Krugman on the Media's Clinton Rules

Apparently, Paul Krugman experienced the past 25 years of the Media's Clinton Rules:

[I]s this just the return of “Clinton rules”? If you are old enough to remember the 1990s, you remember the endless parade of alleged scandals, Whitewater above all — all of them fomented by right-wing operatives, all eagerly hyped by mainstream news outlets, none of which actually turned out to involve wrongdoing. The usual rules didn’t seem to apply; instead it was Clinton rules, under which innuendo and guilt by association were considered perfectly OK, in which the initial suggestion of lawbreaking received front-page headlines and the subsequent discovery that there was nothing there was buried in the back pages if it was reported at all.

So, is this time different? First indications are not encouraging; it’s already apparent that the author of the anti-Clinton book that’s driving the latest stuff is a real piece of work.

Again, maybe there’s something there. But given the history here, we’d all be well advised to follow our own Clinton rules, and be highly suspicious of any reports of supposed scandals unless there’s hard proof rather than mere innuendo.

< Loretta Lynch Confirmed as Attorney General | Bali 9 Duo Get 72 Hour Execution Notice >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    At least you posted this (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Jack E Lope on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:15:30 PM EST
    ...while Recidivist is at lunch.

    Or whatever that user name is.

    You spoke too soon . . . :( (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 02:00:29 PM EST
    He sure (none / 0) (#3)
    by FlJoe on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:19:00 PM EST
    is a repeat offender when it comes to the strangulation of logic.

    First (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Jack E Lope on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 04:28:55 PM EST
    ...does the fact that (s)he posts so much have any relationship to whether Rove, Adelson, Koch, Heritage and others pay their shills by the word?

    Second, does the fact that (s)he posts innuendo in the form of questions have the appearance of a classic concern troll?

    Third, does the lack of any cohesive argument indicate a lack of logic and lack of understanding, combined with an obsessive need to be right at any cost, or,

    Fourth, is it possible that the lack of evidence is because (s)he was instructed to sow doubt, and avoid falsifiable statements?

    Fifth, might we be wasting time responding to a minor annoyance?

    Finally, might it be time to annoy it back?


    All of the (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 04:35:27 PM EST
    above. If at least one Republican is already calling for Hillary to drop out of the race you know they are very concerned though not in a concern troll way. They are concerned that they are going to lose. They can read the polls as well as the rest of us. They also know that the GOP is driving voters away daily the latest being Bobby LMAO Jindal.

    Do we know that (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Jack E Lope on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 06:18:59 PM EST
    Regurgitron is a Republican?  I don't think that Repetivist has revealed anything like that directly.  The (s)he I referred to in my post is Repulsivist.  Or whatever that user name was.

    Well, (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 06:58:03 PM EST
    there apears to be a lot of these "concern trolls" showing up when the subject is Hillary. And they never seem to have a candidate. Or even really care much about issues. It's all about raising straw men questions about 'something". You know, the old GOP scream of if there's smoke there must be fire.

    Honestly at this rate the GOP is going to set themselves on fire and explode themselves in two months at the rate they are going.


    OK. I worked on Hillary's campaign (none / 0) (#67)
    by itscookin on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 01:34:48 PM EST
    in 2008. I recused myself from here when you all switched from a Hillary supporting blog to an Obama supporting blog only checking in to read the legal issue threads over the years. I still admire Hillary Clinton and would like to see her elected POTUS. I watched the Fox News report last night to see what all of the hullabaloo was about. While I don't think the Clintons have done anything illegal, I do think the Clinton Foundation has engaged in a lot of "pay to play", which has made them and the other people donating to the foundation very wealthy. If you base who you give your own charitable donations on how much of what you donate actually goes to the charitable acts and not to "expenses", then the Clinton Foundation is not anywhere you'd donate your money. I don't think the news coming out about the foundation will change anyone's mind who has already decided, but I think anyone who dismisses the information as being irrelevant because it was presented by Fox instead of MSNBC is showing themselves for being so biased as to prefer ignorance. If there's nothing illegal going on at the Clinton Foundation, then a little sunlight on their inner workings will not harm them, It might even help.

    I'm not alone in looking for some sunlight (none / 0) (#70)
    by itscookin on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 01:49:34 PM EST
    Common Cause Urges Independent Audit of Donations to the Clinton Foundation

    There have (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 02:00:23 PM EST
    been independent audits done. link

    Based on the information revealed and the (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:11:20 AM EST
    one hour special on FNC last night, which I am sure will be rebroadcast, any Repub who wants Hillary to withdraw has to be nuts.

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:14:23 AM EST
    FNC did such a great job on Obama that he lost twice. FNC was able to get Bill to resign from the presidency. FNC is a joke but they are sure are able to get gullible people to lap up everything they say. FNC makes the GOP look like a bunch of raving lunatics.

    FNC sets the bar so low that if Hillary doesn't fly in on a broom and put a hex on her opponent during a presidential debate she'll win in a landslide.


    "Crazy" - heh (none / 0) (#47)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:31:40 AM EST
    Yeah - all the wingnuts and TP whackjobs that believe the garbage on Faux News won't vote for Hillary.



    Talk about preaching to the choir! (none / 0) (#87)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 09:11:05 AM EST
    First, (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:30:34 PM EST
      does the fact the NYT publishes Krugman have any bearing on perceiving it as sheriff  of the unfair Anti-Clinton posse?

      Second, does the fact he twice inserts the caveat "maybe there's something there," indicate wishy washiness or just that he is above the level of the pro-Clinton contingent here?

      Third, is it possible that he is advocating skepticism of any reports less than flattering to Clinton  for reasons other than objective principle and that he might possibly be a supporter?

      Finally, as  a supporter, might he (admittedly much more deftly) be engaging in the same type of effort to preemptively discredit anyone who dares not fawn?

    Pretty sure (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:49:42 PM EST
    ...the answers to all of those are "no."

    If you have evidence to support these baseless accusations disguised (not very well) as questions, please proceed.

    Otherwise there would be no point to your post except to fling "stuff" against the wall to see if any sticks.


    First, I know it's getting harder to (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:51:45 PM EST
    make the distinction, but does the fact that there's a difference between reporting and editorializing mean anything to you?  

    Second, is it possible that inserting "maybe there is something there" isn't wishy-washiness, it's cover-his-ass-ness?  Krugman has no desire to be stripped naked and held up for ridicule because he didn't temper his words.

    Third, is it possible the skepticism comes from the numerous times many of these accusations have been debunked, and he doesn't have to be a supporter to not just be aware of that fact, but to be sick to death of knowing we're going to be stuck in a political Groundhog Day from which there is no escape?

    [Meanwhile, it could be revealed that the GOP field is up to its collective eyeballs in various forms of corruption and self-dealing and all the media will be able to do is investigate which of the field would win the Congeniality contest and which looks best in a bathing suit.  Oh, and where does Carly Fiorina get her cute shoes?]

    Finally, there will never be a "finally."  If she gets the nomination, it will continue.  If she wins, the the bill for impeachment will be drafted while she is taking the oath of office.  They will hound her to the gates of the hell they are sure she will be going to when she dies.

    Why won't you tell us that you're really David Brooks?


    Not in this context (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 02:14:46 PM EST
     because the Times controls who it publishes whether reporter or editorialist. If you don't think it publishing Krugman detracts from claims it is out to get Clinton, just say so.

       You'll have to elaborate on the distinction between wishy washy and CYA for me to understand your point.

      Sure, it's possible some people are skeptical of reporting on the Clinton based on what they perceive as overblown past coverage. It's equally possible many people are legitimately skeptical of the Clintons based on their past conduct.

        For the umpteenth time, I encourage any and all to expose any and all questionable activities of any and all GOP candidates. All I've said is blaming the factClinton is currently getting more scrutiny because there is a big media  conspiracy to knock her out is silly.


