PDA

View Full Version : Fortune Magazine: Why Attacking Hillary Clinton for Speaking Fees Is Hypocritical.



JDubya
04-16-2016, 06:20 PM
Why Attacking Hillary Clinton for her Goldman Sachs Speaking Fees Is Hypocritical (http://fortune.com/2016/01/23/hillary-clinton-speaking-fees-goldman-sachs/)

by Bruce Weinstei (http://fortune.com/author/bruce-weinstein/)n
JANUARY 23, 2016, 10:41 AM EDT

The fracas about Hillary Clinton as a million-dollar speaker is merely political maneuvering masquerading as legitimate criticism.

Both the political left and right are enraged over news (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/us/politics/in-race-defined-by-income-gap-hillary-clintons-wall-street-ties-incite-rivals.html) that Hillary Clinton accepted six-figure fees for talks she gave after leaving the Obama administration. Even worse than the amount of money she amassed, say her critics, are the sources of those speaking fees: Goldman Sachs, GoldenTree Asset Management, and other tony Wall Street firms.

Doesn’t this pose a grave conflict of interest to her presidential aspirations? Won’t she be partial to the financial sector if she is elected Commander in Chief?

No, and not necessarily.

Here’s why.

One Law to Rule Them All

The law of supply and demand has a prominent place in a free-market society. The demand for goods and services—memoirs and keynote speeches, for example—determines their cost and availability. Right now, for example, a lot of people want anything emblazoned with images of Star Wars characters, and many are willing to pay whatever manufacturers ask. For a mere $440, fans can get a PlayStation 4 bundle that includes a console bearing the likeness of Darth Vader, a Star Wars video game, and a voucher for four films. The same console devoted to Jem and the Holograms, one of 2015’s biggest box office flops, would already be in a landfill, if it existed at all.

Clinton was able to command $675,000 for three speeches at Goldman Sachs because the company wanted to hear what she had to say. A former elected official has “insight and perspective that others do not,” says Stacy Tetschner, CEO of the National Speakers Association. This knowledge, he adds, “is now that person’s intellectual property, and he or she has a right to share it.”

Besides, Clinton had already left office by that point, so she wasn’t in violation of ethics laws that prohibit government officials from being paid to speak. And then there’s the celebrity factor. Even the high rollers of lower Manhattan aren’t immune to the magnetic pull of one of the biggest boldface names in the country, if not the world.

But let’s face it: the real reason that investment banks and hedge funds hire Clinton as a speaker is her ability to return the favor down the road, right?

Let’s look more closely at this objection.

The Hannibal Lecter Syndrome

In Jonathan Demme’s The Silence of the Lambs, which was based on the novel by Thomas Harris, FBI agent Clarice Starling turns to imprisoned serial killer Hannibal Lecter for insight into the mind of a criminal. But Lecter won’t help Clarice unless she reveals something of herself to him.

“Quid pro quo, Clarice,” Lecter says. “I tell you things, you tell me things.”

A legitimate concern about paying former politicians high speaking fees is that it’s akin to buying influence. Even if those politicians don’t return to office, as Clinton might, they still know a lot of people in power who can do favors for them. And Wall Street’s C-suite executives are the most powerful influencers of all.

That’s why Republican strategist Karl Rove is on the attack. “Wall Street made [Hillary Clinton] a multi-millionaire,” intones an ad run by Rove’s American Crossroads Super PAC on the eve of the Iowa caucuses. “Does Iowa really want Wall Street in the White House?”

But if it’s wrong for a Democratic presidential candidate to take money from deep-pocketed American businesses, why is it okay for a Republican Super PAC to be funded by such organizations (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/20/bob-perry-gives-7-million-to-american-crossroads/)? The only way to completely eliminate the influence of corporations in politics is through the kind of campaign finance reform that many Republicans and Democrats alike are loath to bring about. And it’s no wonder. Thanks to U.S. Supreme Court decisions likeMcCutcheon v. FEC (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-limits-on-federal-campaign-donations/2014/04/02/54e16c30-ba74-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html) and Citizens United v. FEC, it’s in elected officials’ interests to keep the money coming in.

