Reading this thread is depressing because it's a forerunner to what every thread will be like this time next year. Just wait until the Republican candidate is eventually announced and see what kind of skeletons he ends up having aired...

Romney's tax returns and Obama's birth certificate were bad enough, but if this is anything to go by then the next election promises to be a year-long exercise in muck-raking and innuendo.

Sassenach wrote:Reading this thread is depressing because it's a forerunner to what every thread will be like this time next year. Just wait until the Republican candidate is eventually announced and see what kind of skeletons he ends up having aired...

Romney's tax returns and Obama's birth certificate were bad enough, but if this is anything to go by then the next election promises to be a year-long exercise in muck-raking and innuendo.

Yep. Fascinating at a comfortable 3000 mile distance.

Mind you our pre-election stuff is also pretty depressing. The volume and increasing hysterical nature of "beware the danger of potential coalition partner X" rubbish is ridiculous. Especially with regard to the SNP - it is only making them stronger and risking the very split in the Union that the Tories said we had to avoid 7 months ago.

rickyp wrote:Its "alleged' that a donation to the Clinton Foundation was somehow instrumental in gaining approval for the sale. Approval which required 7 different departments, not just the State department. SO this donation somehow influenced all of the people in those different departments as well sa Hillary.

Except . . . it had to be unanimous, so if Hillary's State Department objected, the whole thing would have gone to the Presidential level. And, she is the only one of the involved parties who held office and protested similar deals. Why did she change her mind?

Furtter more its alleged that a strategic interest of the US was put at risk by this decision.
And its all been alleged with no evidence of any activity on Hillary's part in influencing the decision...

She was against foreign ownership before she was for it. What changed?

So the notion that this is a strategic problem is being hyped beyond belief.

No, but it is certainly dumb. Again, why would we aid Putin in controlling more of the uranium market?

In the end if this is about "influence peddling", the allegations will have to demonstrate more quid quo pro then the sale of a mine in Wyoming

.

They do and if you'd get off liberal websites and read some real news.

per usual there's no there there.

Virtually no one in the real media, including the mainstream media, agrees with you.

ricky

So the notion that this is a strategic problem is being hyped beyond belief.

fate

No, but it is certainly dumb.
Again, why would we aid Putin in controlling more of the uranium market?

Ah. So you are admitting , when you say No, that the mine in Wyoming has little to no strategic value?

What makes you think that vetoing the sale of the Wyoming asset would have made any difference to the sale of uranium One to the Russians?
Uranium One could have kept the mine, or more likely just closed it. Its not operating now....so that's the probable response. Telfer wanted out of the business...
Since Russia has 19% of the US domestic market for uranium without the Wyoming mine, apparently no one in US government, for many years, has had trouble doing business with Russia.

Maybe also because Russia has actually been a proponent for ensuring stability in the Uranium market.

There have been three major initiatives to set up international reserves of enriched fuel, two of them multilateral ones, with fuel to be available under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) auspices despite any political interruptions which might affect countries needing them. The third is under US auspices, and also to meet needs arising from supply disruptions.
In November 2009 the IAEA Board approved a Russian proposal to create an international "fuel bank" or guaranteed reserve of low-enriched uranium under IAEA control at the International Uranium Enrichment Centre (IUEC) at Angarsk. This Russian LEU reserve was established a year later and comprises 120 tonnes of low-enriched uranium as UF6, enriched 2.0-4.95% U-235 (with 40t of latter), available to any IAEA member state in good standing which is unable to procure fuel for political reasons. It is fully funded by Russia, held under safeguards, and the fuel will be made available to IAEA at market rates, using a formula based on spot prices. Following an IAEA decision to allocate some of it, Rosatom will transport material to St Petersburg and transfer title to IAEA, which will then transfer ownership to the recipient.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nucle ... f-Uranium/

Lets not let facts get in the way of anything, eh Fate? Just keep asking the open ended questions, without actually looking for answers...
Answers which are pretty easy to find, and don't involve any level of conspiracy. Which is what you'd need to act as you imagine Hillary acting..

rickyp wrote:ricky

So the notion that this is a strategic problem is being hyped beyond belief.

fate

No, but it is certainly dumb.
Again, why would we aid Putin in controlling more of the uranium market?