    I certainly don't thnk there (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 02:25:12 PM EST
    is a conspiracy to "knock her out".
    Heck, I think if she dropped out half of them would go home and hang them selves and another quarter would blow a shotgun.

    They love the Clinton's.  They are like a full employment act for sh!tty shoddy lazy journalism.

    Interestingly I think it will have the same effect it has had before which is to increase their support.  The elite press never thought Bill deserved to be president.   I used to think that mostly explained the obsession but I n longer think so.  I think it's pure opportunism.  Anything about them will get eyes clicks and ink.  No matter how silly it is.


    I think you nailed it... (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    the Clintons are the Kardashians of politics.

    A "news" outlet runs a Clinton story and ratings/clicks go through the roof...the people that love them tune in, the people that love to hate them tune in, the people that that love to hate the people that hate them tune in, and the people that love to hate the people that love them tune in.  Everybody and their mother tunes in...and while they're there maybe they'll buy some Tide.


    Ouch (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 02:39:44 PM EST
    Now (none / 0) (#15)
    by Reconstructionist on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 02:51:51 PM EST
      I can buy into your and the Capt's theories.

    Famous last words...n/t (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 03:05:14 PM EST
    And the next thing you know... (none / 0) (#24)
    by unitron on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 07:11:37 AM EST
    ...it's on every channel and there's nothing else to watch.

    They really are "the Kardashians of politics".


    No one is forced to watch Cable news crap (none / 0) (#36)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:07:19 AM EST
     and the vast majority of people exercise that freedom.

       If you combine the ratings for the 3 major networks,  about  3 million people per day watch any of the channels for any length of time. It's also probably a fair bet that  3 million is predominantly the same 3 million people over and over again.

      It's also probably a virtual certainty that the huge majority of the people who are regular viewers of political  nonsense on cable TV do not have their minds changed by anything they watch but choose to watch the crap that most closely reflects their existing biases.


    Who said "cable news"? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:22:36 AM EST
    You realize there are other channels, right?  I get you're attempting to minimize the effect of tv news to make .. well, ... some point, but for most Americans it's their primary source of news.

    It's also probably a virtual certainty that the huge majority of the people who are regular viewers of political  nonsense on cable TV do not have their minds changed by anything they watch but choose to watch the crap that most closely reflects their existing biases.

    Really?  Based on what?  Because it popped into your head?  But I love the beginning of that sentence - what exactly is "probably a virtual certainty"



    "Probably a virtual certainty" (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 01:09:59 PM EST
    Let me attempt to translate.

    This is a Southern phrase that means something this probably certain to occur in the virtual world of Fox News.....Something that is certain in the Fox bubble--but nowhere else....


    Well (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 02:39:05 PM EST
    from what I've seen so far it seems that the BS seems to be pushing more people into her camp because they're sick of the BS.

    I think it is some of both. The press can't decide if they are white trash from Arkansas unworthy to clean the toilets in the white house or they are rich elitists. And yes it gets them lots of clicks because even for Republicans they can't stop talking about them.

    Then you have the critics who come off as condescending and smarmy who drive people out of their own camp. The smug smarminess coming out of the GOP these days is over the top.


    The press had it right (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:19:04 AM EST
    when they saw them as "white trash from Arkansas" in 1992 and they are now right when they see them as "rich elitists."

    Be sure and watch the FNC special. It'll curl your hair.



    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:26:23 AM EST
    for confirming the fact that the GOP is full of elitst idiots.

    FNC makes me laugh. They are a huge problem for the GOP and have helped make the GOP a national laughingstock. Why would I waste my time watching them? The National Enquirer is probably more accurate than they are.

    The wacko 39% of the population will believe what ever junk they are pushing. You're part of their gullible wankers. LOL.

    I bet FNC didn't talk about the Pew Poll that has very bad news for the GOP in it did they?


    Hey (none / 0) (#99)
    by sj on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:14:19 PM EST
    The National Enquirer is probably more accurate than they [FNC] are.
    The National Enquirer does actual investigative journalism for the sleaze they publish. They brought down John Edwards.

    you forgot (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by FlJoe on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 11:06:21 AM EST
    the part about them being power mad megalomaniacs, with Bill whoring out the services of Hillary to the highest bidder. I suppose FNC filled you in. Did they reveal any particular smoking gun, dead body or any actual shred of evidence that the Clinton's did anything underhanded? If so please give us a taste so we don't have to waste any portion of our lives with the derp.

    Hmmm, I wonder were you get (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 12:58:26 PM EST
    that Bill and Hill are megalomaniacs...

    I mean just because they believe that the rules don't apply to them...


    As to the evidence, no reasonable person can believe that someone has a meeting with a politician and then contributes millions to some pet project of the politician for no reason at all...

    Or that unqualified brothers get seats on corp boards...

    ....preponderance of guilt...

    Look it up. It is a phrase that will come back and haunt you.


    "preponderance of guilt" (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 01:04:15 PM EST
    is a botched phrase.

    The word "preponderance" is a word used in civil cases to describe the burden of proof--basically 51%....

    "Guilt" is a term from criminal law.   Civil law does not use the term "guilt" or "guilty."   Civil law uses the term "liable" or "liability" instead.

    So, Jimbo, this catchphrase you are now using "preponderance of guilt" is a dumbas* phrase on its face.


    Really?? (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 11:22:26 PM EST
    Elections aren't legal contests so if you don't mind I'll use whatever word I like.

    But since you are bothered by it then you must know what I am speaking of.

    Scares you, eh??

    Well, think about Bill saying this:

    While speaking at Georgetown University this Tuesday, Bill referred to the Islamic State group as the "most interesting non-governmental organization today."

    Bill defended this classification by arguing, "When they go capture a place, they set up their own judicial system, they set up their own rule making, they set up whatever their social services are going to be."

    He added that "they have a vision" and "a strategy," though he admitted that this strategy includes killing anybody who disagrees with them.

    "I think you live in an exciting time," he also said (H/T WZ). "I think that is unlikely these ideological driven conflicts we're having now with non state actors will be fully resolved."

    So to recap, 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton's husband just basically handed the Islamic State group full legitimacy by classifying it as a non-governmental organization. Even worse, he acted as if the presence of this terrorist NGO is somehow exciting.

    It almost makes me wonder whether the Clinton Foundation is receiving donations from the Islamic State group ...

    Regardless, that Bill would give it this sort of legitimacy and that he would refer to its presence on the world stage as "exciting" just goes to show why neither he nor his wife ever deserve to be back in the White House.

    Maybe Bill can be Hillary's Sec of State if she becomes President?


    Your phrase makes no sense (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by MKS on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 01:22:38 AM EST
    and exposes your ignorance--just like your assertion that you had visited Latin American when you went to the Bahamas.

    You link to another conservative (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by MKS on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 01:43:01 AM EST
    conspiracy group....

    You do realize the context of what Bill was saying, right?

    Remember Rudy Giuliani and other Republicans saying that Putin was a real leader unlike Obama?

    I guess you can support Scott Walker who said on his second try to answer the commander-in-chief question that he had been a boy scout.

    That is some line up on the other side....


    Being chased by a grizzly bear... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by unitron on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 03:07:52 PM EST
    ...is probably interesting and exciting, but I suspect that's an experience I'd just as soon forgo.

    I know from personal experience that hurricanes are interesting and exciting, but that doesn't mean I'm hoping for any of them to come around here this (or any other) year.

    And ISIS is an organization, and so far it is of the non-governmental variety, although it's one of their goals to change that.

    I really don't see his remarks as a ringing endorsement of them.


    Bill Clinton admires ISIS? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 08:42:05 AM EST
    That is really an imbecilic conclusion.

