Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on May 17, 2015 in 2016 Elections, 2016 Presidential Election, At TMV, Scandals | 58 comments

Clinton’s Unethical Behavior Has Already Been Well Established–And It Has Nothing To Do With The Right

As I discussed once again yesterday, many Democrats are ignoring the serious ethical breaches which have been written about Hillary Clinton, both in the past couple of months and further back, from liberal as well as conservative sources. To a certain degree the right gives her cover as, in addition to the many proven accusations against her raised by the left, there are additional false accusations against her from the right, leading some to falsely conclude that all accusations against Clinton are as bogus as Benghazi. Clinton apologists are now using a rather irrelevant article in The New York Times to justify ignoring the strong case against Clinton. The article cites actions from the past months by conservative groups, ignoring the fact that many on the left has felt that Clinton is both unethical and too conservative for many years.

A post at The Moderate Voice (where many of my posts are reposted) which cites this article takes on the surface might be called a moderate viewpoint but actually ignores the facts of the matter:

I will wait for the results of impartial, independent investigations on allegations such as “E-Mail Gate” and the Clinton Foundation.

And I will definitely not fall for what the extreme right, or the extreme left, allege about Hillary Clinton.

In actuality, while additional facts will likely continue to be found, all the information to prove Clinton’s ethical misconduct and violation of rules in effect when she was Secretary of State are already in. Criticism of Clinton comes from all parts of the political spectrum, not just the extreme right and left. There is no such thing as an “impartial, independent investigation” to occur on a public official out of office, especially those as powerful as the Clintons. There are no such “independent investigations” of candidates other than from the media. We must go by the well-established facts that we do have to judge whether she is fit to be president. Here is what we do know:

When Hillary Clinton was made Secretary of State there was tremendous concern, from members of both parties, about the conflicts of interest this entails. Two rules were established to attempt to prevent conflicts of interest. The first applied to all cabinet officials after the email scandals of the Bush years (which Clinton included in her attacks on the Bush administration for shredding the Constitution). To increase transparency, rules were established by the Obama administration in 2009 for all email to be archived on government servers. Clinton violated this, and used the private server to keep information both from Congress and the media. The top Freedom of Information Act official at the Justice Department has stated that Clinton was in violation of the rules and the State Department’s top Freedom of Information Act officer has called her use of a private server unacceptable. An ambassador under Clinton was even fired with failure to abide by rules related to not using private email being cited as a reason by the Inspector General (pdf of report here). Buzzfeed recently obtained email showing that the top lawyer for the National Archives also expressed concern over Clinton’s use of a private server.

After Clinton’s press conference about the email scandal, news media fact checkers showed ares in which she was lying, especially with her claim of not breaking the rules. AP subsequently also found that her claim about not wanting to use two devices out of convenience did not hold up as she was actually using two devices for email when Secretary of State.

Not only did Clinton fail to abide by the policies in effect, when this became publicly known she destroyed evidence in wiping the server.

The second rule which applied exclusively to Hillary Clinton’s situation was that the contributions to the Clinton Foundation be disclosed. Hillary Clinton agreed to this, but failed to abide by the agreement and did not disclose over a thousand donors. The Foundation also failed to disclose many of these on their tax forms and was caught lying about this issue.

We also know that Bill Clinton saw an unprecedented increase in payments for giving speeches when Hillary became Secretary of State from organizations and countries which subsequently received favorable intervention from Clinton. His speaking fees jumped from 150,000 to typically 500,000, and as high as 750,000. Contributions to the Clinton Foundation raise similar ethical concerns. This week we also received evidence that Hillary Clinton personally benefited financially.Ezra Klein discussed how this was both unethical and showed poor judgment. The income from

Clinton apologists have argued that there is not evidence of a quid pro quo, but to require this is a higher standard of proof which others are subjected to. Direct evidence of a Instead guilt is generally established based upon patterns of behavior, including failing to follow the rules in effect and such transfers of money to a politician from those who have received benefits. Destruction of evidence is typically interpreted to mean that the destroyed evidence is unfavorable to the accused. Lawrence Lessig, director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University, recently wrote:

Even if no deals are made, the influence of special-interest super PACs is a corrupting influence on American democracy. Even without a quid pro quo, the incredible concentration of direct contributions from a tiny fraction of the wealthiest 1 percent of the population is a corrupting ­influence.