Ah. So you are admitting , when you say No, that the mine in Wyoming has little to no strategic value?

Your capacity for failing to understand English is frightening. I quote you as saying ". . . this is a strategic problem is being hyped beyond belief." I note that the idea of putting Putin in control of more of the uranium market is "certainly dumb" and you respond with something I did not say.

Furthermore, you are straying from the issue: the issue is simple; it's a question of is there an appearance of impropriety? The answer, to anyone but a dullard, is "yes." Now, does "appearance" equal "guilt?" The answer is "no."

However, is "guilt" the standard for a candidate? Should Americans vote for Hillary because she's not been proven guilty?

I would hope for a higher standard.

Lets not let facts get in the way of anything, eh Fate? Just keep asking the open ended questions, without actually looking for answers...
Answers which are pretty easy to find, and don't involve any level of conspiracy. Which is what you'd need to act as you imagine Hillary acting..

It's not a "conspiracy." It's a matter of sorting out how they went from being "dead broke" to having a net worth of $100 to $140 million in 15 years. Here may be some of the answer:

Former President Bill Clinton accepted more than $2.5 million in speaking fees from 13 major corporations and trade associations that lobbied the U.S. State Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, an International Business Times investigation has found. The fees were paid directly to the former president, and not directed to his philanthropic foundation.

Many of the companies that paid Bill Clinton for these speeches -- a roster of global giants that includes Microsoft, Oracle and Dell -- engaged him within the same three-month period in which they were also lobbying the State Department in pursuit of their policy aims, federal disclosure documents show. Several companies received millions of dollars in State Department contracts while Hillary Clinton led the institution.

The disclosure that President Clinton received personal payments for speeches from the same corporate interests that were actively seeking to secure favorable policies from a federal department overseen by his wife underscores the vexing issue now confronting her presidential aspirations: The Clinton family is at the center of public suspicions over the extent of insider dealing in Washington, emblematic of concerns that corporate interests are able to influence government action by creatively funneling money to people in power.

“The dynamic is insidious and endemic to this system,” said Meredith McGhee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, a campaign finance watchdog group in Washington. "The fact is that the wealthiest .01 percent on the outside of government believes -- fervently -- that by paying speaking fees, or making campaign contributions, that it can gain access and influence."

Rules Do Not Apply

Federal ethics rules aim to discourage officials and their spouses from accepting gifts from interests “seeking official action” from a government agency. But the rules do not apply to speaking fees, said Craig Holman an advocate for tightened ethics structures at Public Citizen, a watchdog group in Washington.

So, a loophole? Again, imagine the Clintons, of all people, skirting the edges of corruption! Is it possible?

More:

Three of the technology firms that paid Bill Clinton while lobbying Hillary Clinton’s agency also received lucrative State Department contracts. Microsoft received almost $4 million in such contracts after receiving none the year before Clinton joined President Barack Obama's Cabinet. Oracle received $6.5 million in State Department contracts, a large increase from prior years. Dell secured contracts worth more than $28 million, up from just $2.5 million in the year before Clinton became secretary of state.

Now, if that is not the appearance of (essentially) taking a bribe, I don't know what is.

And, now Vox.com piles on. This article is written by someone who co-wrote a favorable bio of Hillary.

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/28/8501643/Cl ... nors-State

Hard to argue that this is a smear or that it is right-wing.

Good thing there are no murky lines between politics and the foundation.

On their nine-day trip to Africa, Bill and Chelsea Clinton are traveling with 20 wealthy donors and foundation supporters, a group that includes fundraisers for Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid and others who are expected to give generously to her campaign.

The opportunity to accompany Bill Clinton on trips across the globe on behalf of his philanthropic foundation has for years been considered both a reward for past donations and an inducement for future giving, say sources familiar with the foundation’s finance operation. This trip, they say, was an especially coveted invite — one that was extended to wealthy Clinton supporters.

The foundation, which provided the list of donors on the trip upon POLITICO’s request, said the group represents both longtime supporters as well as those who are just getting involved, and provides an opportunity to see the projects they are specifically funding.

