allegation against you and runs with it. You cant control shit that people will make up about you.
She decided to have the server in her home. She decided to mix personal and work emails (if that is even true). If I put a personal email on my work email, it can be read by my IT department. Why is Hillary above what everyone else has to adhere to? Is it really to hard for her to have two separate emails???? Don't want to turn stuff over to a government archivist? Don't be in the government and take that salary and use that position to get millions in speaker fees. That's what I mean about no integrity.
And who is making stuff up? Did she not have her own server? Did she not delete emails that may have had information on them? Did she not withhold emails that later surfaced from other sources?
Sorry, but most of the half-cocked allegations and falsehoods seem to be coming from those trying to defend HRC (but just looking rather pathetic doing it).
I think she handled the emails horribly. I have still yet to hear a plausible explanation from her or her staff about why this happened. It mystifies me that HRC, a very bright & accomplished woman who probably was running for president in '16 the moment she conceded in '08, would put herself in this situation. And I don't think she'd send anything incriminating via email anyways.
But I don't think there's anything there there. But there are going to be these monthly releases for awhile. It'd be best for the Clinton camp if they were all released at one time, but it ain't happening.
It's very obvious why she did it. It was deliberate so she could withhold information that could have been damaging to her. And she knew there would be fallout, but depended on her minions in the press and die hard supporters to not give a shit.
complaining she won't take questions or give them interviews is that the press that are her minions?
Guaranteed they will not call her on it once the election starts. They will scrutinize every R candidate and when the election starts, they will all be in HRCs camp. Just like they were for Obama.
You must be watching different news programs than I. She doesn't get a ton of love from the press.
Ask Al Gore how friendly the 'liberal media' can be. They scorched him in 2000.
Sorry, but you cannot compare how the press treats Democrats vs Republicans. And it's not just about hard news shows. It's about Hillary being on women's magazines (and those editors coming right out and saying they support her) and getting very favorable coverage compared to any R candidate.
given his belief that his shit dont stink, I can only imagine what a proper national level hatchet team will turn up on him.
Deej - They've been at it since November 2012. The only thing that's stuck is the gift his aides gave them
I dont know that anyone has been properly incentivized to ruin him just yet. My sense is that he has a very loose sense of what is appropriate to spend state money on (e.g. the helicopter flights, the food bill).
Im not actively rooting against him. As a Dem the guy I fear is Walker -- I think he's fantastic politically and then when he gets in office is brutally effective.
Deej - The NJEA, among others, has been incentivized since 2010. They have spent 10 to 20 million dollars PER YEAR attacking Christie, including opposition research. And the food bill has already been found to be legal. But the fact that the issue was even raised suggests he is under close scrutiny. And the $50 to $100 million would provide sufficient funding.
I do not think it is stark raving mad to not believe this is true. Â
"She turned over her work related emails as required by rule. Any allegation that she did not turn over all work related emails is without basis in fact."
It is a certainly not a fact that she turned over all work related emails. Saying she did turn over all has no basis in fact. Seems to me things are popping up from sources other than her. Looking at her past problems with the truth, a reasonable person would tend to think she is not as forthcoming as as her blind defenders would have her believe. Does anyone here actually believe she actually turned over all her work related emails. If so I have shares available in Brooklyn Bridge, Inc. at fair prices.
to compare what she did to what Walker did as a county executive is absurd. It's like you're reading off of someone's talking points.
The lengths some of you are willing to go to defend her are ridiculous. The volume and severity of her ethical "lapses" are something we don't see from any of the other candidates, nor from the President. This is not normal. This is an aberration. She is almost Nixonian in her amorality.
For a while I've thought Agnew was a better comp than Nixon Â
and it does make me wonder, if Agnew had stayed where he was and then had run in 76, would Republicans have voted for him still. That's where I think the Dems are now. And, to be honest, I know many Republicans who would have. Heck, I know many who still believe that Nixon was no different than any other pol and thus got a raw deal.
that there were Libya-related emails that she did not turnover to the State Dept (i.e. they were among those she decided to delete).
And of course these emails were from/to Mr Blumenthal whom the Obama Administration barred her from hiring.
I doubt these 15 emails contained a "smoking gun", but if she deleted those what else did she delete from her server? HRC's deleted emails - ( New Window )
the email thing isnt a scandal either. She did not violate regs in using her personal email address. It was standard practice for SoS's. In fact, Kerry appears to be the first SoS to primarily use a @state.gov address.
A lot of people have cited some reg that prohibited it, but that reg became effective after she left office.
So the rule was that if you use personal email for work that you're required to turn over the work emails to the agency. Hilary did that. She turned over 30k emails. She deemed another 30k emails to be non-work related (really, it was probably an aide).
What's the scandal? Conservatives dont believe her that the other 30k emails were personal. That's just a bald accusation, nothing more. But personal emails were never subject to the record keeping requirement, so if she had done the 30k pure work emails on the state.gov server, the other 30k would not be government records.
Moreover, just think about the purported scandal. Maybe I just know this as a commercial litigator who deals with discovery of electronically stored information all the time, but email is just about the dumbest thing you could try to make disappear. Because it is correspondence, SOMEONE ELSE HAS THE FUCKING EMAILS. Anyone she emailed or got emails from has their own copies. Then there are disk images, deleted but not written over files, temporary files, cloud backups (e.g. MIMECAST) that users often arent aware of or thought were eliminated, mobile devices, etc. It's just a nightmare to try to hide emails from a deep pocketed investigator. Link - ( New Window )
1. It's already been found that some of those "other 30k" emails were work related (see link in previous post)
2. Yes, someone else has the emails (if they didn't scrub them too), but you have to know who that someone is to get copies. You can't just subpoena the entire State Dept and expect them to comb through every email everyone sent to see if HRC was part of the chain (well you probably could, but it would take years and millions of $$$).
If Hilary had been using two email addresses, one personal and one @state.gov, Blumenthal probably would have sent the emails to the personal one and they therefore would not have been subject to State record keeping.
I get the optics. It's odd to me that Clinton and Powell used private email addresses for State business. It's odd to me that Walker, Bush, and Rubio are doing official business on private email accounts. Apparently it is fairly common among politicians.
What I dont get is why Powell, Walker, Bush, and Rubio get a pass while when Hilary does it you all deem it Nixonian.
If Hilary had been using two email addresses, one personal and one @state.gov, Blumenthal probably would have sent the emails to the personal one and they therefore would not have been subject to State record keeping.
I get the optics. It's odd to me that Clinton and Powell used private email addresses for State business. It's odd to me that Walker, Bush, and Rubio are doing official business on private email accounts. Apparently it is fairly common among politicians.
What I dont get is why Powell, Walker, Bush, and Rubio get a pass while when Hilary does it you all deem it Nixonian.
To my knowledge Powell isn't running for anything.
Who said Rubio/Bush/Walker get a pass? Though I don't recall reading that the 3 of them wiped their servers clean.
And Blumenthal was emailing HRC about Libya and often policy related (widely reported), how is that not related to State business? Sending it to her personal email (an assumption by HRC defenders) doesn't turn State business into personal business. The excuses made for her are ridiculous.
That doesn't make sense to me since the correspondence Â
was about gov't business. If Blumenthal had sent them to her personal address (if she were to have a gov't address), that wouldn't make them any less of a business affair where the emails should have been turned over. Otherwise, anytime anyone wanted to do off-book were they would just use a private account and then claim it's all private stuff and shield it from oversight (which is what I think this is all about anyway). The other thing, in this which is untruthful is her reason for not having a gov't address, "it's inconvenient for me to carry two devices" which was also proven to be false by her own words in interviews and (I believe) pictures of her with two devices.