    Or as (none / 0) (#91)
    by FlJoe on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 03:16:47 PM EST
    Jim Morrison put it  Shaman's Blues  
    Did you stop it to consider?
    How it will feel
    Cold, grinded grizzly bear jaws hot on your heel

    So I did that (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by sj on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:38:48 PM EST

    ....preponderance of guilt...

    Look it up. It is a phrase that will come back and haunt you.

    Google returns nothing.

    The phrase has as much to do with reality as the rest of your garbage-y spewings. Maybe you should take your garbage with you when you go back under your bridge.


    Guilty (none / 0) (#72)
    by FlJoe on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 02:12:47 PM EST
    of what? Don't pronouncements of guilt take an actual crime to make sense? Oh, right the Clinton Rules.
    Let's see, Bill accepts charitable donations and honorariums(absolute chump change in context) in return for approval of a deal ...Bill asks Hillary for help, she of course jumps aboard.....  Hillary then uses her super powers to bend all of of these agencies to her will:

    The members of CFIUS include the heads of the following departments and offices:

    Department of the Treasury (chair)
    Department of Justice
    Department of Homeland Security
    Department of Commerce
    Department of Defense
    Department of State
    Department of Energy
    Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
    Office of Science & Technology Policy
    The following offices also observe and, as appropriate, participate in CFIUS's activities:

    Office of Management & Budget
    Council of Economic Advisors
    National Security Council
    National Economic Council
    Homeland Security Council
    The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting, ex-officio members of CFIUS with roles as defined by statute and regulation.

    All in secret of course! The Canadians too! Face it Jim, with powers like that we are doomed , 21 months from now we will be bowing to her royal highness emperess for life.

    Try telling an average American who isn't a minion (1.50 / 2) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 11:25:48 PM EST
    of Bill and Hill that other rich business people just give them money and never expect anything in return.

    $145 million is preponderance of guilt


    And keep whistling as you walk past the grave yard.


    The money was used (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by MKS on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 01:21:34 AM EST
    to help fight AIDS, save kids, etc.  The money was not received by Hillary....That is a big difference.

    Sorry (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by FlJoe on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 07:16:45 AM EST
    to break it you Jim, but judging on your rhetoric the average American is much smarter then you, I think virtually everybody else in the entire world understands the concept of charity.

    Please, $145 mil is just a rounding error on a rounding error with this crowd, if the were really buying influence they would break out the big bucks (see Koch Bros et. al.)

    Once you pronounce guilt without actually naming the crime. Please Jim, name the crime for us.

    Keep whistling at the graveyard Jim, a graveyard filled with zombie strawmen, vampire lies and  lycanthropic history.


    Did you hear Hillary (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 01:07:22 PM EST
    is a witch who summons the ghost of Vince Foster to persecute the Southern Republicans who call themselves Christians?

    And Bill Clinton worked a deal to forge Obama's Birth Certificate....It was all part of their master plan to make Hillary President.


    Thanks (4.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:26:22 AM EST
    for confirming the fact that the GOP is full of elitst idiots.

    FNC makes me laugh. They are a huge problem for the GOP and have helped make the GOP a national laughingstock. Why would I waste my time watching them? The National Enquirer is probably more accurate than they are.

    The wacko 39% of the population will believe what ever junk they are pushing. You're part of their gullible wankers. LOL.

    I bet FNC didn't talk about the Pew Poll that has very bad news for the GOP in it did they?


    Ga, polls today mean exactly nothing (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:36:23 AM EST
    about the 11/2016 election. Of course they make you feel better.

    Try watching the special and see point after point made and you will understand the meaning of...

    "...based on the preponderance of evidence...."


    You (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:42:53 AM EST
    don't understand. This was not head to heads with Hillary. It was about all the massive structural problems the GOP has  like a dying base, issues that nobody likes and the fact that the majority of Americans have a negative opinion of the GOP.

    If you think you're going to be able to scandal yourself into the presidency and the toddler temper tantrums are going to get a Republican into office you are really clueless.

    In the last quarter of a century the GOP has won the popular vote ONLY ONCE. And even that wasn't a big win. Your hero Walker is unpopular in his own state.

    What you don't realize is that opinions of Hillary are baked in and she actually has net positives which every GOP candidate has NET NEGATIVES and getting to know them better is only going to drive their negatives up not down.


    Ga, I don't care who are (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 12:54:07 PM EST
    in the polls. It is far to early to put any faith in them.

    But enjoy yourself. Hillary is toast.


    Hillary is toast (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 12:58:47 PM EST
    Just like Obama was toast.

    My god, you guys just brainwash yourselves.....


    MKS... (none / 0) (#116)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 02:35:28 PM EST
    ...don't forget Fox News viewers were all the shocked over Romney losing.

    From 2012:

    Now that President Obama has decisively won reelection with an electoral landslide, Luntz has crawled out from beneath his wretched rightist rock to make what may be the most hilarious, deceitful, and self-serving statement of the whole campaign season:
    "The published polls that the Romney campaign and the Republican establishment were trashing day after day turned out to be accurate.  [...] This is a bad day for establishment pollsters and it's something they should be held accountable for. You have to tell your clients the truth. And you have to be accurate. And to miss so many states and to be this far off - Your Fox News viewers ought to be outraged, because day in and day out they were told that Mitt Romney was going to win."

    Indeed, Fox News viewers should be outraged - At Luntz and Fox News! After all, it was Fox that was trashing the polls that turned out to be accurate. It was Fox where conservative voters were fed the most conspicuously dishonest misinformation about the election and the projected outcome. They are the reason that Romney and his supporters were described as "shell-shocked" when they realized that he had lost. They are the ones who promoted nonsense like "Unskewed Polls" that ironically sought to skew published polling so that Romney came out ahead.


    I am guessing the same folks who told Jim Romney would win are the same folks telling him HRC is toast.


    You know what (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 01:23:39 PM EST
    I really keep hoping that entire GOP thinks like you do and I think they do.

    While you guys are sitting around on your butts feeling self satisfied that she is "toast" in your little echo chambers she's out setting up offices in all 50 states and registering voters and lining up people to help in her campaign.

    So continue on from the bubble.


    et al (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 11:16:28 PM EST
    MKS - Obama had no baggage that he could get the press to ignore. Hillary has tons that won't be ignored.

    Ga - And do you really think that she is the only candidate who will set up offices in all "57" states??



    Well (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 07:56:43 AM EST
    if baggage is going to be a problem for a candidate then the GOP might as well not even nominate anyone to run in 2016. Let's see Ted Cruz tried to blow up the entire country, Jindal thinks wants to turn the US into Iran and the entire state is teetering on bankruptcy, Scott Walker is still under criminal investigation and thinks being a boy scout qualifies him for president. Then there's Sharia Bush with Terri Schiavo and even the Republicans in Florida are now trying to undo all the crap he did to the state.

    So Jim if you believe that "baggage" is going to be such an issue just go ahead and start telling Rence that the GOP doesn't need to even run a candidate in 2016.

    And you are making the same argument Obama made back in 2008. As a matter of fact the entire GOP sounds like Obama. So are you now going to embrace Obama?


    Cary Fiorina (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 09:14:45 AM EST
    Of the infamous "demon sheep" commercial, will be running as well.

    Maybe she can promise to do for America what she did for HP.


    Did they, Jim? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:24:27 AM EST
    Is this another area of your expertise?

    You're from Tennessee, right?


    Yes, yman I grew up watching (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:33:35 AM EST
    the god awful actions of TN and AR politicians in the (almost) single party (Democrat) organizations.

    That gives me a huge advantage over people like you who can only read what the Clintons did.


    And like you, ... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:39:02 AM EST
    ... the southern "Democrat" (sic) organizations" that you grew up watching in the Jim Crow era are today's southern Republicans/TPers.