Politicians can’t have it both ways. Either big money is off-limits, or it’s not. Right now, it’s not, so it’s hypocritical for people like Rove to say “stop” to Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees and “go” to money from the same source for his political action committee.

Beyond “All or None”

Senator Bernie Sanders is better situated to criticize Clinton, since his campaign has been funded largely by small donations from individuals. At the other end of the spectrum is multi-billionaire Donald Trump who, like Sanders, has not taken Super PAC money. About the only thing the two men have in common, in fact, is their rejection of such funding. If Sanders is elected, he may very well change the role that big money plays in politics. Perhaps Trump would, too.

But all of the noise about Hillary Clinton’s hefty honoraria obscures a distinction worth keeping: there’s a big difference between running a political campaign that’s funded significantly by Fortune 500 companies and a former civil servant who gives talks for big bucks. In the former scenario, the potential for abuse is both significant and real. It is Congress that passes laws, and it is members of Congress who, as a whole, stand to be unduly swayed by large financial contributions.

Former elected officials who choose to run for president are much less likely to have the power to influence legislation because of speaking fees they were paid in the years before they ran for office. The U.S. President may be among the most powerful people in the world, but Congress is the nation’s most powerful entity.

The fracas about Clinton as a million-dollar speaker is merely name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and political maneuvering masquerading as legitimate criticism.

MisterVeritis
04-16-2016, 07:17 PM
Why Attacking Hillary Clinton for her Goldman Sachs Speaking Fees Is Hypocritical (http://fortune.com/2016/01/23/hillary-clinton-speaking-fees-goldman-sachs/)


LOL. You are such a tool.

JDubya
04-16-2016, 08:42 PM
LOL. You are such a tool.

http://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2016/03/20/635940930822085434265122679_handle-truth.jpg

del
04-16-2016, 08:45 PM
fortune thinks it's okay to sell out to wall street

i so didn't see that coming

:biglaugh:

JDubya
04-16-2016, 08:47 PM
fortune thinks it's okay to sell out to wall street

i so didn't see that coming

:biglaugh:

Try actually reading the article if you think you're up to all those fancy words, strawboy.

It doesn't say anything remotely similar to that.

Beevee
04-16-2016, 09:53 PM
Taking oodles of money is reserved for Republicans. Their sympathizers are worried that if Democrats do the same, GOP supporters will not be able to claim they all live off the state.

Subdermal
04-16-2016, 10:31 PM
Democrats claim that because Religious Republicans claim the high ground regarding morality, they should be held to a higher standard, and indications of immoral are harshly treated.

Democrats, however, claim the high ground on "big business"; "Wall Street", etc.

But when evidence of hypocrisy rears its head amongst Democrats, no Democrat cries out in disgust.

Because they're not capable of a high moral standard themselves: they're only capable of excoriating others for violating theirs.

JDubya
04-17-2016, 12:06 AM
Democrats claim that because Religious Republicans claim the high ground regarding morality, they should be held to a higher standard, and indications of immoral are harshly treated.

And exactly what is wrong with that? If you're going to go around claiming you're the party who respects God, Jesus and the Bible, then you need to walk the walk if you can't stand being called on it.


Democrats, however, claim the high ground on "big business"; "Wall Street", etc.

But when evidence of hypocrisy rears its head amongst Democrats, no Democrat cries out in disgust.

Because they're not capable of a high moral standard themselves: they're only capable of excoriating others for violating theirs.

Bullshit. Every Sanders voting Democrat has been harping about Hillary's acceptance of speaking fees and campaign contributions from big banks as badly as the Republicans have.

And Republicans have always staunchly defended the free market and making money off of it until Hillary Clinton did it, then suddenly it was a big sin.

Pot, kettle, black.

Peter1469
04-17-2016, 01:34 AM
And Republicans have always staunchly defended the free market and making money off of it until Hillary Clinton did it, then suddenly it was a big sin.

Pot, kettle, black.

Except Hillary claims that she is for the little guy. That is a lie, and everyone knows that. She is bought and paid for.

Quicksilver
04-17-2016, 06:37 AM
Except Hillary claims that she is for the little guy. That is a lie, and everyone knows that. She is bought and paid for.