RE: That doesn't make sense to me since the correspondence Â
was about gov't business. If Blumenthal had sent them to her personal address (if she were to have a gov't address), that wouldn't make them any less of a business affair where the emails should have been turned over. Otherwise, anytime anyone wanted to do off-book were they would just use a private account and then claim it's all private stuff and shield it from oversight (which is what I think this is all about anyway). The other thing, in this which is untruthful is her reason for not having a gov't address, "it's inconvenient for me to carry two devices" which was also proven to be false by her own words in interviews and (I believe) pictures of her with two devices.
She needed for private emails with Bill although Bill does not actually use email.
Did she claim not to have a government email address, or a government issued device. I was under the impression she was using her personal phone to view her emails to a government address.
Did she claim not to have a government email address, or a government issued device. I was under the impression she was using her personal phone to view her emails to a government address.
she did not use an @state.gov email address.
RE: RE: Blumenthal doesnt work for the government Â
Did she claim not to have a government email address, or a government issued device. I was under the impression she was using her personal phone to view her emails to a government address.
she did not use an @state.gov email address.
She wouldn't have been able to use a .gov address (I don't think) since she by passed the gov't servers altogether, opting to run one out of her basement.
RE: RE: RE: Blumenthal doesnt work for the government Â
What I dont get is why Powell, Walker, Bush, and Rubio get a pass while when Hilary does it you all deem it Nixonian.
Look up. Rubio deleted emails. Bush and Walker didnt turn them over. Still havent to the best of my knowledge.
I thought Bush released (most?) his. That said, too many crappy R candidates to follow in detail at this point. Only 1 real D candidate makes it stand out more.
Have any of those 3 been found to delete (or not release) emails that were directly tied to their jobs?
RE: RE: RE: RE: Blumenthal doesnt work for the government Â
Have any of those 3 been found to delete (or not release) emails that were directly tied to their jobs?
See 11:57pm post from sphinx, which quotes the WSJ saying "When the Orlando Sentinel filed a public-records request for the emails from the private account about the legislative session, Mr. Rubio’s spokeswoman said they had been deleted"
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Blumenthal doesnt work for the government Â
Have any of those 3 been found to delete (or not release) emails that were directly tied to their jobs?
See 11:57pm post from sphinx, which quotes the WSJ saying "When the Orlando Sentinel filed a public-records request for the emails from the private account about the legislative session, Mr. Rubio’s spokeswoman said they had been deleted"
Then everything I've said about HRC also applies to Rubio. Neither of them are justified in deleting emails.
they only care about two things: getting elected and getting re-elected. Christie is horrible. Take a drive down the shore and tell me where all the billions went.
The 1st politician that makes campaign finance reform, lobbying reform and congressional term limits their platform will get my vote.
Via this, of course.
"Mr. Met" for Prez!
It's sad they can't come up with a single viable candidate to run against her.
Also sad that out of 17(?) R candidates, it's hard to find much that's appealing.
You can be blunt and still be underhanded. They're not mutually exclusive.
No way. Unfortunate genetics.
Quote:
pledges truth and mentions he "says what he means and means what he says". Yet, his entire tenure as Governor has been marred by being dishonest, reneging on things that he pledged as absolute, lying, etc.
You can be blunt and still be underhanded. They're not mutually exclusive.
Well said.
After the dust cleared, that was on par with some of HRC's lesser scandals. My biggest issue with him was his "promise" to fix the state pension system only to reduce contributions to it to balance the budget like every other politician.
Quote:
if the Democrats weren't in only slightly worse shape. The best candidate is Clinton, whose stock has plummeted in the last 8 years.
It's sad they can't come up with a single viable candidate to run against her.
Also sad that out of 17(?) R candidates, it's hard to find much that's appealing.
I actually like a couple of them and could live with a few more.
At the bottom for me currently are Trump, Christie, Pataki, then I guess Santorum. Then there is another second to bottom tier with Huckabee and Cruz, and on some days Carson. I'm probably blanking on a couple others but I think that there are things to like (and dislike) about the rest.
Who is the bigger phony?
Who is the better leader?
Who would win in a debate?
Quote:
300k on food and drinks.
No way. Unfortunate genetics.
No, he's just a stupid, lazy, fat fuck.
Quote:
In comment 12349444 Jints in Carolina said:
Quote:
300k on food and drinks.
No way. Unfortunate genetics.
No, he's just a stupid, lazy, fat fuck.
Agreed.
Quote:
pledges truth and mentions he "says what he means and means what he says". Yet, his entire tenure as Governor has been marred by being dishonest, reneging on things that he pledged as absolute, lying, etc.
You can be blunt and still be underhanded. They're not mutually exclusive.
Why do you think that? (I have no disagreement or hatred for anyone involved, merely curious)
Who is the bigger phony?
Who is the better leader?
Who would win in a debate?
Who is the bigger liar? Christie
Who is the bigger phony? Christie
Who is the better leader? UNKNOWN
Who would win in a debate? Christie - I think he will bullshit better, which means he will better fool the American public. When Hilary speaks, she will just come across as disingenuous and people will be muttering "bitch" under their breath, whether it is warranted or not.
Quote:
In comment 12349460 BrettNYG10 said:
Quote:
In comment 12349444 Jints in Carolina said:
Quote:
300k on food and drinks.
No way. Unfortunate genetics.
No, he's just a stupid, lazy, fat fuck.
Agreed.
See, I knew you'd come around.
It's from a fat discussion last week.
Quote:
In comment 12349437 Matt M. said:
Quote:
pledges truth and mentions he "says what he means and means what he says". Yet, his entire tenure as Governor has been marred by being dishonest, reneging on things that he pledged as absolute, lying, etc.
You can be blunt and still be underhanded. They're not mutually exclusive.
Dunedin - He's not blunt. He just lies. The issue isn't his bluntness. Blunt would be fine, if he told the truth. He just flat out lied just about every step of the way. And, in my eyes, these aren't typical empty campaign promise lies. He has egregiously lied and cheated the state several ways and times over in very serious fashion.
Any more than his predecessors? McGreevy handed his boyfriend a six figure sinecure for which he was woefully unqualified. Florio had plenty of whispers.
Ignorance is no excuse for personal attacks, sonny boy.
BMac was being facetious...
You really aren't getting it, are you? Are you fat, by any chance?
Quote:
Who is the bigger liar?
Who is the bigger phony?
Who is the better leader?
Who would win in a debate?
I think:
Who is the bigger liar? Christie
Who is the bigger phony? Christie
Who is the better leader? UNKNOWN
Who would win in a debate? Christie - I think he will bullshit better, which means he will better fool the American public. When Hilary speaks, she will just come across as disingenuous and people will be muttering "bitch" under their breath, whether it is warranted or not.
I don't know Christie's history well enough to say, but if he says one honest thing or one non-self-serving thing, then I think he has a leg up. Geez, what a low bar we have nowadays.
The one good thing about Christie is that you can say he is dishonest and vote for another candidate to be the nominee. You can make the choice and not have it be a sacrifice of your own integrity. I saw a distressing poll last week which said that the majority of Americans (I think it was in the 52-59% range believe that Hillary is dishonest and and untrustworthy. Also by a majority, people will vote for her for President. What does that say about the overlap? Not really about Hillary or the next election, but I honestly believe that we are at a weird crisis point culturally or societally where honesty is no longer considered a virtue (or at least an important one). We are all pretty much "win the game, no matter how you get there".
Add the Clinton foundation pay for play schemes, her record as Secretary of State (Russian Reset, Benghazi anyone), she was the biggest cheer leader for the Iraq war and now she complains about what bad shape the country is in when she has been in a leadership position for the past 20 years!!
And you talk about Christie being dishonest??
Add the Clinton foundation pay for play schemes, her record as Secretary of State (Russian Reset, Benghazi anyone), she was the biggest cheer leader for the Iraq war and now she complains about what bad shape the country is in when she has been in a leadership position for the past 20 years!!
