Hillary Clinton Faces Call for New Ethics Investigation After Son-in-Law Asked for a Business Favor

[Attorney in Texas]

link; excerpt:

This time, the Democratic presidential front-runner is accused of giving special government access to an investor in a deep-sea mining company due to his ties to Clinton's son-in-law, hedge fund manager Marc Mezvinsky. ... The complaint, first obtained by TIME, comes two weeks after one of Clinton's court-ordered email releases showed that she asked a senior State Department official to follow up on a special request from Mezvinsky, the husband of her daughter, Chelsea Clinton.

In a May 2012 email, the investor, Harry Siklas, asked Mezvinsky to connect him with Clinton or other State Department officials "to discuss mining and the current legal issues and regulations."

Three months later, according to State Department emails, Clinton forwarded Siklas' note to then-deputy secretary of state Thomas Nides, writing, "Could you have someone follow up on this request which was forwarded to me?" Nides replied that he would "get on it."

[NCTraveler]

1. Teaming up with....

Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust. lol. That is who is calling for this investigation. You can find anything on the internet if you want.

[upaloopa]

2. Newest Hillary bull shit scandal

Why don't you tell us some good things about Bernie instead of carrying water for the right wing?

[ejbr]

80. Good things about Bernie

bad things about Hillary; neither seems to mean much around here as far as support. We're just reaffirming our preferred candidate.

[Tommy2Tone]

93. True and none of it sticks

because there is no there, there.

[Attorney in Texas]

97. You ask "Why don't you tell us some good things about Bernie"? Perhaps you have noticed that Sanders

supporters often post good things about Sanders and nevertheless have pro-Sanders threads drug down with endless bullshit blather from Royalists who drone on-and-on about her "inevitability" and her "irrefutable electability" and her supposed "invulnerability."

If you love her tepid platform so much, perhaps it wouldn't be such a bad idea to try advocating why those milquetoast policies are so great instead of continually arguing that the primary is already over before anyone has exercised their franchise.

In the face of such anti-democratic (and anti-Democratic) blather, one occasionally feels motivated to call attention to the facts which contradict this counterproductive nonsense about Clinton's much exaggerated inevitability, electability, and invulnerability.

I get that Sanders is the underdog. I understand that Clinton will -- more likely than not -- be the nominee, and I will support her if that comes to pass. I will vote for the lesser of two disappointments, if it comes to that in the general election, but -- for the primary at least -- I'll vote for something I believe in rather than merely voting for the least depressing alternative to a Republican administration.

However, in the meantime, we are entitled to a primary and we are entitled to prefer a candidate with progressive and liberal views instead of third-way moderation and more of the worst parts of the status quo and we are entitled to advocate in favor of that candidate who reflects our hopes and values.

The truth is that Clinton's campaign would benefit from this debate as much any campaign. If the Clinton supporters are right, and her moderate third-way centerism is appealing to the masses, then Clinton and her supporters are missing a great opportunity to use the primary as an avenue to identify Clinton as the right-of-Sanders but left-of-Pataki/Christie/etc. option -- that's a pretty big chunk of turf she could be claiming in the middle of the ideological field. By arguing, instead, that people should support Clinton because "it's a done deal" is promoting an argument that is not appealing for anyone in the primary or the general election -- it is a counterproductive argument that makes Clinton weaker in the general election.

If you are tired of seeing posts that bring the counterargument to the inevitability, electability, and invulnerability nonsense, maybe it would be a better idea to move the debate to policy differences instead of the worn inevitability, electability, and invulnerability themes.

[roguevalley]

118. I remember a thread where bernie had lunch with Killer Mike and Hillaries shit on it

you mean like that?

when hillary supporters post nice about bernie, then it will be a good day. Always the same posters and they don't make hillary any more palatable than before they dump their load.

[CoffeeCat]

154. "The Cold Water Brigade"...

There are endless examples of a Bernie supporter simply posting about being happy or excited about a Bernie article, poll or good news from the campaign trail.

And right on time--they throw their buckets of ice water. They usually travel in gaggles.

Can you imagine being at a party, talking to friends about how exciting and well-attended a Bernie rally was--only to have some misfit walk over, insert themselves into the group and say, "Oh yeah. Well, he's not going to win. You have no reason to be happy."

It's a meaningless waste of time.

[upaloopa]

124. She is going to be Madam President and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

So get use to saying Madam President.

[AgingAmerican]

150. Well that was a typically pompous response

Fingers in your ears yelling 'LA! LA! LA! LA! '

[CoffeeCat]

155. That would look lovely cross stitched on a pillow...

...a pillow that sits on some crazy person's plastic-covered couch.