    And you (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:46:16 AM EST
    have become what you say you hate. The GOP is now the Dixiecrat party and Tea Partiers are every bit as bad as the Dixiecrats ever were. Tea partiers are the most disgusting bunch of garbage that has come down the pike in a long time. They hate everybody, want to reinstate Jim Crow, turn back women's rights and kill off gays. They have more in common with Iran than America. Truly disgusting  garbage.

    GA, neither you or yman (2.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 12:52:47 PM EST
    have ever attended a "Tea Party" meeting.

    So please forgive me for pointing out your collective ignorance.

    But do continue to demonstrate it for all the world to see.

    yman, yes and no. Some Demos converted, others did not. And 1948 is 67 years ago so I think most of them are dead.

    And there was one noted Demo who was in the KKK.


    I grew up on the 40's and 50's and watched a single party south elect Demo after Demo after Demo who were collectively racist. I watched them oppose and fight against the Civil Rights act and I watched the Repubs pass the bill.

    Somehow the Demos have convinced the black voters that it was Repubs who opposed civil rights while the truth is the exact opposite.


    Jim (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 01:20:29 PM EST
    I live in the county with the second largest tea party in the country. They are disgusting. We had one of them get on our school board and they made up lies about the superintendant. They are trash who want nothing better than to blow up the country.

    So even you admit that was 50 years ago but even you have to admit it lives on in the GOP.

    The Republicans did not pass the bill and let me remind you that your hero Ronald Reagan campaigned about civil rights. And you voted for Goldwater in 1964 you said who was against Civil Rights and ending Jim Crow. You fool no one.


    "Somehow" (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 06:33:25 PM EST
    Yeah - with facts.  AA voters know that the Dixiecrats from your youth are today's southern Republicans/TPers, and you've joined them.  It's not a secret.

    Fifth (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 05:55:25 PM EST
    Do you ever stop with the passive aggressive arguments in the form of straw "questions"?

    Sure, it's an easy way to demonstrate your ability to defeat your own, silly arguments, but it's incredibly transparent.

    Not to mention boring.


    Dear Gawd ,,, (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Yman on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 06:01:38 PM EST
    Second, does the fact he twice inserts the caveat "maybe there's something there," indicate wishy washiness or just that he is above the level of the pro-Clinton contingent here?

    Would you prefer he just made silly accusations in the form of questions (hint - see above, ... and pretty much every post you make).  Would that seem less "wishy washy" to you, or are his qualifiers in his direct statements enough to demonstrate that he is light years above the level of the CDSers here?


    Yman, just face it, (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by fishcamp on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 01:47:00 PM EST
    Recon is a bloviator.

    Heh (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:32:35 PM EST
    You know (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:46:18 PM EST
    Republicans. They will flog a dead horse.

    'Tis a puzzlement (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by christinep on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 04:37:16 PM EST
    The guessing games ... and, here I am (and we all are) still trying to figure out what it is with the American press and the obvious Attitude toward the Clintons. Because it won't matter in the long run, IMO, my favorite theories about Why change from time to time.  

    Lately, seeing the sputtering re-emergence of the Wah-wah-the-Clintons-did-this-or-they-must-have-didn't-they onset from the press, I had flashes of the diatribes and sermonettes circa 1997 when these would-be journalists tried to out-predict each other as to when President Bill Clinton would resign.  Led by the TV likes of the late Tim Russert who--with face glowering red--they talked over each other rushing to say that he would be gone within week(s.)  It all got so lost after awhile ... you had to stop and try to think about what evil he must have perpetuated (forgetting periodically that it was about a human male who did not answer honestly about whether he had sex with a woman.)  

    Well, we all know what happened in the off-year elections. Democrats won back big time.  And, after the victory party was over, we sat there wondering what had the Press been thinking. The whole Press rampage had been so out-of-it.  How could they have been so wrong? What got in the way? Perspective? Reality?  In my experience, when people or organizations get something so wrong, the cause often doesn't have anything to do with facts, analysis, studies, even organizational or societal values ... it may come down to one of the most pernicious of all powerful, destructive emotions.  ENVY. You know: Why does he/she deserve all that? What does that say about us? (Hint: They might ignore us if we don't find the clay feet.)

    The faces that turn so red at the mention of one or both Clintons--especially as both Clintons continue to grow in stature, fame, wealth, and all those big things--may well be driven by the color of ENVY.  From green eyes to red faces to invariable bring-them-down-to-size blasts.

    Both the media AND the Clintons... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 04:00:16 PM EST
    ...are bad for the country right now. Their endless fellating of Wall Street and the wealthy is helping destroy the nation little by little, doing its own damage alongside the right-wing variety.

    Frankly, I have no time for either the political imagination vacuums OR those fake pundits who right about them.

    Our nation is screwed, and their is NO ONE on the scene who is enough of a leader or possesses the political imagination and courage to change things.

    No one.

    So while I can agree with Krugman, I can also believe, based on very good evidence, that its almost completely irrelevant to what ails and what the nations needs right now. It's very typical modern America: delusional to an inexcusable extent.

    Peace, y'all.

    Clinton and Nixon (1.00 / 3) (#30)
    by thomas rogan on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 08:33:27 AM EST
    I somehow doubt that Richard Nixon personally ordered the Watergate burglary.  He got ensnared in an illegal coverup to protect his own people.
    Bill and Hillary personally protected themselves and had their surrogates attack Monica Lewinsky for being a "troubled woman".  The let her twist in the wind until the blue dress appeared.
    Bill and Hillary also personally issued pardons (Marc Rich?) and had a multibillion dollar foundation which accepted foreign donations while Hillary was secretary of state.  That foundation seems to have neglected to report some of these donations.
    I think that you all know that the Clintons are just as crooked as Nixon was.  
    Is the Democratic party so bankrupt that there is no one more qualified than an ethically-challenged 8 year senator (no leadership positions) who served four years in one cabinet position?  

    That's possibly even more absurd (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 09:39:52 AM EST
      as anything YMan, Ga6th or any blind Clinton supporters write-- and that's saying a lot.

      I think my bona fides as a Clinton skeptic are sufficiently established to immunize me from any accusation of bias in their favor   and equating their transgressions with Nixon's is ridiculous.

      Nearly 50 Nixon Administration figures including his closest confidantes were CONVICTED of CRIMES. (Nixon was, of course pardoned before any charges were filed-- a decision for which I do not fault Ford).

       Nixon not only defied a lawful subpoena from the special prosecutor (Archibald Cox) he first ordered cox to drop the subpoena and when Cox refused ordered the AG (Elliot Richardson) to fire Cox. When Richardson refused, Nixon demanded Richardson (and Ruckelhaus) "resign"-- a constructive discharge in furtherance of obstruction of justice.

      Nixon was aware of and in some cases directly approved of criminal actions related to the cover-up of the DNC burglary and then directly approved further criminal action to conceal the illegal activities to cover up the cover ip so to speak.

      When finally ordered by the SC to release the tapes we learned that among the action in furtherance of obstruction of justice were having the CIA falsely tell the FBI that its investigation should not proceed because national security was implicated. Instructing aides to lie under oath. Concocting a money laundering scheme which involved transfer of money through overseas banks to pay hush money to co-conspirators. Using the DOJ when led by John Mitchell to conduct intelligence operations (illegal surveillance included) against political enemies. And that's just a brief rundown off the top of my head.

      I believe that ethical lapses faaaaar short of Watergate deserve intense scrutiny, but it is discrediting in the extreme to claim the Clintons are as crooked as Nixon. Even if every aspect of ever farfetched claim (short of murder which one has to be insane to believe) ever made against the Clintons were entirely true, Nixon made them look like pikers.

       As for experience, first, 8 years in the Senate and 4 a SOS is not only standing alone extensive and important experience, it would be fair to consider he a de facto high ranking presidential aide for an additional eight years. Her experience clearly exceeds that of  any Repub currently being considered and also exceeds that of many people in the past from either party  who have run for President including many who won. (Just in my lifetime, JFK, Reagan, her husband, Bush II and Obama)

      You can argue she wasn't particularly good in her prior positions, but that a different issue.


