Will they (finally) be the end of the Clintons?
I’d like to think so, but I’ve been disappointed repeatedly at the complete acceptance of criminality and corruption from the Clinton gang by their party. I can guarantee you of one thing: They think they’ll continue to get away with it, because they always have.
[Monday-afternoon update]
The fall of the House of Clinton?
I hope so, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
[Bumped]
[Update a few minutes later]
Well, she’s clearly lost Ron Fournier:
You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to know that foreign companies and countries expected something in return for donating to the Clinton foundation rather than the countless other charities not connected to the U.S. presidency.
You don’t have to be a lawyer to know the Clintons violated ethics rules.
You don’t have to be a historian to know their ethical blind spot has decades-old roots.
You don’t have to be a political scientist to know this behavior contributes to the public’s declining trust in its leaders.
But to believe this is just about the actions of a book author, the mainstream media, and Republicans, it helps to be a Clinton.
Let’s hope that’s not enough this time.
I think the campaign is over, but I wouldn’t want to bet money on anything right now.
On the one hand, the Clintons must have accumulated some serious opposition research into Elizabeth Warren long before now. It would be fun to see them go nuclear.
On the other hand, she’s in serious legal jeopardy. The Party can promise they’ll make that go away if she does.
There are so many states that have voted Dem for the last few elections, they will continue to vote Dem. It really comes down to a few swing states…HRC takes Florida in 2016 and she will be sworn in.
The Clintons are not the biggest aspect of this scandal:
Obama’s cabinet – State, Homeland Security, Energy, Defense etc…
they all had to be briefed and sign off on this as Uranium is a strategic material.
Obama had to know about this.
“Obama had to know about this.”
Judging from past behavior, he doesn’t know about *anything*. I’m sure he’ll claim, if he ever says anything about it at all, that he heard about this for the first time on the news, just like everyone else.
That Obama guy sure seems to miss a lot of intel briefings but he is a voracious reader of popular press…
Doesn’t matter Democrats do not care. They like the idea of a Clinton dynasty. Their corruption is celebrated. All Hillary has to do is avoid jail or not quit in order to get past this.
A Hillary candidacy has a certain inevitable logic to it. “Liberalism” (and by that I mean of course “tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-humping”) is clearly morally and philosophically bankrupt now, and in the person of the Clintons has simply become a con to part the suckers from their money.
You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to know that foreign companies and countries expected something in return for donating to the Clinton foundation rather than the countless other charities not connected to the U.S. presidency.
True. And you don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to know that the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, et al expect something in return for all the money they’ve spent and will continue to spend supporting the political aspirations of GOP presidential hopefuls.
You’re saying that domestic political donors are equivalent to foreign governments? Really?
In the sense that both expect something for their money? Yes.
So, to be clear, you think that taking money from Vladimir Putin and the gay-marriage supporting American Koch brothers to be completely morally equivalent?
Do you have any problem with George Soros’s money?
So, to be clear, you’re fine with oligarchs buying favors from politicians, just as long as the oligarchs are U.S. citizens?
And these oligarchs get stronger when we increase the size of the federal government. Yet you cannot see that. You cannot see that that regulatory capture happens because of regulation and.the solution to the “evil” Koch brothers and evil Soros is to reduce regulation and federal power.
But that would mean taking away free stuff for you.
And these oligarchs get stronger when we increase the size of the federal government.
So public officials were less corrupt back when the federal government was much smaller? I don’t think so.
The whole point of the constitution is that people are corrupt. Yet you idealists dismantle the document to concentrate power, and then have the balls to say, “well, people are always corrupt.”
Your bitching about the Koch Brothers, (but disturbingly, not Soros) is a result of progressive meddling in the Constitution. It is your fault. Period.
Corruption used to be contained, and you removed the firewalls.
So what Jim is saying is we should expect Hillary to sell out the US Presidency to foreign interests.
And what Rand is saying is that we should expect the GOP nominee to sell out the US Presidency to wealthy domestic interests (and maybe foreign interests too, since the GOP has fought so hard to keep dark money donor lists secret).
No, I know you’re having trouble with the concept, but what I am saying is that we should expect the Democrat nominee to not sell out the US presidency to foreign interests, but unfortunately, given her history, we cannot.
As Jon points out, Rand supports limited government which would reduce what can be sold to oligarchs and reduce their ability of them to manipulate government to maintain their status.
And of course, even under a properly limited government, defense would still be a responsibility, which makes foreign bribery all the worse.
Just to be clear, the question was in the sense of “Do the donors have America’s best interests at heart?”
You don’t seem to give a damn.
I’m not at all surprised.
And you think that each and every U.S. citizen has America’s best interests at heart, so there’s no problem with any of them buying favors from elected officials?
No, but I know for sure that Russia does not.
“And you think that each and every U.S. citizen has America’s best interests at heart,”
Whatever those interests are, they have the right to speak to politicians and other Americans about them.
