2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe 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 dont take money from big banks
.Youve received over $600,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in one year, he said. Sanderss criticisms coincided with recent reports that the FBI might be expanding its inquiry into Hillary Clintons 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 Clintons 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.
Its 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 moneygroups 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 contributionsthe 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 Clintons 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/
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)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)A statistical deadheat, my conservadem buddy.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)You refuse to take it because you were afraid of what the results would be.
cali
(114,904 posts)And creative in a conservadem way, buddy.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)I supported Howard Dean over John Kerry in 2004. I am a PROUD Liberal.
cali
(114,904 posts)ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)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.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)Anything but discuss that...
George II
(67,782 posts)Anyone addressing it would be summarily dismissed anyway.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)So much easier to try to derail with banalities.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)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)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)I've been subjected to the same systematic strategy by pronuclear posters over in E&E.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)If you did, you damned sure wouldn't be supporting Clinton.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)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.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Economic liberalism is at a crisis point in this country and you are trying to sabotage the means of redress.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)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)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)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)She is more scared of the unknown life after divorce than my father.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)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)I respect your support for Bernie Sanders. We are on the same side. Keep fighting .
zeemike
(18,998 posts)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)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)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.
Cary
(11,746 posts)Disaffection will get you far.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)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)Seriously. Last ones I took, I was an FDR dem who agreed with Bernie.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)I have no qualms about facts. If I disagree with my candidate, I take that as a piece of information.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)From what they say is Bernie's position.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)High road huh? lmao #4%MOE
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)I understand your compost is the envy of every Gardner!
enid602
(8,598 posts)You mean like Jimmy Gardner or Ava Gardner?
frylock
(34,825 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Blus4u
(608 posts)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)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 Clintons 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 Clintons 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 occasionscollectively worth $2.5 millionwhen 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 Clintons 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 Boeings 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 USs 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 Clintons 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. Bushs 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 Clintons authorization as secretary of state. They were worth nearly one and a half times the value of equivalent sales during Bushs 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?
cali
(114,904 posts)zeemike
(18,998 posts)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)From the linked article:
Influence for sale.
Crooked.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)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)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)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)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)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.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)The Boston Tea Party was about tax breaks for big corporations.
senz
(11,945 posts)at this link: http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
It's amazing.
Hillary supporters poo-pooed it. Nothing shocks them.
Jarqui
(10,122 posts)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)This:
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)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.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Arazi
(6,829 posts)Hillary supporters have their heads in the sand trying to ignore this.
It's a freight train roaring down the tracks
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Depaysement
(1,835 posts)There's another word for it: corruption.
jalan48
(13,842 posts)bearing on her judgment and actions as POTUS. Don't forget the rainbows and kissing babies.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)I swear, it's like organized crime.
Like??? It is organized crime at a different level...
senz
(11,945 posts)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)...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.
840high
(17,196 posts)more Clinton/Bush.
cali
(114,904 posts)She is not only a horrible campaigner but flat out disgustingly and undeniably CORRUPT.