    And yet, ... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 09:53:31 AM EST
    ... absurd and laughable as it is on it's face, it pales in comparison to your specious, evidence-free CDS-induced claims.

    And there you go (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:16:41 AM EST
     making me look like a liar for claiming someone could be more absurd than you.

      You truly are one of the most laughably foolish people I have run across in any venue.



    Heh - YOU think so? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:25:19 AM EST
    I'll take that as a compliment.

    I should have included Carter (none / 0) (#54)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:55:26 AM EST
     among presidents in my lifetime whom Clinton has more experience.

    This did get me to smile (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 08:54:23 AM EST
    Chock full of rat-a-tat-tat clichés.....

    A classic drive-by.....


    And validates my theory (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 09:00:05 AM EST
    that Republicans suffer from Watergate Envy.



    Well (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 01:18:31 PM EST
    this same thing has been tried four times 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2006 and it did not work. I guess there's the eternal hope that if they keep doing it that one day it will work.

    The GOP apparently has no positive agenda to vote for apparently and it's patently obvious to almost every voter in the country that the GOP is completely insane and beholden to the far right.

    Maher nails it (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 08:04:29 AM EST

    But quite apart from his nailing it you will find, in that clip, everything that's wrong with this picture.  As the monumentally idiotic Anna Marie Cox does exactly what you expect her to do and reads from the tired stupid memo she got on the Clinton's. AFTER Maher set the thing up as being "two liberals and two conservatives".  Perfect.  The female "conservative" is less transparent in her blind hatred than Cox.  

    Watch the clip.  Amazing.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 08:22:27 AM EST
    but the message I get is that the Clintons don't handle things the way they think they should be handling it. They are not submissive enough to their "betters" whether it's conservatives or liberals. All this gets back to the attitude that the press thinks they are white trash from Arkansas.

    Yes, the redeeming feature (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by KeysDan on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 11:05:52 AM EST
    of Bill's show was that the panel segment was short.  The Weekly Standard guy did wear a very nice suit, but that was not enough to tip my assessment.  I, too,  was surprised when Bill announced that there were two liberals and two conservatives on the panel. Ms. Cox never seemed like a liberal, even when she was a frequent guest on the Rachel Maddow Show.  Cox was first out with a response to Bill's set-up on the Clinton Foundation, and added nothing to the conversation other than to remove any doubt that may have existed that she is shallow and has nothing to contribute.

    Ana Marie Cox (none / 0) (#27)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 08:25:39 AM EST
    has become a born-again, Evangelical Christian.

    Here is her article.


    Perfect (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 08:29:29 AM EST
    scuse me while I purge.

    This conversion has had a profound impact (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 08:30:24 AM EST
    on her.....I do not mean to demean.  I think a conversion experience is a very real experience, as explained by Williams James in his lectures later published as the Varieties of Religious Experience.

    But she does not sound like she has become Catholic or Episcopalian or other old line Protestant.....She sounds Evangelical--e.g., having a personal relationship with Jesus.

    And the current Evangelicals come with very conservative political views....Some of that may have rubbed off on Ana Marie Cox.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 08:36:37 AM EST
    full disclosure I know some very liberal evangelicals.  Cox is an idiot.  She has always been an idiot.  Living here has changed my predisposition to dismiss people of faith.   I dont dislike her because she is a Christian. I dislike her because she's an idiot.

    Watched it live, can't take it again (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:19:37 PM EST
    Same old 'this is not going way' crapola from the members of the media who are dang well not going to let it go away.

    I am torn between enjoyment of watching GOP heads explode and my own head exploding at the renewal of the idiocy.


    This cr@p makes me so (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by caseyOR on Sun Apr 26, 2015 at 02:40:24 PM EST
    p!ssed off. I am beyond embarrassed by the pitiful dreck that passes for journalism in this country. And why does the news media have such a hard-* * for the Clinton's?

    I am so disgusted by all of this that I am just about ready to send Hillary money. I have moments when I want her to win just to spite our so-called journalists.

    OMG! Stop the presses! Rich people have lots of money! Stop the presses again! Rich people hang out together!

    Idiots, the whole lot of them.?


    Ah, now we have the ususal (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 10:29:17 AM EST
    "inside baseball" stuff.

    The issue isn't who are and who isn't a fan...

    But did the player juice themselves, spit on the ball and cork the bat??

    Of course that assumes you want the facts.

    BTW - The player has done all three.

    Now those conservative hacks (none / 0) (#68)
    by Reconstructionist on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 01:37:45 PM EST
     at Common Cause are joining the conspiracy.

      Obviously, CC  doing this to promote a right wing agenda when they know full well it's morally wrong to call for greater scrutiny unless there is already irrefutable direct evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

      The sheer gall of thinking that it's OK to hide behind highfalutin' words such as transparency. It's downright infuriating, I tell you!

    Good thing it's  only an inch from the Klan politically.

    Not necessarily "irrefutable" ... but, (none / 0) (#73)
    by christinep on Sat Apr 25, 2015 at 03:25:46 PM EST
    let's ask for "some evidence" from you, Reconstructionist. That would help.

    Of course, the quest for as much info as possible is built into the system as it should be.  Formal and informal oversight, the media pressing for info about all organizations ... as they should, from and about all organizations.  Not simply from Hillary Clinton, but from all seekers of higher office ... equally.  Equally.

    Then, there are the big foundations.  The big ones often have big money at the top and, certainly, from a certain portion of big contributors. These non-profits, charitable organizations--like the Clinton Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Catholic Charities organization--all appear to do good work.  Then, people hear about it and read about it and tend to contribute more $$$$.  Heck, for a good cause -- audited just as the Clinton Foundation has been ... they sure as heck don't resemble the big secret PACs like Right to Rise and all those with $$$$$ coming from and going--well--where would those $$$$$ be coming from and going to?  But, do we want to go there ... nah, let's just focus on the draw "The Clintons."  That way all the focusing organizations (political and non-political) can rile up their followers and collect more money to keep the circular focus going.


    YOU (none / 0) (#93)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 10:29:31 AM EST
      are free to research and write about on anyone other than Clintons whom you believe deserves scrutiny. So is everyone else including members of the media and people with specific partisan agenda.

       I also think YOU (unlike some here --who shall remain nameless-- whom I  am persuaded are in fact that stupid) are smart enough to know  that  actionable evidence is not often the starting point of investigation, it's a potential result. That party line defense may be ingrained but it's transparent hogwash.

      Imagine a potential client comes to a lawyer's office claiming she  was wrongfully discriminated against by her  employer ( or any number of things). Do you think lawyers always  reject looking into the case if the person cannot provide direct "hard evidence" of actionable conduct?  Have you any idea of the number of things that would never have been shown and to some degree remedied, if lawyers simply refused all cases where the client had not tied a neat package of proof up with a bow and presented it to a lawyer who needed to nothing but organize and present the client provided evidence?

       Obviously,  not every potential client presents even a case worthy of investigation if everything he says is taken at face value. Also, further investigation will sometimes indicate (not always for reasons related to the legal or moral culpability of the adverse party) that the case is not worth pursuing.

      But, MANY MANY MANY times the sometimes relatively bare allegations made by a client are suggestive and it  is precisely the kind of thorough investigation which obviously includes examining for patterns of practice, concealed intent, etc., etc.

       Sure a woman stating: I was passed over for a promotion; I'm a woman; three times, men who had been with the company a shorter period of time than me got promoted; it's gender discrimination, has not proven that it's in fact gender discrimination.

      It very well could be though. And, it's not rarely the case that further investigation will show that her specific claim is strongly buttressed by evidence showing she is not an isolated example at her employer and data showing that hiring and promotions skewing in a statistically improbable manner if "gender-neutral" decisions were being made.

