Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 09:56 PM Jan 2016

The Clinton System

On January 17, in the final Democratic debate before the primary season begins, Bernie Sanders attacked Hillary Clinton for her close financial ties to Wall Street, something he had avoided in his campaigning up to that moment: “I don’t take money from big banks….You’ve received over $600,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in one year,” he said. Sanders’s criticisms coincided with recent reports that the FBI might be expanding its inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s emails to include her ties to big donors while serving as secretary of state. But a larger question concerns how Hillary and Bill Clinton have built their powerful donor machine, and what its existence might mean for Hillary Clinton’s future conduct as American president. The following investigation, drawing on many different sources, is intended to give a full sense of the facts about Clinton and not to endorse a particular candidate in the coming election.

It’s an axiom of Washington politics in the age of Citizens United and Super PACs that corporations and the very rich can channel almost unlimited amounts of money to candidates for high office to pave the way for later favors. According to the public service website Open Secrets, in the 2016 campaign, as of October, in addition to direct campaign contributions, Jeb Bush had at his disposal $103 million in “outside money”—groups such as PACs and Super PACs and so called “dark money” organizations that work on behalf of a particular candidate. Ted Cruz had $38 million in such funds, Marco Rubio $17 million, and Chris Christie $14 million.

Yet few have been as adept at exploiting this big-money politics as Bill and Hillary Clinton. In the 2016 campaign, as of October, Hillary Clinton had raised $20 million in “outside” money, on top of $77 million in direct campaign contributions—the highest in direct contributions of any candidate at the time. But she and her husband have other links to big donors, and they go back much further than the current election cycle. What stands out about what I will call the Clinton System is the scale and complexity of the connections involved, the length of time they have been in operation, the presence of former president Bill Clinton alongside Hillary as an equal partner in the enterprise, and the sheer magnitude of the funds involved.

Scale and complexity arise from the multiple channels that link Clinton donors to the Clintons: there is the stream of six-figure lecture fees paid to Bill and Hillary Clinton, mostly from large corporations and banks, which have earned them more than $125 million in the fifteen years since Bill Clinton left office in 2001. There are the direct payments to Hillary Clinton’s political campaigns, including for the Senate in 2000 and for the presidency in 2008 and now in 2016, which had reached a total of $712.4 million as of September 30, 2015, the most recent figures compiled by Open Secrets. Four of the top five sources of these funds are major banks: Citigroup Inc, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and Morgan Stanley. The Clinton campaign meanwhile has set a goal of raising $1 billion for her Super PAC for the 2016 election.