And you talk about Christie being dishonest??
Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!!!
Deej - They've been at it since November 2012. The only thing that's stuck is the gift his aides gave them
Apparently, you, too, missed the recent thread about obesity where Brett, I, and a few others did a fair amount of sniping at each other (thus the lazy, fat fuck reference to Brett, who used my genetics (among other factors) argument to very mildly prong me.
I know Brett has a reputation for "pronging" guys here, but this is all in fun. I guess I'm one of the few who reads every thread and does considerable cross-referencing.
Now, do you and Crispy get it at last? (JFC!)
Any USG employee above GS-13 has to annually fill out a detailed ethics questionaire listing all outside business and investment relationships. I did so myself and had to explain to USG ethics lawyers what BBI was and who advertised on it. Given the general nature of the ad networks, I was not forced to recuse myself from issues within my portfolio. But how in the hell did the State Department ethics office allow HRC to legally conduct certain activities?
Did I mock any dead Americans? No. I am mocking the wing nuts Benghazi obsession. If you pray hard enough maybe it will become a scandal.
In all my years in international relations, I've never heard of an American Ambassador being left unprotected in a foreign country, let alone one going through a civil conflict.
From the Washington Post:
A long-delayed Senate Intelligence Committee report released Wednesday faulted both the State Department and the intelligence community for not preventing attacks on two outposts in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, in 2012.
It said the State Department failed to increase security at its mission despite warnings, and blamed intelligence agencies for not sharing information about the existence of the CIA outpost with the U.S. military.
Senate report: Attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi could have been prevented - ( New Window )
Any USG employee above GS-13 has to annually fill out a detailed ethics questionaire listing all outside business and investment relationships. I did so myself and had to explain to USG ethics lawyers what BBI was and who advertised on it. Given the general nature of the ad networks, I was not forced to recuse myself from issues within my portfolio. But how in the hell did the State Department ethics office allow HRC to legally conduct certain activities?
Easily, don't list your conflicts and they won't ask you to recuse yourself! :)
Regarding your second point, you're entitled to your opinion, but I find you lack of concern regarding HRC ethics more than a little disconcerting. I also find it hypocritical that the same wealth/disconnect with the "little people" that you allege to be within the Republican domain.
I've supported both Democrats and Republicans in my life, but I doubt you have done the same.
There's no point in arguing with the wing nuts of this country. After 3 years, numerous hearings and committees, and nothing was found. But they'll keep beating that drum.
Quote:
daily it bothers me that so many, even in the media think its okay to make fun of Christies appearance/weight. To stereotype him as being "a lazy fuck", it just seems totally wrong in this time of hyper political correctness.
Apparently, you, too, missed the recent thread about obesity where Brett, I, and a few others did a fair amount of sniping at each other (thus the lazy, fat fuck reference to Brett, who used my genetics (among other factors) argument to very mildly prong me.
I know Brett has a reputation for "pronging" guys here, but this is all in fun. I guess I'm one of the few who reads every thread and does considerable cross-referencing.
Now, do you and Crispy get it at last? (JFC!)
You fucking bastard:
Clever.
Quote:
given his belief that his shit dont stink, I can only imagine what a proper national level hatchet team will turn up on him.
Deej - They've been at it since November 2012. The only thing that's stuck is the gift his aides gave them
I dont know that anyone has been properly incentivized to ruin him just yet. My sense is that he has a very loose sense of what is appropriate to spend state money on (e.g. the helicopter flights, the food bill).
Im not actively rooting against him. As a Dem the guy I fear is Walker -- I think he's fantastic politically and then when he gets in office is brutally effective.
Eric, I'm not going to get embroiled in this except to ask one question of you and others:
Do you see any of the candidates, from either party, as NOT being ethically challenged? Shit, they're politicians, flexible ethics are their stock in trade. What would truly identify someone who was only about Party would be to claim that only someone from their Party is the exception..
Yup. If you close your eyes tight enough, hold your ears and scream 'lalalalala' at the top of your voice loud enough, it really isn't there.
Quote:
So HRC's ethics don't concern you? Strange. I guess only party matters to you.
Eric, I'm not going to get embroiled in this except to ask one question of you and others:
Do you see any of the candidates, from either party, as NOT being ethically challenged? Shit, they're politicians, flexible ethics are their stock in trade. What would truly identify someone who was only about Party would be to claim that only someone from their Party is the exception..
I'm in agreement. Both HRC/Christie have more concerns than past candidates, IMO.
Quote:
In comment 12349595 giant24 said:
Quote:
daily it bothers me that so many, even in the media think its okay to make fun of Christies appearance/weight. To stereotype him as being "a lazy fuck", it just seems totally wrong in this time of hyper political correctness.
Apparently, you, too, missed the recent thread about obesity where Brett, I, and a few others did a fair amount of sniping at each other (thus the lazy, fat fuck reference to Brett, who used my genetics (among other factors) argument to very mildly prong me.
I know Brett has a reputation for "pronging" guys here, but this is all in fun. I guess I'm one of the few who reads every thread and does considerable cross-referencing.
Now, do you and Crispy get it at last? (JFC!)
You fucking bastard:
Quote:
the lazy, fat fuck reference to Brett
Clever.
No reason to bring my parents (or lack thereof) into this! And yes, I thought it was kind of clever, at that!
I'd vote for Bernie Sanders over HRC.
Holy schnikes.
The problem you have with us democrats is that there have been so many MASSIVE CLINTON SCANDALS that amounted to nothing that we're desensitized to the massive Clinton scandal of the week. Didnt the GOP House committee effectively clear Clinton re Benghazi? It just seemed like another in the line of Vince Foster, Whitewater, the very very evil blowjob, etc.
Cry wolf enough and you'll have to deal with the consequences if/when a real scandal happens.
Where was your outrage when Bush did the same thing?
See, shit like this. No perspective. EVERYTHING CLINTON DOES IS THE WORSTEST EVER!
I'd vote for Bernie Sanders over HRC.
I see them all as unethical and basically, untrustworthy. It doesn't stop me from voting, but it does make it very difficult. I vote for moderates; I can't countenance either extreme. I just have to make what I think is the best choice for my interests when I do cast a ballot. I don't respect anyone who doesn't vote their own self-interest.
There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I’ve followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. . . . I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount the political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way part of this decision.
Hillary addresses Code Pink, March 7, 2003.
The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.
April 2004 Larry King
Bush and Cheney had documents cross their desk called OBL looking to attack the United states. Clinton told them it was the biggest threat...They ignored it...lied to start a war etc...
Benghazi is the rights attempt to flip that coin on the left but as usual the right are like a bunch or dorks who just don't get it when the game is over
I don't know who to "blame" for it, but in all my work experience, I have never heard of an Ambassador being completely left unprotected like that in a foreign country, let alone one facing a high level of violence.
President's appoint ambassadors. So I assume the President or someone high on his team knew and liked our Ambassador in Libya. I don't understand why he was in the consulate (and not the Embassy) in the first place and why he had no Marine escort. Again, that's common everywhere else.
I'm not saying it's Hilliary's fault, but someone fucked up. And four people are dead because of it.
I don't agree with you at all. In fact, it could be worse given the ties to Putin.
No one believes that and the yelling and screaming turns peoples attention away from what may have happened...and the rights media outlet Fox and talk radio with yell about Benghazi because it is red meat to the right but it turns off the rest of people....because ultimately no one believes HRC was incompetent here or at fault in any intentional manner....and the yelling makes people not want to look into it...
See, this is where you lose me. She wasnt lining her pockets, she wasnt profiting politically, and indeed, she wasnt even involved in the CGI until after she left office. You're confusing her and her husband.