      That kind of pattern and practice evidence is NOT "direct" evidence the woman has been wrongfully discriminated against. It sure as shooting can be highly compelling circumstantial evidence and has long been recognized as such by the courts.  Cases are lost by employers despite NO direct evidence (which literally could come only in the form of an admission) of discrimination (and many more are settled) precisely because in most contexts normal people have little trouble grasping the import of such circumstantial evidence. the more circumstantial evidence you have and the stronger it is, the more likely you are to prevail. But, you won't have it if you refuse to look for it (and know where to look and how to compel its disclosure).

      People are going to do a lot more than  the absurdly illogical blather (I won't dignify it by calling it an argument) that investigation must begin with proof or are somehow illegitimate.



    So far we've heard a lot abut the smoke (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 11:06:05 AM EST
    of the scandal trail the Clintons have left behind them, when someone comes up with a real fire generating that smoke is when people will start to own attention.

    See also: Aesop,  "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".


    lets start picking (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 11:12:06 AM EST
    Imagine a potential client comes to a lawyer's office claiming she  was wrongfully discriminated against by her  employer ( or any number of things). Do you think lawyers always  reject looking into the case if the person cannot provide direct "hard evidence" of actionable conduct?
    . Don't you see that this investigation starts with an allegation of wrong doing in the work place not with the behavior of her bosses outside of it. If she went into the lawyers office saying she had no proof of discrimination but her boss reads Playboy so he must be guilty she would be quickly dismissed.

    According to the Clinton Rules, if I were to go out and buy a gun, I should immediately be investigated for armed robbery. Sorry, all politicians and their puppet masters deserve extreme scrutiny, but this whole meme of the Clinton's always pulling off these incredible triple bank shots (with masse), with no one actually seeing the ball go into the pocket, is simply ridiculous.


    To begin (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:08:48 PM EST
    I consider FlJoe's response below on point.

    To clarify ... "some evidence" does not equate to the "hard evidence" line that you have used.  For instance: Specifically, what has been claimed to be the wrong/the sin/the violation as to Hillary Clinton and the operation of the CGI. Unless we are talking only about suggestions and innuendo, it seems to me that a minimum entry to claim of scandal in any case of a public individual and a related non-profit foundation should be able to be summarized by stating the What and the Why of a matter in the public sphere.

    IMO, the inability of those who would cry "Foul" or "Wrong" or "Violation <of?>" repeatedly in the press, and who continue to pursue vague claims should have something/some facts (aka "some evidence") to offer.  That hasn't happened.  What we appear to have: A large non-profit foundation; lots of $$$$ donated to it (domestic and foreign contributions & large and small amounts); factual background about relatively clean audits; factual background about charitable work directed by the foundation; political implications; and, Hillary Clinton.  What now?  Insofar as I understand, there usually is a "charge" or "statement of wrong" before investing time, energy, $$$$ before going much further in the development of a "scandal."  So ... what is that specific statement?

    BTW, in the absence of some specificity that states what actions constituted a wrong, it sure looks like a modernized version of the classic Fishing Expedition.  Those tempted by the get-the-nets-out-for-the-Clintons should be advised to listen to Arkansan Asa Hutchinson when he cautioned fellow Repubs yesterday not to overplay their hand against the "complicated" Clintons.  I chuckled at that; then, I laughed loudly realizing that the situation will, of course, be overplayed. Repubs & catnip.  


    "Some" evidence (none / 0) (#102)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:51:55 PM EST
      might be construed to include facts such as:

     Very large donations  were made.

    Hillary was in fact SOS.

    Bill Clinton was in fact former President of the USA and could reasonably be perceived as having the ability to influence over more people than Hillary.

    Some people making those donations had "deals" in process for transactions requiring approval by U.S. other governments.

    Some of those same donors also paid or had part in arranging to have Clinton give speeches from which benefitted quite handsomely.

    Bill Clinton also appears to have currently ill-defined and vaguely described "partnerships" and/or contracts with persons (natural and organizational) relating to private (and presumbaly remunerative) business.

    Clinton gave speeches and in some of them praised people such as Putin and  Nazarbayev, President of  Kazakhstan close in time to deals sought by donors.

      The 990s from several past years have now been admitted to be erroneous and it appears, coincidentally, that some of the errors related to the reporting of government and private donations .

    The audit by Price Waterhouse(which even if properly done would shed no light on the motives and actions of donors and donees) must now be questioned since it failed to identify the now admitted errors.

    Are you asserting none  of that is "evidence?"



    "Evidence" of What Wrong? (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 01:11:53 PM EST
    Although I like that you compiled a list of purported factual background, there might be an error--full, partial, or elision--as to the statement about HRC being SOS if you are implying or offering that she was active or serving in any capacity on the CGI at the time she was SOS.  My understanding is that HRC terminated and recused herself from acting in any capacity with CGI throughout her entire tenure as Secretary of State.

    For starters, also, I have questions: (1) Your statement about President Clinton's role is somewhat fuzzy, vague.  Please clarify. (2) Are you suggesting that internationally important personages such as a former President should be limited in saying positive things ("praised") about other major leaders with whom we have diplomatic relations in consideration that said leaders may sometimes take actions with which we would not necessarily agree?  Please clarify ... especially as to what is acceptable positive language about other foreign leaders.

    As for Price Waterhouse's earlier audit: Since we do not yet know the precise nature of the corrections--as you know, there has been indication that it cuts both ways--we might want to wait a bit before summarily tossing aside the Waterhouse audit.

    And, again ... since your statements are set out in a somewhat straightforward manner, I'd invite you to state What is the Wrong?


    Yes, in MANY circumstances (none / 0) (#110)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 01:32:20 PM EST
    Are you suggesting that internationally important personages such as a former President should be limited in saying positive things ("praised") about other major leaders with whom we have diplomatic relations in consideration that said leaders may sometimes take actions with which we would not necessarily agree?

       Depends on the context. I can even think of other situations beyond ones where a former President says positive thgings at a time where he and his supporters have financial interests that may be futhered by the praise.

       Right now we have diplomatic relationships with, for example,  Iran and Saudi Arabia.

       I would be greatly troubled if GWB gave a speech in Riyadh praising the House of Saud's exemplary treatment of women and guest workers. It would not be a crime by any reckoning but that wouldn't make it right, and I would expect the media to fully examine what motive he might have for doing so and to raise question about his brother's positions.

       If Jimmy Carter came out and praised Iran and stated the current leadership should be entrusted to possess nuclear weapons because of its trustworthiness, I would be very concerned even though no one in his family is running for President.


    As to the AUDIT (and the 990s) (none / 0) (#112)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 01:43:44 PM EST
      As I stated last week before the errors were publicly admitted by the Foundation, none of those documents actually answer questions relating to the motives and the donors or Clinton. Donald and the others who tried to use the existence of those document to demonstrate nothing amiss were wrong even when we could still assume they were error free.

      A 100% properly identified, categorized and documented donation could be given for the purpose of gain by the donor in tangible and intangible ways. A 100% properly identified, categorized and documented donation could be accepted by the donee with the understanding it was offered in exchange for some action or inaction by the done.

      That does not mean the reporting error is not evidence relevant to shedding light on the whys of the giving and receiving. People generally are simply more likely to hide, conceal or obscure something they does not want others to know about than things which publicity will not hurt.


    Strange (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 02:16:39 PM EST
    none of those documents actually answer questions relating to the motives and the donors or Clinton
    yet somehow you have the power to assign motive as you see fit.

    No, (none / 0) (#114)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 02:22:45 PM EST
      but I very much want to learn as much as I can about the motives of the Clintons and the donors. That will require a great deal of investigation and scrutiny. (and, gasp, drawing inferences from the then available circumstantial evidence of states of minds-- just like is done in EVERY case where motive and intent is at issue)

       I do think I have a very good handle on the motives of those trying to claim the only reason for that investigation and scrutiny is a conspiracy to wrongfully defame the Clintons.