"She is going to be Madam President and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. So get used to saying Madam President."

How lovely.

Have you ever thought about writing for Hallmark?

[Attorney in Texas]

159. lol

[BeanMusical]

162. Lol!

[Fawke Em]

161. I'll never call her "Madam" anything.

I hate that word.

That said, I doubt it, seriously. If she wins the nomination, she'll lose Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado and Florida. There won't be a Hill presidency.

Either that, or she'll get indicted before the election for keeping classified info on an unsecured server.

That one IS a big deal no matter how you try to avoid it.

[Karma13612]

109. why is it that Hillary is always surrounded by

controversy?

Please don't say it's because she is in the lead.

Bernie is fighting for the middle class to have:

Medicare for all.
A stronger social security
Free college
a livable minimum wage
ending for-profit prisons

and he voted against the iraq war

He has helped pass plenty of bipartisan legislation

He can get stuff done in the congress, even when it's republican-held.

[Hepburn]

3. What a shock...

...her SIL is a hedge fund manager.

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. Should she, by some miracle,

be the Dem nominee, plan on years and years and millions upon millions of dollars spent investigating every nook and cranny of the Clinton's life/Global Foundation AND her SOS connections and money donated for favors. Except, the GOP is probably just waiting to see if she's the nominee to drop whatever bombshells they already have - to knock her out of the race.

She's a HUGE, HUGE mistake just waiting to happen.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[Buzz Clik]

9. I hear you. Enough baggage to fill a train car.

On the flip side: to get a clue about the level of cooperation that Sanders would get from Congress, take the percent of Carter's initiatives that he got passed and subtract the percent of Obama's.

Name your poison.

[Vincardog]

11. Horse hockey. Bernie has a history of getting things done. This shit will not fly

[Buzz Clik]

17. Ok. Just give me some examples.

In a search for legislation this year that he was the primary author, I could not find one that passed.

Further digging reveals that he was the primary on two bills that have passed during his time as Senator.

https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/fact-bernie-sanders-got-more-done-in-the-senate-than-hillary-clinton/

Care to comment?

[Vincardog]

22. 6144 Legislation Sponsored or Cosponsored by Bernard Sanders link below

[link:https://www.congress.gov/member/bernard-sanders/S000033|

[Buzz Clik]

28. He was not the primary sponsor on this bill.

[Vincardog]

35. To which of the over 6000 bills, he sponsored or cosponsored, are you refering?

[Buzz Clik]

40. The one you listed, but just forget it.

I made my point.

[Vincardog]

43. You didn't even click the link to the site. Welcome to ignore

[Buzz Clik]

53. I see the confusion now. I asked you for a specific example, and you gave me a count.

Not a count of the number of bills that passed for which he was primary sponsor, just the number of bills for which he had ANY sort of association.

I thought the 6144 you gave was the bill number.

Whatever.

If I'm on your ignore list, I really don't give a shit.

[Vincardog]

98. I gave you a link to 6144 bills he sponsored or cosponsored in reply to you post that HCR got more

Done. When you didn't even click to link to seed the evidence assumed you were not worth the time.

[Buzz Clik]

125. You need to read this stuff

I asked you for bills that passed for which he was the primary sponsor.

You gave me a link to thousands of bills, amendments, and resolutions that were introduced in which he had some affiliation.

And this was AFTER I gave you the relevant information: he was primary author on two bills that passed the Senate in his tenure.

Enough of this. You aren't interested in information about the candidate you adore.

[AgingAmerican]

152. You obviously ignored the link

Hence your flummoxed state.

[Buzz Clik]

156. No. I accessed that info before he did

That link does not provide the info requested nor does not provide the info he thinks it does.

[saturnsring]

90. " Welcome to ignore" why do people post that?

[Babel_17]

119. It's giving notice that you no longer see what the person on ignore posts

Otherwise they might continue to reply to a poster. Then it's often the case that the person posting will continue to ask something along the lines of "cat got your tongue?", then someone who is visible to the other person will say, "Maybe so and so has you on ignore?", and then, finally, that person says "Yeah, that person is on my ignore list.".

That's one reason, to give fair notice and avoid needless exchanges.

[saturnsring]

120. ok yea i couldnt think of any reason for it. thanks

[JDPriestly]

81. Does not need to be. He is the master of the amendment process. He knows how to get things

done in Congress. At least his constituents seem to think so. They re-elect him over and over.

He knows how to deal with people. He knows how to compromise without giving up his values.

Hillary is abrasive in contrast with Bernie.

What bills did she sponsor and get passed?

