More shady Clinton foundation stuff uncovered

[Mr. Reactionary]

So are there any liberals/lefties who aren't troubled by this latest potential scandal? The only deflection I've seen is that without causal evidence of quid-pro-quo corruption, there is no issue. I find this interesting because it contradicts the typical liberal/left talking points on campaign finance.

To quote from noted liberal icons:

"Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority's apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences does not accord with the theory or reality of politics."

Justice Stevens, Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, at 448. (Joined by RBGinsburg OMG!)

"... It would have been quite remarkable if Congress had created a record detailing such behavior by its own Members. Proving that a specific vote was exchanged for a specific expenditure has always been next to impossible: Elected officials have diverse motivations, and no one will acknowledge that he sold a vote. Yet, even if ingratiation and access ... are not corruption themselves, they are necessary prerequisites to it; they can create both the opportunity for, and the appearance of, quid pro quo arrangements."

Justice Stevens, Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, at 455. (Joined by RBGinsburg OMG!)


"What has this to do with corruption? It has everything to do with corruption. Corruption breaks the constitutionally necessary “chain of communication” between the people and their representatives. It derails the essential speech-to-government-action tie. ... The “appearance of corruption” can make matters worse. It can lead the public to believe that its efforts to communicate with its representatives or to help sway public opinion have little purpose. And a cynical public can lose interest in political participation altogether."

Justice Breyer, McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 U.S. 1434, at 1468 (Joined by RB GINSBURG OMG!)


"Last week, Chief Justice John Roberts made clear that for the majority of this current Supreme Court, corruption means quid pro quo corruption. In other words, if it’s not punishable by a bribery statute, it’s not corruption. This is a reasonable mistake to make at a dinner party. But it’s a disastrous mistake to make for democracy, when the stakes are so high."

Zephyr Teachout, noted lefty challenger to the Dread Pirate Cuomo, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/what-john-roberts-doesnt-get-about-corruption-105683.html#ixzz3YO8uJisd


So is the appearance of corruption surrounding Hillary really a threat to our democracy, or are previous liberal concerns about influence peddling misguided? I mean, potentially trading uranium deposits for cash is pretty bad, even without a smoking gun. Dear Ruth Bader Ginsburg would certainly agree.

[Ebsy]

There's no evidence of corruption. Isn't all this scandal-mongering a bit tiring for you?

[Beet]

What about all the good that the Clinton foundation has done?

According to their website, "Because of our work, more than 27,000 American schools are providing kids with healthy food choices in an effort to eradicate childhood obesity; more than 85,000 farmers in Malawi, Rwanda, and Tanzania are benefiting from climate-smart agronomic training, higher yields, and increased market access; more than 33,500 tons of greenhouse gas emissions are being reduced annually across the United States; over 350,000 people have been impacted through market opportunities created by social enterprises in Latin America, the Caribbean, and South Asia; through the independent Clinton Health Access Initiative, 9.9 million people in more than 70 countries have access to CHAI-negotiated prices for HIV/AIDS medications; $200 million in strategic investments have been made, impacting the health of 75 million people in the U.S.; and members of the Clinton Global Initiative community have made nearly 3,200 Commitments to Action, which have improved the lives of over 430 million people in more than 180 countries."

Has anyone tried to verify these claims? If even a fraction of this stuff were true, it'd be pretty awesome. If people wanted, they could track down someone in the developing world, who is getting HIV/AIDS medications for a lower price thanks to the Clinton foundation, and ask what they think. But of course, no one really cares what such people think. Looking for every shadow of impropriety is more important?

[136or142]

So are there any liberals/lefties who aren't troubled by this latest potential scandal? The only deflection I've seen is that without causal evidence of quid-pro-quo corruption, there is no issue. I find this interesting because it contradicts the typical liberal/left talking points on campaign finance.

To quote from noted liberal icons:

"Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority's apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences does not accord with the theory or reality of politics."

Justice Stevens, Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, at 448. (Joined by RBGinsburg OMG!)

"... It would have been quite remarkable if Congress had created a record detailing such behavior by its own Members. Proving that a specific vote was exchanged for a specific expenditure has always been next to impossible: Elected officials have diverse motivations, and no one will acknowledge that he sold a vote. Yet, even if ingratiation and access ... are not corruption themselves, they are necessary prerequisites to it; they can create both the opportunity for, and the appearance of, quid pro quo arrangements."

Justice Stevens, Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, at 455. (Joined by RBGinsburg OMG!)