      Why would anyone unafraid of what might be revealed not want a look behind the curtain?


    Ok (none / 0) (#120)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 04:13:17 PM EST
    I agree that scrutiny should be applied, but way to many people are inferring a crime has occurred with out showing a single shred of evidence that anything happened.

    Regarding the mining deal there is serious doubt that the accused even had the means to pull it off. Sure if you take the facts spewed by the media which are all strangely context free you could possibly construe something fishy, especially when you mix in  CDS.

    As to motive , do these people like this really expect expect a return their donations?

    five months later Mr. Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million. The star-studded gala, at a conference center in Toronto, featured performances by Elton John and Shakira and celebrities like Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Robin Williams encouraging contributions from the many so-called F.O.F.s -- Friends of Frank -- in attendance, among them Mr. Telfer. In all, the evening generated $16 million in pledges, according to an article in The Globe and Mail.
     Do people like this stoop to tawdry, probably useless, influence peddling schemes. Please, Giustra was a top of food chain player in international mining while Bill was still getting BJs in the Oval office. Giustra was a player in the charity game while Bill was still fighting off impeachment. No, these people never have to buy influence, they are influence.



    Who is expressing the inference (none / 0) (#121)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 04:21:36 PM EST
      " a crime" has occurred?

       I'm sure you can provide a link to some crackpot right wing site, but yu can provide a link to someone somewhere on the internet saying just about anything

      I mean among the MSM that people rail against whenever its reports on Clinton don't approach hagiography.

       At most, in the legit media you might find a report quoting dome Repub pol or operative but I am confident the report will carefully make clear it is a quote from someone  not the reporter's allegation.

       As for people at the "top of the food chain" not seeking to curry favor with money, I'm assuming your calendar is messed up and you think today is 4/1/15-- it's the 27th.


    Crackpots (none / 0) (#122)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 04:43:06 PM EST
    like Mitt Romney
    it looks like bribery.

    So, it is about "motive" now? (none / 0) (#131)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 05:52:23 PM EST
    As we enter the subjective area of the psyche, we are bound to hear even more projections.  Frankly, I expect that an examination of "motive" where No Wrong Has Been Stated Nor Formulated will rapidly expose ... all of us because all of us (and all other pundits) can only show our own cards and project our own motives in the process.

    Oh my, this will become a high school chat group fairly soon. Then we can talk about why Beth really said X about Jack when she was sorta overheard talking to Gloria in the hallway ... and, OMG, what did that mean???


    I see (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 01:32:42 PM EST
    throw in a bunch of tangentially related facts, add in a few "perceptions" mix in some "ill defined" and "vaguely described" relationships, garnish with some high priced ex-presidential rhetoric. Place all the ingredients into a burlap sack and beat repeatedly with a stick and voila! You have "evidence".

    Or the makings of a song. (none / 0) (#132)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 05:53:57 PM EST
    It (none / 0) (#133)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 05:56:41 PM EST
    needs a hook though.

    "Appears " can't be construed as (none / 0) (#103)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:58:09 PM EST
    Any sort of fact,  IMHO.

    Yes it can (none / 0) (#105)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 01:07:41 PM EST
     If it appears that way because it was supposed to be done and wasn't-- by admission of the (acting)CEO.

    Mistakes get made (none / 0) (#107)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 01:13:58 PM EST
    Or this is further evidence of wrong-doing.

    Often (none / 0) (#109)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 01:21:29 PM EST
     it is.  First while "mistake" can be a defense to a criminal charge by negating the intent element, just because something is not a crime does not mean it isn't wrong. It is wrong to file documents under penalty of false swearing which you affirm are correct.

      It also need not be taken at face value that every claim of mistake is valid. People have been known to claim something was just an oversight or an inadvertent mistake and not be believed.

      Context is important. If I did something, say for 5 years correctly, then did it incorrectly one year that would be a factor people would rightfully consider in assessing my claim of mistake. the subject of my claimed mistake would also be very relevant. Something that I have a greater motive to hide would be less likely to be easily accepted as a "mistake" than something which is of relatively little consequence to me.

       There are many more factors rational people would weigh.



    You still have little more than shadows (none / 0) (#118)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 03:27:48 PM EST
    And fog to make a case of any sort.

    Yeah, (none / 0) (#96)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 11:38:54 AM EST
      I am beginning to divine that only  the right wing conspiracy machine sees any problem.  

    Another conservative hack known for her almost visceral hatred of the Clintons.

      Eleanor Clift

    Dude, seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:09:15 PM EST
    Eleanor freakin Cliff?
    Can we just read the first sentence-

    It's a mistake for the Clinton campaign to write off conservative author Peter Schweizer as a right-wing hack. It won't work, and it's not true. If he were as off-base as the campaign and its allies portray him, would a high-quality publication like The New York Times risk its reputation by partnering with him?

    You know what? Call me biased. I actually do not need to read further.


    Perhaps Peter should to be referred to (none / 0) (#115)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 02:23:54 PM EST
    as "Koch Funded Peter Schweizer". Maybe some folks would then get a clue  . . . .?

    "Appearance" (none / 0) (#100)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 12:25:56 PM EST
    The Press, in the past few days, is employing the word "appearances" (as is Eleanor.)

    "Appearances" can be an indicator or it may be just that or it may be the noticeable stepping back by the Press/Media from the initial NYTimes breathless access agreement with Schweizer. In many cases, "appearances" are only "appearances." How something "appears" can be deceptive unless there is general consensus.  For the Press, the matter of access and information, definitely, is the centerpiece ... while that is expected and as it should be, I'd propose that we will see further variation in that term as this progresses. Why? Because the voting public has a number of issues to weigh in a Presidential election; and, I'd venture that the intricacies of a large non-profit foundations with a clean record is not a captivating issue based on vague notions of what the Press today considers "appearances."  


    But, (none / 0) (#104)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    In many cases, "appearances" are only "appearances."

      Sometimes not. additionally, there is a school of thought that people with fiduciary duties to conduct business on behalf of other should endeavor to avoid even the "appearance" of impropriety.

       Call me old fashioned, but I'd put presidents of the United states in that category.

       A thought to ponder: If defending someone running for high office compels you to stake out the position which sounds dangerously close to:

     Short of proof that a person has engaged in  conduct that establishes every essential element of a specific provision of the criminal code, there should be no concern  expressed about the conduct.

       You might want to consider what the person is doing to your moral compass. you might also want to consider that if you apply that defense to your chosen favorite, you are, at least  tacitly, approving it being applied to everyone.


    So (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 01:14:01 PM EST
    setting up a successful worldwide charity org. and accepting donations to it points to evil on your moral compass, sorry I will stick with mine.

    Actually (none / 0) (#117)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 02:49:33 PM EST
    you are, at least  tacitly, approving it being applied to everyone

    I'm pretty sure that was stated and REstated goal of the set of posts.


    I disagree (none / 0) (#119)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 04:09:27 PM EST
      I have not seen a single comment here explicitly arguing a similar standard should be applied to Republican (or even disfavored Democrats). And, in practice, I have definitely never  seen any of the people asserting the Clintons conduct should not be heavily scrutinized because no criminal wrongdoing has been proven with direct evidence refrain from criticizing other pols when because a similar standard of proof has not been met.

    Maybe I'm not understanding the point (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 04:48:34 PM EST
    Now there's a scandal... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by kdog on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 09:44:57 AM EST
    The problem isn't the media being too hard on the poor downtrodden Clintons, the problem is they aren't as equally hard on everybody else running the country/world.  I don't know what you'd call it, selective quasi-journalism?
    If the media was as hard on every pol like they're hard on Bill & Hillary, we might be getting somewhere. It would also be nice if they hit hard on issues of more importance...but the soap opera sh*t sells the soap I guess, and the corporate overlords of the media don't want us peeking too far under the curtain.  

