Hillary Clinton

[Ten oz]

It's not wrong. But I would like to have some documentation of these faults, rather than assertion and innuendo. With Trump, this documentation is laughably easy. So why can't we apply the same standard here?

Clinton had pneumonia and didn't go from the doctors office straight a press breifing to tell us all about it. That is suppose to be evidence of her lack of transparency. It seems like with Clinton there are many opposition created catch 22s. Had she issued a statement saying she was sick and sat out 9/11 ceremonies many would have called her unpatriotic for not showing face on 9/11. Just as when she delayed the Benghazi hearings. She was accused of faking her injury in an attempt to interfere with the investigation.

 

I have no problem admitting Clinton is not perfect. I wish she used much stronger language when discussing how to end the war on drugs and spoke with less of an America leads to way tone on Syria and ISIS. That said many of the issues Clintons biggest critics want to discuss are petty and meaningless.

[swansont]

Clinton had pneumonia and didn't go from the doctors office straight a press breifing to tell us all about it. That is suppose to be evidence of her lack of transparency. It seems like with Clinton there are many opposition created catch 22s. Had she issued a statement saying she was sick and sat out 9/11 ceremonies many would have called her unpatriotic for not showing face on 9/11. Just as when she delayed the Benghazi hearings. She was accused of faking her injury in an attempt to interfere with the investigation.

 

 

It's all consistent with (and similarly with Obama), "Whatever she does, it's wrong." As you say, petty and meaningless. The alleged lack of transparency can be understood in this light — if you're going to be attacked no matter what you do, "transparency" just opens you up to even more attacks.

[Phi for All]

That said many of the issues Clintons biggest critics want to discuss are petty and meaningless.

The alleged lack of transparency can be understood in this light — if you're going to be attacked no matter what you do, "transparency" just opens you up to even more attacks.

 

It seemed for a time that voters were fed up with the partisan idiocy that kept Congress gridlocked for two terms, but then Trump came along, and now they're wasting precious effort on our non-spiraling-out-of-control-crime-rate and our non-crippling-immigration problems. And the media helps them do it, in the most insidious, irresponsible, and damaging ways, like a heroin dealer who gets hold of methadone clinic mailing list.

 

If voters aren't going to require substance and clarity from the candidates, Hillary is at a decided disadvantage. And the minute she goes near any Trump-style tactics, the double-standard imposed by People who identify themselves as conservatives will sink her. They would roast her forever for doing once what Trump does daily. Infinite hypocrisy.

[swansont]

The debate should be interesting. She's a good debater, and his only real qualification in this whole shebang is that he's good at TV. But he's never gone head-to-head in a debate, and then there's the scared-of-strong-women factor. Since the moderator has already said he won't fact check, the question is how will she call him out when he makes something up. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes to find out.

 

But then, the results will be graded on a curve, as everything has been so far.

[DrmDoc]

I hear Trump isn't properly preparing for the debates and spontaneity isn't his forte. However, Hillary shouldn't be lulled into thinking she may have an advantage against a popular public pitchman like Trump. He has a way of pulling the wool over peoples eyes and making other blink but he doesn't impress me as being particularly bright. Hillary should find a way to emphasize the qualifying distinctions between she and the Donald without the distraction of labeling or belittling him and his constituents.

[Ten oz]

I hear Trump isn't properly preparing for the debates and spontaneity isn't his forte. However, Hillary shouldn't be lulled into thinking she may have an advantage against a popular public pitchman like Trump. He has a way of pulling the wool over peoples eyes and making other blink but he doesn't impress me as being particularly bright. Hillary should find a way to emphasize the qualifying distinctions between she and the Donald without the distraction of labeling or belittling him and his constituents.

Trump has never been in a one on one debate. He also has never been in a debate vs someone of a different partisan philosophy. In the primaries there were a lot of people on stage. Trump could lash out against and deflect questions by delivering one liners against several challangers.Trump never had to carry more that a minute of time alone. Plus with everyone being conservative it was a who can out conservative the other sort of contest. Monday there will only be 2 people on stage and proving who is the most conservative isn't where the bar is set.

[Willie71]

I know this type of situation doesn't bother some members here, but it sure as hell raises eyebrows for me. We are just scratching the surface of what has transpired. It boggles my mind that the DNC would prop this candidate up, even if there is no wrongdoing. The optics of corruption will be hammered home over and over as they have been. When hundreds of millions are at stake, I have a hard time believing there are no ethical concerns.

 

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the foundation had accepted new foreign-government money now that the 2008 agreement has lapsed.

 

A review of foundation disclosures shows that at least two foreign governments Germany and the United Arab Emirates began giving in 2013 after the funding restrictions lapsed when Clinton left the Obama administration. Some foreign governments that had been supporting the foundation before Clinton was appointed, such as Saudi Arabia, did not give while she was in office and have since resumed donating.

 

Foundation officials said last week that if Clinton runs, they will consider taking steps to address concerns over the role of foreign donors.

 

We will continue to ensure the Foundations policies and practices regarding support from international partners are appropriate, just as we did when she served as Secretary of State, the foundation said in a statement.

 

Foreign governments had been major donors to the foundation before President Obama nominated Clinton to become secretary of state in 2009. When the foundation released a list of its donors for the first time in 2008, as a result of the agreement with the Obama administration, it disclosed, for instance, that Saudi Arabia had given between $10 million and $25 million.

 

In some cases, the foundation said, governments that continued to donate while Clinton was at the State Department did so at lower levels than before her appointment.

 

Foundation officials said Wednesday that the ethics review process required under the 2008 agreement for new donors or for existing foreign-government donors wishing to materially increase their support was never initiated during Clintons State Department years.

 

But, they added, on one occasion, it should have been.

 

Algeria donation

The donation from Algeria for Haiti earthquake relief, they said, arrived without notice within days of the 2010 quake and was distributed as direct aid to assist in relief. Algeria has not donated to the foundation since, officials said.

 

 

 

The contribution coincided with a spike in the North African countrys lobbying visits to the State Department.

 

That year, Algeria spent $422,097 lobbying U.S. government officials on human rights issues and U.S.-Algerian relations, according to filings made under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Data tracked by the Sunlight Foundation shows that while the Algerian governments overall spending on lobbying in the United States remained steady, there was an increase in 2010 in State Department meetings held with lobbyists representing the country with 12 visits to department officials that year, including some visits with top political appointees. In the years before and after, only a handful of State Department visits were recorded by Algeria lobbyists.

 

The country was a concern for Clinton and her agency.

 

A 2010 State Department report on human rights in Algeria noted that principal human rights problems included restrictions on freedom of assembly and association and cited reports of arbitrary killings, widespread corruption and a lack of transparency. Additionally, the report, issued in early 2011, discussed restrictions on labor and womens rights.

 

Algeria is one of those complicated countries that forces the United States to balance our interests and values, Clinton wrote in her 2014 book, Hard Choices. She said that the country was an ally in combating terrorism but that it also has a poor human rights record and a relatively closed economy.

 

Clinton met with the president of Algeria during a 2012 visit to the country.

 

A State Department spokesman referred questions about the ethics-office reviews to the charity. Nick Merrill, a Clinton spokesman, declined to comment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

 

 

 

(Credit: AP/Carolyn Kaster)

Among all the rivers of money that have flowed to the Clinton family, one seems to raise the biggest national security questions of all: the stream of cash that came from 20 foreign governments who relied on weapons export approvals from Hillary Clintons State Department.

 

Federal law designates the secretary of state as responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of sales of arms, military hardware and services to foreign countries. In practice, that meant that Clinton was charged with rejecting or approving weapons deals and when it came to Clinton Foundation donors, Hillary Clintons State Department did a whole lot of approving.

 

While Clinton was secretary of state, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clintons three full fiscal years in office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President George W. Bushs second term.

 

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. That was a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

 

American military contractors and their affiliates that donated to the Clinton Foundation and in some cases, helped finance speaking fees to Bill Clinton also got in on the action. Those firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of arms deals authorized by the Clinton State Department.

 

Under a directive signed by President Clinton in 1995, the State Department is supposed to take foreign governments human rights records into account when reviewing arms deals. Yet, Hillary Clintons State Department increased approvals of such deals to Clinton Foundation donors that her own agency was sharply criticizing for systematic human rights abuses.

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/31/the_cash_donations_hillary_simply_has_no_answer_for_partner/

 

Yeah, the far right Salon website spreading right wing smears. Some of the world's worst human rights abusers are on that list.

 

 

Just to be clear, Trump's apparent relationships with Russia is a deal breaker too.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Willie71

[iNow]

Many of the themes (and exchanges) touched on in this thread directly addressed here by John Oliver:

 

[Willie71]

I have said basically the same thing as John Oliver. He didn't report the change in relations with Algeria after the donation. They went from having a travel warning due to human rights violations to being seen as an ally in the fight on terror. He skipped over the changes in arms sales too. Overall, it was pretty accurate, and everyone has said Trump is worse. However, Clinton is much worse than Biden, Warren, or Sanders, to name a few who were considered possible presidential candidates, even though two of them didn't actually run. When the bar is set at being better than Trump, it's hard to fail, but the democrats are doing a fine job of losing ground to a madman.

[Ten oz]

Many of the themes (and exchanges) touched on in this thread directly addressed here by John Oliver:

 

I actually didn't like Oliver's breakdown. He spent a little over half the time breaking down Clinton's scandals in detail and then rushed through just a few of Trumps because there are simpky to many and they haven't been investigated probably to date. Then ironically he insisted the two aren't equally comparable after spending the segment equally (in time) comparing them.This is a huge mistake I think far too many progressives make. They feel as though to be fair they must concede that Clinton has made mistakes prior to attacking Trump. Missing from Oliver's segment was the fact that many of the Clinton "scandals" are simply witch hunts from the right meant to hurt Clinton's image and by conceded on the issues people like Oliver actually hand Conservatives a win. The objective of the email investigation, Benghazi investigation, Clinton Foundation investigation, and etc is to force people like Oliver to conced ground on Clinton's character. To have people point out bad things about Clinton prior to launching attacks on Trump. I understand progressive pundits/comedians like Oliver, Maher, Noah, Colbert, and etc want to seem fair when appealing to general public and calling the right out for a multi decaded long war against Clinton's public image would come off as too partisan and conspiratorial but saying nothing might actually be better than conceded on the issues. We want a fair and equitable approach but conservatives concede nothing. Progressive media and the media broadly have already acquiesce far too much.

[Willie71]

Oliver was quite kind to Clinton, basically suggesting thigs are less bad than they appear on the issues where there are real problems. This is a stretching the truth a big to do damage control, to try to give Clinton a bit better advantage. He also outright dismissed the e-mail scandal and Benghazi, correctly so, although Clinton's inept lying to pretend she had no idea what as going on hurts her credibility and perception of honesty. Very few people believe there was no wrongdoing by the Clintons, and insisting it's all a smear hurts progressives, as it makes progressives look like conservatives, removing the moral high ground. I think it's a big mistake to try to minimize more than what has already been conceded, especially when more leaks could be coming, possibly confirming much greater potential conflicts of interest or corruption. It's too risky. As O,over and numerous others have said, using the line "she's not as bad as trump" isn't very solid ground.

[iNow]

It's a long thread, so I may have missed it, but did you ever provide evidence of the lying that Clinton's done which you're here now reasserting as if granted?

Or more specifically, which lies and where? I know there are some. Politifact outlined them, but what are you referring to? Trying to get outside the innuendo and suggestion...

[Willie71]

It's a long thread, so I may have missed it, but did you ever provide evidence of the lying that Clinton's done which you're here now reasserting as if granted?Or more specifically, which lies and where? I know there are some. Politifact outlined them, but what are you referring to? Trying to get outside the innuendo and suggestion...

The statements she made about not having sent any classified e-mails, claiming she had permission to use the personal server etc. Some see this as innuendo, but it's fact. I didn't waste time posting links because this isn't in dispute outside of the most uninformed apologetics.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Willie71

[iNow]

I don't see that as innuendo. Was curious what had you so riled. Appreciate you clarifying, just wish you'd done so without suggesting I'm some apologist.

[Willie71]

I don't see that as innuendo. Was curious what had you so riled. Appreciate you clarifying, just wish you'd done so without suggesting I'm some apologist.

I'm not suggesting you are an apologist. apologies. I was more commenting on a few other people who have been very vocal, and active in trying to shut down discussion of the real problems.

[DrmDoc]

I don't see that as innuendo. Was curious what had you so riled. Appreciate you clarifying, just wish you'd done so without suggesting I'm some apologist.

 

He never really explained that to me either...before he refused to engage me because I am, in his opinion, also an apologist.

[Willie71]

He never really explained that to me either...before he refused to engage me because I am, in his opinion, also an apologist.

I think you are an apologist.

[DrmDoc]

I think you are an apologist.

 

Yes, unfortunately, you do...does this response suggest you've reversed your decision to not engage my commentary?

[swansont]

The statements she made about not having sent any classified e-mails

The Oliver segment said the emails were sent to her, and the three that were marked classified were improperly labeled (not in the header). What's the evidence that she knowingly sent classified emails?

[Willie71]

The Oliver segment said the emails were sent to her, and the three that were marked classified were improperly labeled (not in the header). What's the evidence that she knowingly sent classified emails?

It's been confirmed there were a number of emails that were marked as classified. Comey confirmed this. Clinton claimed she didn't know what the classification system was. Unacceptable for someone who was Secretary of State. Numerous others met the criterion for being classified, something she should have known holding a position like Secretary of State. How can she be considered qualified if she is that ignorant? Are you comfortable with someone who held as much power as Secretary of State being incompetent on what us and isn't classified? This competence is supposed to be a contrast with Trump. As I said, Oliver was quite kind to Clinton. He almost gave her a pass. The AP, MSNBC, Democracy Now and many others were less gracious as they analyzed the data.

Yes, unfortunately, you do...does this response suggest you've reversed your decision to not engage my commentary?

 

Just making sure it's clear.

[swansont]

It's been confirmed there were a number of emails that were marked as classified. Comey confirmed this. Clinton claimed she didn't know what the classification system was. Unacceptable for someone who was Secretary of State. Numerous others met the criterion for being classified, something she should have known holding a position like Secretary of State. How can she be considered qualified if she is that ignorant? Are you comfortable with someone who held as much power as Secretary of State being incompetent on what us and isn't classified? This competence is supposed to be a contrast with Trump. As I said, Oliver was quite kind to Clinton. He almost gave her a pass. The AP, MSNBC, Democracy Now and many others were less gracious as they analyzed the data.

Does that mean you have nothing regarding answering my question? Because you didn't answer it.

[Willie71]

Does that mean you have nothing regarding answering my question? Because you didn't answer it.

Yes I did.

[iNow]

To simplify, swansont wants you to show the evidence you have that leads you to believe she knowingly sent classified materials.

[MigL]

This whole argument could have ended a long time ago had some people admitted that H. Clinton has her faults and has committed some transgressions which may make her credibility and honesty circumspect. And the rest of us would have gladly admitted that even considering that, she IS the better, more competent choice for president.

 

Instead we have 29 pages of people claiming she has never done anything wrong or been dishonest about it because she's never been charged or convicted.

( you guys must still be O.J. Simpson fans )

 

The funny part is that during the nomination process, most of you guys 'spit' when her name was mentioned as front-runner of the Democratic contenders.

 

Patiently waiting for the debate to start.

Edited September 27, 2016 by MigL

[DrmDoc]

This whole argument could have ended a long time ago had some people admitted that H. Clinton has her faults and has committed some transgressions which may make her credibility and honesty circumspect. And the rest of us would have gladly admitted that even considering that, she IS the better, more competent choice for president.

 

Instead we have 29 pages of people claiming she has never done anything wrong or been dishonest about it because she's never been charged or convicted.

( you guys must still be O.J. Simpson fans )

 

The funny part is that during the nomination process, most of you guys 'spit' when her name was mentioned as front-runner of the Democratic contenders.

 

Patiently waiting for the debate to start.

 

Nobody is claiming that Mrs. Clinton didn't make mistakes. However, those mistakes discussed here do not rise to the level of condemnation you seem to be demanding regardless of every legitimate mitigating factor also discussed here. You seem to be demanding that we hold Mrs. Clinton's credibility and honesty to an extraordinary standard, which I suspect would be different under similar circumstance for any politician other than Mrs. Clinton. Although you may believe otherwise, no one is canonizing Hillary here by addressing the politically inflated and hollow claims of maleficence her detractors continually tout.