This is just more of the it's not okay if the Clintons do it schtick. Essentially every elected politician in this country takes "campaign contributions" from people who have business before the politician. Everyone bemoans it (except the 5 conservatives on the Supreme Court), but no one is here arguing that it is a scandal that should prevent those politicians from holding office. But Hilary's husband has a CHARITY that takes donations from foreign nations and suddenly Hilary is crooked. That's beyond a double standard to me.
And Iran Contra ultimately put crack cocaine on the street....That who thing was incredibly ridiculous involving the CIA and drug lords...insane shit
What reeks is all of the "the e-mails got lost", the "servers were destroyed" stuff from the various scandals (i.e., IRS, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation). It smells really bad.
If some pedophile or other criminal sent and later deleted some incriminating e-mails, I guarantee they would somehow retrieve them.
Why you see "the right" and now other more moderates getting concerned is one incident after another where the truth appears to be obfruscated.
And from Day 1, every USG employee from a Cabinet Secretary to a lowly professional assistant is told NEVER to use personal e-mail (let alone servers) for work and especially classified work. We go through that training every year (including SEPARATE TRAINING for the use of information technology and classified material).
I don't know who to "blame" for it, but in all my work experience, I have never heard of an Ambassador being completely left unprotected like that in a foreign country, let alone one facing a high level of violence.
President's appoint ambassadors. So I assume the President or someone high on his team knew and liked our Ambassador in Libya. I don't understand why he was in the consulate (and not the Embassy) in the first place and why he had no Marine escort. Again, that's common everywhere else.
I'm not saying it's Hilliary's fault, but someone fucked up. And four people are dead because of it.
I don't know what to think about Benghazi. I tended to think the scandal was Obamas lie about the video in a pre-election message packaging. I don't know about Clintons culpability in security. I do know that Sheryl Atkinson documented clintons aides parsing through documents prior to the Congressional investigation. And I do know that the Blumenthal emails are smoking guns about her saying she turned over all correspond nice, proving the lie. That I think is disconcerting. But as far as the safety goes, is it really clear. I suppose if ambassadors are fungible and it doesn't make any difference if one dies or not, then security is not a high priority. But that would be more setting the tone as opposed to directing day to day operations.
I also think she is smarter then the scandals people try to put on her...
Quote:
Collecting millions of dollars from foreign governments while you are serving as Secretary of State is extremely bad....just like Iran-Contra was for Reagan. I could care less if the President gets a blow job, but I care if our government officials are selling influence to foreign governments, regardless of whether they are friendly or not.
See, this is where you lose me. She wasnt lining her pockets, she wasnt profiting politically, and indeed, she wasnt even involved in the CGI until after she left office. You're confusing her and her husband.
This is just more of the it's not okay if the Clintons do it schtick. Essentially every elected politician in this country takes "campaign contributions" from people who have business before the politician. Everyone bemoans it (except the 5 conservatives on the Supreme Court), but no one is here arguing that it is a scandal that should prevent those politicians from holding office. But Hilary's husband has a CHARITY that takes donations from foreign nations and suddenly Hilary is crooked. That's beyond a double standard to me.
Deej, do you really feel that the money Bill makes from speeches is completely divorced from Hillary? I know my wife seems to feel that money I make is hers to have. But our relationship might be different.
And yes, politicians accept money all of time for influence. But when it is billions of dollars coming from foreign countries, including those with business in front of the State Department, that is a conflict of interest.
Again, 99.9 percent of USG employees would have been told by their agencies' ethics attorneys that they would have to recuse themselves or get rid of the interest that was causing the conflict. It's not allowed.
Hell, as a USG employee, the most a foreign or domestic person or organization could spend on me for lunch was $20.
When I saw this originally reported, I said to my wife, "DCMs" don't whistleblow. This is serious."
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/politics/benghazi-whistleblower/index.html - ( New Window )
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.
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.
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department - ( New Window )
Also, it isnt billions in foreign government money. And you keep talking about what is required of USG employees, when (1) she isnt one (she is a political appointee), and (2) she isnt personally benefiting. Your 5:59 post makes even less sense. And your 6:08 post again confuses business and charity interests.
Bill: Yes, I think Bill Clinton would make a killing on the speaking tour regardless of whether Hilary was SoS. Other than American conservatives, the whole world thinks he's a rock star.
Secondly, it's not clear how charitable the charity really is. That's not some "right wing" conspiracy garbage. Those charity ratings orgs can't rate the charity.
It's really, really early, that's why.
The only non-western democracies that are over $1 million are the Saudis (+97%), the Kuwaitis (+11%), and Morocco (+1%). So Morocco did no better, and we continued to be in bed the the House of Saud and the Kuwaitis. I wish we werent, but then again better the Saudis try to police that region than us.
Show me one shred of evidence that Clinton overruled the bureaucracy to aid these countries in arms sales. Because otherwise this article aint shit.
...but she's not extremely beatable. Actually quite the opposite, and that's why not many are challenging her for the nomination.
She has the money, but I think Democrats are looking for someone who inspires them more. It's hard to take her anti-big business claims seriously (Wall Street, FTA's, etc.).
Ah, there is the rub. You want me to assume that the Clintons are effectively stealing from the charity. Based on zero evidence. I guess because Vince Foster.
The American Institute of Philanthropy says 89% of the foundation's money goes towards charitable mission and gave the CF (the umbrella org) an "A".
I think a lot of the people criticizing the Clinton charity have no idea who the biggest donors are, have no idea what the charity does, and essentially just think Clinton = scumbag.
Regarding the charity ratings, I didn't know that. The last thing I read was they couldn't rate the charity but if what you posted is accurate, obviously what I read was wrong.
I think you're right. I do believe that we are at a societal watershed.
Regarding the charity ratings, I didn't know that. The last thing I read was they couldn't rate the charity but if what you posted is accurate, obviously what I read was wrong.
I assume that Marco Rubio practices bestiality, Scott Walker owns slaves, and Rand Paul eats people. Therefore they're all unfit to be president.
A different org, Charity Navigator, says they cant rate the CF. That may be a fair position because of the structure.
I don't know who to "blame" for it, but in all my work experience, I have never heard of an Ambassador being completely left unprotected like that in a foreign country, let alone one facing a high level of violence.
President's appoint ambassadors. So I assume the President or someone high on his team knew and liked our Ambassador in Libya. I don't understand why he was in the consulate (and not the Embassy) in the first place and why he had no Marine escort. Again, that's common everywhere else.
I'm not saying it's Hilliary's fault, but someone fucked up. And four people are dead because of it.
Well there were about 7 committee hearings that looked into and saw no wrong doing sooo...
What reeks is all of the "the e-mails got lost", the "servers were destroyed" stuff from the various scandals (i.e., IRS, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation). It smells really bad.
If some pedophile or other criminal sent and later deleted some incriminating e-mails, I guarantee they would somehow retrieve them.
Why you see "the right" and now other more moderates getting concerned is one incident after another where the truth appears to be obfruscated.
And from Day 1, every USG employee from a Cabinet Secretary to a lowly professional assistant is told NEVER to use personal e-mail (let alone servers) for work and especially classified work. We go through that training every year (including SEPARATE TRAINING for the use of information technology and classified material).
There have been no scandals. Just because the other side tries to make a mountain out of a mole hill doesn't mean there is any validity to their claims. Benghazi and IRS have all been looked into and NOTHING has come of them with an opposition party doing the looking.
2) Have I ever voted for a Republican nationally? No. Because the Republicans I'd vote for no longer exist. If people like Eisenhower, Rockefeller, etc. were still in the GOP, I'd consider it. But those men would find themselves in the Democratic Party today. Of the GOPers running, Pataki & Kasich seem the most same. And considering neither of them will likely be the nominee next November, that streak will continue.