[Thinkingabout]

30. Three bills passed in twenty five years.

[merrily]

54. He wrote substantive bills and amendments that passed. Hillary passed a few ceremonial ones.

[JDPriestly]

83. Didn't she have an anti-flag-burning bill or something?

How silly can you get? Flag-burning?????

What difference does that really make. Who is bothering to burn flags? What a waste of time in Congress.

[AzDar]

114. Had totally forgotten about that bullshit. Jesus.

[Thinkingabout]

84. Maybe you should search the bills he got passed, his was also ceremonial ones.

His record speaks for itself.

[merrily]

89. BS. Veteran's benefits are not "ceremonial." Neither is community access to health care.

Hillary: re-naming a post office, observing the anniversary of Revolution. Give me a break.

[Thinkingabout]

112. He sponsored 362 bills and 7 passed.

1. Vermont bicentennial

2. Taconic Mountain Protection Act

3. Vermont-New Hampshire Interstate Public Water Supply

4. Naming Post Office in Fair Haven Matthew Lyon

5. Naming Post Office in Danville Thaddeus Stevens

6. Veterans COLA

7. Amend Veterans of Foreign Wars to reflect service of women.

Source: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=400357#enacted_ex=on

[merrily]

121. He got amendments passed too. Much better than Hillary's record!

[Thinkingabout]

130. He has been in Congress for twenty five years, Hillary was only there for

Eight years, a third of the time Sanders has been in congress, it isn't an apple to apple comparison.

[merrily]

131. EIGHT YEARS without a single substantive bill or amendment or other accomplishment.

Bernie formed the Progressive Caucus the very first year he got to Congress and got substantive bills and quite a few substantive amendments passed. Sorry, you got nothing. Again, you're spending a lot of time and energy proving Bernie's record is better than Hillary's, even if you are clueless about what you are actually accomplishing. By all means, keep going.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12779409

[Thinkingabout]

133. Hey, you want to say whatever you want about Hillary, it is not changing facts.

[merrily]

135. I am not the one trying to change the facts about Hillary. EIGHT YEARS, no substantive bill or

amendments she wrote got passed. None, not a one. Fact that.

[Thinkingabout]

138. Bye.

[merrily]

139. Typical.

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. How many of those 6144 bills got passed into law ...

You know ... got done, i.e., became a reality?

[merrily]

56. Three and many amendments--much better than Hillary. See Replies 12 and 38

[merrily]

12. Not sure what you base your assumptions on.

Bernie has had substantive bills and substantive amendments that he wrote or co-wrote passed into law by working with others. Indeed, his veterans bill with McCain became a case study in the Brookings Institute in working across the aisle.

Contradistinctively, Hillary's Senate record shows only ceremonial bills she wrote becoming law, like re-naming a post office or observing the anniversary of the American Revolution. Then again, given she wrote bills like an unconstitutional flag desecration bill, maybe it's just as well she could not get her stuff passed. It's also hard to see how she would be able to work with Republicans after calling them the enemy of which she is most proud and being blatantly disrespectful during hearings, as immortalized in the favorite gif sig line of many DU Hillary supporters--and they will be holding the House for quite some time.

I mean, I get that you support her and nothing will change that, but, come on.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251605502

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251715777

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128027637

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251697992

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12779409

[senz]

19. ^^^ An informed comment ^^^

Everyone should read it and propagate the information therein.

[merrily]

50. Thanks, senz! I appreciate it.

[moobu2]

32. Bernie's been in Washington fro over 1/4 century.

He's a big dud relatively speaking.

[merrily]

38. Yawn. Anyone can make any conclusory comment. Hillary has been on the scene much longer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12779409

[Jarqui]

71. By comparison, using similar yardsticks, she doesn't look very impressive

https://www.congress.gov/member/hillary-clinton/C001041?resultIndex=1&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hILLARY+RODHAM+CLINTON%22%5D%2C%22bill-status%22%3A%22law%22%2C%22sponsorship%22%3A%22sponsored%22%7D

[Karma13612]

113. hmmm. I think you might have misspelled a word:

You probably meant:

He's a big dude relatively speaking.

Compared to HRC and bills in Congress, yea, he is a really big dude.

[Scootaloo]

18. So you argue that clinton would have more support from a more conservative congress?

I don't think that's true, but you clearly do. What's that say about your candidate?

[Buzz Clik]

29. Tell you what -- just quote the passage where you think I said that,

... and I'll explain.

[Scootaloo]

33. Right here:

On the flip side: to get a clue about the level of cooperation that Sanders would get from Congress, take the percent of Carter's initiatives that he got passed and subtract the percent of Obama's.