Again Peter... Please site instances that would show Clinton is "Bought and paid for" Come up with one single vote or action as a Senator or Secretary of State that would PROVE that.. You can't.. Just as Sanders couldn't during last weeks debate.. It's all more Right Wing smear and propaganda. Say something over and over and over and over... and people will believe it as true. Great talking point... No substance.

Beevee
04-17-2016, 06:53 AM
Except Hillary claims that she is for the little guy. That is a lie, and everyone knows that. She is bought and paid for.

Unlike Trump then, who does the selling and the buying. He sells fear and Americans buy it.

Quicksilver
04-17-2016, 07:04 AM
What's so funny to me is how, even here in this forum.. Cons defend the wealthy... and their ability to "Make Money" and "Keep their money" because "They earned it" and blah blah blah blah... Yet when it comes to the Clintons.. it's a different story.. They shouldn't have made any money at all... what a load of hypocrisy. All politicians and political figures make money speaking.. Clinton was no different, why shouldn't she have? Oh.. wait.... that's right... she is a Clinton and Conservaturds hold her to impossible standards.

del
04-17-2016, 07:46 AM
to the barricades, sugartits

Subdermal
04-17-2016, 07:53 AM
Again Peter... Please site instances that would show Clinton is "Bought and paid for" Come up with one single vote or action as a Senator or Secretary of State that would PROVE that.. You can't.. Just as Sanders couldn't during last weeks debate.. It's all more Right Wing smear and propaganda. Say something over and over and over and over... and people will believe it as true. Great talking point... No substance.

How far up Hillary's balloon knot do you actually have to be in order to think that she is not totally corrupt, and one of the most purchased politicians in history?

Here's one example of hundreds of them.

http://nypost.com/2015/11/11/hillary-clintons-bought-and-paid-for-betrayal-of-charter-schools/

Peter1469
04-17-2016, 07:53 AM
Again Peter... Please site instances that would show Clinton is "Bought and paid for" Come up with one single vote or action as a Senator or Secretary of State that would PROVE that.. You can't.. Just as Sanders couldn't during last weeks debate.. It's all more Right Wing smear and propaganda. Say something over and over and over and over... and people will believe it as true. Great talking point... No substance.

Here you go. And this one is criminal

Clinton Foundation received subpoena from State Department investigators (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-foundation-received-subpoena-from-state-department-investigators/2016/02/11/ca5125b2-cce4-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html)




Investigators with the State Department issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation last fall seeking documents about the charity’s projects that may have required approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state, according to people familiar with the subpoena and written correspondence about it.

Peter1469
04-17-2016, 07:54 AM
Bought and paid for.

Subdermal
04-17-2016, 08:04 AM
You'd need a very long thread to detail all the incidents of Hillary's corruption.

How about the Uranium Mine shenanigans? (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0) Or how she magically made 100K in the cattle futures market? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm)

Pull your head out of her ass, leftist.

AeonPax
04-17-2016, 08:14 AM
Again Peter... Please site instances that would show Clinton is "Bought and paid for" Come up with one single vote or action as a Senator or Secretary of State that would PROVE that.. You can't.. Just as Sanders couldn't during last weeks debate.. It's all more Right Wing smear and propaganda. Say something over and over and over and over... and people will believe it as true. Great talking point... No substance.
`
"Bought and paid for" is an idiom alluding that a person is corrupted by money from other sources and meant to be taken figuratively, not literally. Yes Hillary is bought and paid for by the corporations...in fact she is the quintessential poster girl of such activities. For example; Hillary Clinton’s Bought-And-Paid-For Favors for Keystone XL Deal. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/hillary-clintons-boughtan_b_7489118.html)

JDubya
04-17-2016, 08:25 AM
How far up Hillary's balloon knot do you actually have to be in order to think that she is not totally corrupt, and one of the most purchased politicians in history?

Here's one example of hundreds of them.

http://nypost.com/2015/11/11/hillary-clintons-bought-and-paid-for-betrayal-of-charter-schools/

Horse shit article. There are myriad problems with charter schools. Just like any private for profit corporation, some of them do a good job, some of them don't and some of them go out of business, taking all those public tax dollars with them.