“So, to be clear, you’re fine with oligarchs buying favors from politicians, just as long as the oligarchs are U.S. citizens?”
If I give money to a politician it’s because I believe that politician will vote the way I prefer. This is both legal and moral for both the Koch’s and myself.
Your statement implies the Koch’s got something they should not have, for their money. If you can show that the Koch Brothers got a Quid Pro Quo over and above having the politician vote the way the Koch’s prefer, – an illegal QPQ – then please do so or shut your face.
US citizens have gotten a QPQ’s from politicians of both parties. It’s called crony capitalism. This is illegal and immoral.
But when foreigners are involved the set of rules is entirely different and much stricter. You should know that. In fact there’s a lot of things you should know but clearly do not.
Americans have the right to freedom of speech, the right to petition their politicians.
Why can’t Americans talk to or about the people whose policies and regulations we have to live under?
Russia and China can take up policy issues with the local ambassador. (Not the ambassador’s personal money laundering organization.)
So if a U.S. company gives politicians millions so they’ll approve the Keystone XL pipeline, that’s an admirable exercise of freedom of speech, but if a Canadian company does the same it’s an outrageously corrupt threat to the security of the republic? What if the Canadian company gives lucrative contracts to the U.S. company, and the U.S. company does the giving — then is it all okay again? What if the Canadian company gives money to a Tea Party 501c4 that isn’t required to disclose its donors; then is it all okay? We wouldn’t want the mean IRS oppressing them by auditing their donor lists, of course.
Today’s post-Citizens United GOP is in the worst possible position to complain about the malign influence of money in politics, be it domestic or foreign.
Ah, and here’s the nugget of truth. It’s all the fault of the Citizens United decision.
Jim, SEIU gained as much as corporations from the decision. I thought you’d be happy about that. Now Soros funded union thugs can add to the political debate by the use of union dues.
“What if the Canadian company gives money to a Tea Party 501c4 that isn’t required to disclose its donors; then is it all okay?”
You don’t want us digging into where Democrat activist groups get their money foreign or otherwise. Just like when it comes time to pay taxes, Democrats will exempt themselves from disclosing their funders.
“Today’s post-Citizens United GOP is in the worst possible position to complain about the malign influence of money in politics, be it domestic or foreign.”
Why is that? Democrat groups trounce the Republicans in this form of spending and have for a lonnnng time. That is why they went after the TP so hard. Can’t have non-Democrats using the same privileges that Democrats do.
Its why TP groups have to get honeybuckets in order to hold a protest and Democrats get to squat on public lands, rape, and murder each other with no consequences.
“So if a U.S. company gives politicians millions so they’ll approve the Keystone XL pipeline”
That is a bribe and lobbying is not quite exactly that. I know you don’t want anyone else to be able to express an opinion on how the government spends money or imposes regulations and laws.
So if a U.S. company gives politicians millions so they’ll approve the Keystone XL pipeline, that’s an admirable exercise of freedom of speech, but if a Canadian company does the same it’s an outrageously corrupt threat to the security of the republic?
Jim, name a company and provide evidence they donated millions to a politician to approve Keystone XL. Then tell us when you first learned about the Uranium mining deal.
Failure to disclose foreign donations is the opposite of speech. That failure is what allows corruption to be hidden and denied. That is outrageous.
The Obama Administration required Hillary to disclose these donations and though she signed an agreement to do so, she ignored the agreement. The Justice Department should open an investigation and Congress should conduct its duties in oversight. It seems that federal employees need to be better regulated in order to avoid being so easily corrupted. Like the cops in Baltimore, until the federal government can police their own, they have no business policing others.
Yes, and by continually increasing the powers of the federal government, you make that all the more likely in years to come. Thanks for that.
All that money the Kochs give to PBS, you need to make sure you avoid that sucker.
Liberty. Their expectation is liberty.
I’m posting this in the hopes that someone will show me that it’s preposterous.
Okay. I really don’t think this is enough to stop Hillary Clinton from getting the nomination (though that’s not a given; she was considered inevitable in 2008, too). But she’s the favorite, and these scandals won’t hurt her all that much sans a criminal indictment.
She faces a lot of baggage aside from scandals. The whole dynasty thing is one, in this case a former first couple moving back into the white house. However, once she’s on the cusp of being nominated, she’ll have gotten enough of the public okay with that particular notion. Same too with past scandals.
But suppose, just suppose, that there’s a plan afoot here, begun when Obama demanded that the Clinton foundation not accept foreign donations while she was in office. It goes down like this :Hillary emerges from the primaries the victor. Then, mere weeks before the convention, but after the primaries, she’s “unexpectedly” indicted on multiple major felony counts by the justice department. Result; Democrat party in apparent dissaray, her delegates uncommitted. It’s a golden opportunity (thanks to Hillary having slain the dynasty beast) for the best known eligible Democrat in the country to throw her hat into the ring, to “save the party”, and she (a woman, of course, because that’s what the D’s wanted, per the primary results) strolls into the convention to take the crown. After all, it’s not much of a jump from a former first lady to a current one, or a from a first couple returning to the white house to simply staying there, and in January, 2017, Michele Obama is inaugurated as her husband’s successor.
