PDA

View Full Version : Hillary Scandal!!!



David G
08-27-2016, 11:45 AM
Oops... nevermind. Again.



As denunciations of the Associated Press continue to mount, and the wire service tries to defend (http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12630586/ap-response-clinton-foundation) its wildly misleading report (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f625/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state) about the Clinton Foundation donors Hillary Clinton met with or talked to while serving as secretary of state, keep in mind the AP now joins a long list of news outlets that have been burned chasing Clinton-related 'scandal' stories in recent years.

Out to prove that Clinton was granting special access to foundation supporters, and that “possible ethics challenges” loomed if she were elected president, the AP announced on Twitter (https://twitter.com/AP/status/768166957728358400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) that “half” the people she met with while running the State Department had donated to her family charity. The claim set off a media firestorm, but it was completely false.

Unfortunately, there’s a long tradition of media players practicing tunnel vision in pursuit of hollow Clinton gotcha stories; stories that instantly portray her, sometimes alongside President Obama, as being villainous or deceitful, but turn out to be flat wrong.

Remember in 2015 when The New York Times accused (http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/13/the-new-york-times-reverses-course-on-clintons/202894) Clinton of having possibly "violated federal requirements" for document retention with her use of personal email for official government business? It turned out that hint of criminality was invented by the Times, as several news outlets subsequently confirmed (http://bit.ly/1x6C95O).

In 2013, ABC News’ Jonathan Karl got duped (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/14/when-abc-news-claimed-it-had-obtained-the-bengh/194076) by a (likely Republican) source regarding the contents of White House emails discussing the formulation of talking points in the wake of the Benghazi terror attack. Going off bad intel, the ABC exclusive accused the administration of having "scrubbed" vital information from the talking points, which sparked a media frenzy. (Karl later expressed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/19/jonathan-karl-benghazi-regrets_n_3302891.html) “regret” for the flaws in the report.)

That same year, CBS’ Lara Logan presented a bogus Benghazi investigation on 60 Minutes that relied on a supposed eyewitness to the terror attack; an eyewitness who previously told the FBI (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/01/60-minutes-benghazi-report-takes-a-huge-credibi/196705) he had been nowhere near the U.S. diplomatic compound on the night of the killings. (The “witness” also told Logan he had scaled a twelve-foot high wall during the attack in order to bash a terrorist in the face.)
Now the AP joins that list.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/26/associated-press-becomes-latest-get-burned-chasing-clinton-scandal-stories/212690

David G
08-27-2016, 11:48 AM
https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p480x480/14045885_1095017523920938_7808048282375952878_n.pn g?oh=9abf7f553e22fb573033dac5ca3a790d&oe=584696DF

Ian McColgin
08-27-2016, 11:54 AM
Most Clinton scandals are manufactured in the perfervid imaginations of Republicans embittered by their lives as losers.

Domesticated_Mr. Know It All
08-27-2016, 05:23 PM
What about the pickle jar incident?



http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/hillaryjimmy2.png

David G
08-27-2016, 08:49 PM
We don't SPEAK of the pickle jar incident.

At least not at my house. I have no idea what Hillary's pj incident was...

Ian McColgin
08-27-2016, 09:02 PM
Does Hillary know which way the pickle bends?

Waddie
08-28-2016, 12:18 AM
"It doesn’t exactly take a jaded disposition to doubt that these donations from some of the world’s most repressive regimes are motivated by a desire to aid the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work. To the contrary, it just requires basic rationality. That’s particularly true given that these regimes (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article24782695.html#storylink=cpy) “have donated vastly more money to the Clinton Foundation than they have to most other large private charities involved in the kinds of global work championed by the Clinton family.” For some mystifying reason, they seem particularly motivated to transfer millions to the Clinton Foundation but not the other charities around the world doing similar work. Why might that be? What could ever explain it?...

Some Clinton partisans, unwilling to claim that Gulf tyrants have charity in their hearts when they make these donations to the Clinton Foundation, have settled on a different tactic: grudgingly acknowledging that the motive of these donations is to obtain access and favors, but insisting that no quid pro quo can be proven. In other words, these regimes were tricked: They thought they would get all sorts of favors through these millions in donations, but Hillary Clinton was simply too honest and upstanding of a public servant to fulfill their expectations.
The reality is that there is ample evidence (http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187) uncovered by journalists (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-charity.html) suggesting that regimes donating money to the Clinton Foundation received special access to (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-reveal-how-foundation-donors-got-access-to-clinton-and-her-close-aides-at-state-dept/2016/08/22/345b5200-6882-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html) and even highly favorable treatment (http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/emails-show-clinton-foundation-donor-reached-out-hillary-clinton-arms-export-boost) from the Clinton State Department. But it’s also true that nobody can dispositively prove the quid pro quo. Put another way, one cannot prove what was going on inside Hillary Clinton’s head at the time that she gave access to or otherwise acted in the interests of these donor regimes: Was she doing it as a favor in return for those donations, or simply because she has a proven affinity for Gulf State and Arab dictators (https://theintercept.com/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-stalwart-friend-of-worlds-worst-despots-attacks-sanders-latin-american-activism/), or because she was merely continuing decades of U.S. policy of propping up pro-U.S. tyrants in the region?......

While this “no quid pro quo proof” may be true as far as it goes, it’s extremely ironic that Democrats have embraced it as a defense of Hillary Clinton. After all, this has long been the primary argument of Republicans who oppose campaign finance reform, and indeed, it was the primary argument of the Citizens United majority, once depicted by Democrats as the root of all evil. But now, Democrats have to line up behind a politician who, along with her husband, specializes in uniting political power with vast private wealth (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/clinton-money/), in constantly exploiting the latter to gain the former, and vice versa. So Democrats are forced to jettison all the good-government principles they previously claimed to believe and instead are now advocating the crux of the right-wing case against campaign finance reform: that large donations from vested factions are not inherently corrupting of politics or politicians.....

Clinton-defending Democrats have now become the most vocal champions of the primary argument used by the Citizens United majority. “We now conclude,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the Citizens United majority, “that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” That is now exactly the argument Clinton loyalists are spouting to defend the millions in donations from tyrannical regimes (as well as Wall Street banks and hedge funds): Oh, there’s no proof there’s any corruption going on with all of this money.....

So if you want to defend the millions of dollars that went from tyrannical regimes to the Clinton Foundation as some sort of wily, pragmatic means of doing good work, go right ahead. But stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by pretending that these donations were motivated by noble ends."

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/25/why-did-the-saudi-regime-and-other-gulf-tyrannies-donate-millions-to-the-clinton-foundation/

regards,
Waddie

skuthorp
08-28-2016, 05:21 AM
Some very well connected Chinese business' have made large donations to both of our major political parties, and they were accepted. I am absolutely sure that these donations were not given for pure charity and admiration for the Australian political system.

David G
08-28-2016, 01:08 PM
The Clinton Foundation --


CharityWatch President On CNN: “The Clinton Foundation Is An Excellent Charity,” People Could Die If It Shuts Down CharityWatch’s Daniel Borochoff: Metrics Show “They Have Good Governance And Accountability,” “Great Financial Efficiency,” And “Valuable, Important Programs That Help A Lot Of People”


https://mediamatters.org/video/2016/08/24/charitywatch-president-cnn-clinton-foundation-excellent-charity-people-could-die-if-it-shuts-down/212633

Waddie
08-28-2016, 03:32 PM
The Arab dictators, always concerned with women's equality, and supportive of gays, not to mention HIV treatment, all seem to think it's a good place to send money..... :)

regards,
Waddie

ccmanuals
08-28-2016, 04:11 PM
Now this is interesting,


As the conservative media networks drive themselves into a muckraking feeding frenzy over the prospect of the upcoming work of fiction titled Clinton Cash, written by a professional right-wing conspiracy theorist and political hitman, the rest of America has picked up the question of foundation accountability out of curiosity and the tempting allure of scandal. But, in one of the countless hypocritical reversals that are all too common in modern American politics, it turns out that the Bush family foundations have been acting like they have something to hide, while the Clintons have publicly released key information about all their donors, such as identity and approximate amount donated. In typical Republican fashion, they are projecting their own corruption onto Democrats and accusing the transparent Clinton Foundation of accepting the same kinds of secret bribes that the Bush Foundation has been taking for years.

Nonprofits are not obligated to reveal their sources, but the Clinton Foundation has been revealing their donors since 2008, ever since Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, to avoid the very allegations her campaign is now being falsely smeared with. Foreign governments could have donated to her foundation in secret, as the “investigative author” fictitious propaganda writer Peter Schweizer has alleged- but the donor list, made public in a searchable database, reveals that the foundation is clean. Tom Watson of Forbes even wrote that “in truth, the Clinton Foundation is among the most forthcoming of major charities and nonprofit foundations—especially those headed by public figures.”

On the other hand, the George Bush Foundation raised $361.8 million dollars between 2010-2013 with no attempt at accountability or transparency. While the conservative media obsesses over creating false scandals to smear Hillary with, there is absolutely no discussion about the fact that the Dallas Morning News has investigated the Bush Foundation and found donations not only from politically connected millionaires like Sheldon Adelson but also foreign governments like the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.

The conservative propaganda machine is desperately trying to frame Hillary Clinton for accepting publicly transparent donations while she was Secretary of State, but the secret donations accepted by the Bush Foundation are much more alarming. Not only did the Bush Foundation accept undisclosed donations from millionaires while he was President, but the Dallas Morning News found evidence that “a top Bush Center booster, California investor Elliott Broidy, pleaded guilty in 2009 to a role in a corruption scandal. Another big donor, Dallas oilman and major SMU supporter Edwin L. Cox, had his son pardoned by former President George H.W. Bush.” Nobody knows what other favors and policy changes were unethically bought during the Bush Administration, but we can only assume that there are many more skeletons buried in the Bush’s closet.

David Corn of Mother Jones puts it in perspective: “Anyone who wanted to gain favor with the Bush clan while George W. Bush was president could have anonymously donated an unlimited amount of money to his father’s foundation, and now that Jeb Bush is in the hunt, anyone looking to fashion a relationship with the Bushes can contribute millions to either of these Bush foundations and keep that connection a secret.”

Similarly, the George Bush Presidential Library has assets of $47 million and receives $3 million a year from undisclosed donations, functioning as yet another vehicle to funnel campaign and influence money through with no record or transparency, and was accepting donations all throughout George W. Bush’s presidency- another way for the millionaires of America to buy power and favors while trampling over the American democracy.

It’s worth repeating; the Clinton Foundation publicly releases the names of every donor and the amount of each donation, while the Bush Foundations accepted secret, anonymous donations of undisclosed quantities.

The hypocrisy is almost too much to bear. The Republican game is to divert attention from their own dealings and redirect it towards their rivals, using any kind of misinformation, yellow journalism, and straight up falsehood to cover their own sketchy plots. They’ve somehow managed to turn even charitable organizations into an arm of their corrupt money-funneling networks, and are instead smearing real foundations and real candidates trying to improve the lives of Americans and pull our country away from descending into all-out oligarchy.