Corruption is not just a contract. Corruption is also a kind of economy — an economy of influence that leads any sane soul to the fair belief that private influence has affected public policy. It is for this reason that practically every Democrat has insisted that the court’s Citizens United decision (and its progeny) needs to be reversed. It is this idea that has motivated millions to petition Congress to propose an amendment for that reversal…

That consensus among Democrats has now been shattered by a book by conservative writer Peter Schweizer. In “Clinton Cash,” Schweizer charges Bill and Hillary Clinton with corruption. Not because there is evidence of any particular bribe. Instead, their corruption, Schweizer says, comes from a pattern of behavior: a constant (and, by the end of the book, practically grotesque) story of cash passing from people seeking the government’s favor to either Bill Clinton (and hence Hillary Clinton) or the Clinton Foundation. The rapaciousness alone is enough to give one pause: Seriously, don’t we pay former presidents enough?

Yet all this, the Clintons and their defenders insist, is not corruption because Schweizer has provided no smoking gun. He has offered “no evidence” of a quid pro quo trade.

Welcome to Wonderland: Were the alleged influencers the Koch brothers, with the same kind of pattern charged against them — their channeling support to Republican representatives, those representatives in turn acting in a way that reflected the desires of the Kochs — there would be no doubt that Democrats would rally to attack that influence as Exhibit No. 1 in the case against the corruption of Washington. But apparently now those loyal to the Democratic presidential front-runner will have to be more careful in their criticism. Apparently now the party line must be: Even if someone benefited personally, and enormously, and even if there is a repeated series of victories for those exercising their influence, there’s no corruption unless Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. would see it as corruption — meaning again, no corruption unless a quid pro quo.

Democrats need to think carefully about whether this is really a principle they want to defend — while they insist that we need to amend the Constitution to ban independent contributions and expenditures as corrupt even if no quid pro quo is shown.

Likewise, the Republicans now railing against the Clintons need to recognize just how easy it is for them to see corruption even where no one can show a quid pro quo.

We all should agree that the economy of influence that Washington has become is corrupt, the Supreme Court notwithstanding, and all finally move on to the only important question: What can we do to fix it?

On any fair reading, the pattern of behavior that Schweizer has charged is corruption. If the Clintons are going to defend against it, they need to do more than to cite Chief Justice Roberts. And soon.

David Sirota has also recently written in Salon about the hypocrisy of Democrats who oppose the Citizens United ruling while giving Hillary Clinton a free pass.

Common Cause has called for an independent audit of the Clinton Foundation. Charity watch dog organizations such as Charity Navigator have placed the Foundation on their watchlist.

Clinton would be receiving this criticism even if conservative groups were not further publicizing her actions. The case against the Clintons is based upon what the Clintons have done–not actions by any conservative group the last couple of months.While we have more information, this is not anything new. The Clintons have been criticized for similar ethical problems for many years by both liberal and nonpartisan organizations concerned with ethics and transparency in government. For example, The Sunlight Foundation has archived an article from The New York Times criticizing Hillary Clinton for similar ethical violations in 2009.

Liberals have objected to Clinton’s conservative views, along with her ethical violations, during the 2008 campaign and earlier. Hillary Clinton is essentially a Joe Lieberman Democrat on foreign policy, civil liberties, and social issues, and many liberals have felt for a long time that she should be ostracized by Democrats as Lieberman ultimately was. I discussed how her hawkish foreign policy views were unacceptable to the left in this post from August 2014, along with past posts. I pointed out her long history of poor judgment on policy issues in this post from June 2014, citing an article from The National Journal. I recently cited an article from Mother Jones written in 2007 on Clinton’s cultural conservatism, including her poor record regarding separation of church and state. Clinton has received similar criticism from liberals, and those concerned about ethics in government, going back much longer. Criticism of Clinton from the left has nothing to do with actions from conservatives.

Cross posted from Liberal Values

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 The Moderate Voice
  • Dr Ron my friend we have agreed on most everything for a number of years. But if you expect ethical behavior from politicians you are Don Quixote tipping your hat at windmills.

    • It is not a matter of expecting it but of exposing the most flagrant violators in the hopes that they will be less likely to get elected. That is why all the watchdog organizations do what they do.

    • Thinking more about this, your statement could also be easily changed to cover many of the other issues I primarily back beyond government ethics and transparency. We are also not going to see most candidates make civil liberties, separation of church and state, reducing foreign intervention, or ending the drug war major issues, and most will compromise on these for political expediency and other reasons.