    There's no reason to dig through anybody's garbage looking for a scandal...business as usual is the f*ckin' scandal.  Having the world's largest prison population is a scandal, rampant inequality under the law is a scandal, the police/surveillance state is a scandal, the income gap is a scandal.  And more relevant to this topic, the corrupting influence of big money in government is a scandal.

    If we must have a two-year marathon presidential race, maybe the media could focus on every horses role in all that mess.

    Thankyou (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 24, 2015 at 10:20:13 AM EST
    That is my point.


    Kdog (none / 0) (#125)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 04:52:04 PM EST
      isn't exactly on the Clinton train with the people to whom I am referring, but you are correct in that I forgot about the voice of reason in the wilderness. (You seem reasonable  yourself).

    Thank you (none / 0) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 04:54:31 PM EST
    and I do take your point.  BTDs response, who posted the thread, is also important.

    Well, we can wait (none / 0) (#128)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 05:04:01 PM EST
     to judge whether BTD agreement with Kdog is sincere.

      If we make it to 11/8/16, and BTD has scrupulously refrained from criticizing anyone when there is not direct evidence of wrongdoing and not suggested a single inference from the associations and transactions of pols he opposes, then I will apologize to him for saying he is full of BS up to his eyeballs.


    Of (none / 0) (#129)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 05:39:35 PM EST
    Course K-dog is correct on what constitutes the real scandals in this country. He dislikes the Clintons for all the "correct' reasons, he dislikes their policies. That's what elections are supposed to be about.

    The real tragedy is that once again the media is all to willing to give major play to the scandals, the personalities and horse race narrative. Meanwhile the true issues at stake are virtually ignored.

    We are told which candidates are authentic and which are not. We are told which candidates are shady and which are not. We are fed stories straight from the back rooms of political ratfvking ops to the front pages without the lazy journalists lifting a finger to verify or add proper context. The issues are all but ignored but we are absolutely sure  of which candidate we would rather have a beer with. Like I said a tragedy.


    Plus (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 04:51:34 PM EST
    you are not allowed to argue with me.

    Do you have any idea how many fives I've sacrificed by being cordial to you????


    I'll throw a couple your way (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Reconstructionist on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 04:52:58 PM EST
    .. but you owe me a favor!

    O.K. Recon, I thought we had (none / 0) (#135)
    by NYShooter on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 09:05:49 AM EST
    an agreement about trying to keep the discussion on a reality based, "adult" track:

    You stated:
    "I have not seen a single comment here explicitly arguing a similar standard should be applied to Republican (or even disfavored Democrats)."

    You can sit there, look me in the eye, and in an "adult" vein, claim the two examples are analogous?

    Well, if that's the case, then one silly claim deserves an equally silly response. (Note: Godwin's Law, please close your eyes)

    I'm sure you're aware that in the 1930's Nazi Germany passed a law stripping Jews of many of their previously held rights as citizens. That law, eventually led to a night of massive destruction of Jewish homes, businesses, and synagogues. That night became known as "Kristallnacht," The night of broken glass," or, words to that effect.

    Now, why do I bring this up as an equally silly response to your silly claim above? Because any sentient "adult" knows, and would agree that Kristallnacht was a very serious criminal act. But, what few people know is that the German authorities, in a thinly veiled attempt to be able to claim some sort of equivalence, had, also passed laws outlawing certain forms of littering, specifically regarding broken glass. This gave the authorities the pretext needed to issue thousands of citations to those Jewish owners for not cleaning up the tons of shattered glass strewn all over the place.

    Silly? Of course. But, not nearly as silly as your attempt (said with a straight face, no less) to establish some sort of equivalence between the 25 year Republican obsession to "nail" the Clintons, and, making no distinction between the truth, and, lies, in their attempt to do so.

    So, having said that, and granting to you the fact that there are legitimate areas of inquiry one could pursue regarding the Clinton's methods of operation, why you have allowed yourself to "go off the reservation" in what's becoming to look more, and more, like a rabid vendetta instead of a legitimate inquiry is a question  for you to ponder, and, possibly even, answer.


    As a human being (none / 0) (#137)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 09:37:20 AM EST
     let alone one of Jewish heritage, I find it incredibly offensive that you would attempt to equate the "persecution" of the Clintons to that Jews endured in Nazi Germany. Your self-characterization of it as silly does not begin to describe the moral depravity of that.

       At this point you have by your own implicit admission ended any moral and rational discussion.


    A parking ticket has more specificity (none / 0) (#138)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 09:48:00 AM EST
    than any of your allegations here regarding the Clintons, Recon.

    So, don't get up on your high horse when somebody else makes accusations that are equally fact-free as yours have been on this thread.


    The same scrutiny (none / 0) (#130)
    by christinep on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 05:42:03 PM EST
    should be applied by the Press/Media to candidates for President ... left, right, middle (or any other direction.)

    I thought that an earlier comment of mine noted my concern that the scrutiny as to HRC is unnecessarily strict when compared to their scrutiny of others. My concern is now and has been that the imbalance is wrong; that the super-scrutiny on HRC is driven by an emotional animosity toward this Democratic candidate; and, that whatever level of scrutiny is directed at Clinton should likewise be focused on the Repub candidates.

    Similarly situated personages should be treated similarly.


    You can begin with this... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 12:16:10 AM EST
    Jeb Bush doesn't wear glasses because he needs to, although he might.  He wears them to distract us from his resemblance to his stupid brother Dubya.

    Insults are going to be deleted (none / 0) (#136)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 09:33:53 AM EST
    So don't bother insulting each other.

    Call out (none / 0) (#139)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 10:16:25 AM EST
    the hounds  
    the 43rd president made time for three separate speeches to hedge-fund executives, a Swiss bank sanctioned for keeping secret bank accounts, and a pro golf event underwritten by the accounting firm involved in the Tyco International financial scandal.
    Obvious influence peddling here, there goes Jebs campaign.

    It looks like Bill isn't the only one in on this "charity" scam:  

    And he has helped rope in more than $300 million for the George W. Bush Foundation,

    Do all ex-presidents turn into con artists? I wonder how many c-notes Carter has stuffed in that tool belt that he is always prancing around in, Habitat for Humanity my butt, were on to you.

    I think you need to make up your mind. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 10:42:50 AM EST
      do you view the Bush associations and transactions as an issue  worthy of extreme scrutiny for the same reason the Clinton associations and transactions deserve extreme scrutiny? Or, are you suggesting sine Bush does it's not an issue? do you have better evidence that the Bush associations and transactions have or have high potential to influence decision-makers?

      The one thing I would think everyone can agree upon (probably even Jim) is that regardless of what you think of Carter's presidency, he is by far our best ex-President.


    Did (none / 0) (#141)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 10:56:38 AM EST
    you happen to buy your snark detector from the same outfit as your moral compass?

    No (none / 0) (#142)
    by Reconstructionist on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 11:02:26 AM EST
     I'm simply highlighting that all you offer is puerile snark to which meaning cannot be ascribed and calling you out for hypocrisy.

      Which is it?

    No big deal when Bushes do it because there is no direct evidence of wrongdoing?

    No big deal regardless of wrongdoing because many pols do it?

      Or... something we should be deeply concerned about when any pol does it even if direct evidence of wrongdoing is not proven?

      I'll pick the latter.


    When (none / 0) (#143)
    by FlJoe on Tue Apr 28, 2015 at 11:24:09 AM EST
    logic and facts don't do the trick I usually resort to humor to respond to nonsense arguments. Cheaper than Prozac.

    I would reply to this:

    I'm simply highlighting that all you offer is puerile snark to which meaning cannot be ascribed and calling you out for hypocrisy.
    but I have seemed to have misplaced my Sarah Palin word salad decoder ring.