The quote in the post title is from the acting chief executive of the Clinton Foundation. It reminded me of something I heard Lanny Davis say in an interview with Chris Wallace yesterday.
WALLACE: We know because of the reporting in Peter Schweizer's book of one major violation of this, a failure to disclose, and that is that Ian Telfer, who was chairman of Uranium One, that uranium company that the Russians wanted to buy, gave $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation through his family's Fernwood Foundation, and yet that contribution, $2.35 million -- I mean, I know the Clintons have a lot of money, but that's not pocket change. That contribution was never reported.It depends on what the meaning of "major" is! Davis is perseverating about the meaning of "major," which is absurd for 2 reasons: 1. Legalistic quibbling about the meaning of a word is quintessentially Clintonesque, reminding us of a notorious instance of lying while preserving an argument that it's not really lying, not if you think about it the right way, and 2. He's calling attention to the fabulous wealth within which the Clintons swim.
DAVIS: Look, we've known each other for a long time. You used the word "major". You're entitled to that adjective.
WALLACE: You don't think $2.35 million is major?
DAVIS: Let me finish, you're going to give me 30 seconds. $2.3 million out of $2 billion is not major, even by any definition. And moreover, there is, let's say not on this program to resolve, a fundamental dispute whether Mr. Telfer's $2.3 million was given to Clinton Foundation or another foundation based in Canada that was a fund for social --
WALLACE: In every other case, passed the money straight through to the foundation and what was reported.
DAVIS: As I said, we do not think that was a contribution to the foundation. But if it was, $2.3 million divided by $2 billion, the amount of money the foundation collected over all the years -- to me, $2.3 million divided by $2 billion is not what Chris Wallace call[s] major.
WALLACE: That's what I call major. May not be what Lanny Davis calls major.
DAVIS: I agree. We have a right to disagree on the word "major."
$2.3 million? That's nothing... nothing, to them... maybe to you. Peon.
He went on the show to help the Clintons! How is that helping? I guess it's the best he had, and now I see the Foundation's CEO using the same talking point. They must have brainstormed to get to that horrible talking point. I'd love to see what got rejected.
Posts
138 comments:
I wonder if the Clinton slush fund is trying to get back into Charity Navigator's good graces -- or if it even cares.
Isn't inquiring about financials of an organization akin to fascism?
11 Coincidences.
Must be a coincidence.
How can the Democrats possibly justify nominating this woman for president?
You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, Democrats? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
So basically the Clinton Foundation is just the Federal Government on a lesser scale.
Good to know.
I've got an idea: Let's put these people in charge of $4 trillion in federal spending. That'll give Lanny Davis a bigger number to divide by, and a few billion in graft can be "not major".
"2.3 million is nothing to the Clintons." That's like the Bat Signal being sent to Elizabeth Warren.
That's .1% of the foundation assets.
That means there is likely another 999 (or that much more in substance) similarly questionable tranches that have not been similarly examined.
That's .1% of the foundation assets.
That means there is likely another 999 (or that much more in substance) similarly questionable tranches that have not been similarly examined.
"2.3 million is nothing to the Clintons." That's the Bat Signal being sent to Elizabeth Warren.
Oops. Mused that moderation is on.
"When really big organizations make mistakes, the rules are different."
Translation: We are the Clintons, we are really BIG, the rules are different for us: we decide what they are. Stupid Voters will lap it up, we are the Clintons.
I wonder -- if Chris Wallace had asked for the other Big Organizations who had made mistakes -- would Davis have had the information.
But I'm glad Wallace didn't ask that question, as we got instead to hear Davis remind everyone what is so annoying about the Clinton$.
When really big organizations make mistakes, the rules are different. You can't expect them to attend to the sort of details that would get you in trouble in your puny little affairs.
amusing misdirection. The IRS doesn't cut a mom and pop business any slack on the reporting and compliance requirements.
Big businesses, like the CGI, have the resources to put in place Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) policies, Internal Controls Policies, Compensation Committees, Internal Audit Teams, pay External Auditors, certified audits, etc.
Lanny Davis is just shoveling horseshit yet again...
WaPo: "Former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell (R) and his wife Maureen were found guilty of public corruption for lending the prestige of the governor’s office to a wealthy Richmond businessman, Jonnie R. Williams Sr., in return for more than $150,000 in loans, vacations, golf outings and luxury goods."
Look, we've known each other for a long time. You used the word "major". You're entitled to that adjective.
All I have are the talking points. I'm not going to leave the narrative, and you better not push me around.
This donation just happens to be the one they made a mistake on and didn't report.
That reminds me of the Louis Lerner hard drive crash story. Of all the hard drives at the IRS hers is the one that just happened to have an unfortunate malfunction.
Leona Helmsley spent time in jail for something that couldn't be called major "by anybody's definition."