      However the fact remains that there are are politicians who are better and those who are worse on these and it is worth supporting those who are better and advocating for the views I believe in. To a certain degree blogging about any hoped for views from politicians is a bit Quixotic, but we will never see change if nobody advocates for it.

      • Billy Samuels

        Good point. Hillary is better than any Republican possibility and therefore the best alternative.I vote on policy not “ethics” That word is thrown around as if any politician has it. I want a supreme court that values privacy rights and the value of all Americans…not just white heterosexuals. Hillary will ensure that and that is one of many reasons I support her.

        • Sure Hillary is better than any Republican choice but that is a low bar. The question now is who the Democrats should nominate.

          I also oppose Clinton on policy and her conservative views including be making flag burning a felony, censoring video games, parental notification laws, making abortion rare (a statement which stigmatizes women who have abortions), leaving gay marriage up to the states (a position she finally changed but lagging behind the country tremendously), the Patriot Act, the discriminatory Workplace Religious Freedom Act which the ACLU opposed, her belief in religion intruding in the schools and hostility towards the principle of separation of church and state, opposition to needle exchange programs, her hard line on the drug war, her opposition to programs to distribute free condoms, hostility to government transparency, and pushing for the Iraq war based upon clearly false claims of a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.

          • Billy Samuels

            Hillary has changed on many of those issues Ron. And to me evolution is not flip flopping…it is evolving. Obama was against gay marriage in 2008 but he is not now. Why is Hillary’s evolution always framed as pandering and Obama’s is declared rightly as evolving not pandering.
            Double standard.

          • No double standard. Clinton has often changed on the issues, but not for years afterwards. She has showed terrible judgment throughout her career. We need political leaders who get it right at the time.

            Clinton’s hawkish views persisted throughout her entire tenure as Secretary of State. She has not commented on many of her past views where I disagree with her. She has given no reason to believe she has changed her underlying views on foreign policy, civil liberties, and social issues.

            Plus Clinton typically alters her views based on expediency. Now she is concerned about primary challenges due to being to the right of most Democrats, so she talks more liberal on economic issues. Yet she keeps her comments vague and refuses to take questions from the press to elaborate on them. Liberals remain skeptical as to how liberal she be after she wins the nomination and this is no longer a concern.

          • Billy Samuels

            A connection promoted by Judy “if I only had a brain” Miller at the NY Times…yellowcake anyone?

  • Billy Samuels

    Very hysterical article, Ron.
    You are still using Schweizer as an example? A book so full of errors that a corrected version was reintroduced within a week of its release. A book that claims Clinton was responsible for a uranium sale that required eight other government approvals including the nuclear regulatory commission yet Schweizer claims she alone is responsible due to a relationship with a businessman on the deal who had left before the deal was even approved. Example after example comes tumbling down.
    That book is crap. And just because the New York times reported on it does not make it valid…Remember Judy Miller’s yellow cake uranium party that led to the Iraq war?

    • “You are still using Schweizer as an example? A book so full of errors
      that a corrected version was reintroduced within a week of its release.”

      Schweizer is only a very small part of this. I mentioned in a few previous posts that media outlets have found a handful of errors. The point of his book is that he is providing his data to the media, which can then go on from there to investigate further. This only adds to all the information obtained totally independent of Schweizer.

      A handful of errors in the book does not change the overall story. Besides, even without Schweizer’s book all the other issues remain. As I said, Schweizer’s book is a very small part of this, so any arguments against some of the facts in his book do not change the underlying arguments about Clinton’s unethical behavior.

      • Billy Samuels

        What about the uranium deal Ron…the one approved by the NRC, the justice dept, and five other govt agencies and at state….still think that is Hillary’s fault….innuendo seems to be your standard and guilt by association.

        • Your are distorting what I have said. I am certainly not using innuendo or guilt by association. The point is that government officials should not be taking money from people they are making decisions on and Clinton violated that principle on multiple occasions.

          • The Clintons not only took the money, they failed to abide by the agreement to disclose the donors. She is clearly guilty of that–no innuendo or guilt by association.

          • Billy Samuels

            Still no answer on the uranium matter which has been debunked

          • You are still missing the point. Taking the contributions and failing to disclose the contributions were unethical. She may or may not have acted based on the contributions, but the fact that she took them, and many more contributions without disclosure, is a serious ethical issue.