So Hillary backed them in the days before their shortcomings were known and now that we see that they aren't such a great deal, she has amended her position.

Some biased trash article in a trash paper like the NY Post doesn't mean or prove shit.

JDubya
04-17-2016, 08:35 AM
Here you go. And this one is criminal

Clinton Foundation received subpoena from State Department investigators (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-foundation-received-subpoena-from-state-department-investigators/2016/02/11/ca5125b2-cce4-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html)



More deflection and BULLSHIT.

There is nothing criminal about it and it doesn't involve her.

They are looking into one of her aides (Huma Abedin) who legally worked for Clinton's foundation while being employed at the State Dept and a private consultant firm at the same time.


Abedin served as deputy chief of staff at State starting in 2009. For the second half of 2012, she participated in the “special government employee” program that enabled her to work simultaneously in the State Department, the foundation, Hillary Clinton’s personal office and Teneo, a private consultancy with close ties to the Clintons.

All you fuckers have is bullshit.

JDubya
04-17-2016, 08:38 AM
"Bought and paid for" is an idiom alluding that a person is corrupted by money from other sources and meant to be taken figuratively, not literally. Yes Hillary is bought and paid for by the corporations...in fact she is the quintessential poster girl of such activities. For example; Hillary Clinton’s Bought-And-Paid-For Favors for Keystone XL Deal. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/hillary-clintons-boughtan_b_7489118.html)

Pro Sanders goofball. :loco:

Quicksilver
04-17-2016, 09:07 AM
to the barricades, sugartits


Fu@k off LimpDick :boobs:

Subdermal
04-17-2016, 09:15 AM
`
"Bought and paid for" is an idiom alluding that a person is corrupted by money from other sources and meant to be taken figuratively, not literally. Yes Hillary is bought and paid for by the corporations...in fact she is the quintessential poster girl of such activities. For example; Hillary Clinton’s Bought-And-Paid-For Favors for Keystone XL Deal. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/hillary-clintons-boughtan_b_7489118.html)

I wonder if it will occur to Quicksilver how difficult it is to actually say something so outrageous and stupid that even other leftists lecture her.

:biglaugh:

donttread
04-17-2016, 09:32 AM
Why Attacking Hillary Clinton for her Goldman Sachs Speaking Fees Is Hypocritical (http://fortune.com/2016/01/23/hillary-clinton-speaking-fees-goldman-sachs/)

by Bruce Weinstei (http://fortune.com/author/bruce-weinstein/)n
JANUARY 23, 2016, 10:41 AM EDT

The fracas about Hillary Clinton as a million-dollar speaker is merely political maneuvering masquerading as legitimate criticism.

Both the political left and right are enraged over news (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/us/politics/in-race-defined-by-income-gap-hillary-clintons-wall-street-ties-incite-rivals.html) that Hillary Clinton accepted six-figure fees for talks she gave after leaving the Obama administration. Even worse than the amount of money she amassed, say her critics, are the sources of those speaking fees: Goldman Sachs, GoldenTree Asset Management, and other tony Wall Street firms.

Doesn’t this pose a grave conflict of interest to her presidential aspirations? Won’t she be partial to the financial sector if she is elected Commander in Chief?

No, and not necessarily.

Here’s why.

One Law to Rule Them All

The law of supply and demand has a prominent place in a free-market society. The demand for goods and services—memoirs and keynote speeches, for example—determines their cost and availability. Right now, for example, a lot of people want anything emblazoned with images of Star Wars characters, and many are willing to pay whatever manufacturers ask. For a mere $440, fans can get a PlayStation 4 bundle that includes a console bearing the likeness of Darth Vader, a Star Wars video game, and a voucher for four films. The same console devoted to Jem and the Holograms, one of 2015’s biggest box office flops, would already be in a landfill, if it existed at all.

Clinton was able to command $675,000 for three speeches at Goldman Sachs because the company wanted to hear what she had to say. A former elected official has “insight and perspective that others do not,” says Stacy Tetschner, CEO of the National Speakers Association. This knowledge, he adds, “is now that person’s intellectual property, and he or she has a right to share it.”