Poor ol' Lanny! It must be a tough job to get out in front of a hostile Fox audience and try and grill up filet mignon when all he's got to cook is shoe leather.
Of course, the question everyone is asking is "Where the fuck are the Clintons?". I mean, this is HRC's campaign, isn't it? We're supposed to believe she can take the 3:00AM phone call & stare down Putin when she can't even appear on Meet the Press?
I hope folks don't lose sight of the connection between the deleted e-mails and the "pay to play" scam the Clintons were executing.
Wanna bet some of the "missing" emails helped connect the dots between SecState policies and Bill Clinton $500K speeches?
Gahrie said...
How can the Democrats possibly justify nominating this woman for president?
You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, Democrats? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
I was wondering if AA has or has not decided she could not possibly vote for "that woman," the big V. Certainly, the big V falls into that category of people where it would be better to not vote than to vote for her. It should not be necessary to wait and see. Some people you just can't vote for. AA, care to reveal?
========================
Everyday people don't worry about $2.3M here or there.
========================
Clinton campaign slogans:
You can't prove it.
No smoking gun (ha ha deleted it).
Depends on what the meaning of major is.
Not actually illegal.
Mistakes were made.
No controlling legal authority.
Nah nah.
Clearly the money wasn't laundered well enough. It needed to pass through another few dozen shell companies before appearing on the Clinton Foundation's ledgers. Very sloppy work, especially for such accomplished large scale grifters as the Clintons.
I wouldn't mind if the Clintons gave me some non-major amounts of cash.
I thought this point merited a tweet.
Good to know I'm not the only one.
Even taking Davis argument on its own terms, while total donations over the years come to $2 billion, how many single donations are for over $2 million? a d how many donations of that amount were not reported?
Davis has the wrong denominator and he knows it.
$2B over 14 years is $142M/year and $2.3M is a major donation. Ask any college endowment, they'd say it's a major donation AND the donor also thinks it's a major donation.
The Clintons and their loyal followers are so corrupt and lacking in ethics, they cannot be put back in power.
At what point will it get so bad that Liz Warren and Cory Booker jump in the ring? The constant drip drip of this news is the sound of the Democrats seeing their whole populist strategy go down the tubes, and being forced to excuse their nominee's corruption basically shoots to hell any attempt to trash the GOP for the same. After that, what are they left with with Hillary? Incompetence and halfhearted triangulation.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Even La Cosa Nostra had fantastic accountants.
A criminal organization usually has the best accountants.
"Just a rounding error; leave it. We've got to get the ledger closed for this month."
I'm wondering how often this sort of things happens at the Gates Foundation.
My daughter interned for the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI).
Last weekend, I was wearing the CGI gimme cap, and a mother with her adult daughters noticed.
"Do you work at CGI?" one of the daughters asked excitedly.
"CGI? What's CGI?"
"Clinton Global Initiative"
It then dawned on me that they had read the writing on the cap.
"No, but my daughter squandered six months there as a unpaid intern. All she got was this cap, and an autographed photo with Bill."
She didn't ask any more questions.
I am 100% positive nobody died so the Clintons can be rich. All this money was earned through hard work and "playing by the fucking goddamned rules bitch" so don't think the Clintons won't use their loot just as responsibly as it was gained.
Fuck this whore country and the evil shits who took control of the decimated IQ's of the majority for power's sake alone. Obama has proven America is not exceptional and it took about 60 million cunt votes twice to do so.
Fuck all you who defend this evil.
"Sell my vote? No sirree! I voted for that man because I liked him!"
"Come now, Mr. Johnson; we have good evidence that the candidate gave you twenty dollars."
"Well, now, it stands to reason: when someone gives you twenty dollars - you like him."
It begs the question... if you connect these two dots together... If two million dollars is not considered major and the Clintons are admitting to not reporting some donations...
How big is the Foundation? How big are the unreported donations? What are the Clintons still hiding?
Remember, with the Clintons the story is never revealed in toto.
Its a drip drip... oh, wait, never mind.
So Lanny, if the 2.3 mill was so insignificant, why accept it and create the appearance of impropriety?
We're supposed to believe she can take the 3:00AM phone call
Glen Doherty could not be reached for comment.
Sean Smith could not be reached for comment.
Chris Stevens could not be reached for comment.
Tyrone Woods could not be reached for comment.
If enough bad choices are made in a romantic comedy DVD, I bail out early, not caring what happens.
There's no dramatic structure.
With Clinton, it's not bad choices. There's some dramatic structure behind it.
Time for a pool on when she quits.
Not to mention James McDougal.
@Michael
I don't think she can quit, unless she falls on her head again.
Time for a pool on when she quits.
Hillary is totally unfamiliar with that concept.
Consider the preference of impeachment over censure because censure would be tantamount to an admission.
That was all Hillary.
Never work for free for someone who can afford to pay you.