          • Billy Samuels

            You surely are a one trick pony…boring

          • “Boring” That’s how you respond to being unable to respond to a long list of facts.

  • ken_lov

    I was kind of with you until I got to the bit about Hillary ‘destroying evidence’. Evidence of what? Such an assertion is just piling speculation upon wild guesses.

    You talk about a ‘pattern of behaviour’ being sufficient to justify claims of corruption, which just happens, coincidentally or not, to be the argument made by the Koch Brothers’ hired hatchet man Peter Schweizer. It is of course another name for guilt by innuendo. I’m not aware of any persuasive circumstantial evidence that Hillary made decisions that favored donors to the Foundation. The ‘sold America’s uranium to Russia’ claim is self-evidently nonsense, as are the other few concrete examples that have been published. In other words the argument boils down to ‘people didn’t give her all that money without getting something in return’, which is just lame.

    I’ve also written that Clinton is unfit for the presidency but I say that because I believe she has proved (a) to lack good judgement, and (b) to be a poor chooser of key executive staff and advisers. These are probably the two most important talents required of a president and her shortcomings ought to disqualify her. But progressives should build their case on those solidly verifiable criticisms. Joining the right in making wild, unsupported claims of massive corruption is counter-productive.

    • She destroyed evidence in destroying the server. This is by her own admission–it is not speculation or a wild guess.

      The point is not whether it is proved that she made decisions that favored donors. The points is that it is unethical for someone in government to take such donations, and she violated the agreement to disclose the donors.

      • ken_lov

        Evidence of what? Your argument amounts to “I believe she must have done something wrong, I could prove it if she hadn’t destroyed the evidence.” When you have some proof that there was evidence of something on her server then you’ll have a valid point. Until then, you just look like one of the tinfoil hat brigade and discredit your own case.

        And if ‘The point is not whether it is proved that she made decisions that favored donors’, why spend so much time in your post trying to spin a case that she did? Anyway it’s your argument I guess, not up to me to tell you how to make it.

        • The issue was over the email when she failed to archive it on government servers as required. By definition, the server is evidence and wiping the server is destroying evidence. It is neither possible nor necessary to say what was on the server if the evidence was destroyed, but the most likely media speculation is that it has further information on the relationship between the Clintons and the donors. We will probably never know, again as she destroyed the evidence.

          • ken_lov

            She says the emails she destroyed were personal, and she was not obliged to archive personal emails. You’re therefore saying you believe she’s lying, even though you have no evidence of it. Anyway ally yourself with the right wing crazies if you think it helps your case. It’s not my business.

          • She said the email was personal. It doesn’t take a right wing crazy to be skeptical. We do not know if they were personal if we only have to go by her word. She said many other things about the email which fact checker debunked. She gave conflicting stories as to how it was determined whether email was personal or not.

          • ken_lov

            Like I said, your argument is indistinguishable from that of the right. But if you want to be a clone of Michelle Malkin, knock yourself out.

          • You may disagree with the argument, but it is wrong to call it being a clone of Michelle Malkin or claim it to be an argument from the right. The arguments from the left, while having some overlap are quite different from the right’s which lacks the left’s concern for reducing the influence of money in politics.

            My criticism of Clinton primarily comes from liberal and non-partisan sources. This post alone quotes includes an extensive quote from Lawrence Lessing–a rather major force in political ethics and certainly not from the right. I also quotes or have links to Ezra Klein, David Sirota, and Mother Jones, all quite liberal sources. There are also multiple links to mainstream media sources and fact checkers who agree with what I have said, along with watchdog organizations including Common Cause, The Sunlight Foundation, and Charity Navigator.

            In other posts on this topic I have quoted many other liberal and centrist writers and media outlets.

            Claiming the arguments are indistinguishable from the right just plays into the typical Clinton tactic of demonizing their critics, while providing no evidence that the facts raised against them are incorrect.

          • ken_lov

            Perhaps you don’t spend much time on discussion forums. Your last comment was virtually identical to thousands that have appeared on Gateway Pundit, Daily Caller, Fox News and other right wing sites, not to mention Politico, Mediaite, The Hill etc. The fact that your reason for making it might be different to the right’s is immaterial.