The implication of course that Clinton would successfully get said cooperation.

[Buzz Clik]

36. I never mentioned Clinton's name in that context. That is all your invention.

Your argument -- your responsibility.

[Scootaloo]

39. No, but you attack Sanders on the premise that he will not gain cooperation from congress

Clearly the belief there is that Clinton will 'get more done" in the same environment, yes? otherwise what's the point of citing it as a particular weakness for Sanders?

[Buzz Clik]

48. Sanders has pushed himself to the far left.

He calls himself a Democratic Socialist, and his involvement in issues outside his immediate interest is limited. He has almost no experience initiating and pushing through legislation successfully. He will be facing a very tough road when it comes to Congress. So, is this a HUGE weakness for Sanders? Without question.

But, in response to your suggestion that Clinton will get more done in the same environment, I might agree. She has more success in negotiating with the Republicans than Sanders, but her road will be bumpy as well -- the knuckledraggers despise her. So, my guess is that she would be more successful than Bernie.

[Scootaloo]

59. The "far left," huh?

You do understand that terms like that are not relative, don't you? That just because someone is far to the left of yourself does not necessarily mean that they are "far left"?

So why would Clinton be more successful than Bernie?

[arcane1]

70. She has more success with repubs because she agrees with them more.

Not exactly a plus, in my book

[Buzz Clik]

74. You do understand that Obama's inability to secure approval of dozens of federal judges slots...

... is a direct result of the GOP embracing your attitude, right? They refuse to talk, refuse to negotiate, refuse to try to agree on anything.

How's that working out? POORLY!

Clinton could change that.

[arcane1]

76. That makes zero sense. Again.

[Karma13612]

115. HOW?

[Plucketeer]

77. Hmmm... so the title: Enough baggage to fill a train car

Who was that in reference to? And "on the flip side" then. Was that an innocent reference to an old vinyl record - or the opposite of they who had enough baggage to fill a train car?

Just trying to follow along.

[Phlem]

25. Of course.

Congress is filled with Corporate Democrats. They're not going to play with Bernie at all. Does that mean we should vote for more corporate Democrats?

[Buzz Clik]

31. You define every Dem as "corporate" except Sanders.

So, it's either vote for Sanders or sell out.

Fuck that. I'm not buying.

[Phlem]

44. I did not even come close to saying that.

Sanders isn't perfect but I'm glad as hell he's not taking money from the people who are fucking things up. O'Malley doesn't speak corporate and I'm sure there are a few more.

It's not a stretch.

The Center for Responsive Politics analyzed the personal financial disclosure data from 2012 of the 534 current members of Congress and found that, for the first time, more than half had an average net worth of $1 million or more: 268 to be exact, up from 257 the year earlier.Jan 9, 2014

[Buzz Clik]

55. Actually, you came pretty close to saying that:

Congress is filled with Corporate Democrats

Filled means full, and that doesn't leave much room. Feel free to name other Senators you don't think are "corporate" and why.

O'Malley doesn't "speak corporate", but he surely knows where the money is.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00037007&type=s

[Phlem]

61. Oh we're taking the semantics route.

"Filled means full"

"I have a glass filled with liquid."

That does not equal

"I have a glass full of liquid"

Mkay?

Bernie also knows where the money is, he's just doing it a different way.

[Buzz Clik]

69. I said it was close, not equivalent. I also gave you the opportunity to clarify:

Examples of Senators you don't classify as corporate and why?

[Phlem]

96. This

Anyone who blindly follows this:

http://www.liberalamerica.org/2015/11/24/time-corporate-democratic-party-think-tank-third-way/

including Bill, Obama, and Hillary. There's a couple Senators for ya. Let's see who else, Debbie Waserman Shultz the antithesis of debate, Maria Cantwell who supported Nafta and supports the TPP because I haven't had a steady job since Nafta but she's gonna give more of it.

There's plenty of information out there I'm sure you know.

PS...This was your direct reply "Filled means full, and that doesn't leave much room. Feel free to name other Senators you don't think are "corporate" and why.

Something can be half filled, partially filled or mostly filled, it does not equal full.

[Buzz Clik]

126. You said the magic words: Third Way!

Well done. That's the retreat of non-thinkers who wish to alienate people they don't like.

And you never answered my question.

As for your semantic struggles, here's a definition at the top of the page on a search for "filled definition":

filled
1. put someone or something into (a space or container) so that it is completely or almost completely full.
"I filled up the bottle with water"
synonyms: make full, fill up, fill to the brim, top up, charge More

2. become full of.
"Eleanor's eyes filled with tears"

So, yeah -- you pretty much said "full", assuming we're both speaking English. Next time you mean "half-full", say it.