So based on Lanny Davis' own math a $2billion waste at the Federal level would not be "major" and we peons should just STFU.
No wonder Hillary lost track of huge chunks of State Department money.
If you can't run a lemonade stand then you can't run the world's largest enterprise, which spends the Clinton Foundation's annual budget every single day before sunrise.
You are either a good manager that tries to sweat the details or you are a sloppy soup-sandwich that tolerates gross mismanagement and then covers up the damage.
We all know which type Hillary is..
#HillaryIsNotReady
Time for a pool on when she quits.
Hah -- I hope she quits, but she ain't quitting. I will take that bet:)
Tom DeLay and Rick Perry were both indicted over much less by local prosecutors. Ditto the the John Doe witchhunt in Wisconsin.
Headless Blogger asks a really good question.
For the record, Lanny Davis is a schmuck. Lanny Davis has always been a schmuck. There never has been a day of his life when Lanny Davis was not a schmuck.
Which makes him useful to the Clintons.
The First Woman Lesbian Crook President will break the glass ceiling beyond all recognition. I blame George Washington for being such a Patriach.
Partisan witch hunt. Why do conservatives hate freedom and love fascists so much?
I think the Clinton machiine has gotten rusty--there was a time when they would have gotten ahead of this scandal, and we'd be hearing all these puff pieces in the news about all the good that the Clinton Foundation has been doing, the e-mail scandal would have been downplayed by opening the servers up to an impartial invesigator to prove they had nothing to hide (though of course they would have pre-scrubbed what needed to be ahead of time).
Now, Hillary remains silent (while on some campaign trail that strangely involves no talking with reporters and is more stage managed than one of Kim Jong-Un's meetings with the public) and her aides are flapping around with lame excuses that even their allies on the Left aren't buying.
These folks aren't what they used to be.
The foundation has raised 2 BILLION dollars!?! They grant 15% so that means the Clinton's have a 1.7 billion dollar slush fund. Wow!
I don't think she can quit
Why not? Did they offer a money-back guarantee on the bribes?
Davis said $2 Billion three times in the quotes presented.
Maybe he's reminding people, who may be thinking about jumping ship, that Hillary has a $2 Billion war chest for her campaign. Formidable. No Republicans have that.
And that is what a Primary opponent would be up against in case anyone is thinking about taking Hillary on for the nomination.
@Brando,
These folks aren't what they used to be.
If the Clintons were "what they used to be", Obama wouldn't have defeated Hillary in 2008.
The rust has been in the joints for a long time now.
It's beginning to look like Scott Walker is going to run unopposed.
I liked the Obama joke that while Hillary ordered at Chipotl and no one recognized her, O'Malley attended an O'Malley Political Rally and no one recognized him.
The historic event coming soon may be the first Cherokee Tribe President.
The conniving cleverness of the Left says "you can't celebrate Hillary's death like we did Thatcher's because we will say you're mean" and it works.
But I am no better than the most vile Leftist who hated Reagan or Rich Scaiffe or the Kochs.
My reasons are justified and biased against evil while their reasons are solely about ego gratification, yet because the effect is the same we are both equally shitty.
So be it.
I am really curious who the real candidate is going to be.
Isn't inquiring about financials of an organization akin to fascism?
OK, tell you what, when Republican politicians organize a battering ram spear-headed raid on the residences of Hillary supporters, we can talk.
MichaelK, she can't quit. Too many powerful, unsavory, people have paid a lot of money and expect to get something in return.
@Bob,
And that is what a Primary opponent would be up against in case anyone is thinking about taking Hillary on for the nomination.
But that's exactly what the Clintons can't say! They can't admit in public that the Clinton Foundation, which "does good all over the world", is simply the money bag for the campaign. If they admitted that, then every dollar that goes to the foundation becomes a possible quid pro quo. Not only that, but the CF is set up as a charitable organization for tax purposes, and it can't engage in open partisan political activity without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status.
Of all the hard drives at the IRS hers is the one that just happened to have an unfortunate malfunction.
No, hers and other government officials with whom she had chatted. I think this happened about the time that Lerner figured out that records of chat conversations are stored on the local hard drive.
And anybody who tells me they are not, kindly explain to me where the history of your chats comes from in your conversations. Imagine if every time you received a text, there was no history of previous texts. That history is stored on your phone, and your chat history is stored on your hard drive.
There is even an email where Lerner mentions (mistakenly) that use of instant messaging would be a good way to avoid congressional oversight.
You can say a lot of bad things about Republicans, and I certainly do, from time to time, but you can't accuse them of trying to create a single party state, which is a current Democrat project.
Garage,
Every woman loves a fascist.
MadisonMan said...
I don't think she can quit
Why not? Did they offer a money-back guarantee on the bribes?
Basically ... yes. Ya gotta make the vig, or ...
Oops. It's every woman adores a fascist. I'm getting old.