<snip>
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/

79 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Clinton System (Original Post) cali Jan 2016 OP
He did not attack he told the truth bkkyosemite Jan 2016 #1
I was about to make a snarky comment, but I will refrain. ProudToBeLiberal Jan 2016 #2
Why would any Bernie supporter be depressed about that? cali Jan 2016 #6
I am more liberal than you. Remember when I took that political quiz? ProudToBeLiberal Jan 2016 #8
Bwahaha. You're cute. cali Jan 2016 #9
I was against the Iraq War. I participated in the anti-war rallies and protests. ProudToBeLiberal Jan 2016 #10
Awww, how sweet. cali Jan 2016 #12
I am a card carrying member of the ACLU, pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro marijuana legalization ProudToBeLiberal Jan 2016 #14
I notice you're studiously ignoring the OP Arazi Jan 2016 #24
Well, with all the kitchy "cute", "sweet", etc. comebacks why address the OP? George II Jan 2016 #47
Aw, you're studiously avoiding the OP content as well Arazi Jan 2016 #53
It is a perfect recitation of the schism the 3rd way crowd has fostered kristopher Jan 2016 #56
That's a great observation and I fully agree Arazi Jan 2016 #60
Agree 100% kristopher Jan 2016 #65
I support the Warren Buffet rule. I think the rich should be taxed more. Nt ProudToBeLiberal Jan 2016 #62
But you don't want unity around economic change. kristopher Jan 2016 #66
+10 million!!!! So obvious nt Arazi Jan 2016 #67
I supported the bailout of the auto industry. It saved many jobs. ProudToBeLiberal Jan 2016 #70
Still not addressing the OP eom Arazi Jan 2016 #71
No you aren't. You're 3rd way. kristopher Jan 2016 #73
Nope, I supported Howard Dean in 2004. Nt ProudToBeLiberal Jan 2016 #74
Like I said... kristopher Jan 2016 #75
Yep. cali Jan 2016 #78
Well, I guess you told Cali, didn cha. pangaia Jan 2016 #25
I agree with everything you said. Thanks PTBL! (and I agree with your screen name, too) George II Jan 2016 #42
Thanks for having my back :). Nt ProudToBeLiberal Jan 2016 #43
And yet you are for the status quo candidate? zeemike Jan 2016 #46
I grew up watching my mom living under my domineering father. ProudToBeLiberal Jan 2016 #52
Another take loyalsister Jan 2016 #57
I understand completely. My mom refuses to get a divorce. ProudToBeLiberal Jan 2016 #58
Well I have had trauma in my life too. zeemike Jan 2016 #59
Zeemike I love you. Don't let anyone tell you what to do. ProudToBeLiberal Jan 2016 #61
Well thank you. zeemike Jan 2016 #69
So much pain in everyone's lives Arazi Jan 2016 #64
If you can't let go of the past it will destroy you. zeemike Jan 2016 #68
Awwww, how marginal Cary Jan 2016 #35
Then HOW can you support a foreign-policy neoconservative Dem now?! John Poet Jan 2016 #76
What quiz? Link? I love quizzes. SusanCalvin Jan 2016 #33
Here's the DU thread ProudToBeLiberal Jan 2016 #41
Thanks! SusanCalvin Jan 2016 #44
I'm four left and seven down SusanCalvin Jan 2016 #50
Are you not aware that this in itself is a snarky comment? retrowire Jan 2016 #13
People do say I have a way with words :). nt ProudToBeLiberal Jan 2016 #17
No, they say you have a way with worms! dorkzilla Jan 2016 #26
Gardner enid602 Jan 2016 #31
Ooooooooooohhhhh! frylock Jan 2016 #37
I'm not depressed. Feel pretty good. 840high Jan 2016 #49
When Citizens United won the case from Dubya's Supreme Court plants Blus4u Jan 2016 #3
This part is frightening Jarqui Jan 2016 #4
+++! snot Jan 2016 #5
Massive shakedown cali Jan 2016 #7
It's not really a shakedown. zeemike Jan 2016 #48
Yes, they give money b/c the Clintons will do things for them. senz Jan 2016 #63
Frightening, absolutely. If it's true it's crime at very high levels HereSince1628 Jan 2016 #11
I'm not sure that they can possibly get to the bottom of this before November Jarqui Jan 2016 #18
Certainly. Just the appearance of conflict of interest can be damaging HereSince1628 Jan 2016 #20
To me, if that was a concern and it should have been, Jarqui Jan 2016 #22
The founders also never envisioned corporations the way we have them now. SusanCalvin Jan 2016 #34
Maybe, I'm not familiar with corporate excesse in the time leading to the founding. n/t HereSince1628 Jan 2016 #36
Without doing any searches, SusanCalvin Jan 2016 #39
The Sirota/Perez article was an OP here on DU and you can read it yourself senz Jan 2016 #15
I've seen a few on it. It's the best. Jarqui Jan 2016 #19
Did you suggest that Sanders has anything to do with this? senz Jan 2016 #21
Absolutely not. Bernie is the cleanest, most honest and decent politician of my life Jarqui Jan 2016 #23
I agree. Excellent post. Clinton supporters are naive. JDPriestly Jan 2016 #45
Wow! Great article Arazi Jan 2016 #16
..+1 840high Jan 2016 #54
Great work, Cali, as usual. pangaia Jan 2016 #27
The Power Elite Depaysement Jan 2016 #28
If you believe in unicorns and faries then those speaking fees she received will have no jalan48 Jan 2016 #29
KICKING, It's Late & I've Had A Very Long Day! Thanks For Posting! n/t ChiciB1 Jan 2016 #30
Ah this is so damning. And disappointing! elias49 Jan 2016 #32
???? Old Codger Jan 2016 #38
That's what I've been thinking senz Jan 2016 #51
Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for President this year, she will win... George II Jan 2016 #40
With all my heart - I hope not. No 840high Jan 2016 #55
Yes, she'll almost certainly be the nominee. And she'll lose the general cali Jan 2016 #79
And she'll never, ever, stop taking money from big banks. CharlotteVale Jan 2016 #72
Kick against Clinton corruption cali Jan 2016 #77

ProudToBeLiberal

(3,964 posts)
2. I was about to make a snarky comment, but I will refrain.
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:06 PM
Jan 2016

I know you are depressed from the gold standard Ann Selzer Iowa poll results. I don't want to pile on. Cheer up .