Along this year for the annual foundation trip abroad is Jay Jacobs and his wife, Mindy, longtime Clinton fundraisers and foundation supporters. Jacobs, who has donated between $500,000 and $1 million to the foundation, is also a “Hillstarter,” a “Ready for Hillary” donor, and is planning to be a major fundraiser for Clinton campaign, as he was in 2008. . . .

Strategic marketing expert Marcy Simon, who contributed to Clinton’s presidential bid in 2008, has given between $10,000 and $25,000 to the foundation, is another guest on the trip. She is expected to support Hillary Clinton’s bid, and has been tweeting as much. “You have my vote Madame President,” she wrote the day Clinton officially announced her candidacy.

A relatively new foundation supporter traveling with Clinton is Beverly Dale, who worked in the biotechnology industry and is now a retired philanthropist. Dale donated to Clinton’s 2008 presidential bid, campaign finance records show.

No, there's no law against the overlap. However, when someone gives a relatively small gift to the foundation and more to the campaign, yet goes on the foundation's trip . . .

Interesting.

Let's compare the Clinton situation with the Keystone pipeline vote in the senate. The 62 senators who voted yes received an average of $236,544 from the oil and gas industry; those who voted no received an averagel of $22,882. http://maplight.org/content/oil-and-gas ... eystone-xl

You would think that quid pro quo corruption is quite rare, as it is too risky and unnecessary. Human beings it is theorized when they get beyond our family/ken group operate on a reciprocal altruism theory. Favors are granted in the anticipation that they will be returned at a later day, thereby increasing the fitness of both parties. Those who prove to be untrustworthy are punished. No one from the oil and gas industry has to tell those who support the oil industry will keep getting large amount of money and those who don't will see their support dry up. It is simply understood. There is no quid pro quo going on and the only the senator himself/herself knows why he/she is voting on a particular bill. They probably tell themselves they are not influenced in any way by the money. The reality is that people are always influenced when money is given to them, as they feel an obligation to reciprocate, even if they don't acknowledge that to themselves because that would be corruption. I guess we can call this type of corruption implicit quid pro quo corruption, even though there is not actual agreement. This is almost impossible to prove as there is no actual agreement or discussion and the senator need not discuss this with anyone else. And the senator may honestly believe they are not influenced by the money, but they in fact are. And of course some aren't affected by the money, I am sure. It's impossible to know. That is why Citizen's Unitied is such a horrible decision. No ones feels obligated to reciprocate when contributions are kept to a few thousand, but when it gets into several hundred thousands dollars or millions that's a different story.

The difference with Hillary Clinton is that she heads a large bureaucracy with many different employees that are involved in any decision. This means implicit quid pro quo corruption is not possible in her case--she actually has to make moves to pressure state department employees to help those who contributed to the foundation. So right away we're getting into a type of corruption that rarely happens because it is too risky. Secondly, if this occurred then the odds of a leak from someone who got pressure from either Hillary Clinton or another state department employee are high--yet, I am unaware of such a leak.

Take the computer contracts. First of all, those are pretty heavy hitters in the computer industry and that is not a lot of money for those companies--it's a pittance, really. Compare that to oh, I don't know, the billions paid in no-bid contracts to Hallliburton, the company that made vice-president Cheney rich. And presumably there would have been a number of state department employees involved in assessing who to grant these computer contracts to. If the accusation is that HIllary Clinton pressured employees to give those contracts to those computer companies, then we're talking about a lot of employees who would know about it. Again, no leaks.

If someone can explain to me how HIllary Clintion carried this out without detection and without any state department employee leaking it, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, my vote ain't a-changing.

freeman3 wrote:Otherwise, my vote ain't a-changing.

No doubt.

The beauty of it, of course, is if she gets elected, she'll become a billionaire and there still won't be "proof" of any wrongdoing. I wish I could buy stock in her--not in her election chances, but in her capacity to make money. She's amazing.

Now, really, isn't this just a little bit funny?

The charity spent $30 million on salaries last year but not one cent on interns, unlike the Ford or Gates Foundations. What gives?

Hillary Clinton may be running for president as a champion for the middle class, but the Clinton Foundation’s interns do not get paid.