"If the Clintons were "what they used to be", Obama wouldn't have defeated Hillary in 2008."
That's for certain. Whatever my issues with Obama, I'll always appreciate his doing what the GOP has been unable to do since Bill Clinton's 1980 defeat in the Arkansas governor race--beat a Clinton. And it was all the more sweet because of how close it was, and how dragged out that primary was--all the best efforts of the Clinton smear team (from starting the "birther" movement to the 3AM phone call nonsense) revealed for what they were--and the Left got to see what it was like on the receiving end of it.
The 1990s magic is gone. The Democrats may soon start scrambling for a Plan B.
Hillary has to remember what Harry Reid looked like after he told a donor he could not deliver the goods.
Bob Boyd, the foundation might have $2b, but can that be used for a campaign? All of their employees can't be unpaid interns.
But it being the Clintons, I guess it doesn't matter what they do to the progs or the influence buyers.
"Maybe he's reminding people, who may be thinking about jumping ship, that Hillary has a $2 Billion war chest for her campaign. Formidable. No Republicans have that."
Side question though--at what point does the size of the war chest provide diminishing returns? There's only so much ad space you can buy, or mail you can send out, or consultants you can hire before it starts to backfire on you. And with much cheaper ways to reach voters and supporters these days (as well as quickly raise cash through data mining and small donors) I suspect any talented candidate can go toe to toe regardless of how much Clinton has on hand.
The bigger question is will a talented enough candidate emerge?
Obama is smarter and a better politician than Clinton. Clinton was a better president.
W. Is smarter and a better politician than his Dad. His Dad was a better president.
Their apologists are in full beclowning mode. Contrasting the few million in question against the few billion in toto, stil highlights the millions and billions the Clintons are rolling around in. Ordinary Americans simply can't relate to either amount. Especially when the appearance of fraud or other impropriety is involved. Not good for the Clinton Crime Syndicate.
According to Lanny--perennially smiling little prevaricator protecting the wannabe POTUSA, $2.3 million or so is "chump change".
And remember you chumps, get out and vote for Hillary.
Hey, people make mistakes. Wait, are corporations still people?
Your "not a robot" checker is reaching a crazy level.
I actually kind of like Lanny Davis. I wouldn't be surprised to read one day that he was found swinging from a rafter in his attic.
Did they offer a money-back guarantee on the bribes?
Are bribes bad?
Clintons keep piling on the lies.
only small percentage goes to charity.
They are completely full of shit. Can they possibly believe this stuff? Hard to tell, but the key is that others believe it. So far the Clinton fan boys and girls do. But sooner or later the vast middle is going to start to notice.
I think she is toast. She can't change the subject because she has nothing to say.
Eentering, STAGE LEFT, Elizabeth Warren.
Garage: Are bribes bad?
See? Fen's Law: The Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about.
Applied here, it means all their talk about money corrupting government was bullshit. Which means you are not going to gain any traction shaming them over the double-standard. Because they don't have one.
Its like trying to use a hammer as a screwdriver.
The Left is cool with Hillary breaking the rules, they just don't want her opponent to do the same.
Sooner we recognize that, sooner we find an effective solution.
No one does the things they lecture others about. Belief is not important.
They're over $18 trillion in debt, a multi-trillion dollar charity/welfare fund, and still indigent, homeless, and even unidentified Americans. In a world with finitely available and accessible resources that volume of fabricated wealth with marginal redistribution has consequences that are only temporarily curbed through wide distribution.
Oh, we are talking about the Clinton Foundation. I thought the headline referred to the Federal government's low efficiency conversion rate.
Brando,
1. You don't have to spend it all.
2. Unless you assume an unlimited supply of campaign dollars, every dollar Clinton has is a dollar unavailable to her potential competition.
If the mistake was made once, that would be one thing, but the NY Times timeline of the Telfer donations is that they were made over the course of several years, in which case, the same mistake is happening over and over, indicating a systemic problem rather than a one-off.
The systemic problem theory is rather reinforced by the news that the Foundation is amending several years worth of tax returns.
That reminds me of the Louis Lerner hard drive crash story. Of all the hard drives at the IRS hers is the one that just happened to have an unfortunate malfunction.
Oh, hers wasn't the only one, and I'm sure it's all a coincidence. Or at least that's what the Kool-Aid drinkers will tell you.
The IRS said in its report on Friday that the agency now knows of five more employees who are missing e-mails because of hard-drive crashes. The staff members include: Judy Kindell, who was Lerner’s former senior adviser; IRS tax-law specialist Justin Lowe, who worked with Kindell; IRS manager Ron Shoemaker, who helped oversee the cases in question; and two Cincinnati-based IRS employees who had worked on some of the cases.
"Unless you assume an unlimited supply of campaign dollars, every dollar Clinton has is a dollar unavailable to her potential competition."