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
6. Why would any Bernie supporter be depressed about that?
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:44 PM
Jan 2016

A statistical deadheat, my conservadem buddy.

ProudToBeLiberal

(3,964 posts)
8. I am more liberal than you. Remember when I took that political quiz?
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:45 PM
Jan 2016

You refuse to take it because you were afraid of what the results would be.

ProudToBeLiberal

(3,964 posts)
10. I was against the Iraq War. I participated in the anti-war rallies and protests.
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:52 PM
Jan 2016

I supported Howard Dean over John Kerry in 2004. I am a PROUD Liberal.

ProudToBeLiberal

(3,964 posts)
14. I am a card carrying member of the ACLU, pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro marijuana legalization
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:11 PM
Jan 2016

I am in favor of public schools over charter schools. I think we should take under god out of our pledge of allegiance. I am for a path to citizenship. I am for gun control. I believe in Climate change. etc etc. Go ahead and ask me about other issues. I am more Liberal than you.

George II

(67,782 posts)
47. Well, with all the kitchy "cute", "sweet", etc. comebacks why address the OP?
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 12:53 AM
Jan 2016

Anyone addressing it would be summarily dismissed anyway.

Arazi

(6,829 posts)
53. Aw, you're studiously avoiding the OP content as well
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 01:10 AM
Jan 2016


So much easier to try to derail with banalities.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
56. It is a perfect recitation of the schism the 3rd way crowd has fostered
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 01:38 AM
Jan 2016

A Dem that is Liberal on social issues that can never really be settled politically - thus creating an eternal division of the electorate.

While being either a conservative on or oblivious to economic issues that could potentially unite the electorate.



Arazi

(6,829 posts)
60. That's a great observation and I fully agree
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 01:57 AM
Jan 2016

In this context however, this thread for example, I'm going to NOT address your valid point and instead say that I've observed that HRC supporters have developed a technique to ignore controversial OPs/topics and instead try to make the thread into a personality debate.

It's a no-brainer that some DUers will get caught up in the personal drama and catch a hide by reacting.

Cali is a huge target because she posts a lot of the most interesting and factually accurate OPs about HRC's nefarious shit.

The HRC posters here are studiously ignoring her OP and desperately trying to steer the convo into potentially treacherous personal zones where hides most often occur.

It's another form of trolling. It's not an attempt to be friendly, it's designed to ensnare.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
65. Agree 100%
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 02:18 AM
Jan 2016

I've been subjected to the same systematic strategy by pronuclear posters over in E&E.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
66. But you don't want unity around economic change.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 02:20 AM
Jan 2016

If you did, you damned sure wouldn't be supporting Clinton.

ProudToBeLiberal

(3,964 posts)
70. I supported the bailout of the auto industry. It saved many jobs.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 02:37 AM
Jan 2016

I'm against giving oil companies government subsidies. I was against the comcast-time Warners merger. I don'the like any inversion deals that try that one avoid paying taxes. I'mean against monopolies. I am liberal on economic issuea.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
73. No you aren't. You're 3rd way.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 03:12 AM
Jan 2016

Economic liberalism is at a crisis point in this country and you are trying to sabotage the means of redress.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
46. And yet you are for the status quo candidate?
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 12:52 AM
Jan 2016

Who was for the war, and as SOS participated in expanding the war to Libya and Syria?...has evolved on gay marriage,and still against Marijuana legalization. And as far as I know is not against charter schools.
Seems to me those things are not that important to you now.

ProudToBeLiberal

(3,964 posts)
52. I grew up watching my mom living under my domineering father.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 01:09 AM
Jan 2016

I watched her being treated as a second class citizen under her own house. I saw my father verbally and physically abuse my mom when I was a child. My values and beliefs stems from all the struggle my mom had to go through. I vowed to do everything I could to advance women issues for the rest of my life. Seeing the first woman president is personal for me. It would make my mom so happy. She lives vicariously through Hillary Clinton's perseverance and fight.

So, when I see all these abuses hurled at Hillary Clinton, I want to stand up for her. I want to protect her. I want her to succeed and beat the odds. I want her to break the glass ceiling. I want women to stop being treated as second class citizens. I want Hillary Clinton to be President. She represents me. I love her with my whole heart. People have hit her, but she is still standing. Bill has cheated on her, but she is still standing. I will always stand with Hillary Clinton.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
57. Another take
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 01:48 AM
Jan 2016

My great aunt was able to leave an abusive husband because her mother, had the guts to leave my abusive great grandfather.
Yet, my sister took years to leave an abusive man after watching my mom stay with my philandering alcoholic father for 25 yrs.

ProudToBeLiberal

(3,964 posts)
58. I understand completely. My mom refuses to get a divorce.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 01:52 AM
Jan 2016

She is more scared of the unknown life after divorce than my father.

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
59. Well I have had trauma in my life too.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 01:55 AM
Jan 2016

But I don't vote based on it...if I did I might vote for Trump or someone like that just to spite the world.

But if that is what you want to do then go for it.

ProudToBeLiberal

(3,964 posts)
61. Zeemike I love you. Don't let anyone tell you what to do.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 01:59 AM
Jan 2016

I respect your support for Bernie Sanders. We are on the same side. Keep fighting .

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
69. Well thank you.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 02:33 AM
Jan 2016

If we all loved one another there would be few problems in the world.
But as it was said. "Because inequities abound the love of many will wax cold"

Arazi

(6,829 posts)
64. So much pain in everyone's lives
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 02:07 AM
Jan 2016


Everyone has war stories...

I too decided that my past wouldn't define me. I think it's healthier to reconcile the trauma and build a stronger self going forward. It's so hard but I long ago abandoned hero worship/Tigerbeat fangirl of anyone.

I'm a cynic for Bernie!

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
68. If you can't let go of the past it will destroy you.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 02:27 AM
Jan 2016

If I have learned anything in this life that is it.

And cynicism can be a good thing...it keeps you from being a fan. Which is a delusional way to be.

 

John Poet

(2,510 posts)
76. Then HOW can you support a foreign-policy neoconservative Dem now?!
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 07:52 AM
Jan 2016

It's about more than her vote on Iraq.

It's also about her pushing neoconservative "regime change" policies towards Libya and Syria while she was Secretary of State.

Not just one "mistaken vote", but a long pattern of supporting foreign policies
that make her look more like George W. Bush than... a liberal or even moderate Democrat.

SusanCalvin

(6,592 posts)
44. Thanks!
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 12:48 AM
Jan 2016

I have no qualms about facts. If I disagree with my candidate, I take that as a piece of information.

Blus4u

(608 posts)
3. When Citizens United won the case from Dubya's Supreme Court plants
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:12 PM
Jan 2016

in 2010, I figured it would be the rethuglians who mastered that con.

Shows you how much I know. Keep up the good work you do, cali, I am glad you are on our side.


Peace

Jarqui

(10,122 posts)
4. This part is frightening
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:32 PM
Jan 2016
Among the most striking and troubling aspects of the Clinton System are the large contributions corporations and foreign governments have made to the Clinton Foundation, along with Bill Clinton’s readiness to accept six-figure speaking fees from some of them, at times when the donors themselves had a potential financial interest in decisions being made at Hillary Clinton’s State Department. An investigation published in April 2015 by Andrew Perez, David Sirota and Matthew Cunningham-Cook at International Business Times shows that during the three-year period from October 2009 through December 2012, when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, there were at least thirteen occasions—collectively worth $2.5 million—when Bill Clinton received a six-figure speaking fee from corporations or trade groups that, according to Federal Government records, were at the time engaged in lobbying at the State Department. These payments to Bill Clinton in 2010 included: $175,000 from VeriSign Corporation, which was engaged in lobbying at the State Department on cybersecurity and Internet taxation; $175,000 from Microsoft, which was lobbying the government on the issuance of immigrant work visas; $200,000 from SalesForce, a firm that lobbied the government on digital security issues, among other things. In 2011, these payments included: $200,000 from Goldman Sachs, which was lobbying on the Budget Control Act; and $200,000 from PhRMA, the trade association representing drug companies, which was seeking special trade protections for US-innovated drugs in the Trans-Pacific Partnership then being negotiated.

And in 2012, payments included: $200,000 from the National Retail Federation, which was lobbying at the State Department on legislation to fight Chinese currency manipulation; $175,000 from BHP Billiton, which was lobbying the State Department to protect its mining interests in Gabon; $200,000 from Oracle, which, like Microsoft, was seeking the government to issue work visas and measures dealing with cyber-espionage; and $300,000 from Dell Corporation, which was lobbying the State Department to protest tariffs imposed by European countries on its computers.

During Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, US defense corporations and their overseas clients also contributed between $54 and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation. (Because the foundation discloses a range of values within which the contributions of particular donors might fall, only minimum and maximum estimates can be given.) In the same period, these US defense corporations and their overseas government clients also paid a total of $625,000 to Bill Clinton in speaking fees. In March 2011, for example, Bill Clinton was paid $175,000 by the Kuwait America Foundation to be the guest of honor and keynote speaker at its annual Washington gala. Among the sponsors were Boeing and the government of Kuwait, through its Washington embassy. Shortly before, the State Department, under Hillary Clinton, had authorized a $693 million deal to provide Kuwait with Boeing’s Globemaster military transport aircraft. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton had the statutory duty to rule on whether proposed arms deals with foreign governments were in the US’s national interest.

Further research done by Sirota and Perez of International Business Times and based on US government and Clinton Foundation data shows that during her term the State Department authorized $165 billion in commercial arms sales to twenty nations that had given money to the Clinton Foundation. These include the governments of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, all of whose records on human rights had been criticized by the State Department itself. During Hillary Clinton’s years as secretary of state, arms sales to the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation ran at nearly double the value of sales to the same nations during George W. Bush’s second term. There was also an additional $151 billion worth of armaments sold to sixteen nations that had donated funds to the Clinton Foundation; these were deals organized by the Pentagon but which could only be completed with Hillary Clinton’s authorization as secretary of state. They were worth nearly one and a half times the value of equivalent sales during Bush’s second term.


Does anyone know when Darrell Issa has scheduled Hillary to testify on the above?

Or do we think they're waiting to go through her personal and state department emails and gather that evidence first?

It is striking that they basically created the Benghazi scandal (that had little real merit) to hurt her in the polls which then delivered the ongoing email fiasco. But when articles like the above have been coming out for months, doesn't anyone wonder when the GOP are going to haul her before the House to answer this? Anyone here think they're just being nice and are going to politely wait until after she wins the presidency?

If you think her Benghazi or email experience was bad, even if she's as innocent as could be here, I think the GOP innuendo from the above is going to be very, very ugly for a candidate for president to endure. As someone posted a few days ago, "the appearance of impropriety" ... It looks to me like these GOP folks are just waiting in the weeds with this.

Thoughts?

zeemike

(18,998 posts)
48. It's not really a shakedown.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 01:01 AM
Jan 2016

In order for it to be a shakedown they have to be unwilling to give the money.
And they are more than happy to give the money, knowing it will come back to them many times over.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
63. Yes, they give money b/c the Clintons will do things for them.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 02:04 AM
Jan 2016

From the linked article:

In an interview with David Remnick for a September 2006 New Yorker profile on Clinton’s post-presidency, Giustra described how his ties to Clinton could work for him and his interests. With Bill Clinton at that moment riding aboard his private executive jet for a journey across Africa (“complete with leather furniture and a stateroom,” according to The New Yorker), Giustra told Remnick that “all of my chips, almost, are on Bill Clinton. He’s a brand, a worldwide brand, and he can do things and ask for things that no one else can.”


Influence for sale.

Crooked.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
11. Frightening, absolutely. If it's true it's crime at very high levels
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 10:53 PM
Jan 2016

which are on par with what the Founders meant when they wrote about 'high crimes and misdemeanors'

The question is whether the allegations are true. Only an investigation could support that.

Which begs the question, Can an administration which Elizabeth Warren claims is weak regarding corporate misdoing be strong enough to undertake a criminal investigation against a team of suspects composed of a former president and a leading presidential candidate both leading figures in the administrations political party?

Jarqui

(10,122 posts)
18. I'm not sure that they can possibly get to the bottom of this before November
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:16 PM
Jan 2016

But I don't think the GOP deeply care about that. It would be gravy if they caught her criminally. No more than they cared when they hauled her in on bogus Benghazi charges - they didn't really care about that. What they cared about was damaging the front runner. Sadly, the media was largely complacent to get ratings and they were successful.

Then they got the bonus prize with the emails. That's going to continue to flow emails and stuff probably until the election. And yes, the FBI or authorities are probably going to want to talk with her - which will knock her down more.

Now, for her supporters, none of this is a big issue because they like her and believe in her. It's when they get outside of the Dem party and go after independents that things are going to be considerably tougher. It's why Bernie does better there.

But you add this Clinton Foundation discussion going down the stretch of the general election - and the GOP will do it smart - releasing stuff week by week ... and see what happens to the polls.

Again, they don't need to convict her. All they need to do is put doubt into enough voters minds to move the needle - move 3 points or so from the Dem column to the GOP column and the White House is Republican.

I'm no big fan of Hillary but I'd take her in a heartbeat over Trump or Cruz or anything GOP. But with a GOP President, Senate and House and they can repeal Obamacare, name 2-3 GOP Supreme Court judges and undo everything we've worked for since the brutal Bush fiasco. We HAVE to win the White House in November. The Clinton Foundation may help a lot of people around the world but may do a great disservice to the political party they led.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
20. Certainly. Just the appearance of conflict of interest can be damaging
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:45 PM
Jan 2016

to a candidate.

The polls do show that HRC isn't the only candidate that can beat the Rs. And there is still time for other candidates to enter and even win the needed support at the convention. There are LOTS of delegates to the convention still in play.

And really, the creation of superdelegates wasn't to make primary season a foregone conclusion, It was to protect the party from damaging primary seasons. Maybe the damage from what you call a great disservice requires the party to start seriously thinking about doing some protecting.





Jarqui

(10,122 posts)
22. To me, if that was a concern and it should have been,
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:52 PM
Jan 2016

they ought to have had another candidate or two in this contest.

That may have been what Biden was really deliberating over and he just wasn't up to it after losing his son.

I like Joe. He wouldn't be a bad consolation prize. He could step right in and do the job - probably better than Hillary.

I'm worried but maybe the powers higher up have this handled.

SusanCalvin

(6,592 posts)
34. The founders also never envisioned corporations the way we have them now.
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 12:24 AM
Jan 2016

They thought, I believe, that people were so horrified by the excesses of the times that it would never happen again. Just shows to go ya.

Jarqui

(10,122 posts)
19. I've seen a few on it. It's the best.
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:28 PM
Jan 2016

But I feel like we're getting played.

Sanders and Clinton split the Dems, drain the coffers, thump each other over the head while this thing gets dragged out.

One prevails, probably Hillary, and a few weeks from election day, Issa subpoenas her to chat up why the Clinton Foundation got money while the state department did favors for the donors.

She's dead. Campaign is over.

Talk me down. I'm having a problem with this. Convince me this can't happen.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
21. Did you suggest that Sanders has anything to do with this?
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:51 PM
Jan 2016

This:

Sanders and Clinton split the Dems, drain the coffers, thump each other over the head while this thing gets dragged out.


This makes no sense to me. There is no way Bernie Sanders would involve himself in "splitting the Dems and draining the coffers."

I don't quite understand what you're saying.



Jarqui

(10,122 posts)
23. Absolutely not. Bernie is the cleanest, most honest and decent politician of my life
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:56 PM
Jan 2016

That's not what I meant at all.

I meant that the GOP are running ads against Hillary, hoping to drag this thing out and drain the Dem campaign funds some against each other. As well, the longer it goes the deeper the split in the party. That kind of thing.

That's why they haven't brought this up yet in my opinion.

Arazi

(6,829 posts)
16. Wow! Great article
Sat Jan 30, 2016, 11:13 PM
Jan 2016

Hillary supporters have their heads in the sand trying to ignore this.

It's a freight train roaring down the tracks



jalan48

(13,842 posts)
29. If you believe in unicorns and faries then those speaking fees she received will have no
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 12:06 AM
Jan 2016

bearing on her judgment and actions as POTUS. Don't forget the rainbows and kissing babies.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
51. That's what I've been thinking
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 01:04 AM
Jan 2016

The words "racket" and "racketeering" went through my mind while reading it. I was wondering if the RICO Act would cover this, or if there's some other, more white collar, law that would apply. (I even thought of Bonnie and Clyde, for some reason.)

It's just so slimy. It would make a good Frontline special, if the network isn't too afraid of the Clintons, that is. For the sake of this country, I hope someone will step in and put a stop to this type of activity.

Something is terribly wrong.

George II

(67,782 posts)
40. Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for President this year, she will win...
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 12:44 AM
Jan 2016

...the general election in November, and President Barack Obama will be beaming on the steps of the Capitol on January 20, 2017 as she's sworn into office.

I just hope Justice Roberts doesn't screw up the oath of office this time.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
79. Yes, she'll almost certainly be the nominee. And she'll lose the general
Sun Jan 31, 2016, 08:35 AM
Jan 2016

She is not only a horrible campaigner but flat out disgustingly and undeniably CORRUPT.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The Clinton System