See ya!

[Phlem]

160. Ahhh. I see so you support them?

"Well done. That's the retreat of non-thinkers who wish to alienate people they don't like. "

Priceless!

filled
1. put someone or something into (a space or container) so that it is completely or almost completely full.
"I filled up the bottle with water"
synonyms: make full, fill up, fill to the brim, top up, charge More

2. become full of.
"Eleanor's eyes filled with tears"

Oh, OK if you need to feel right.

I'll be expecting the last word from you, it's just like arguing with a Republican.

[libdem4life]

73. I once happened on to an internet copy of Corey Booker's contributions.

I was shocked. Almost all corporate contributions...and some huge ones.

This should be no surprise to anyone, however, it is not party-specific. It is the cost of getting into the upper echelon. The same people write the checks. How low a candidate can bow usually gets the most contributions.

It's called an Oligarchy...and we're damn near there. Bernie is right. That is the definition of an oligarchy where no one gets elected except those few in a special club.

News flash ... our votes really don't count. Candidates are groomed, primed, often compromised on the way up the proverbial ladder. The two-party slip and slide is just a carnival attraction for the peasants.

[Jester Messiah]

105. There are some that aren't...

but if most weren't, the ACA would have given us single payer. Instead we got... well, "half a loaf" is charitable.

[merrily]

41. Please see Reply 12.

[Phlem]

49. I wasn't trying to ding Bernie if I did.

I was just being realistic. It will actually BE change when he's POTUS. There are figures in post #44 and I think a bunch of millionaires are going to push back when it starts to affect their wallet.

You will see greed rear it's ugly head.

I will say it'll be fun to watch Bernie straighten them out!

[merrily]

52. I know you meant well, but Bernie's done better than Hillary as far as getting things done (a) in

the abstract and (b) by working with Republicans.

[Phlem]

58. Exactly.

He doesn't need to manufacture a persona to have crossover appeal. He is still, and always will be Bernie.

Also, there's this understanding by some on the board including me about the media ignoring him.

I think there's nothing there is why he's not getting airplay. No multiple crises tornadoes whirling about. If they talk to him he's just gonna talk about the issues we're dealing with. As some have said here, "he's boring". WTF is wrong with that. He's got a job to do, he's not supposed to be a freaking rock star.

I'm for results, not high school drama.

[merrily]

62. I just this second finished a post on that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=897862

[senz]

26. Repub congress = bad. How about trustworthy vs. untrustworthy president?

Whatever we end up with in a congress, we Democrats have a choice right now in whom we nominate for the presidency.

[Buzz Clik]

34. And, I guess, you're convinced that there is only one choice.

I disagree. I like Sanders, and I may vote for him, but not based on your flawed argument.

[senz]

46. At this time, the nomination is between 2 candidates.

That's the choice we will make in the Democratic primary.

Glad you like Sanders. Most people do, even Republicans.

Something about an honest politician who appeals to our better instincts.

[awoke_in_2003]

85. I am a Bernie supporter

but every time I hear about the latest Clinton "scandal", my first thought is "what crap did the republicans dream up this time". It is like the boy who cried wolf.

[Darb]

13. Oh my, "by some miracle"?

She will be the nominee.

[Beacool]

68. Actually, the miracle would be if Sanders won the nomination.

[saturnsring]

88. investigating is all they know how to do so they will investigate bernie (excpt they wont have to

cause Bernie cant win) now Hillary has been vetted for 20 years if there was something they would have said something - they wouldn't need the Benghazi or emails

[Karma13612]

110. agree 100% eom

[Live and Learn]

141. +10,000 nt

[CajunBlazer]

5. There is a reason I don't like lawyers

By and large they are full of it.

[MoonRiver]

6. My experience also.

nuff said

[Cassiopeia]

45. Yet you throw your full support behind one.

interesting.

[Ed Suspicious]

75. Very interesting. And her husband and likely the current president. I guess lawyers can be anything

you want them to be.

[MoonRiver]

100. It was a tongue in cheek statement. But you knew that

[merrily]

147. It wasn't tongue in cheek until you got reminded Hillary and Bill are lawyers. But that was obvious.

[MoonRiver]

153. There are lawyers and there are lawyers, obviously.

Besides, Bill and Hillary haven't practiced law for decades. Silly argument, if you ask me.

[bahrbearian]

10. Hillary passed the Arkansas Bar Exam.

[senz]

21. Eventually.

[Art_from_Ark]

123. And then she defended utility companies against residential rate-payers in Little Rock.

[Scootaloo]

20. ...Like your candidate, you mean?