I suspect there's plenty of money available for both sides of next year's battle--at least enough for viable alternatives in the primaries. The bigger issue as I see it is the Clintons have scared off most donors by telling them they will have no access once Hillary wins unless they close their wallets to any other candidates from the get-go. They've successfully bullied the moneymen, advisers and politicians within the Democratic party, and only a crack in her inevitability will upend this noxious strategy.
What I don't understand is, all these people who have to trot out and defend the Clintons all the time are rich and powerful in one way or another. No matter what happens to the Clintons, those same people will remain rich and powerful because they are "In." With that in mind...
Is there anyone here who can say that you wouldn't just be tired of defending those grifters and just say "f you, you criminals, you're on your own"? I mean twenty five plus years of the same shit.
All of this quibbling about millions and billions is particularly rich (pun intended) from the front runner of a party with a plank on income inequality and from the candidate wanting to 'topple the one percent'. Rich, indeed.
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold"
And so it is with Hillary's campaign and the Clinton Foundation.
Bit by bit it will crumble. Just to much damn baggage. To many lies to explain.
And a nod to Yeats for his insight.
"All of this quibbling about millions and billions is particularly rich (pun intended) from the front runner of a party with a plank on income inequality and from the candidate wanting to 'topple the one percent'."
Another reason a lot of Democrats will want to jettison these creeps--it kills what is their most animating campaign argument (the fight against the privileged 1% and growing inequality). It's like the way the GOP felt hamstrung in 2012 campaigning against Obamacare when they nominated Romney, whose own health care plan in MA was very similar to the ACA. It undercut his line of attack.
Lanny Davis claims the 2.35 million is below some level of materiality and that it did not constitute a “major” contribution. As an auditor, it just warms my heart to hear someone use such terminology. I doubt the Foundation’s auditor will be making those assertions. When accounting is done correctly, the finger is always pointing out the door. Unfortunately, that level of accounting is always difficult and expensive. I would have thought that the Clinton’s would appreciate the risks. But they missed on some pretty obvious reporting requirements.
What is the materiality level for fraud? There is no materiality level for fraud.
"I mean twenty five plus years of the same shit."
I forget who, but some writer about ten years ago said the best predictor of who will and won't be elected president is that you can't have been in "higher office" (member of Congress, governor, Cabinet officer, or mayor of a big city) for more than 14 years before getting elected president. (Being VP can toll that period, as it did for George HW Bush and Nixon) The idea was that after 14 years in the spotlight the candidate becomes stale, and enough time passes for more scandals to come out. Even if we don't count Hillary's First Ladydom as "higher office", she'll have reached 16 years by 2016, and by all accounts her candidacy is already stale.
They just didn't want to waste any of that hard earned donor money things like accountants, legal advise, or ethics consultants.
Brando wrote -
"The bigger issue as I see it is the Clintons have scared off most donors by telling them they will have no access once Hillary wins unless they close their wallets to any other candidates from the get-go."
Not only will I reiterate my second point, but suggest your own words are nothing more than another way of saying a dollar not available to her potential competition.
The best part of this is that while it was all going on, every Clintonite knew Hillary was going to run for President (and actually did in 2008) and no one seemed to have thought "hey, do you think just possibly taking all this payola from foreign despots, particularly while she's Secretary of State, might come back to bite us in the ass? No? Just me then? Okay!"
"Not only will I reiterate my second point, but suggest your own words are nothing more than another way of saying a dollar not available to her potential competition."
I don't disagree, my point is that it's not so much that the money isn't there (because donors already gave everything they can afford) but that the donors themselves have been spooked, and won't make donations to anyone else unless they believe Hillary isn't going to get elected.
The Clintonistas want to argue about the meaning of "major" since it diverts attention from the real crime.
The Constitution forbids Hillary from taking money from foreign governments and federal law prohibits her from receiving gifts valued at more that $315. Yet that is exactly what she did with Bill's speaking fees. You can't separate Bill's wealth from Hillary's.
She's a crook.
Has anyone considered that these "drips" are simply akin to "trial balloons of graft"? Just how much "illegality" is the American public willing to absorb and STILL pull the lever...
AprilApple said...
Clintons keep piling on the lies.
only small percentage goes to charity.
The key to understanding charity/NGO finances are "program" costs. Charities/NGOs promote the idea that this is some tightly monitored number that demonstrably benefits the charitable recipient. This belief is completely false. There is in fact no link between "program costs" and benefit.
Included in "program" costs are the salaries and employment expenses of anyone they claim is working on the project, even if that work is in an administrative capacity rather than direct. Further there are no limits on salaries, nor are performance returns required to justify classifying people as program workers. There is literally no required public information that allows anyone to judge how effective a charity deploys the money it receives.
Unless you have access to inside information the integrity of management is the sole basis for judging anything.