Besides, Clinton had already left office by that point, so she wasn’t in violation of ethics laws that prohibit government officials from being paid to speak. And then there’s the celebrity factor. Even the high rollers of lower Manhattan aren’t immune to the magnetic pull of one of the biggest boldface names in the country, if not the world.

But let’s face it: the real reason that investment banks and hedge funds hire Clinton as a speaker is her ability to return the favor down the road, right?

Let’s look more closely at this objection.

The Hannibal Lecter Syndrome

In Jonathan Demme’s The Silence of the Lambs, which was based on the novel by Thomas Harris, FBI agent Clarice Starling turns to imprisoned serial killer Hannibal Lecter for insight into the mind of a criminal. But Lecter won’t help Clarice unless she reveals something of herself to him.

“Quid pro quo, Clarice,” Lecter says. “I tell you things, you tell me things.”

A legitimate concern about paying former politicians high speaking fees is that it’s akin to buying influence. Even if those politicians don’t return to office, as Clinton might, they still know a lot of people in power who can do favors for them. And Wall Street’s C-suite executives are the most powerful influencers of all.

That’s why Republican strategist Karl Rove is on the attack. “Wall Street made [Hillary Clinton] a multi-millionaire,” intones an ad run by Rove’s American Crossroads Super PAC on the eve of the Iowa caucuses. “Does Iowa really want Wall Street in the White House?”

But if it’s wrong for a Democratic presidential candidate to take money from deep-pocketed American businesses, why is it okay for a Republican Super PAC to be funded by such organizations (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/20/bob-perry-gives-7-million-to-american-crossroads/)? The only way to completely eliminate the influence of corporations in politics is through the kind of campaign finance reform that many Republicans and Democrats alike are loath to bring about. And it’s no wonder. Thanks to U.S. Supreme Court decisions likeMcCutcheon v. FEC (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-limits-on-federal-campaign-donations/2014/04/02/54e16c30-ba74-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html) and Citizens United v. FEC, it’s in elected officials’ interests to keep the money coming in.

Politicians can’t have it both ways. Either big money is off-limits, or it’s not. Right now, it’s not, so it’s hypocritical for people like Rove to say “stop” to Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees and “go” to money from the same source for his political action committee.

Beyond “All or None”

Senator Bernie Sanders is better situated to criticize Clinton, since his campaign has been funded largely by small donations from individuals. At the other end of the spectrum is multi-billionaire Donald Trump who, like Sanders, has not taken Super PAC money. About the only thing the two men have in common, in fact, is their rejection of such funding. If Sanders is elected, he may very well change the role that big money plays in politics. Perhaps Trump would, too.

But all of the noise about Hillary Clinton’s hefty honoraria obscures a distinction worth keeping: there’s a big difference between running a political campaign that’s funded significantly by Fortune 500 companies and a former civil servant who gives talks for big bucks. In the former scenario, the potential for abuse is both significant and real. It is Congress that passes laws, and it is members of Congress who, as a whole, stand to be unduly swayed by large financial contributions.

Former elected officials who choose to run for president are much less likely to have the power to influence legislation because of speaking fees they were paid in the years before they ran for office. The U.S. President may be among the most powerful people in the world, but Congress is the nation’s most powerful entity.

The fracas about Clinton as a million-dollar speaker is merely name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and political maneuvering masquerading as legitimate criticism.





And that ladies and gentlemen is a text book example of a bullshit defense of mainstream politicians auctioning off influence too the highest bidder .

donttread
04-17-2016, 09:37 AM
Taking oodles of money is reserved for Republicans. Their sympathizers are worried that if Democrats do the same, GOP supporters will not be able to claim they all live off the state.


The old "sure my gals a crook but your guy is a worse crook" defense that has led America to the cliff we are on

FindersKeepers
04-17-2016, 09:38 AM
Fu@k off LimpDick :boobs:

Ahh...look at you.

Finally dropped all those false pretenses of opposing sexual insults.

The victim thing didn't work out so well for you, I see.

Beevee
04-17-2016, 09:50 AM
The old "sure my gals a crook but your guy is a worse crook" defense that has led America to the cliff we are on

.........and that should be enough for both sides to see the light.........but no.

donttread
04-17-2016, 09:58 AM
.........and that should be enough for both sides to see the light.........but no.