3) To question my patriotism because, in your words, I put my party over my country is ridiculous. First of all, that's not true at all. I support the Democratic Party because I think their policies are, far & away, the best option for America's future. If they didn't, I wouldn't support them.
4) And I'm sure as hell not going to apologize to anybody-much less you-over supporting HRC. Do I like Bernie? Yes, I love him. I'd love for him to win. But I'm a realist & he's probably not going to win the nomination. She's going to be my party's standardbearer come next November. And I'm damn well going to support her.
5) Not every Democrat-myself included-supported the Iraq War. Hillary did, yes. But Obama didn't. Kennedy didn't. Feingold didn't. There was a loud & vocal arm of the Democratic Party that wanted nothing to do with a bar that completely took the eye of the ball & had nothing to do with 9/11.
6) The Clinton Foundation has done a lot of good. And I think that bears mentioning. Bill Clinton isn't the first, & he won't be the last, to use his position to make ungodly $.
7) You linked a CNN article about a Deputy Chief of Mission saying that Benghazi could have been avoided, like that's some type of smoking gun. The article is over 2 years old & nothing ever came of it. And I'm glad you know this man wouldn't lie, considering I'm sure you know him..
O'Malley is in the race and Jim Webb might also jump in the race. Fact is though she will be incredibly hard to beat despite what you think. She has the machinery and has the money. It would take an Obama type of personality to knock her off and those don't come around very often.
She doesn't seem natural at it and I suspect she hates it. Some of the orchestrated interactions with hand-picked voters have been downright painful. And she obviously doesn't want to answer questions from the media (I'm torn about whether that is hurting her or helping her right now...I lean towards it helping her as she hasn't been real smooth in Q&A sessions to date).
But the country is so equally divided that once again, it will come down to a few states (or counties as Headhunter points out). Strange political system we have now where basically the bulk of the states don't really matter anymore as it is predetermined how they will vote.
Totally fair. Look, I'll even admit that I'd be happier and she'd look cleaner if her husband wasnt getting all this foreign money for the charity (though the CF is doing great work). But I cant sit here and deal with shit like Eric assuming that the Clintons are stealing from the charity because I guess they're the Clintons.
Literally no factual support. Just presumed criminality. I.e. every other major Clinton scandal.
How does an e-mail disappear by the way?
She doesn't seem natural at it and I suspect she hates it. Some of the orchestrated interactions with hand-picked voters have been downright painful. And she obviously doesn't want to answer questions from the media (I'm torn about whether that is hurting her or helping her right now...I lean towards it helping her as she hasn't been real smooth in Q&A sessions to date).
But the country is so equally divided that once again, it will come down to a few states (or counties as Headhunter points out). Strange political system we have now where basically the bulk of the states don't really matter anymore as it is predetermined how they will vote.
Shes ahead of everyone in the field so not speaking to the media is obviously not hurting her. Fact is she doesn't need to talk to the media right now. Its June 2015. There is a year and a half before the election and another 6 months before the first primary. It makes no sense to get out in front and answer questions when you don't have to.
I'm a big fan of Kasich...so we agree there.
You've always come across to me as a diehard social and economic liberal. I'm very surprised anyone like that would truly find much to like about HRC. I'm surprised her past and business associations don't bother you more.
Most liberal politicians supported the Iraq War. To say otherwise is simply not true.
Why would a DCM ruin his career over something like that?
How does an e-mail disappear by the way?
Bottom line is that there has been an opposition party looking into all of this and really doing nothing else but that. They've been throwing garbage against the wall to see what will stick and nothing has. In fact the opposite has happened and they've been exonerated. If there is no other evidence that has been found then there aren't any emails that would show anything different.
She's going to be the nominee, barring the unforeseen. And I'm going to be in her corner. Also, I think she's gotten a ton of flack with some stories that just don't pass the smell test in terms of real scandals.
Most liberal politicians supported the Iraq War. To say otherwise is simply not true.
That is absolutely not true. Most democrats did not vote for the Iraq so its impossible that most liberal politicians voted for the war. There was a strong liberal opposition to the Iraq War that was shouted down by shameless conservatives who questioned their patriotism for having doubts about the war. It was not a done deal no brainer type of vote. It was hotly debated and clearly it took lies and shenanigans from the administration to convince the public and politicians to go along with it.
But i suspect that her campaign would have done some self scouting and make a point to at least come off less elitist this time around. Can't deny that there's a big experience advantage for candidates who have already ran for president and have already had their weaknesses exploited.
...is how he loves to portray himself as just another "middle class guy."
Gotta love him.
Well it was 29-21 Dems in favor in the Senate and it was 80 something to 120 something in the House. So it lost Dems overwhelmingly in the House and won Dems by a few votes in the Senate. Overall more Dems voted against it in the Congress than voted for it.
So I looked into this more. It is one of many rating entities, called Charity Navigator. CN is consider a/the leading charity rater, for some reason. I dont want to besmirch people at CN, because Im sure they mean well, but the entity seems like a crock of shit. They "rate" 8000 charities with an overall budget of $1.4 million. So $175/charity. Meaning whatever they do is essentially window dressing.
So what do they do? They look at a charity's Form 990 and their website. And they rate the charity. That's a very shitty way to rate charities in any meaningful sense. They probably do a good job exposing charities that dont spend enough on the charitable mission (i.e. those where 90% of the budget goes to fundraising); but are subject to criticism for the overfocus raw data. Otherwise useless.
So what is their beef with the Clinton charity? Essentially the complexity of the structure makes it hard for CN to do its usual evaluation (ie fast and dirty). CN makes clear that their inability to rate the Clinton charity is because CN:
I dont have a problem with that. The purpose of charity transparency is for donors to know that their money is well spent. The Clinton's venture a charity that raises money from huge donors, often for special projects. I assume that the the Gates Foundation wants transparency, the Clinton charity will give the Gates that look-see.
Washington Post - ( New Window )
I'm sure you were just as outraged over the Iran War and Cheney's Haliburton involvement correct? I mean that does not even cover the fact that one of the biggest violators of the Iraqi embargo (and Iran also), was a subsidiary Haliburton set-up to specifically have dealings with Iraq with regards to the "oil for food" that lead to millions of dollars lining Saddam's pockets and funding the military.
I know you were greatly outraged when this info came out prior to Cheneys second term as VP correct?
Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton
Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed.
So to sum up, this Kerry ad's implication that Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton is unfounded and the $2 million figure is flat wrong.
Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton - ( New Window )
A lot of people have cited some reg that prohibited it, but that reg became effective after she left office.
So the rule was that if you use personal email for work that you're required to turn over the work emails to the agency. Hilary did that. She turned over 30k emails. She deemed another 30k emails to be non-work related (really, it was probably an aide).
What's the scandal? Conservatives dont believe her that the other 30k emails were personal. That's just a bald accusation, nothing more. But personal emails were never subject to the record keeping requirement, so if she had done the 30k pure work emails on the state.gov server, the other 30k would not be government records.
Moreover, just think about the purported scandal. Maybe I just know this as a commercial litigator who deals with discovery of electronically stored information all the time, but email is just about the dumbest thing you could try to make disappear. Because it is correspondence, SOMEONE ELSE HAS THE FUCKING EMAILS. Anyone she emailed or got emails from has their own copies. Then there are disk images, deleted but not written over files, temporary files, cloud backups (e.g. MIMECAST) that users often arent aware of or thought were eliminated, mobile devices, etc. It's just a nightmare to try to hide emails from a deep pocketed investigator.
Link - ( New Window )
We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.
What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?
It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.
[...]
The Clinton Foundation provided Charity Navigator with the following reponse to the issues cited in the CN Watchlist entry.
For more information: The Clinton Foundation Memorandum
Link - ( New Window )
A lot of people have cited some reg that prohibited it, but that reg became effective after she left office.