The Left is cool with Hillary breaking the rules
What rule did she break and who is going to file a complaint or lawsuit?
What rule did she break
Preserving emails from her tenure in government service, for starters.
And even though the AG doesn't want to press charges hardly makes it legal.
@Althouse, admit it. If Hillary Clinton is the best you women have as a legitimate presidential candidate, then you have absolutely nothing.
Hubert Humphrey was nearly elected President in 1968, and it was 16 years from the time he was elected Senator in 1948 till he was elected Vice President.
Gearld Ford was a member of the House of Represenatives for 25 years before becoming Vice President, but maybe that's not a major office. He was House Republican leader for about 9 years.
This "rule" would have said that John McCain had no chance to be elected president in 2008, having been 22 years in the Senate. But his first shot was in the year 2000, when it as only 14 years.
I think the reaosn for the 14-year period is that if somebody is going to make it, they will have made it by then, and new people come along too.
Please note, Romney actually employed lots of people, including many who disagreed with him, in building his fortune.
Can Hillary, who is worth FAR more, say the same?
Is there anyone here who can say that you wouldn't just be tired of defending those grifters and just say "f you, you criminals, you're on your own"? I mean twenty five plus years of the same shit.
When you're on the gravy train, it's hard to get off it. Also, no doubt, the Clintons have dirt on most of their friends.
Preserving emails from her tenure in government service, for starters.
And Republicans do nothing? What good are they?
Well, Well, Well, here's a hundred (and one) comments that will change the direction of Democratic voters forever. Sigh...
I think Oswald was right, the Italians make the best tools to empower voters.
And Republicans do nothing? What good are they?
With an AG who won't press charges, their options are exceptionally limited.
Mitchell was a piker when compared to Holder.
And Republicans do nothing? What good are they?
Well certainly the 10 Republican senators who voted for Lynch's confirmation without demanding and receiving strong assurances that she would investigate Clinton's Emails are no damned good at all. I had hopes for Kelly Ayotte.
With an AG who won't press charges, their options are exceptionally limited.
What should the charges be? And really......Republicans can't even hold a hearing?
"With an AG who won't press charges, their options are exceptionally limited."
They could have impeached Hillary when she was Secretary if they had this info at the time (and I'm not sure why they didn't have this info). For now, they can demand an investigation from the AG, and if the AG refuses to prosecute, they could impeach the AG on grounds of obstruction of justice.
They have tools to use, I suspect they either don't have enough hard evidence or are waiting until they do.
Wasn't it Bill Clinton who said size doesn't matter?
"Hubert Humphrey was nearly elected President in 1968, and it was 16 years from the time he was elected Senator in 1948 till he was elected Vice President.
Gearld Ford was a member of the House of Represenatives for 25 years before becoming Vice President, but maybe that's not a major office. He was House Republican leader for about 9 years.
This "rule" would have said that John McCain had no chance to be elected president in 2008, having been 22 years in the Senate. But his first shot was in the year 2000, when it as only 14 years."
Which arguably is why none of them got elected president. I think the writer found the one exception to the rule to be LBJ, who was elected to Congress 23 years before becoming VP.
What should the charges be?
So, not finished beclowning yourself, huh?
You, honestly, bore me to tears. Nothing but unintellectual nonsense and "SQUIRREL!" posts.
I think I'll commence ignoring you.
They have tools to use, I suspect they either don't have enough hard evidence or are waiting until they do.
Wouldn't removal from office require supermajorities?
That'd require Dems to join --- and they won't do that.
Brando said...
"They have tools to use, I suspect they either don't have enough hard evidence or are waiting until they do."
Or know or suspect the NSA has something on them... And even if they're pure as the driven snow, if anyone says it ain't so, the webbers can say and spread and by God, *make* it true... Or least once it's turned loose "out there" you can't ever reign it back in. The lie will persist.
It's so sad that we have such a lawless POTUS and lawless SoS and poor Republicans don't have any tools whatsoever to do anything about it.
"Wouldn't removal from office require supermajorities?
That'd require Dems to join --- and they won't do that."
It would--but if the GOP has real evidence here (after investigation and hearings, which the Senate and House are authorized to do) of illegal activity, presumably the public pressure would be enough that it would be too much for the Democrats (even the AG who, remember, has not particular loyalty to the Clintons) to resist.
It'd be different from the late '90s impeachment, because this time we wouldn't be talking about perjury in a civil trial--egregious as it is for a president to perjure himself, the Dems were able to get a lot of mileage out of "hey, he's just lying about sex! Who here is a perfect saint?" Even when voters were disgusted by Clinton, they didn't find that crime to rise to a "remove the president from office" sin.
This time around, we're talking about a politician selling access and influence to foreign thugs and despots, and using a charity as a money laundering operation. That's much harder to minimize, and can't be written off as "personal business"--it's a serious abuse of power and has national security implications. And, we wouldn't be talking about taking down a sitting president, but pushing the AG to prosecute a crooked politician.