[treestar]

92. Because they don't tell you what you want to hear?

There are things you think you should be able to do but some lawyer said you can't? Because it's against the law or the law does not favor it?

[jeff47]

7. Just a small taste of next October if Clinton is the nominee. (nt)

[Cassiopeia]

47. And the road to victory for the Republican party in November.

Clinton is not a risk this country can afford.

[Buzz Clik]

8. Gotta ask you, Ace: Did you miss this story the first few times it was posted here?

Or do you simply enjoy re-posting this stuff?

[Darb]

14. She faces a "call" for a new probe? For fuck's sake, pubes call for all kinds of shit

that is nothing but smegma.

Quit peddling this kind of shit.

[SidDithers]

15. ...

Keep trying, Texas Lawyer.

Sid

[Dr Hobbitstein]

16. .

[modestybl]

23. There is probably nothing illegal here... THAT is the scandal...

The problem is that there is an enormous overlap in the activities of the Clinton Foundation, the State Dept when HRC was the Secretary and the Clinton's own personal wealth.

HRC made an astounding admission, connecting 911 with her support of Wall Street, and that what was good for Wall Stree was good for the country... if that is who you surround yourself with, you get into that thinking

...which makes it easier to be okay with a whole spectrum of questionable characters and activities...

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Again, I'm sure NOTHING here is illegal... and that is the problem with the system, and the corruption that Bernie Sanders talks about.

[bowens43]

24. this is how she rolls, gives favors and extracts favors

she can't be trusted, she has shown us tis again and again all the way back to her FLOTUS days ...remember the FBI files in her office? She is a very shady lady who brokered very shady deals.

[PowerToThePeople]

27. It's a big club.

And you and I ain't in it.

[Thinkingabout]

37. It will be interesting to see how Sanders fairs with explaining how his net worth

Grew from $350,000 last year to $800,000 this year when his salary is only $174,000 a year, does not add up. Follow the money, it is on the trail.

[merrily]

42. How do you even know his income this year? Has he filed his tax returns for 2015 prematurely?

[Thinkingabout]

86. Congressional members makes $174,000 in salary, the president makes

$400,000 a year.

[merrily]

91. That was not the question I asked you. But, you knew that. You stated income this year of $800,000

Where did you get that figure?

[Thinkingabout]

116. Reread post #37

The $800,000 was the net worth he reported this year after a net worth of $350,000 last year. His congressional salary is $174,000 a year.

[merrily]

122. Again, not what I asked. Where are you getting the $800.000 figure for this year?

He has not filed tax returns for this year yet.

[VanillaRhapsody]

127. he just said HE reported it..

Forbes says it $700,000. Point remains...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2015/09/29/forbes-2016-presidential-candidate-net-worth-list/3/

[Thinkingabout]

132. There is a difference in net worth and income. One can have inome without

Much net worth and one can have net worth and no income.

[VanillaRhapsody]

137. Well we KNOW what his income is don't we?

[Thinkingabout]

145. Yes, and we know the difference in income and net worth.

Nice to see you here.

[VanillaRhapsody]

146. Please tell us how he made that kind of money this past year then...

[Thinkingabout]

148. You might have a point here, it was reported $350,000 net worth last year

And this year it was reported $800,000 net worth, we know he has a salary of $174,000, even if you take a brown bag lunch every day to work you do not add more than twice your salary to the net worth without winning a lottery, etc. The numbers do not add up. Follow the money.

[Thinkingabout]

129. It is what he is reporting as net worth, it is not his salary.

A congress member makes $174,000. Net worth is not reported on income tax.

[merrily]

134. LINK for the $800,000 figure as his income this year?

Just how many times were you planning to dodge the question?

[Thinkingabout]

136. I am going to say this once more, I never said it was $800,000 income,

I said net worth. Now link where I said it was income.

[merrily]

140. Whatever. LINK where you got the $800,000 figure for this year.

[Thinkingabout]

142. If you can't link to where I said $800,000 income because I did not. Bye again.

[merrily]

143. Replies 122 and 140 did not mention "income." You're pretending not to know what "whatever" means.

TTT

[VanillaRhapsody]

149. $350k one year

$800 the next...

things that make you go hmmmmm

[workinclasszero]

82. Wow

Interesting......

[arcane1]

102. It was only a few months ago when his low net worth was considered a bad thing.

Move those goalposts!

[Beacool]

57. Why didn't you start your OP with the first phrase of the article?

"A conservative watchdog group is calling for a new federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's actions during her time as secretary of state." The key here is "conservative watchdog group".