So the rule was that if you use personal email for work that you're required to turn over the work emails to the agency. Hilary did that. She turned over 30k emails. She deemed another 30k emails to be non-work related (really, it was probably an aide).
What's the scandal? Conservatives dont believe her that the other 30k emails were personal. That's just a bald accusation, nothing more. But personal emails were never subject to the record keeping requirement, so if she had done the 30k pure work emails on the state.gov server, the other 30k would not be government records.
Moreover, just think about the purported scandal. Maybe I just know this as a commercial litigator who deals with discovery of electronically stored information all the time, but email is just about the dumbest thing you could try to make disappear. Because it is correspondence, SOMEONE ELSE HAS THE FUCKING EMAILS. Anyone she emailed or got emails from has their own copies. Then there are disk images, deleted but not written over files, temporary files, cloud backups (e.g. MIMECAST) that users often arent aware of or thought were eliminated, mobile devices, etc. It's just a nightmare to try to hide emails from a deep pocketed investigator. Link - ( New Window )
She had a private server located in her house. I get that you're going to vote for her, but you don't have to bend over backwards to vindicate her. Like so much of what she did and does it was shady at best. And someone with Presidential aspirations who does something like this, and the issues with the Foundation funds despite her agreement with the White House, sends a very clear message that she thinks people will vote for her no matter how blurry her ethical lines.
She used email in a manner that did not violate the regs. Powell used a personal email address for state business too. Strikes me as very odd that either would do so, but such as it is. She turned over her work related emails as required by rule. Any allegation that she did not turn over all work related emails is without basis in fact.
Non-scandal.
She used email in a manner that did not violate the regs. Powell used a personal email address for state business too. Strikes me as very odd that either would do so, but such as it is. She turned over her work related emails as required by rule. Any allegation that she did not turn over all work related emails is without basis in fact.
Non-scandal.
Without basis in fact? The lack of a smoking gun does not mean that there is "no basis in fact." Why is she entitled to the benefit of the doubt? And Powell did not have a private email server set up in his house. IDGAF about Vince Foster or Lewinsky, but there are plenty of non-frothing Hillary stories that just look bad, far more than you would expect from someone with the ambitions she has had for the last 15 years.
Take a look in the mirror, Crispy.
Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton
Contrary to this ad's message, Cheney doesn't gain financially from the contracts given to the company he once headed.
So to sum up, this Kerry ad's implication that Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton is unfounded and the $2 million figure is flat wrong. Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton - ( New Window )
Well you know I did indeed do that, I looked at other claims of his profiteering and you might find this one interesting then since it actually is 6 years later and includes both his 2000 and 2001 filings:
(quote]That still leaves a total of $35.1 million earned from Halliburtion reported on the May 2001 filing. Of that total, just over $800,000 represents salary and bonus, which Cheney would have earned regardless of whether he joined the ticket or not. Many of the other categories were subject to some calculation and/or negotiation, as would happen in the case of any CEO who left a position early, so it seems fair to call the rest of the income he received an exit package.
So, if you subtract the salary and bonus from the larger amount, voila -- you get $34 million and change. So Matthews is right.
A footnote: Cheney's timing was impeccable. As the disclosure forms indicate, he held a large number of stock options, which means he had been given the right to purchase shares of the company for an old (and, hopefully for the holder of the options) lower price than the current market value. When the holder chooses to exercise those options, they can buy the shares at the low price and then sell them at the market price, pocketing the difference.
It's not clear when Cheney sold his stock options, but it likely was within weeks of his being named to the ticket -- a period when Halliburtion shares hit their 2000 peak, in the low-to-mid $50 range. By November 30, 2000, the stock had fallen to $33 a share. If he'd waited until then to sell, his payday would have been one-third lower, or roughly $14 million rather than $22 million.
But Cheney does appear to have had timing on his side, so we find Matthews' statement -- that Cheney had a payday of $34 million -- to be accurate. If anything, it may have been a bit low. Either way, we give it a rating of True.[/quote]
Your link you claim proves something, addresses some claim Kerry made regarding 2M, it does not even address what i questioned Eric about. You need to actually read the article, not skim a headline.
But It truly Is hilarious to read any kind of defense of this from some. If you honestly think that having an ex-CEO of Haliburton (by about one year) coming on board as VP, push for a war in Iraq, when just prior to being VP he was fighting against embargoes being applied, and then hiring the very same company he claimed was not violating the embargo (which he got caught lying about and used the excuse of "Well i can't know everything" as something actually valid) to a massive long term contract, is not wrong on face value alone, your being silly.
Prior to being VP, Cheney fought tooth and nail against any embargoes against Iraq and Iran. While named on as the VP he denied Haliburton having any dealings at all with Iraq circumnavigating the US embargo, which was found to be an absolute lie. Then, once elected he is all gung ho to abandon for the most part a war in Afghan, all for a make-believe story of WoMD (that have never been found) and who does he feel should be hired to handle the majority of logistics? His old company, holy shit who saw that coming?
Let me know if this helped you to understand it better
link - ( New Window )
Following the Haiti earthquake the Algerian government gave 500k to the Clinton Foundation Haiti fund. As with all CF-Haiti donations, the money was distributed. The Foundation disclosed the donation on its website (ie didnt keep it a secret) but failed to get clearance from State per the agreement. It was a one time donation and Algeria has given nothing else.
So believe what you want. Maybe the Foundation didnt run this one donation by State as an oversight while steering money towards a human-fucking-tragedy. Maybe the error was that of some staffer at the Foundation, which Hilary had no day-to-day involvement in. Or maybe she's evil incarnate.
The vilification of the Clintons over their charity is just beyond the pale. The efforts of disgusting, ignorant animals. But dont take my word for it -- go read this oped by arch-conservative Newsmax CEO and CF donor Chris Ruddy.
Link - ( New Window )
Without basis in fact? The lack of a smoking gun does not mean that there is "no basis in fact." Why is she entitled to the benefit of the doubt? And Powell did not have a private email server set up in his house. IDGAF about Vince Foster or Lewinsky, but there are plenty of non-frothing Hillary stories that just look bad, far more than you would expect from someone with the ambitions she has had for the last 15 years.
Just listen to yourself. You sound like a stark raving crazy person. Having not broken any regs and turned over her 30k work related emails, your only answer is that she should do something more to disprove malfeasance? Like what, turn over emails that are NOT required to be turn over? What sort of dystopian worlds are you advocating for?
How do I know that Marco Rubio doesnt beat his wife? Why the fuck should he get the benefit of the doubt?
You people have nothing on Hilary, so you just list a lot of scandals that turn out to be nothing, and then say "wow, there is so much smoke she must be doing something wrong".
I'm a big fan of Kasich...so we agree there.
You've always come across to me as a diehard social and economic liberal. I'm very surprised anyone like that would truly find much to like about HRC. I'm surprised her past and business associations don't bother you more.
Most liberal politicians supported the Iraq War. To say otherwise is simply not true.
Why would a DCM ruin his career over something like that?
No they did not, they supported the Afghan war and were very hesitant regarding Iraq. Thus all the arguments that the sanctions were working. That argument was when the good ole' treasure trove of WoMD needing to be found before dirty bombs fell on our heads, was introduced. It was Colin Powells UN speech that pushed the hesitancy away. I mean who would ever think an admin would take unverified info from one questionable source as the be all to end all with regards to WoMD?
By the way here is Colin Powell's comments a few years later about making that speech:
"I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world," Mr. Powell told Barbara Walters of ABC News, adding that the presentation "will always be a part of my record."
Asked by Ms. Walters how painful this was for him, Mr. Powell replied: "It was painful. It's painful now." Asked further how he felt upon learning that he had been misled about the accuracy of intelligence on which he relied, Mr. Powell said, "Terrible." He added that it was "devastating" to learn later that some intelligence agents knew the information he had was unreliable but did not speak up.