I think whether the GOP can do anything at this point is going to come down to what evidence emerges. I think the Clintons did some illegal activity here, but whether the evidence is there to successfully prosecute I don't know--do we need a smoking gun, such as testimony from a staffer, or a memo outlining the quid pro quo?
I suspect they either don't have enough hard evidence or are waiting until they do
Don't charge her, let her make her fruitless run for President.
Even if she says on the stump (not likely) that she was never charged, she'll still be reminding people about everything that is distasteful about the Clinton$.
"It's so sad that we have such a lawless POTUS and lawless SoS and poor Republicans don't have any tools whatsoever to do anything about it."
Sadder still that we have people still willing to defend these creeps. Unlike Lanny Davis, you're not even getting money in exchange for lowering yourself to defend them.
"Don't charge her, let her make her fruitless run for President.
Even if she says on the stump (not likely) that she was never charged, she'll still be reminding people about everything that is distasteful about the Clinton$."
Maybe, but if the GOP finds a way to still screw up the election, we'll basically have been giving foreign dictators the best democracy their money could buy.
This couple belongs in jail, just like Chelsea's creepy inlaws. Hopefully something emerges so that Obama can twist the knife in. It's not like he doesn't have good reason to--what good would a Clinton presidency be for him?
This couple belongs in jail, just like Chelsea's creepy inlaws.
For exactly.....what?
"For exactly.....what?"
Accepting bribes.
Accepting bribes.
I don't think taking bribes is illegal. Scott Walker is a presidential candidate, and he took bribes.
garage mahal said...
Partisan witch hunt. Why do conservatives hate freedom and love fascists so much?
Phoning it in today?
Don't feed the trolls!
It would--but if the GOP has real evidence here (after investigation and hearings, which the Senate and House are authorized to do) of illegal activity, presumably the public pressure would be enough that it would be too much for the Democrats (even the AG who, remember, has not particular loyalty to the Clintons) to resist.
I'd love to believe that, but I cannot think of a time in the history of their party where Dems actually did anything against their own.
I'll buy that they are remotely able to see right and wrong when they show some capacity to do so.
This time around, we're talking about a politician selling access and influence to foreign thugs and despots, and using a charity as a money laundering operation. That's much harder to minimize, and can't be written off as "personal business"--it's a serious abuse of power and has national security implications. And, we wouldn't be talking about taking down a sitting president, but pushing the AG to prosecute a crooked politician.
They'll run with "You can't prove anything" (Hillary erasing her emails makes a ton of sense now) and call it all a distraction from what "the people" really care about. Then partisan hacks like Georgie of ABC will criticize the partisanship of their critics (which he did on Sunday, with no hint of irony).
We couldn't get the AG to prosecute a mid-level IRS flunkie who rather blatantly violated the law.
I think whether the GOP can do anything at this point is going to come down to what evidence emerges. I think the Clintons did some illegal activity here, but whether the evidence is there to successfully prosecute I don't know--do we need a smoking gun, such as testimony from a staffer, or a memo outlining the quid pro quo?
Dems don't ever leave the reservation. So, no, nobody will talk.
And she deleted A LOT of email for reasons that are utterly inane (not that the press minded).
"I don't think taking bribes is illegal. Scott Walker is a presidential candidate, and he took bribes."
Ok, I made the mistake of thinking you were actually putting together an argument. Duly noted.
It's so sad that we have such a lawless POTUS and lawless SoS and poor Republicans don't have any tools whatsoever to do anything about it.
Yet. November 2016 is coming.
"They'll run with "You can't prove anything" (Hillary erasing her emails makes a ton of sense now) and call it all a distraction from what "the people" really care about. Then partisan hacks like Georgie of ABC will criticize the partisanship of their critics (which he did on Sunday, with no hint of irony)."
That's exactly what I expect them to do--and as long as they can make a plausible case they will do exactly what they did in 1998.
If it gets to that point, the thing to watch is how the general public reacts. Clinton still had high ratings during his scandals, particularly among moderates (it helped that the economy was doing well and he'd successfully demonized Newt and Co. for the previous few years) so the Dems circled the wagons and partisanized it. Compare that to Nixon in 1974 (also helped that the economy was in the stinker and crime rates were balooning)--his approvals were low already, and the scandal was much harder to defend--testimony by staffers (e.g. John Dean), existence of tapes with parts erased (similar to this e-mail thing) and the scandal involved payola and abuse of power (closer to what Hillary did recently than to "perjury-gate"). If the people, presented with this, are outraged enough, the Dems will start abandoning ship.
To begin with, the GOP should call for investigations, and conduct their own even if the DOJ is already doing so. If they find something solid, which is possible (Hillary has been pretty stupid about this) then expose it and bring the pressure for prosecution. If they don't, it still helps them politically by drawing out the dirty money moves by these crooks.