Well the trick is that their really is only won side. Obama's action's largely mimicked Bush's actions and Hilary is about as dyed in the wool as a donkephant can be

Quicksilver
04-17-2016, 10:00 AM
Ahh...look at you.

Finally dropped all those false pretenses of opposing sexual insults.

The victim thing didn't work out so well for you, I see.

Like my taa tahs ? hahahahahahahaha Hows this?

MisterVeritis
04-17-2016, 10:02 AM
http://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2016/03/20/635940930822085434265122679_handle-truth.jpg
I am the truth. :smiley:

MisterVeritis
04-17-2016, 10:04 AM
Unlike Trump then, who does the selling and the buying. He sells fear and Americans buy it.
Fear is both reasonable and present. Trump offers himself as a leader to help us begin to fix the problems that cause the fear.

Do you understand the difference?

FindersKeepers
04-17-2016, 10:05 AM
Like my taa tahs ? hahahahahahahaha Hows this?


LOL - I had you down for a nasty-mouthed thing.

Thanks for not disappointing.

MisterVeritis
04-17-2016, 10:07 AM
What's so funny to me is how, even here in this forum.. Cons defend the wealthy... and their ability to "Make Money" and "Keep their money" because "They earned it" and blah blah blah blah... Yet when it comes to the Clintons.. it's a different story.. They shouldn't have made any money at all... what a load of hypocrisy. All politicians and political figures make money speaking.. Clinton was no different, why shouldn't she have? Oh.. wait.... that's right... she is a Clinton and Conservaturds hold her to impossible standards.
We defend everyone's right to build wealth. We do not defend everyone's right to sell access to a future office. The first is legitimate and noble. The second is base and criminal.

Quicksilver
04-17-2016, 10:08 AM
LOL - I had you down for a nasty-mouthed thing.

Thanks for not disappointing.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=14553&stc=1

FindersKeepers
04-17-2016, 10:09 AM
That last post is a perfect representation of the mind that posted it.:biglaugh::biglaugh:

Quicksilver
04-17-2016, 10:10 AM
That last post is a perfect representation of the mind that posted it.

Bite me

FindersKeepers
04-17-2016, 10:12 AM
Bite me


You flatter yourself way too much.

You're a joke -- nothing more. An intellectual lightweight that can't hold up her side of a conversation, so you resort to finger-pointing and pretending you're somehow above the fray.

I have news for you -- you're nothing special.

JDubya
04-17-2016, 10:14 AM
And that ladies and gentlemen is a text book example of a bullshit defense of mainstream politicians auctioning off influence too the highest bidder .

Nice broad, lofty, overarching statement that basically says or establishes nothing in terms of facts.

Please explain and include actual examples of Hillary Clinton being influenced in terms of her Senate votes, by corporate money.

JDubya
04-17-2016, 10:19 AM
We defend everyone's right to build wealth. We do not defend everyone's right to sell access to a future office. The first is legitimate and noble. The second is base and criminal.

Neither do "we", and once again, your implication that " we" do support it, or that Hillary has engaged in it, is bullshit.

I've asked time and time again for specific examples and all I've gotten, aside from a couple of links to irrelevant articles about investigations that never resulted in any findings of guilt, is a lot of empty rhetoric.

So once again I challenge you to put up or shut up.

JDubya
04-17-2016, 10:21 AM
You flatter yourself way too much.

You're a joke -- nothing more. An intellectual lightweight that can't hold up her side of a conversation, so you resort to finger-pointing and pretending you're somehow above the fray.

I have news for you -- you're nothing special.

http://s22.postimg.org/r8si6r1o1/acrylic_mirror_100263.jpg

Peter1469
04-17-2016, 11:13 AM
More deflection and BULLSHIT.

There is nothing criminal about it and it doesn't involve her.

They are looking into one of her aides (Huma Abedin) who legally worked for Clinton's foundation while being employed at the State Dept and a private consultant firm at the same time.



All you fuckers have is bullshit.

lol. Her actions while Sec State regarding the Clinton Foundation, bribery, graft, and corruption is part of the FBI investigation into her criminality.