It was this speech that turned the reluctance into acceptance because no one thought Powell would BS them
Quote:
Without basis in fact? The lack of a smoking gun does not mean that there is "no basis in fact." Why is she entitled to the benefit of the doubt? And Powell did not have a private email server set up in his house. IDGAF about Vince Foster or Lewinsky, but there are plenty of non-frothing Hillary stories that just look bad, far more than you would expect from someone with the ambitions she has had for the last 15 years.
Just listen to yourself. You sound like a stark raving crazy person. Having not broken any regs and turned over her 30k work related emails, your only answer is that she should do something more to disprove malfeasance? Like what, turn over emails that are NOT required to be turn over? What sort of dystopian worlds are you advocating for?
How do I know that Marco Rubio doesnt beat his wife? Why the fuck should he get the benefit of the doubt?
You people have nothing on Hilary, so you just list a lot of scandals that turn out to be nothing, and then say "wow, there is so much smoke she must be doing something wrong".
Again, she made the decision to have a private server in her flipping house and then to comb through the emails and decide which ones needed to be turned over. Her decision. There is nothing stark-raving made about pointing out that it doesn't pass the smell test. There is something willfully obtuse about pretending that it does.
That doesn't pass the smell test either. We're not talking about matters of state or potentially classified material, but it still looks bad.
And the end result is a jizzy dress
And the end result is a jizzy dress
President Obama has been in the public eye for a decade or so, has he made one comparable foray into the ethical gray area? I'm not a fan of Obama, or Bernie or O'Malley for that matter, but you guys act as though this sort of stuff is normal when it doesn't seem to be for either the sitting President or any of the candidates.
Again, she made the decision to have a private server in her flipping house and then to comb through the emails and decide which ones needed to be turned over. Her decision. There is nothing stark-raving made about pointing out that it doesn't pass the smell test. There is something willfully obtuse about pretending that it does.
Actually, this is precisely what the regs then in effect called for. You were allowed to use private email, but if you did you had to turn over work emails. But Clinton I guess should have abided by rules that didnt exist. Even though Colin Powell didnt live by those same non-existent regs. Because smell test.
Again, you dont have misconduct, so you just flip the presumption. She must have been doing something wrong in -- complying with the relevant regulation.
Tell me the contrary story where another politician does what was then allowed -- using private email for public business -- then decides, fuck it, I'll turn over all my emails to the National Archives. My emails with my kids and husband. And friends. Because smell test.
President Obama has been in the public eye for a decade or so, has he made one comparable foray into the ethical gray area? I'm not a fan of Obama, or Bernie or O'Malley for that matter, but you guys act as though this sort of stuff is normal when it doesn't seem to be for either the sitting President or any of the candidates.
Complying the the records regulation by turning over work emails but not turning over personal emails is not an ethical gray area. It is completely ethical.
Quote:
But only one has had close to 100M and all the govt entities her opponents could muster focused on them for the last 20 years.
And the end result is a jizzy dress
President Obama has been in the public eye for a decade or so, has he made one comparable foray into the ethical gray area? I'm not a fan of Obama, or Bernie or O'Malley for that matter, but you guys act as though this sort of stuff is normal when it doesn't seem to be for either the sitting President or any of the candidates.
That actually is a valid question and good observation regarding Obama. I don't know, he may be the aberration out of them all, and the rest are indeed the norm. Somewhat sad when you think about it
Quote:
President Obama has been in the public eye for a decade or so, has he made one comparable foray into the ethical gray area? I'm not a fan of Obama, or Bernie or O'Malley for that matter, but you guys act as though this sort of stuff is normal when it doesn't seem to be for either the sitting President or any of the candidates.
Complying the the records regulation by turning over work emails but not turning over personal emails is not an ethical gray area. It is completely ethical.
Ok, but how do we know they were all personal emails? There should have been an independent person going through the emails to decide that. When you go into public office, especially a position like SOS, you have to be above suspicion. Sorry, but Hillary does not inspire confidence. She doesn't have integrity. But she's all you have so I can't blame you sticking up for her. But you are making a fool of yourself denying that there is nothing wrong with what she has done.
WSJ:
Mr. Bush’s spokeswoman said that emails from the private account unrelated to government business weren’t turned over to the state or preserved [...] But much like with Mrs. Clinton, the decision over which emails should be considered official and which remain private was made by Mr. Bush [...]When the Orlando Sentinel filed a public-records request for the emails from the private account about the legislative session, Mr. Rubio’s spokeswoman said they had been deleted [...] The law appears to have left it to Mr. Rubio and his staff to decide which material was significant enough to preserve from his private and government accounts, said Ms. Petersen of the watchdog group [...] Another likely GOP presidential candidate, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, used a private email account to conduct public business while he was Milwaukee County executive [...] Some members of the county executive staff had been unaware of the private email system, preventing them from retrieving records from it in responding to public-records requests
Just an HRC thing? - ( New Window )
Ok, but how do we know they were all personal emails? There should have been an independent person going through the emails to decide that. When you go into public office, especially a position like SOS, you have to be above suspicion. Sorry, but Hillary does not inspire confidence. She doesn't have integrity. But she's all you have so I can't blame you sticking up for her. But you are making a fool of yourself denying that there is nothing wrong with what she has done.
I dont think it's really fair to say that even though she complied with the reg, she should have submitted to a review of her personal emails -- when the reg doesnt call for that. I know I wouldnt just hand over my personal emails wholesale to a government archivist.
Why doesnt she have integrity? Because she's falsely accused of wrongdoing a lot? How can you be above suspicion when half the country takes and half-cocked allegation against you and runs with it. You cant control shit that people will make up about you.
President Barack Obama's top aides, including David Axelrod, communicated with Hillary Clinton at her private email address while she was secretary of state, new records show.
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel had also asked for Clinton's email address, and Clinton instructed her staff to give it to him.
Her use of private email was out of step with the State Department's rules against employees regularly using personal email for work purposes. And Obama officials -- including Axelrod -- had denied knowing that Clinton wasn't using a government email address. He told MSNBC this month that he would have asked questions about it if he'd been aware of her email habits
30000 more to come. This doesnt count the tens of thousands that she deleted off her personal email server.
Clinton emails: Obama aides knew of private address - ( New Window )
Wow, this is a low blow.
"Her use of private email was out of step with the State Department's rules against employees regularly using personal email for work purposes." That's an odd sentence in an oddly written piece. "Out of step" is a weird phrase with respect to a rule -- you violate a rule or you dont. "regularly" is also a weaselly word.
There was no policy, rule, or regulation prohibiting the use of personal email accounts at State. There was a cable to persons overseas saying that Google says people are hacking personal email accounts. In a best practices section about what "you and your family members" can do to promote email security, State recommended shit like: beware emails fishing for password resets, create strong passwords, "Avoid conducting official Deparment business from your personal e-mail accounts", and dont reveal your personal email address in your out of office. One thing -- auto forwarding to personal email accounts -- was expressly identified as violating department rules.
Link - ( New Window )
But I don't think there's anything there there. But there are going to be these monthly releases for awhile. It'd be best for the Clinton camp if they were all released at one time, but it ain't happening.
Quote:
Ok, but how do we know they were all personal emails? There should have been an independent person going through the emails to decide that. When you go into public office, especially a position like SOS, you have to be above suspicion. Sorry, but Hillary does not inspire confidence. She doesn't have integrity. But she's all you have so I can't blame you sticking up for her. But you are making a fool of yourself denying that there is nothing wrong with what she has done.
I dont think it's really fair to say that even though she complied with the reg, she should have submitted to a review of her personal emails -- when the reg doesnt call for that. I know I wouldnt just hand over my personal emails wholesale to a government archivist.