“Businesses have taken advantage of unpaid internships to an extent that it is blocking the opportunities for young people to move on into paid employment,” Clinton said at UCLA in 2013. “More businesses need to move their so-called interns to employees.”

That doesn’t happen at her own business, the Clinton Foundation that Bill started in 2001.

“The Clinton Foundation makes no promises or commitments of employment after the internship,” the Foundation says on its website. “No intern is entitled to a job at the conclusion of his/her internship experience.”

The foundation goes through about 100 interns each summer, with slightly less during the school year. Summer interns volunteer 30 to 40 hours a week, while interns who work during a college semester may work 25 hours. The most some interns receive is a $2,000 stipend for a four-month period, and that depends on financial need.

Paying them all New York’s minimum wage of $8.75, for instance, would cost a fraction of the foundation’s budget, which spent $29.9 million (PDF) on employee salaries, compensation, and benefits for about 2,000 employees worldwide in 2013.

“There is no section of the Labor Law that exempts ‘interns’ at not-for-profit organizations from the minimum wage requirements,” a New York Department of Labor handout clarifies (PDF). Unlike for-profit corporations, nonprofits in New York are allowed to employ unpaid volunteers. Unpaid volunteers can’t be required to work certain hours though (Foundation interns are), and they cannot be compensated in any way except for reimbursement for expenses (some Foundation interns get stipends).

Doctor Fate wrote:Now, really, isn't this just a little bit funny?

No. It's just sad. Looking at the 990s for this organization, and understanding Clinton's stated position on unpaid interns, it's just stupid they have unpaid interns. Stupid and hypocritical. But if you're an egomaniac, that's what happens, and no one on her side will call her on it. There is an element to the emperor has no clothes in the people around her.

I can hear the chant from the people now : "Ber nie San ders!"

I love the fact that he got in. Say what you want about his political positions, you've got to admire his passion and guts.

geojanes wrote:
I can hear the chant from the people now : "Ber nie San ders!"

I love the fact that he got in. Say what you want about his political positions, you've got to admire his passion and guts.

and honesty ... but no way will he be elected.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Now, really, isn't this just a little bit funny?

No. It's just sad.

Well, yes. I should have been more discerning with regard to my description. I meant "hypocritical."

Looking at the 990s for this organization, and understanding Clinton's stated position on unpaid interns, it's just stupid they have unpaid interns. Stupid and hypocritical. But if you're an egomaniac, that's what happens, and no one on her side will call her on it. There is an element to the emperor has no clothes in the people around her.

I've been impressed that some on the left, writers mostly, have called her on some of her hypocrisy and questionable ethics. The Party, for the most part, has been cowed into silence.

I can hear the chant from the people now : "Ber nie San ders!"

I love the fact that he got in. Say what you want about his political positions, you've got to admire his passion and guts.

It's like with Ron Paul. I admired his passion. I admired his stands (and no, I didn't see his taking home bacon on the same level as her unpaid interns or her foundation not disclosing donors, etc.). I didn't want him as President, but I knew where he stood. Sanders is like that.

Hillary is much more like the SNL skit portrays her. As you said, she's an egomaniac.

geo

No. It's just sad. Looking at the 990s for this organization, and understanding Clinton's stated position on unpaid interns, it's just stupid they have unpaid interns. Stupid and hypocritical. But if you're an egomaniac, that's what happens, and no one on her side will call her on it. There is an element to the emperor has no clothes in the people around her

Who actually runs the foundation? Of the three Chelsea has the most to do with it....
It an't Hillary. Granted, she is going to suffer if the foundation does indeed prove to be a shamozzle. But they've got time to clean up some mess.

I'd prefer Elizabeth Warren, but that only happens if Hillary is destroyed and that's not likely. Only a little of the shit is going to stick to her.

Doctor Fate wrote:It's like with Ron Paul. I admired his passion.

Me too. Passion goes a long way. Passion, belief (in something, anything), honesty, and character go a long way. That stuff is more important than policies and positions for some people.

I don't like to predict, but this is politics, and it's just for fun, but there will be someone other than Clinton to be nominated, who might have a chance to win in 2016, or Clinton will get nominated and get crushed. No way Hillary Clinton is the next president of the USA.