Ok, I made the mistake of thinking you were actually putting together an argument. Duly noted.
Hahaha. I think I get it now.
Funds sent to Republicans = protected free speech and those questioning it are fascists.
Funds sent to Democrats = bribery and Democrats should go to jail.
Like I've said, you guys are so goddam predictable.
To begin with, the GOP should call for investigations, and conduct their own even if the DOJ is already doing so.
It'd be nice --- but we can say, with some certainty, how the press will cover it.
And, unlike with Republicans, there are no Dems who will "roll over" on their bosses.
If they find something solid, which is possible (Hillary has been pretty stupid about this) then expose it and bring the pressure for prosecution. If they don't, it still helps them politically by drawing out the dirty money moves by these crooks.
Thing is, the threshold the press will hold is too high to cross (again, lots of evidence deleted by Hillary and the press is barely mentioning that in regards to this) and it will simply be "They are spending a ton of time and they are proving nothing".
Nixon was undone, in the end, because Nixon had some semblance of shame. I don't believe either Clinton has that.
"It's not a lie...if you believe it." - George Costanza.
what good would a Clinton presidency be for [Obama]?
He would shine in comparison?
Partisan witch hunt. Why do conservatives hate freedom and love fascists so much?
Well, there haven't been any illegal pre-dawn raids...yet.
Well, there haven't been any illegal pre-dawn raids...yet.
Sounds like there should be a substantial lawsuit brought forth for the parties whose homes were illegally raided. I'd hate to be the LEOs who carried these raids out.
"Nixon was undone, in the end, because Nixon had some semblance of shame. I don't believe either Clinton has that."
The Clintons have no shame, but what took Nixon down was that his defense was unsustainable. The GOP couldn't defend him any longer as it was becoming too clear that he'd obstructed justice. Many of the Republicans in '74 were already distrustful of Nixon (Goldwater never really liked him, and a number of congressional Republicans had been opposed to his Vietnam policy) so they weren't too invested in him at that point either, and weren't ready to fall on their swords for him.
I sense a lot of Democrats are feeling that way about the Clintons now--as I mentioned, it's different now than it was in 1998--and even the media doesn't seem that interested in covering for them (which is why this story isn't confined to Fox News or Drudge Report). If something solid emerges here--something that gets the attention of the public--I am optimistic that the Clintons will go down. I even think Obama--who owes nothing to them--will twist the knife in that case, as he should (it might be the bipartisan outreach he long ago promised!).
If this happens--something solid comes up and the polling reacts accordingly--and I'm proven wrong by Democrats circling their wagons as they did in 1998, then this country's screwed. There's something sick about a political system where a major party can excuse blatant corruption simply for partisan advantage.
Latest plan: Get Chelsea and Bill out there to extol the work of the foundation -- Bill, Chelsea Going to Africa to Prove Clinton Foundation Is Not Sleazy:
"Next week is a chance to refocus some of the attention on the work that the foundation does. While in Africa, Bill and Chelsea Clinton will meet with Ebola survivors in Liberia, tour a school that is a part of the foundation’s “No Ceilings” initiative dedicated to raising the prospects of women and girls in developing nations, visit a maize field overseen by a single mother in Malawi as part of an effort to increase farm yields in Africa, and visit an “Avon-style” women run solar energy distribution cooperative."
Think it'll be all over the nightly news?
"Next week is a chance to refocus some of the attention on the work that the foundation does. While in Africa, Bill and Chelsea Clinton will meet with Ebola survivors in Liberia, tour a school that is a part of the foundation’s “No Ceilings” initiative dedicated to raising the prospects of women and girls in developing nations, visit a maize field overseen by a single mother in Malawi as part of an effort to increase farm yields in Africa, and visit an “Avon-style” women run solar energy distribution cooperative."
Think it'll be all over the nightly news?
Will their "donation" be smaller or larger than the cost to actually travel there in the first place?
Please do not feed the troll!
Garage is a proven liar. What is the point of engaging him?
If we ignore him, he might just go away. He has never added anything useful to any conversation I have seen on this site.
I hope Mrs Clinton keeps at it long enough for her campaign to be sending out those emails that request '$50, $20, $10, even $5!! to save the Nation from...' however they choose to characterise her opponents: the multiple levels of irony and deception there will make AA's post, having received one of them, the high point of my day online.
Hillary: I am big. It's the mistakes that got small.
What is the point of engaging him?
True.
Unless of course you are conducting a medical survey analyzing the long-term effects of middle-school contact sports (sometimes even with "blackys"!!) on those in the shallow end of the "academic performance pool".
Lydia, everything will get outsized favorable publicity except the fact that Bill is fucking Chelsea.
Why so shocked? She's not his daughter.
Post a Comment