That says it all..........

[Godhumor]

64. Inconvenient truth where interests intersect n/t

[Vinca]

63. This is what will happen is she's elected POTUS.

Stupid investigation after stupid investigation after stupid investigation. It'll pick up where Christmas Card-Gate left off. It's not a reason not to support her or vote for her, just a heads up for what's potentially down the road.

[SmittynMo]

67. WOW, we're on the same page, at the same time.

I posted the same view right after you did.

[Vinca]

72. Great minds . . .

[SmittynMo]

65. It's the SOS.

It doesn't matter if she's guilty or innocent. The real issue is: "Do we want 4 more years of this shit"? It never stops. NEVER!! It's always something, and personally, I'm sick of it.

With Bernie in there, all of the baggage, all the issues with Hillary will disappear.

[BlueCheese]

79. That Republicans will make up smears about Clinton...

... is a very weak reason to not vote for her. First, Republicans will try to destroy any Democrat-- they've been in scorched earth opposition to Obama the entire time. Second, I'll be damned if I let Republican smear-merchants have any influence at all on the Democratic primary.

[treestar]

94. I don't think Republicans would let Bernie go

without the same treatment were he to win.

Look how hard they've worked on President Obama too.

If Bernie won, they'd go after him. They'd investigate him too. That's how they are. There's no way Bernie would get away without several false scandals ginned up.

[SmittynMo]

99. Just think how hard their job will be

when they can't find anything!!!

[treestar]

106. They couldn't on President Obama

Didn't stop them from making them up though!

[karynnj]

144. actually, it DOES matter if she did nothing wrong

If she did something wrong and especially if there is a pattern of this it matters. So, the first step is they need the full facts out. Then, if there still is a real chance that this was a variation of pay to play or undue favortism, then having an investigation makes sense.

However, IF there is nothing there, Democrats can use the facts and should work harder than in the past to make sure the truth is known.

If that is not our policy, no matter how clean any Democrat is, he or she will be smeared with lies.

[MidwestTransplant]

66. I'm not sure I understand the issue here.

See just asked somebody to follow up on a request she received. She didn't say, help this guy and get him whatever he wants.

[JoePhilly]

78. Another RW masturbatory fantasy ...

... presented for the enjoyment of those DU members who might find this kind of material more exciting than actual porn.

But hey, what ever turns folks on I guess.

[saturnsring]

87. another bs scandal brought to you by the gop

[Utopian Leftist]

95. Isn't it interesting:

Several times on DU I have seen Hillary's supporters posit that, when Bernie receives as much attention as Hillary has been getting from the media, the RepiglyCONs will immediately come up with scandal after scandal after scandal.

About Bernie. Clean-living Bernie! Scandal after scandal. Just like with the Clintons....

Bernie, who has been in the Senate for a quarter-century? The CONS sure have had a long time to come up with something . . . anything that would stick to him by now?

Oh sure, the Koch Bros $2 billion will purchase a lot of manufactured scandal; come next Summer, we all have that to look forward to.

But c'mon, no one out there sincerely believes that Bernie will ever be competition for the Clinton Scandal Machine, do they? That thing goes 24/7. There is an entire industry devoted to keeping that monstrosity going 24/7. The RepiglyCONs revel in it! The joke will be on THEM when Democrats choose clean-living Bernie and the Clinton Scandal Machine can't be used to scare CONs into voting.

[orpupilofnature57]

101. Hard to keep track .

[cosmicone]

103. Meh now you're grasping at Larry Klayman

[Codeine]

104. That is a very misleading and incomplete excerpt.

The opening sentence - which you've carefully avoided quoting - discredits the rest of the article completely.

[randome]

151. You mean this paragraph? I'm sure it was an innocent mistake.

A conservative watchdog group is calling for a new federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's actions during her time as secretary of state.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jarqui]

107. The bigger problem for Hillary here is likely to be the perception of a pattern

"the Democratic presidential front-runner is accused of giving special government access to an investor in a deep-sea mining company due to his ties to Clinton's son-in-law, hedge fund manager Marc Mezvinsky."

This pattern leads back to the Clinton Foundation.

The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership (Canada)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/08/canadian-clinton-foundation-affiliate-discloses-some-donors/

http://cgepartnership.com/media/faqs/

A lot of the donors to that group were mining companies.