            The problem with your position is that there is no alternative Democratic candidate who’s electable. If arguments like yours cause a shortage of progressive votes for Clinton which results in the election of a warmongering right-wing maniac who starts a war that makes Iraq look like a minor skirmish, I hope you’ll feel self-righteously happy. At least you’ll be able to say you stood up for ethics in politics, even if it did result in the deaths of a few million people.

          • I doubt they are quoting the liberal sources I am. Saying conservatives are saying the same thing in no way disputes any of the facts presented.

            I disagree that there are no alternative Democrats who are electable. Considering the Republican clown car, many Democrats would make far better presidents than them, and would be seen as serious candidates if they were to win the nomination.

            You do realize the difference between a primary and a general election don’t you? Seeking a better Democratic candidate in the primaries is totally different from a general election campaign.

            If the goal is to avoid a war monger, there are a couple of reasons for opposing Clinton. First Clinton could make a weak general election candidate, increasing the chances of a Republican president. Right now Nate Silver ranks her chances at 50:50, hardly a good reason to compromise principles and back her for the nomination.

            Secondly, there is very little room between Clinton and the Republicans on support for increased military intervention around the world. If the goal is to prevent a war monger from being elected, we should try to get someone other than Clinton on the Democratic ticket.

          • ken_lov

            Dream on. How does Nate Silver rank Biden or O’Malley? And please don’t tell me you’re one of the Elizabeth Warren lost-causers.

          • It isn’t meaningful to rank the chances of someone who isn’t in the campaign. At least other potential Democratic candidates would not have the risk of either self-destructing or of having their candidacy hindered by all the baggage which Clinton carries.

            In 2008 I backed Obama as the best chance for a more liberal and more ethical candidate to win and, even though the chances looked poor, it worked out well in the end. It will be even harder to stop Clinton with another Democratic candidate this time, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying.

          • JSpencer

            Amazing how quickly people can cop an attitude toward one of their own when they aren’t seen as towing the line. If there can’t be conscientious disagreement and discussion within the democratic party then what good is it?

          • I’ve seen a lot of division in primary races before but nothing like this where supporters of a candidate thought their candidate was entitled to the nomination and criticism could not be allowed.

            I also fear what the Democratic Party will turn into should Clinton win if so many Democrats are already so quick to ignore principles to defend her. We don’t need two Republican Parties.

          • JSpencer

            “We don’t need two Republican Parties.”

            Agreed, although I view that morphing process more as one Republican-lite Party (former Democratic Party) and one Unhinged Party (former Republican Party). Standards can’t be endlessly flexible or they lose their meaning and we’ve seen a lot of that over the years. When dems become too afraid to criticize their own candidates, then who will be doing the critical thinking? I love the idea of having a hero in the traditional democratic mold, someone we could all get behind, but I don’t love the idea so much I’m willing to attach it to just anybody.

          • Agree re the differences between the “two Republican Parties.”

            Along the same lines as the rest of your comment, I blog based upon certain principles, not to blindly promote the Democratic Party. Clinton violates the principles I got into blogging to promote, both on ethical grounds and on her policy positions. Being not as bad as the Republicans is not a sufficient reason to defend her while blogging, even if I wind up holding my nose and voting for her as the lesser of two evils.

          • JSpencer

            “If arguments like yours cause a shortage of progressive votes for Clinton which results in the election of a warmongering right-wing maniac who starts a war that makes Iraq look like a minor skirmish, I hope you’ll feel self-righteously happy. At least you’ll be able to say you stood up for ethics in politics, even if it did result in the deaths of a few million people.”

            I’m surprised no one else has jumped in here to comment on how absurd and offensive that comment is. Perhaps the “oversight” is intended is to punish someone for daring to stray outside the line, if so it’s very disappointing.

          • It has become common for Clinton supporters to make the argument that criticizing Clinton will lead to a Republican president. The amusing thing about all this is that it was Clinton supporters who were making a lot of noise about voting for McCain/Palin over Obama after Obama beat her for the nomination.

            While most liberals who oppose Clinton will wind up voting for her over a Republican, it also doesn’t say anything favorable about their candidate if they are showing so much panic over the prospect that liberal Democrats won’t turn out for her. Those active in politics criticizing Clinton from the left are likely to vote for her over a Republican, but there is the danger that having her as a candidate could suppress Democratic turn out like in 2014 when Democratic voters didn’t turn out for Democrats running as Repubican-lite (although this should not be as severe a problem in a general election).