"What has this to do with corruption? It has everything to do with corruption. Corruption breaks the constitutionally necessary “chain of communication” between the people and their representatives. It derails the essential speech-to-government-action tie. ... The “appearance of corruption” can make matters worse. It can lead the public to believe that its efforts to communicate with its representatives or to help sway public opinion have little purpose. And a cynical public can lose interest in political participation altogether."

Justice Breyer, McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 U.S. 1434, at 1468 (Joined by RB GINSBURG OMG!)


"Last week, Chief Justice John Roberts made clear that for the majority of this current Supreme Court, corruption means quid pro quo corruption. In other words, if it’s not punishable by a bribery statute, it’s not corruption. This is a reasonable mistake to make at a dinner party. But it’s a disastrous mistake to make for democracy, when the stakes are so high."

Zephyr Teachout, noted lefty challenger to the Dread Pirate Cuomo, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/04/what-john-roberts-doesnt-get-about-corruption-105683.html#ixzz3YO8uJisd


So is the appearance of corruption surrounding Hillary really a threat to our democracy, or are previous liberal concerns about influence peddling misguided? I mean, potentially trading uranium deposits for cash is pretty bad, even without a smoking gun. Dear Ruth Bader Ginsburg would certainly agree.

The only Republican Presidential candidate proposing a constitutional amendment on campaign finance is Lindsey Graham. I guess you're going to vote for him then.

[Bull Moose Base]

rand is ok, that's an impressive job finding effective quotes I have to admit but, in the same vein as Adam T's reply, the justices you quote voting to pry the hands of deep-pocketed donors off the levers of policy creating are all liberals, 2 of them appointed by Bill Clinton. I agree there was a conflict of interest here (with or without clear quid pro quo) and would even prefer another nominee with less of these issues, but I also have zero doubt Hillary winning the nomination with or without my primary vote. But I also know she will appoint Supreme Court justices I prefer and presumably either be a much better choice than the Republican nominee to advance rules to reduce the influence of money in politics, or only equally bad.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, so that's what Chait's piece is about. When will the media stop throwing their toys out of the pram and accept that Warren isn't running and the Democratic primary won't be competitive?

I think they hardly try to hide their intentions by now. The next step is sponsoring push polls that ask people if they know that Hillary's hobby is torturing kittens.

I knew for a while that the media was going to be extremely tough on Hillary, much moreso than any other candidate, but they've far exceeded my expectations with these constant hit jobs. It's an unholy alliance between the "liberal media", the "nonpartisan media", and the "conservative media" to try to destroy her. At this point, I don't even think the liberal media cares if they get President Walker or Bush in the process. It will get them more clicks and ad revenue if there's a Republican president, after all.

you know, maybe if the entire media is "conspiring" against you, it's not actually conspiring and you're just wrong.

[Türkisblau]

IceSpear must have really thought a lot about his Hillary support before devoting himself to her.

With Hillary, he can be on the winning team while at the same exhibiting a persecution complex because they don't accept the "inevitable". It really is cult-like, eh?

[136or142]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, so that's what Chait's piece is about. When will the media stop throwing their toys out of the pram and accept that Warren isn't running and the Democratic primary won't be competitive?

I think they hardly try to hide their intentions by now. The next step is sponsoring push polls that ask people if they know that Hillary's hobby is torturing kittens.

I knew for a while that the media was going to be extremely tough on Hillary, much moreso than any other candidate, but they've far exceeded my expectations with these constant hit jobs. It's an unholy alliance between the "liberal media", the "nonpartisan media", and the "conservative media" to try to destroy her. At this point, I don't even think the liberal media cares if they get President Walker or Bush in the process. It will get them more clicks and ad revenue if there's a Republican president, after all.

you know, maybe if the entire media is "conspiring" against you, it's not actually conspiring and you're just wrong.

1.Ken Starr likely spent over $100 million on an investigation and could only turn up a stain on a dress. Nothing on Whitewater, nothing on "Travelgate" nothing on Vince Foster (I don't know if he investigated that), nothing on 'cattle futures'...  Yet the 'entire media' went on about them for years before and even after.

2.When the 'entire media' this time is peddling a story that with the exception of there being an obvious potential conflict of interest (which is no different than the conflict of interest inherent in any sizable campaign donation that are laughingly called 'free speech') has been entirely debunked, it certainly is fair to say that the 'entire media' (really just some of the national media) is on a feeding frenzy likely based in part on a witch hunt due to some dislike of HRC.

When those same media outlets produce stories on the fact that virtually every major Republican candidate for President has at least one billionaire backer and what those backers expect in return for their support, then I'll say that the media is being evenhanded.