Somebody please tell me this can’t happen.
Well, we can’t. Though the dynasty thing would raise its ugly head again.
That dynasty thing is just to keep Bush out not Clinton.
You guys remember that SOTU where Obama claimed the Tea Party groups were funded by shadowy foreign powers and needed to be dealt with? This enraged his base and helped create cover for the IRS persecution of non-Democrat activists.
As with violent protests, Democrats get super bent about the false allegation they use to attack the other but don’t give a rip when their own side actually engages in the activity. Sort of like undeclared wars of choice and rendition.
Democrats also don’t care when ATF gives firearms to Mexican cartels to shoot up hundreds of citizens. But if the dead just robbed a convenience store and assaulted a cop; then Democrats loot the neighborhood in retaliation of government militarism.
Sigh. The ATF did not give firearms to Mexican cartels.
No, they authorized gun dealers to sell them to people who gave them to the cartels.
In several documented cases, ATF encouraged wary gun dealers to sell using the argument that the guns would then be tracked to cartels. The only argument Jim has is the definition of “give”, but note, he still makes excuses not to care.
And then they tried to throw the gun dealers under the bus until recordings of conversations with the ATF showed up.
Jim seems to forget all those speeches by Obama, Holder, Clinton, Biden, and other elected officials claiming that violence in Mexico, guns traveling to Mexico, and money traveling to Mexico were all reasons to institute intrusive gun control measures at home. Hey there were even emails of Obama administration officials asking for data on running guns to use for politics.
The only argument Jim has is the definition of “give”,
“Gives” was the verb you chose! In the cases in question, no guns were given by anyone. If you don’t mean “gives”, don’t write “gives”.
As I said, it was your only argument, and it is pointless. The ATF could have confiscated the guns as soon as the straw purchase was made. They had the legal responsibility to do so. Instead, they let them walk with the guns. The ATF gave them the guns. The dealers are the only ones that made them pay.
You guys remember that SOTU where Obama claimed the Tea Party groups were funded by shadowy foreign powers and needed to be dealt with?
So which is it? If foreign money isn’t corrupting, what’s the big deal with foreigners giving to the Clinton Foundation? If foreign money is corrupting, shouldn’t the IRS have the responsibility to find out whether foreigners are giving to 501c4s?
We know you want to continue to evade the point, but the issue isn’t whether foreign money is “corrupting,” but who benefits from the corruption. It is not the US government or its people, of which the Secretary of State is a high-level official.
“So which is it?”
It was Obama acting like a mini-Maduro claiming that his domestic political opponents are really foreign agents. We know how Maduro deals with them right? Well, Obama couldn’t get away with prison camps and executions so he used the IRS and other government agencies to persecute them.
Obama was just making the accusation, regardless of whether or not it was true and without even knowing if it was true. You seem to take his accusation at face value, without asking where he got his information or even if he even had any information.
Totally different than the Secretary of State and a former President taking bribes from foreign governments and businesses in exchange for favors.
But lets give Hillary a pass and continue the persecution of non-Democrat non-profits by… using Hillary’s actions as justification for it.
Let’s not forget that Obama took donations without the security code on the back of the card. This made it easy to take foreign donations for his campaign. Shadowy indeed.
How would requiring the security code prevent foreign donations?
The code that was disabled was the one that indicated it was a foreign card, and would have prevented it from being used.
No code was “disabled”. The donation form did not ask for the Card Verification Value, the 3 or 4 digit number on the back of the card. Foreigners have cards with CVVs too, so requiring a CVV doesn’t keep out foreign donations. The Obama campaign made a web form slightly more convenient by saving visitors one step (I do the same for the customers who buy my software online), and the rightist media tried to turn that innocuous decision into a scandal.
“A Hillary candidacy has a certain inevitable logic to it. ‘Liberalism’ (and by that I mean of course ‘tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping State-humping’) is clearly morally and philosophically bankrupt now, and in the person of the Clintons has simply become a con to part the suckers from their money.”
And then you have rubes like Jim who not only willingly drink the snake-oil, but recommend it to everyone as a cure for what ails them!
“is clearly morally and philosophically bankrupt now”
You mean you can’t be anti-war but pro Obama’s drone wars and undeclared wars of choice in places like Libya? Pretty sure I still see hundreds of thousands of Democrats protesting against war…
Then there is abuse of civil rights, freedom of speech, spending, and political spending just to name a few other issues where Democrats have had to give up their ideals in order to support Obama.
This “Jim” character must be trolling. No one could be that stupid.