          • JSpencer

            “it also doesn’t say anything favorable about their candidate if they are showing so much panic over the prospect that liberal Democrats won’t turn out for her”

            It sure doesn’t. Those “liberal Democrats” will in all likelyhood turn out to vote, but they may be holding their noses while they do it. Funny thing about that loss of enthusiasm among progressives, it might be made up for by enthusiasm among the “undecided” and the fence-sitters, who (ironically) I tend to view as people with poor decision making skills.

          • I’m not so sure that being more conservative than most other Democratic prospects will outweigh lost votes due to lost enthusiasm among liberal voters. There are so few undecided voters today (who don’t actually lean towards one party) that elections are decided more by turning out the party’s voters.

            Clinton might not even benefit from being more centrist because the right wing noise machine has her pegged as being far left. Low information voters who wouldn’t vote for a liberal Democrat probably won’t vote for Clinton either.

            Clinton also does not benefit politically from being somewhere between the Democrats and Republicans as political views are more complex than a single left/right line. Clinton’s views are so frequently the wrong views–both in my opinion and based upon where the country is headed.

            Clinton probably does benefit from many people not really being aware of how her views differ from the Democratic mainstream–but that can change as people are paying more attention. Many might not realize how hawkish she is and, depending upon how war weary the country is, that could depress vote from Democratic voters. While the country is becoming more secular (except for those who would never vote for a Democrat anyways), I doubt that many Democratic voters realize the degree to which Clinton has pushed for an increased role of religion in government and society, or how socially conservative she is.

            While this post deals with her Foundation, I am even more concerned about her membership in the Fellowship, and the degree to which the religious right has influenced her thought and political positions.

          • dduck12

            Ron, have you no shame: the deaths of millions of people on your head. All you have to do to save them is shut up and elect a crook.

          • It might come to that in the general election. Actually that is because of other areas where Clinton is better than the Republicans. I don’t see any reason to believe that she is less likely than Republicans to get us into more wars. I do think that her Supreme Court picks would be better than those coming from Republicans

          • dduck12

            If only Al Capone had destroyed the other set of books.

          • Or if Nixon had destroyed the tapes…

    • “I’ve also written that Clinton is unfit for the presidency but I say
      that because I believe she has proved (a) to lack good judgement, and
      (b) to be a poor chooser of key executive staff and advisers.”

      I definitely agree with these two reasons for Democrats to chose a different candidate, and have also written about these (much more on the first). There are multiple reasons to oppose Clinton, including the two you mentioned, many of her views (which are related to her poor judgment) and her unethical behavior.

      Regarding the poor choice of key staff and advisers, from accounts written about the 2008 Clinton campaign and other things on Clinton, I think this is compounded by how Clinton treats staff. It sounds like Clinton doesn’t take advice well and it is difficult for staffers to tell here when she is wrong or needs to change course. Of course these are probably problems to some degree with most political leaders, who often live in a bubble.

  • archangel

    discussion is to be civil. if not, we turn off comments on this post. no wiggle room. tx.

  • Brownies girl

    Ron, with all due respect, I’ve been reading your articles on Hillary Clinton for several months – all of them well written for sure. But I’m starting to get the feeling you’ve wandered into the area of obsessing about her, it’s like it’s a crusade or something …. I wish I didn’t have this feeling. It’s obvious you don’t want her to get the nomination — and frankly, I’m rooting for Bernie Sanders at this point anyway. But there’s a big part of me that wishes you’d be more positive about who ELSE you’d like to see get the nom and less critical of Clinton, mainly because that’s all you’ve been posting lately — criticism (fair or unfair, am not gonna take sides). It feels like your putting the boots to Hillary has become your life’s cause. Yes, there’s lots to criticize about her, I agree with that — but is that all there is?

    Can you possibly post something positive about who **else** there is in the field that you’d find a whole lot more acceptable to you and why that’d be — like perhaps giving us readers of your posts something to hope for?

    Because, in all honesty m’dear – when you go on and on and on about Hill’s negatives, folks often just turn off and go away, or get angry and want to argue with you. And when that latter happens, nobody learns whole lot. IMO anyway. Not that it’s your job to teach here, I don’t mean that — but I hope you get my drift.

    All best to you and I mean that — I just hope you’re not letting Hill’s bad points seep into your dreams – get your rest hon!

