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.
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.