That said:
1.I personally don't really care what 'the media' says.  There is ample evidence that these alleged scandals don't really drive many voters to change their support and that the impact of 'the media' in general is greatly overstated.

2.If 'the media' continues to go after HRC in such an overtly biased negative way, it will obviously allow her to run against them, which has been used to frequently great effect by many previous candidates.

[Bull Moose Base]

Adam, how has the conflict of interest been debunked?

I agree the Republican candidates have done comparable things and in the cases of Bush and Walker they've been covered by the media. What really makes Hillary Clinton different is that her and Bill Clinton are more famous than any Republican candidate so covering this new revelation means more business for them. That may be a greedy motive but it's not the same as an anti-Hillary bias. The Christie camp was alleging bias with the deluge of Bridgegate coverage but the reality was probably it just got viewers and clicks.

It's been clear for a while Hillary is in major ways a mismatch for the moment; she's a poor messenger on income inequality, corporate influence on Washington, and distaste for DC. But all that said, no non-incumbent has ever been better positioned to cruise to the nomination and it happens to be for the party with the advantage for 2016.

EDIT: Also, while I don't think Hillary is the best messenger for the Democrats, I don't think it will be a problem for her because despite her own wealth and, say, Walker talking about Kohl's every few seconds, she has an easy case that his policies prioritize people of her income level and hers favor people who shop at Kohl's.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, so that's what Chait's piece is about. When will the media stop throwing their toys out of the pram and accept that Warren isn't running and the Democratic primary won't be competitive?

I think they hardly try to hide their intentions by now. The next step is sponsoring push polls that ask people if they know that Hillary's hobby is torturing kittens.

I knew for a while that the media was going to be extremely tough on Hillary, much moreso than any other candidate, but they've far exceeded my expectations with these constant hit jobs. It's an unholy alliance between the "liberal media", the "nonpartisan media", and the "conservative media" to try to destroy her. At this point, I don't even think the liberal media cares if they get President Walker or Bush in the process. It will get them more clicks and ad revenue if there's a Republican president, after all.

you know, maybe if the entire media is "conspiring" against you, it's not actually conspiring and you're just wrong.

The entire media was beating the drums for the Iraq war in 2002-2003. Obama's stimulus policies were also pretty much universally panned in 2009.

[Beet]

Adam, how has the conflict of interest been debunked?

No one has ever expected from the start that donors to the Clinton foundation could have no business with the State Department.

Besides that, as with so many charges against the Clintons, no quid pro quo has ever actually been proven, there has only been a lot of innuendo stirred up.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It isn't just Clinton partisans alleging bias though, the media themselves have admitted they're biased against Hillary repeatedly.

[bgwah]

so not interested in another 1.5 to 9.5 years of this

[136or142]

Adam, how has the conflict of interest been debunked?

I agree the Republican candidates have done comparable things and in the cases of Bush and Walker they've been covered by the media. What really makes Hillary Clinton different is that her and Bill Clinton are more famous than any Republican candidate so covering this new revelation means more business for them. That may be a greedy motive but it's not the same as an anti-Hillary bias. The Christie camp was alleging bias with the deluge of Bridgegate coverage but the reality was probably it just got viewers and clicks.

1.Please reread what I wrote. I said everything "except the potential conflict of interest" has been debunked.  The potential for conflict of interest is obvious on its face.  

2.I've not seen any national media reports of this on Walker at all, and the coverage of Bush has certainly not been the feeding frenzy it is with HRC. The most recent story on Walker I've seen is that he must be a great Christian because he is the son of a preacher man.

[136or142]

so not interested in another 1.5 to 9.5 years of this

That's ok. If the traditional media keeps behaving like this I doubt they'll still be around anywhere near 9.5 years from now.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

so not interested in another 1.5 to 9.5 years of this

[Bull Moose Base]

Adam, how has the conflict of interest been debunked?

I agree the Republican candidates have done comparable things and in the cases of Bush and Walker they've been covered by the media. What really makes Hillary Clinton different is that her and Bill Clinton are more famous than any Republican candidate so covering this new revelation means more business for them. That may be a greedy motive but it's not the same as an anti-Hillary bias. The Christie camp was alleging bias with the deluge of Bridgegate coverage but the reality was probably it just got viewers and clicks.

1.Please reread what I wrote. I said everything "except the potential conflict of interest" has been debunked.  The potential for conflict of interest is obvious on its face.  

Sorry, I did misread that.

2.I've not seen any national media reports of this on Walker at all, and the coverage of Bush has certainly not been the feeding frenzy it is with HRC. The most recent story on Walker I've seen is that he must be a great Christian because he is the son of a preacher man.

And your point is taken here too. I have read stories about similar behavior from Walker, Bush Rubio but it hasn't gotten anywhere near the national and frenetic energy the coverage of this has. And a GOP candidate's landing of a billionaire donor is reported as a boost in the horserace rather than a conflict of interest just like the one they are freaking out over here. That is true.

[Beet]

so not interested in another 1.5 to 9.5 years of this

Not so interested in the witch hunts against Hillary. But not going to ditch her just because they're happening, either.

[136or142]

Adam, how has the conflict of interest been debunked?

I agree the Republican candidates have done comparable things and in the cases of Bush and Walker they've been covered by the media. What really makes Hillary Clinton different is that her and Bill Clinton are more famous than any Republican candidate so covering this new revelation means more business for them. That may be a greedy motive but it's not the same as an anti-Hillary bias. The Christie camp was alleging bias with the deluge of Bridgegate coverage but the reality was probably it just got viewers and clicks.

1.Please reread what I wrote. I said everything "except the potential conflict of interest" has been debunked.  The potential for conflict of interest is obvious on its face.  

Sorry, I did misread that.

2.I've not seen any national media reports of this on Walker at all, and the coverage of Bush has certainly not been the feeding frenzy it is with HRC. The most recent story on Walker I've seen is that he must be a great Christian because he is the son of a preacher man.

And your point is taken here too. I have read stories about similar behavior from Walker, Bush Rubio but it hasn't gotten anywhere near the national and frenetic energy the coverage of this has. And a GOP candidate's landing of a billionaire donor is reported as a boost in the horserace rather than a conflict of interest just like the one they are freaking out over here. That is true.

Thanks for this.  The only person I'm aware of who apologizes for making factual mistakes is...myself. (Not to toot my own horn or anything, not too much anyway. )

[bobloblaw]

so not interested in another 1.5 to 9.5 years of this

Hillary Clinton will destroy the Dem party.

In fact it can be argued the Dem party never quite recovered from the 1994 mid term elections thanks to the Clintons. Since that time the GOP has held the House for 18/22 years. Oh yeah yeah Gerrymandering. Well the GOP couldnt Gerrymander if they didnt control the majority of state legislatures and governors mansions, another gift from 1994 and the Clintons

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation broke the law.

I'm having to remind myself that it's not the 1990s again.

[Beet]

so not interested in another 1.5 to 9.5 years of this

Hillary Clinton will destroy the Dem party.

In fact it can be argued the Dem party never quite recovered from the 1994 mid term elections thanks to the Clintons. Since that time the GOP has held the House for 18/22 years. Oh yeah yeah Gerrymandering. Well the GOP couldnt Gerrymander if they didnt control the majority of state legislatures and governors mansions, another gift from 1994 and the Clintons

As a right winger, you seem awfully worried about the Clintons.

[bobloblaw]

Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation broke the law.

I'm having to remind myself that it's not the 1990s again.

Well dont.  Because today unlike the 1990s the NYT and the WaPo are saying Hillary is corrupt. It isnt the vast right wing conspiracy going after Hillary but the Paper of Record.

[Ebsy]

Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation broke the law.

I'm having to remind myself that it's not the 1990s again.

Well dont.  Because today unlike the 1990s the NYT and the WaPo are saying Hillary is corrupt. It isnt the vast right wing conspiracy going after Hillary but the Paper of Record.

You obviously didn't read any of the articles in the "Paper of Record."

[136or142]

Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation broke the law.

I'm having to remind myself that it's not the 1990s again.

Well dont.  Because today unlike the 1990s the NYT and the WaPo are saying Hillary is corrupt. It isnt the vast right wing conspiracy going after Hillary but the Paper of Record.

I consider real corruption to be lying a nation into a war of choice that destabilized a region and then handling the aftermath of the war with incredible incompetence.

Maybe that's just me.

[bobloblaw]

Gingrich said the Clinton Foundation broke the law.

I'm having to remind myself that it's not the 1990s again.

Well dont.  Because today unlike the 1990s the NYT and the WaPo are saying Hillary is corrupt. It isnt the vast right wing conspiracy going after Hillary but the Paper of Record.

You obviously didn't read any of the articles in the "Paper of Record."

I did actually and the editorial and the WaPo.
Your candidate is a train wreck and should she win, she will destroy the Dem party by 2018.