JDubya
04-17-2016, 11:58 AM
lol. Her actions while Sec State regarding the Clinton Foundation, bribery, graft, and corruption is part of the FBI investigation into her criminality.

Prove it.

According to sources I read, she is not part of any investigation.

The only thing being investigated with regards to her tenure at the State Dept, is her aide Huma Abedin being employed by the Clinton Foundation and a private consulting firm while at the same time being employed by the State Dept, something for which there is a special govt program that allows it. I think there may be some questions about some paid vacation or personal leave she took, but it sounds like something that's highly subjective in nature.

But you guys just keep on barking up that empty old tree, though.

http://d30nr4b2k915ua.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/03151158/Dogs-want-squirrel-up-tree-haiku-Life-with-Dogs-and-Cats-425x200.jpg

Maybe you all will eventually bark yourselves out.

Peter1469
04-17-2016, 12:04 PM
Prove it.

According to sources I read, she is not part of any investigation.

The only thing being investigated with regards to her tenure at the State Dept, is her aide Huma Abedin being employed by the Clinton Foundation and a private consulting firm while at the same time being employed by the State Dept, something for which there is a special govt program that allows it. I think there may be some questions about some paid vacation or personal leave she took, but it sounds like something that's highly subjective in nature.

But you guys just keep on barking up that empty old tree, though.



Maybe you all will eventually bark yourselves out.

FBI's Clinton probe expands to public corruption track (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/fbis-clinton-probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html)

EXCLUSIVE: The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News.

This new investigative track is in addition to the focus on classified material found on Clinton’s personal server.


"The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," one source said.
[/URL]

[URL="http://lawnewz.com/politics/bad-legal-news-for-hillary-feds-subpoena-clinton-foundation-documents/"]Bad Legal News for Hillary, Feds Subpoena Clinton Foundation Documents (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/fbis-clinton-probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html)

A new report (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-foundation-received-subpoena-from-state-department-investigators/2016/02/11/ca5125b2-cce4-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html) reveals that State Department investigators issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation sometime last year. Investigators are looking for foundation projects that may have also needed approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state, according to the Washington Post.

The subpoena also asked to see records related to Huma Abedin, Hillary’s longtime aide,who for a short time worked for both the State Department and the foundation. A foundation representative told the Washington Post that they are not the focus of the probe. The State Department’s Inspector General office declined to speak about their investigation or the subpoena.


The Washington Examiner reported earlier this year about a Clinton donor – a Nigerian businessman — who may have benefited personally from State Department policy while Hillary Clinton severed as secretary of state

This is Hillary's theme song

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpabN2yt84Q

She's a criminal.

Quicksilver
04-17-2016, 12:05 PM
You flatter yourself way too much.

You're a joke -- nothing more. An intellectual lightweight that can't hold up her side of a conversation, so you resort to finger-pointing and pretending you're somehow above the fray.

I have news for you -- you're nothing special.

Well, you know what they say.... 'When in Rome"........Seems the only thing you morons understand is when someone pisses in your cornflakes.

FindersKeepers
04-17-2016, 12:36 PM
Well, you know what they say.... 'When in Rome"........Seems the only thing you morons understand is when someone pisses in your cornflakes.

LOL..."you morons..."

You really have a chip on your shoulder, don't you?

As far as the "When in Rome..." thing -- I don't see it here. I see a few folks like you that resort to name-calling and insults immediately, seemingly without provocation, but, for the most part, I see reasoned adults discussion issues.

AZ Jim
04-17-2016, 01:12 PM
LOL. You are such a tool.And you a robot who goes along unquestioningly with whatever the republican mantra of the week is.

MisterVeritis
04-17-2016, 01:16 PM
And you a robot who goes along unquestioningly with whatever the republican mantra of the week is.
What is the Republican Mantra of the Week? I do not appear to be on the mailing list. Where can I find it? Is there a website?

AZ Jim
04-17-2016, 01:17 PM
lol. Her actions while Sec State regarding the Clinton Foundation, bribery, graft, and corruption is part of the FBI investigation into her criminality."bribery, graft, and corruption is part of the FBI investigation into her criminality". Don't use words that have no place in this conversation. It makes you just look stupid.