Why doesnt she have integrity? Because she's falsely accused of wrongdoing a lot? How can you be above suspicion when half the country takes and half-cocked allegation against you and runs with it. You cant control shit that people will make up about you.
She decided to have the server in her home. She decided to mix personal and work emails (if that is even true). If I put a personal email on my work email, it can be read by my IT department. Why is Hillary above what everyone else has to adhere to? Is it really to hard for her to have two separate emails???? Don't want to turn stuff over to a government archivist? Don't be in the government and take that salary and use that position to get millions in speaker fees. That's what I mean about no integrity.
And who is making stuff up? Did she not have her own server? Did she not delete emails that may have had information on them? Did she not withhold emails that later surfaced from other sources?
Sorry, but most of the half-cocked allegations and falsehoods seem to be coming from those trying to defend HRC (but just looking rather pathetic doing it).
But I don't think there's anything there there. But there are going to be these monthly releases for awhile. It'd be best for the Clinton camp if they were all released at one time, but it ain't happening.
It's very obvious why she did it. It was deliberate so she could withhold information that could have been damaging to her. And she knew there would be fallout, but depended on her minions in the press and die hard supporters to not give a shit.
LOL. two words, George Stephanopoulos.
Ask Al Gore how friendly the 'liberal media' can be. They scorched him in 2000.
Guaranteed they will not call her on it once the election starts. They will scrutinize every R candidate and when the election starts, they will all be in HRCs camp. Just like they were for Obama.
Ask Al Gore how friendly the 'liberal media' can be. They scorched him in 2000.
Sorry, but you cannot compare how the press treats Democrats vs Republicans. And it's not just about hard news shows. It's about Hillary being on women's magazines (and those editors coming right out and saying they support her) and getting very favorable coverage compared to any R candidate.
But don't worry, they media has their kid gloves Ready for Hillary!
Quote:
In comment 12349493 Deej said:
Quote:
given his belief that his shit dont stink, I can only imagine what a proper national level hatchet team will turn up on him.
Deej - They've been at it since November 2012. The only thing that's stuck is the gift his aides gave them
I dont know that anyone has been properly incentivized to ruin him just yet. My sense is that he has a very loose sense of what is appropriate to spend state money on (e.g. the helicopter flights, the food bill).
Im not actively rooting against him. As a Dem the guy I fear is Walker -- I think he's fantastic politically and then when he gets in office is brutally effective.
Deej - The NJEA, among others, has been incentivized since 2010. They have spent 10 to 20 million dollars PER YEAR attacking Christie, including opposition research. And the food bill has already been found to be legal. But the fact that the issue was even raised suggests he is under close scrutiny. And the $50 to $100 million would provide sufficient funding.
It is a certainly not a fact that she turned over all work related emails. Saying she did turn over all has no basis in fact. Seems to me things are popping up from sources other than her. Looking at her past problems with the truth, a reasonable person would tend to think she is not as forthcoming as as her blind defenders would have her believe. Does anyone here actually believe she actually turned over all her work related emails. If so I have shares available in Brooklyn Bridge, Inc. at fair prices.
The lengths some of you are willing to go to defend her are ridiculous. The volume and severity of her ethical "lapses" are something we don't see from any of the other candidates, nor from the President. This is not normal. This is an aberration. She is almost Nixonian in her amorality.
And of course these emails were from/to Mr Blumenthal whom the Obama Administration barred her from hiring.
I doubt these 15 emails contained a "smoking gun", but if she deleted those what else did she delete from her server?
HRC's deleted emails - ( New Window )
A lot of people have cited some reg that prohibited it, but that reg became effective after she left office.
So the rule was that if you use personal email for work that you're required to turn over the work emails to the agency. Hilary did that. She turned over 30k emails. She deemed another 30k emails to be non-work related (really, it was probably an aide).
What's the scandal? Conservatives dont believe her that the other 30k emails were personal. That's just a bald accusation, nothing more. But personal emails were never subject to the record keeping requirement, so if she had done the 30k pure work emails on the state.gov server, the other 30k would not be government records.
Moreover, just think about the purported scandal. Maybe I just know this as a commercial litigator who deals with discovery of electronically stored information all the time, but email is just about the dumbest thing you could try to make disappear. Because it is correspondence, SOMEONE ELSE HAS THE FUCKING EMAILS. Anyone she emailed or got emails from has their own copies. Then there are disk images, deleted but not written over files, temporary files, cloud backups (e.g. MIMECAST) that users often arent aware of or thought were eliminated, mobile devices, etc. It's just a nightmare to try to hide emails from a deep pocketed investigator. Link - ( New Window )
1. It's already been found that some of those "other 30k" emails were work related (see link in previous post)
2. Yes, someone else has the emails (if they didn't scrub them too), but you have to know who that someone is to get copies. You can't just subpoena the entire State Dept and expect them to comb through every email everyone sent to see if HRC was part of the chain (well you probably could, but it would take years and millions of $$$).
I get the optics. It's odd to me that Clinton and Powell used private email addresses for State business. It's odd to me that Walker, Bush, and Rubio are doing official business on private email accounts. Apparently it is fairly common among politicians.
What I dont get is why Powell, Walker, Bush, and Rubio get a pass while when Hilary does it you all deem it Nixonian.
I get the optics. It's odd to me that Clinton and Powell used private email addresses for State business. It's odd to me that Walker, Bush, and Rubio are doing official business on private email accounts. Apparently it is fairly common among politicians.
What I dont get is why Powell, Walker, Bush, and Rubio get a pass while when Hilary does it you all deem it Nixonian.
To my knowledge Powell isn't running for anything.
Who said Rubio/Bush/Walker get a pass? Though I don't recall reading that the 3 of them wiped their servers clean.
And Blumenthal was emailing HRC about Libya and often policy related (widely reported), how is that not related to State business? Sending it to her personal email (an assumption by HRC defenders) doesn't turn State business into personal business. The excuses made for her are ridiculous.
she did not use an @state.gov email address.
What I dont get is why Powell, Walker, Bush, and Rubio get a pass while when Hilary does it you all deem it Nixonian.
Look up. Rubio deleted emails. Bush and Walker didnt turn them over. Still havent to the best of my knowledge.
Quote:
Did she claim not to have a government email address, or a government issued device. I was under the impression she was using her personal phone to view her emails to a government address.
she did not use an @state.gov email address.
She wouldn't have been able to use a .gov address (I don't think) since she by passed the gov't servers altogether, opting to run one out of her basement.
Quote:
What I dont get is why Powell, Walker, Bush, and Rubio get a pass while when Hilary does it you all deem it Nixonian.
Look up. Rubio deleted emails. Bush and Walker didnt turn them over. Still havent to the best of my knowledge.
I thought Bush released (most?) his. That said, too many crappy R candidates to follow in detail at this point. Only 1 real D candidate makes it stand out more.
Have any of those 3 been found to delete (or not release) emails that were directly tied to their jobs?
Have any of those 3 been found to delete (or not release) emails that were directly tied to their jobs?
See 11:57pm post from sphinx, which quotes the WSJ saying "When the Orlando Sentinel filed a public-records request for the emails from the private account about the legislative session, Mr. Rubio’s spokeswoman said they had been deleted"
Quote:
Have any of those 3 been found to delete (or not release) emails that were directly tied to their jobs?
See 11:57pm post from sphinx, which quotes the WSJ saying "When the Orlando Sentinel filed a public-records request for the emails from the private account about the legislative session, Mr. Rubio’s spokeswoman said they had been deleted"
Then everything I've said about HRC also applies to Rubio. Neither of them are justified in deleting emails.
The 1st politician that makes campaign finance reform, lobbying reform and congressional term limits their platform will get my vote.