    • Clinton has dominated the news on the Democratic race, with new revelations every few days. I have also written posts on O’Malley and Sanders, and hope there is significantly more news on both (and possibly other candidates) in the future. Presumably O’Malley will be campaigning more after May 30 if the stories are correct that he will be announcing that date.

    • KP

      Ron is a bulldog. We need people like him, as frustrating as it can be if you disagree, even partially.

      Recall when I would go round and round with him about Obamacare years ago? It was similar. Ron dealt in facts as best he knew them and I did my best as well.

      It can be frustrating because he is very good at what he does.

      Still I don’t think it right to ask him to avoid topics of choice. I tried to rebut him with facts and my views. I stopped discussing Obamacare long ago because it no longer serves a purpose (even though I have facts and personal experience that support some of my positions back then).

      Similarly, once (if) Hillary becomes president you may cease to be aggravated by remarks related to her unsavory character faults.

      Still, I like the way you think and speak!

      • It will be interesting to see what happens if Clinton is elected. On the one hand, she might have learned her lesson and might start following the rules.

        However her career so far suggests otherwise. Both use of government email and issues related to the Clinton Foundation were major issues before she was confirmed as Secretary of State, and then she ignored both policies. I fear that if Clinton is elected it is far more likely we will see Richard Nixons’s third term than Obama’s.

        Plus if Republicans impeached Bill over lying about a blow job, they will have far sounder grounds for impeachment if she continues to benefit financially from those she is making decisions regarding as president.

        At least she can be happy she is not in Canada, where she might wind up in jail for what she has done:

        The bad news for any Canadian politician inspired by Hillary Clinton to set up a do-it-yourself email system is that it could potentially involve the Mounties, handcuffs, and a two-year sojourn in the slammer.

        That’s because Canada’s Access to Information Act sets the maximum penalty for intentionally concealing, destroying or altering federal records at two years’ imprisonment or a $10,000 fine.

        A university professor of public management laughed when asked whether those rules would be enforced in the case of someone using email as described in reports about Clinton.

        The presumptive 2016 presidential front-runner has not denied reports that instead of using her department’s email server during her four years as Secretary of State, she had a system set up at home shielded from federal records searches and connected to the address
        [email protected].

        “That would just be so blatant that the RCMP and (federal)
        information commissioner would have no choice,” said Robert Shepherd, a professor at Carleton University.

        “There could actually be jail time.”

        • KP

          Are there more e-mail accounts?

          • I’m not sure what you are getting at. At present she is a private citizen and can use whatever she wants for email. That will change if she is elected.

            In terms of continued rules violations which could lead to impeachment if elected, I’m primarily thinking in terms of continued contributions to the Foundation and unusually high speaking fees to Bill in situations where there is a conflict of interest, along with failure to disclose income.

      • Brownies girl

        Sorry KP, I missed seeing this response from you so please pardon the lateness of a reply — yes, I know Ron is a bulldog — and that’s fine because I agree, we need people like him and, truth be told, I actually LIKE that he’s fighting for something he truly believes in. (Speaking of bulldogs, I’ve lately given thought to fostering a kindly old neglected pit bull at the Humane Society – a sweet 12 year old guy who just loves to be petted and loved — we shall see. If I could give him a couple or three good years before he drops, it’d make me and him real happy.)

        Anyway, Ron’s actually convinced me that Hills may not be the shining star I once thought she was, and because of that, I’ve slowly shifted over to rooting for Bernie Sanders … so Ron’s had an effect on me, and not a bad one. I’m gonna refrain from commenting on his Hillary posts – mostly just because, truth to tell, I’d like to see a female Prez — at the same time, he’s given me thoughts to consider if she’s actually the best one, right now. Sh*t, I wish Ms Warren was running.

        • KP

          You are top shelf!!

  • Ron, a part of me understands your concerns. I would love to see Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Saunders as president but it’s not going to happen. And Walter O’Malley who? Yes BG is right – give us some examples who who you think could actually win and why. People gain positions of power by finding the line between unethical and illegal. It may be ugly but it is reality and there is nothing we can do about it.

  • JSpencer

    “Plus if Republicans impeached Bill over lying about a blow job, they will have far sounder grounds for impeachment if she continues to benefit financially from those she is making decisions regarding as president.”

    Of course they would love to do that, but mainly because they are fueled by hate for all things Clinton – regardless of whether they are right or wrong, and regardless of whether it would be in the best interest of the country. They are immune to hypocrisy.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :