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
99th_Monkey
99th_Monkey's Journal
99th_Monkey's Journal
February 6, 2016
...............
legal Definition of Bribery
...................
Now as long as we call it "Speaker Fees", no one is supposed to notice, no one is supposed to care..
But let's at least not engage in collective amnesia, forgetting what we're actually talking about here.
I posted the excerpted article below, several days ago. The title speaks for itself,
as does this brief excerpt:
OK, I'll say it, without mincing words. They Used To Call It "Bribery"
Definition of bribe1: money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a
person in a position of trust.
2: something that serves to induce or influence
...............
legal Definition of Bribery
Bribery
The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.The expectation of a particular voluntary action in return is what makes the difference between a bribe and a private demonstration of goodwill. To offer or provide payment in order to persuade someone with a responsibility to betray that responsibility is known as seeking Undue Influence over that person's actions. When someone with power seeks payment in exchange for certain actions, that person is said to be peddling influence. Regardless of who initiates the deal, either party to an act of bribery can be found guilty of the crime independently of the other.
A bribe can consist of immediate cash or of personal favors, a promise of later payment, or anything else the recipient views as valuable. When the U.S. military threatened to cancel a Texas relocation company's contracts to move families to and from military bases, the company allegedly gave four representatives in Congress an all-expenses-paid weekend in Las Vegas in January 1989, and $2,500 in speaking fees. The former president of the company was indicted by a federal Grand Jury in 1994 on bribery charges for both gifts.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bribery
...................
Now as long as we call it "Speaker Fees", no one is supposed to notice, no one is supposed to care..
But let's at least not engage in collective amnesia, forgetting what we're actually talking about here.
I posted the excerpted article below, several days ago. The title speaks for itself,
as does this brief excerpt:
Clinton Last Night: "Name Anything (Wall Street Has) Influenced Me On" -- OK, I Will
Because Wall Street executives were the biggest donors to her 2006 Senate campaign and her 2008 presidential campaign. Clinton got millions from the financial industry while also protecting them — she is most assuredly influenced by her Wall Street donors.
That’s one thing right there, per Clinton’s request — but here’s even more.
In 2007 and 2008, Clinton did not work with the other senators in Congress to pass a housing bill to stop individual financial players from destroying the economy.
As ProPublica reports,
She was not a leader in the Senate to stop Wall Street’s reckless behavior.
In fact, she was barely even a follower.
Additionally, as Politico reports:
So not only did she not battle for the American people against Wall Street, or even follow those who were fighting for the citizens, she actually fought on Wall Street’s behalf.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/6/1480801/-Bill-Black-Hillary-the-Banksters-Committed-Fraud-Not-Shenanigans
Because Wall Street executives were the biggest donors to her 2006 Senate campaign and her 2008 presidential campaign. Clinton got millions from the financial industry while also protecting them — she is most assuredly influenced by her Wall Street donors.
That’s one thing right there, per Clinton’s request — but here’s even more.
In 2007 and 2008, Clinton did not work with the other senators in Congress to pass a housing bill to stop individual financial players from destroying the economy.
As ProPublica reports,
When a broad housing bill finally became law in 2008, Clinton was not among the more than dozen senators credited by party leaders as playing a key role.
She was not a leader in the Senate to stop Wall Street’s reckless behavior.
In fact, she was barely even a follower.
Additionally, as Politico reports:
Clinton also has some history with the shadow-banking world she says is a continuing risk to the financial system. While in the Senate, she made a little-noticed overture to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who was involved in talks to rescue giant insurer AIG with government funds. She was calling on behalf of wealthy investors who stood to lose millions and had hired two longtime Clinton associates to represent them.
So not only did she not battle for the American people against Wall Street, or even follow those who were fighting for the citizens, she actually fought on Wall Street’s behalf.
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/6/1480801/-Bill-Black-Hillary-the-Banksters-Committed-Fraud-Not-Shenanigans
February 6, 2016
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1153802
Please give this OP a boost, this article badly needs exposure. (Plz. Read the whole thing)
An excerpt:
The Clinton argument goes: No way could Bernie break up the banks. Only a pragmatic, moderate insider can get anywhere.
Actually the truth is exactly the opposite. American insider politics is now so corrupt that nobody within it can get anything done. But by stepping outside of the rules, you could do a great deal. Let's take a concrete example - the banks.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1153802
February 5, 2016
Last night, Clinton once again praised a man with a lot of blood on his hands.
By Greg Grandin * Feb 5, 2016 * The Nation
Clinton just can’t quit him. Even as she is trying to outflank Bernie on his left, Hillary Clinton can’t help but stutter the name of Henry Kissinger. Last night in the New Hampshire debate, Clinton thought to close her argument that she is the true progressive with this: “I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time.”
Let’s consider some of Kissinger’s achievements during his tenure as Richard Nixon’s top foreign policy–maker. He (1) prolonged the Vietnam War for five pointless years; (2) illegally bombed Cambodia and Laos; (3) goaded Nixon to wiretap staffers and journalists; (4) bore responsibility for three genocides in Cambodia, East Timor, and Bangladesh; (5) urged Nixon to go after Daniel Ellsberg for having released the Pentagon Papers, which set off a chain of events that brought down the Nixon White House; (6) pumped up Pakistan’s ISI, and encouraged it to use political Islam to destabilize Afghanistan; (7) began the US’s arms-for-petrodollars dependency with Saudi Arabia and pre-revolutionary Iran; (8) accelerated needless civil wars in southern Africa that, in the name of supporting white supremacy, left millions dead; (9) supported coups and death squads throughout Latin America; and (10) ingratiated himself with the first-generation neocons, such as Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, who would take American militarism to its next calamitous level. Read all about it in Kissinger’s Shadow!
A full tally hasn’t been done, but a back-of-the-envelope count would attribute 3, maybe 4 million deaths to Kissinger’s actions, but that number probably undercounts his victims in southern Africa. Pull but one string from the current tangle of today’s multiple foreign policy crises, and odds are it will lead back to something Kissinger did between 1968 and 1977. Over-reliance on Saudi oil? That’s Kissinger. Blowback from the instrumental use of radical Islam to destabilize Soviet allies? Again, Kissinger. An unstable arms race in the Middle East? Check, Kissinger. Sunni-Shia rivalry? Yup, Kissinger. The impasse in Israel-Palestine? Kissinger. Radicalization of Iran? “An act of folly” was how veteran diplomat George Ball described Kissinger’s relationship to the Shah. Militarization of the Persian Gulf? Kissinger, Kissinger, Kissinger.
And yet Clinton continues to call his name, hoping his light bathes her in wisdom.
http://www.thenation.com/article/henry-kissinger-hillary-clintons-tutor-in-war-and-peace/
The Nation: Henry Kissinger, Hillary Clinton’s Tutor in War and Peace
Henry Kissinger, Hillary Clinton’s Tutor in War and PeaceLast night, Clinton once again praised a man with a lot of blood on his hands.
By Greg Grandin * Feb 5, 2016 * The Nation
Clinton just can’t quit him. Even as she is trying to outflank Bernie on his left, Hillary Clinton can’t help but stutter the name of Henry Kissinger. Last night in the New Hampshire debate, Clinton thought to close her argument that she is the true progressive with this: “I was very flattered when Henry Kissinger said I ran the State Department better than anybody had run it in a long time.”
Let’s consider some of Kissinger’s achievements during his tenure as Richard Nixon’s top foreign policy–maker. He (1) prolonged the Vietnam War for five pointless years; (2) illegally bombed Cambodia and Laos; (3) goaded Nixon to wiretap staffers and journalists; (4) bore responsibility for three genocides in Cambodia, East Timor, and Bangladesh; (5) urged Nixon to go after Daniel Ellsberg for having released the Pentagon Papers, which set off a chain of events that brought down the Nixon White House; (6) pumped up Pakistan’s ISI, and encouraged it to use political Islam to destabilize Afghanistan; (7) began the US’s arms-for-petrodollars dependency with Saudi Arabia and pre-revolutionary Iran; (8) accelerated needless civil wars in southern Africa that, in the name of supporting white supremacy, left millions dead; (9) supported coups and death squads throughout Latin America; and (10) ingratiated himself with the first-generation neocons, such as Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, who would take American militarism to its next calamitous level. Read all about it in Kissinger’s Shadow!
A full tally hasn’t been done, but a back-of-the-envelope count would attribute 3, maybe 4 million deaths to Kissinger’s actions, but that number probably undercounts his victims in southern Africa. Pull but one string from the current tangle of today’s multiple foreign policy crises, and odds are it will lead back to something Kissinger did between 1968 and 1977. Over-reliance on Saudi oil? That’s Kissinger. Blowback from the instrumental use of radical Islam to destabilize Soviet allies? Again, Kissinger. An unstable arms race in the Middle East? Check, Kissinger. Sunni-Shia rivalry? Yup, Kissinger. The impasse in Israel-Palestine? Kissinger. Radicalization of Iran? “An act of folly” was how veteran diplomat George Ball described Kissinger’s relationship to the Shah. Militarization of the Persian Gulf? Kissinger, Kissinger, Kissinger.
And yet Clinton continues to call his name, hoping his light bathes her in wisdom.
http://www.thenation.com/article/henry-kissinger-hillary-clintons-tutor-in-war-and-peace/
February 5, 2016
Sanders Democrats like Nevada's Lucy Flores aim to amplify the Vermont senator's uncompromising message in Washington—and move the party in a populist direction.
BY DAVID DAYEN * February 3, 2016 * New Republic
Bernie Sanders’s political revolution is predicated in part on mobilizing the public to change the direction of the country. Naysayers carp, and not without reason, that this is impossible, with Republicans having a lock on the gerrymandered Congress for the near future. But to change that state of affairs, you need Sanders Democrats—progressive leaders willing to compete for marginal seats and battle from inside the Capitol Building.
The army is out there. This past week, I interviewed three candidates for Congress, all running in seats currently held by Republicans, who have endorsed Bernie Sanders. They may not all win—some might not even represent the Democrats in the general election—but they exemplify a new energy in the party, expressing pride in liberal ideas instead of fleeing from them, ready to work the levers of the system to achieve progress wherever possible. The greatest gift Sanders—the longtime independent—has given to the Democratic Party is to inspire a progressive revolution from within.
Zephyr Teachout went from an unassuming law professor to a political rock star when she challenged New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary in 2014, faring better than anyone expected. Now she’s running for Congress upstate in the 19th Congressional District, an open-seat swing district where she beat Cuomo in all but one county, typically by a wide margin. Within a week of announcing her candidacy on January 25, Teachout attracted more than 3,000 donors and took in close to $100,000 in contributions, a signal of her continuing grassroots strength.
The low-dollar surge isn’t just an election strategy, but a commitment: Removing big money from politics is one of Teachout’s top issues. In fact, she highlights corporate concentration of power as the primary economic and political problem. “In the conversations I’ve had, people don’t love big cable companies, they don’t love big banks,” Teachout says. “People know something is deeply wrong, and they’re open to all kinds of different solutions.”
MORE: https://newrepublic.com/article/129047/bernies-army-running-congress
Coat-Tails: Bernie’s Army Is Running for Congress
Bernie’s Army Is Running for CongressSanders Democrats like Nevada's Lucy Flores aim to amplify the Vermont senator's uncompromising message in Washington—and move the party in a populist direction.
BY DAVID DAYEN * February 3, 2016 * New Republic
Bernie Sanders’s political revolution is predicated in part on mobilizing the public to change the direction of the country. Naysayers carp, and not without reason, that this is impossible, with Republicans having a lock on the gerrymandered Congress for the near future. But to change that state of affairs, you need Sanders Democrats—progressive leaders willing to compete for marginal seats and battle from inside the Capitol Building.
The army is out there. This past week, I interviewed three candidates for Congress, all running in seats currently held by Republicans, who have endorsed Bernie Sanders. They may not all win—some might not even represent the Democrats in the general election—but they exemplify a new energy in the party, expressing pride in liberal ideas instead of fleeing from them, ready to work the levers of the system to achieve progress wherever possible. The greatest gift Sanders—the longtime independent—has given to the Democratic Party is to inspire a progressive revolution from within.
Zephyr Teachout went from an unassuming law professor to a political rock star when she challenged New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary in 2014, faring better than anyone expected. Now she’s running for Congress upstate in the 19th Congressional District, an open-seat swing district where she beat Cuomo in all but one county, typically by a wide margin. Within a week of announcing her candidacy on January 25, Teachout attracted more than 3,000 donors and took in close to $100,000 in contributions, a signal of her continuing grassroots strength.
The low-dollar surge isn’t just an election strategy, but a commitment: Removing big money from politics is one of Teachout’s top issues. In fact, she highlights corporate concentration of power as the primary economic and political problem. “In the conversations I’ve had, people don’t love big cable companies, they don’t love big banks,” Teachout says. “People know something is deeply wrong, and they’re open to all kinds of different solutions.”
MORE: https://newrepublic.com/article/129047/bernies-army-running-congress
February 5, 2016
by Alexander Reed Kelly * Feb 4, 2016 * TruthDig
Bernie Sanders’ call for a “political revolution” is inspiring progressives to mount bids for Congress nationwide. Together, they may be able to wrest control of the U.S. government from Wall Street, big oil and the military-industrial complex.
In late January, Truthdig reported on law professor Tim Canova’s bid to unseat Debbie Wasserman Schultz from her post in Florida. Add to his effort that of Zephyr Teachout in New York, John Fetterman in Pennsylvania and Lucy Flores in Nevada.
“Bernie Sanders’s political revolution is predicated in part on mobilizing the public to change the direction of the country,” writes David Dayen at The New Republic. “Naysayers carp, and not without reason, that this is impossible, with Republicans having a lock on the gerrymandered Congress for the near future. But to change that state of affairs, you need Sanders Democrats—progressive leaders willing to compete for marginal seats and battle from inside the Capitol Building”:
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/progressives_nationwide_seek_to_take_bernie_sanders_20160204
Coat-tails: Progressive Candidates Taking Bernie Sanders’ ‘Political Revolution’ Into Congress
Progressives Nationwide Seek to Take Bernie Sanders’ ‘Political Revolution’ Into Congressby Alexander Reed Kelly * Feb 4, 2016 * TruthDig
Bernie Sanders’ call for a “political revolution” is inspiring progressives to mount bids for Congress nationwide. Together, they may be able to wrest control of the U.S. government from Wall Street, big oil and the military-industrial complex.
In late January, Truthdig reported on law professor Tim Canova’s bid to unseat Debbie Wasserman Schultz from her post in Florida. Add to his effort that of Zephyr Teachout in New York, John Fetterman in Pennsylvania and Lucy Flores in Nevada.
“Bernie Sanders’s political revolution is predicated in part on mobilizing the public to change the direction of the country,” writes David Dayen at The New Republic. “Naysayers carp, and not without reason, that this is impossible, with Republicans having a lock on the gerrymandered Congress for the near future. But to change that state of affairs, you need Sanders Democrats—progressive leaders willing to compete for marginal seats and battle from inside the Capitol Building”:
The army is out there. [...] They may not all win—some might not even represent the Democrats in the general election—but they exemplify a new energy in the party, expressing pride in liberal ideas instead of fleeing from them, ready to work the levers of the system to achieve progress wherever possible. The greatest gift Sanders—the longtime independent—has given to the Democratic Party is to inspire a progressive revolution from within. […]
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/progressives_nationwide_seek_to_take_bernie_sanders_20160204
February 5, 2016
by Lee Fang * Feb. 4 2016 * The Intercept
During the Democratic presidential debate Thursday evening, MSNBC moderator Chuck Todd picked a question offered by a viewer and pointedly asked Hillary Clinton if she would release the transcripts of her paid speeches to giant investment bank Goldman Sachs. Todd then broadened the question, asking: “Are you willing to release the transcripts of all your paid speeches?”
It was the second time Clinton has been asked if she would release transcripts of the paid speeches she gave behind closed doors. When I asked her in Manchester, New Hampshire, two weeks ago, Clinton simply laughed and turned away.
Asked this time on network television, she said, “I will look into it. I don’t know the status, but I will certainly look into it.” (Video clip from msnbc NH Debate embedded in article here)
Clinton went on to say that she made money from paid speeches by talking “about issues that had to do with world affairs,” suggesting she gave a boilerplate talk. But according to accounts offered by several attendees of one of the Goldman Sachs speeches, Clinton reassured the crowd, telling them that banker-bashing was unproductive and foolish.
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/04/hillary-clinton-refuses-to-say-if-she-will-release-transcripts-of-her-goldman-sachs-speeches/
Intercept/L.Fang: Hillary Won’t Say if She’ll Release Transcripts of Goldman Sachs Speeches
Hillary Clinton Won’t Say if She’ll Release Transcripts of Goldman Sachs Speechesby Lee Fang * Feb. 4 2016 * The Intercept
During the Democratic presidential debate Thursday evening, MSNBC moderator Chuck Todd picked a question offered by a viewer and pointedly asked Hillary Clinton if she would release the transcripts of her paid speeches to giant investment bank Goldman Sachs. Todd then broadened the question, asking: “Are you willing to release the transcripts of all your paid speeches?”
It was the second time Clinton has been asked if she would release transcripts of the paid speeches she gave behind closed doors. When I asked her in Manchester, New Hampshire, two weeks ago, Clinton simply laughed and turned away.
Asked this time on network television, she said, “I will look into it. I don’t know the status, but I will certainly look into it.” (Video clip from msnbc NH Debate embedded in article here)
Clinton went on to say that she made money from paid speeches by talking “about issues that had to do with world affairs,” suggesting she gave a boilerplate talk. But according to accounts offered by several attendees of one of the Goldman Sachs speeches, Clinton reassured the crowd, telling them that banker-bashing was unproductive and foolish.