AZ Jim
04-17-2016, 01:20 PM
Except Hillary claims that she is for the little guy. That is a lie, and everyone knows that. She is bought and paid for.There is a long line of very wealthy Americans who worked extensively for "the little guy".

Subdermal
04-17-2016, 01:26 PM
Horse $#@! article. There are myriad problems with charter schools. Just like any private for profit corporation, some of them do a good job, some of them don't and some of them go out of business, taking all those public tax dollars with them.

So Hillary backed them in the days before their shortcomings were known and now that we see that they aren't such a great deal, she has amended her position.

Some biased trash article in a trash paper like the NY Post doesn't mean or prove $#@!.

:biglaugh:

Beevee
04-17-2016, 01:27 PM
No. And neither does Trump.

Quicksilver
04-17-2016, 02:41 PM
:biglaugh:

Typical response from you...

Peter1469
04-17-2016, 03:26 PM
"bribery, graft, and corruption is part of the FBI investigation into her criminality". Don't use words that have no place in this conversation. It makes you just look stupid.

Those are my words. I am not a republican. Republicans are almost as crappy as democrats.

Peter1469
04-17-2016, 03:27 PM
There is a long line of very wealthy Americans who worked extensively for "the little guy".

Hillary is not one of them. She screws them over non-stop. She says one thing, and votes another way.

Tahuyaman
04-17-2016, 04:07 PM
Why Attacking Hillary Clinton for her Goldman Sachs Speaking Fees Is Hypocritic (http://fortune.com/2016/01/23/hillary-clinton-speaking-fees-goldman-sachs/)al

I don't care that she receives speaking fees. I'm only concerned that there's a reason she wants to keep the transcripts of her speeches secret.

There's a reason she wants keep her words from being made public.

Tahuyaman
04-17-2016, 04:09 PM
And you a robot who goes along unquestioningly with whatever the republican mantra of the week is.


"bribery, graft, and corruption is part of the FBI investigation into her criminality". Don't use words that have no place in this conversation. It makes you just look stupid.

Oh my........

donttread
04-17-2016, 07:16 PM
Fear is both reasonable and present. Trump offers himself as a leader to help us begin to fix the problems that cause the fear.

Do you understand the difference?

If the government ever "fixed the problems that cause the fear " the sheep wouldn't be trembling and would not be so easily controlled. Now we can't have that can we?

JDubya
04-17-2016, 07:24 PM
FBI's Clinton probe expands to public corruption track (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/fbis-clinton-probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html)


Bad Legal News for Hillary, Feds Subpoena Clinton Foundation Documents (http://lawnewz.com/politics/bad-legal-news-for-hillary-feds-subpoena-clinton-foundation-documents/)

This is Hillary's theme song

She's a criminal.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!!!!! :biglaugh:

Fox News!!!!! :biglaugh:

And as for the Dan Abrams "Law Newz" website article.... here's another article from the exact same website not two weeks before....

Trump is Wrong, Hillary Clinton Shouldn’t Be Charged Based on What We Know Now (http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/no-hillary-did-not-commit-a-crime-at-least-based-on-what-we-know-today/)

Oooops...

I dunno Peter.... between all the barking up wrong trees and grasping at straws you do over Hillary Clinton, I don't see how you find the time or energy to accomplish anything else.

Peter1469
04-17-2016, 07:57 PM
Dodge and weave. Attack the messenger, in this case FOX news, is a logical fallacy. I bet you didn't know that.

:smiley:

Be careful, laughing while being illogical is a sign of insanity.

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha!!!!! :biglaugh:

Fox News!!!!! :biglaugh:

And as for the Dan Abrams "Law Newz" website article.... here's another article from the exact same website not two weeks before....

Trump is Wrong, Hillary Clinton Shouldn’t Be Charged Based on What We Know Now (http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/no-hillary-did-not-commit-a-crime-at-least-based-on-what-we-know-today/)

Oooops...

I dunno Peter.... between all the barking up wrong trees and grasping at straws you do over Hillary Clinton, I don't see how you find the time or energy to accomplish anything else.

Tahuyaman
04-17-2016, 08:20 PM
Be careful, laughing while being illogical is a sign of insanity.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KtMs8C7Trf0