BOLD Donor = looks like they're related to mining companies:

Frank Giustra
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/canadian-frank-giustra-s-partnership-with-clinton-foundation-under-scrutiny-1.3049903

B2Gold Corporation
Barrick Gold Corporation
Cannon Point Resources Ltd. junior natural resource - mining
http://www.sedar.com/DisplayProfile.do?lang=EN&issuerType=03&issuerNo=00010482
Stephen Dattels senior mining executive and resource financier
http://stephendattels.com/
Deloitte Foundation Canada
Endeavour Mining Corporation
Evanachan Limited
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/evanachan-limited-files-early-warning-report-connection-with-private-placement-laurentian-1885317.htm
Fernwood Foundation
Fiore Management & Advisory Corp. (Endeavour)
GMP Securities L.P.(mining clients)
http://gmpsecurities.com/
Gran Colombia Gold Corp.
Griffths McBurney Canada Corp. (see GMP above)
Haywood Securities Inc. (involved with mining companies)
http://www.haywood.com/what-we-offer/investment-banking/recent-transactions
Gord & Katherine Keep (Endeavour)
Dr. Sergey Kurzin
http://orsumetals.com/directors.aspx
Alison Lawton
Sam Magid former business Giustra business partner.
New Gold Inc.
Oceanic Iron Ore Corp.
Pacific Coal Resources Ltd.
Pacific Rubiales Energy Corporation Latin America-focused oil and gas producer
Royce Resources Corp. engaged in the acquisition of mineral properties (ie Lithium)
Ian Telfer Chairman of the Board GoldCorp
The Dragon Group of Companies private global mining finance and management group
The Radcliffe Foundation - established in 1997 by Giustra
Anna Wallner
Trevor Wilson ? - might be related to a president of a holdings company in BC, Canada specialized in financing mining companies
Wekerle GM&P Holding Corp. (related to GMP above)
Neil Woodyer (Endeavour Mining Corporation)

So here's the theory based upon the perception created:
These mining companies just might be looking for "help" to access international resources for mining ...
Past President Bill and Secretary of State Hillary just might be able to help them for the "right" donation to the Clinton Foundation.

There is no proof of wrong doing by anyone above. But put yourself in the seat of an objective voter: the perception of the above smells really bad, You'd have to be absolutely stupid to not suspect something. And quite frankly, you'd have to be pretty stupid as head of the Clinton Foundation with a wife having her eye on the White House to allow yourself to get mixed up in crap like this. If these people seriously wanted to make a charitable donation to do some good, when I last checked, the United Way or Save The Children or charities like that were still functioning and taking donations. It didn't HAVE to go to The Clinton Foundation.

Another scandal brewing in a string of many of them brought again to the Democratic Party by Mr & Mrs. Clinton.

Get yourself ready to hold your nose and try to defend Hillary from this garbage in the general election. Some here are still naive enough to think that because I posted it the GOP (the party that if they can't find a scandal, they'll make one up) wouldn't have otherwise realized what is going on here.

[Attorney in Texas]

108. Exactly! Clinton supporters wish to ignore her negative dishonesty/untrustworthiness rating when

there is a pattern of circumstances. Can we rebut many of the individual incidents that make up the pattern? Yes. Can we rebut them all? Not really.

There really is an email where her hedgefunder son in law is asking the State Department for special favors, and it seems like he gets special consideration as a result -- is that the end of the world? No, but it fits a pattern that feeds a perception that leads independent voters (and a not-insignificant minority of Democrats) to distrust her.

[AzDar]

111. It seems the Clintons are still covered in a fine slime that they just can't wash off...

Gah! No THANKS.

[Karma13612]

117. Yup/ and at this point, I am no longer surprised.

Just confirms that my gut reaction has been right.

Avoid the Clintons.


#Bernie16

[Robbins]

128. I always said

Republicans want to run against her.Their 2016 plan is to make her the incumbent and have gop from presidential nominee on down run ads attacking her.

Forget bengzri the clinton foundation and allegations she used time as SOS for influence is just waiting to break.

She is already disliked by independents and some dems dislike her.

her as nominee would be like 2004 all over again.She might preveil over trump but it would be narrow victory and it would do nothing to help dems down ballet.

[Baitball Blogger]

157. We need to put an end to this kind of business as usual.

Our leadership is imploding from within because favoritism never improves trust in public officials.

[Historic NY]

158. State Dept already said she neither met with him nor did any one else from the State Dept...

In a May 2012 email, the investor, Harry Siklas, asked Mezvinsky to connect him with Clinton or other State Department officials "to discuss mining and the current legal issues and regulations."

So I guess having some friend who's mother in law was SOS didn't produce anything....did it. She didn't do anything for 3 months.

When I see conservative watchdog I think of Lee Atwater.

[BeanMusical]

163. Kick and R