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/04/hillary-clinton-refuses-to-say-if-she-will-release-transcripts-of-her-goldman-sachs-speeches/
February 5, 2016
TRANSCRIPTS PLEASE of Goldman Sachs speeches?? HRC "I'll look into it" <--WTF?
What kind of answer is that .. "I'll look into it" ... 
February 5, 2016
New CNN Poll/Breaking: Sanders now has 31 point lead over Hillary in NH!!!!!!!!!!!!! n/t
February 5, 2016
My 40 y.o. furnace repair guy today was Feeling the Bern
Once he'd finished fixing our furnace in the basement, he came upstairs to fiddle with
the thermostat. He asks, "was that Bernie Sanders I was hearing from downstairs?"
I was a little caught off-guard, not entirely sure where he was going with his question,
but when I said "Yes it was! I'm totally supporting Bernie." he lit up and told me how
excited he is to finally feel like there's a candidate who's really speaking for him and
his family. He couldn't say enough about how thrilled he's feeling about Bernie's
candidacy.
He went on to say how whenever Bernie comes on the radio in the car, he pulls over to
listen, because he wants his children to be exposed to what's going on in US politics
today, because it's their future Bernie's talking about. I at first thought that was a little
'over the top' but the more I thought about it, I appreciated his passion for wanting his
kids to "get" the historical significance of Bernie's run, and his sense of solidarity with
Bernie's message.
Needless to say, it was an uplifting encounter. And I couldn't help appreciate the irony
of his profession being to help people stay warm i.e. to "feel the bern" when they most
need it.
February 4, 2016
by Jeff Cohn * February 04, 2016 * Common Dreams
In her speech claiming victory after the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton proclaimed herself “a progressive who gets things done.” I had to laugh. And it wasn’t just because former President Bill Clinton – the centrist Triangulator-in-Chief – was standing behind her, beaming and clapping.
"Like her husband, Hillary can come off as either centrist or progressive depending on the audience. And depending on the season – left-leaning during primary election season, and corporate centrist in office."
A quick review of Hillary Clinton’s record shows that much of what she gets done is anti-progressive (not unlike President Clinton in the 1990s). For example:
Promoting Fracking Worldwide is Not Progressive: On behalf of Chevron and other US oil companies, Secretary Clinton and the State Department pushed fracking globally, as Mother Jones has documented: “How Hillary Clinton’s State Department Sold Fracking to the World.”
Boosting Corporate-Friendly Trade Deals is Not Progressive: Secretary Clinton repeatedly praised the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – as it was being negotiated by the US Trade Representative and her State Department – and she recruited countries into the deal. In October, with Bernie Sanders climbing in the polls, Clinton said she no longer supported the pact, and prevaricated about her earlier boosterism.
Enabling Military Coups is Not Progressive: When she headed the State Department, it enabled a military coup in Honduras that overthrew democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya, a progressive. Clinton was briefed on the dishonesty that allowed aid to illegally reach the coup government.
Pocketing Millions from Corporate Lectures Fees is Not Progressive: When Wall Street, Big Pharma and other corporate interests paid a soon-to-be presidential candidate an average of $230,000 for a speech, did Hillary Clinton think it was for her brilliant stand-up comedy? Or was it more akin to political bribery? Clinton now says these firms just wanted to hear the views of a former Secretary of State on our “complicated world” – or about the Bin Laden raid. But Politico reported in 2013 soon after one of her three speeches to Goldman Sachs: “Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish.” (Releasing the speech transcripts would help settle the matter.)
Escalating the Afghan War is Not Progressive: As insider books on the Obama administration have revealed, Secretary Clinton was among the most hawkish of Obama’s advisors in country after country – for example, vociferously urging the failed and pointless 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan.
Chaotic Military Intervention in the Middle East and Libya is Not Progressive: If not for Hillary Clinton’s 2002 Senate vote in support of Bush’s Iraq invasion, Obama would not have defeated her in 2008. As if having learned nothing from the post-invasion chaos in Iraq, Secretary Clinton was one of the strongest voices in 2011 urging Obama to militarily depose Qaddafi in Libya, a country now in total, deadly chaos.
More: http://commondreams.org/views/2016/02/04/hillary-clinton-turns-stand-comic-im-progressive-who-gets-things-done
Hillary Clinton Turns Stand-Up Comic: "I’m a Progressive Who Gets Things Done"
Hillary Clinton Turns Stand-Up Comic: "I’m a Progressive Who Gets Things Done"by Jeff Cohn * February 04, 2016 * Common Dreams
In her speech claiming victory after the Iowa caucuses, Hillary Clinton proclaimed herself “a progressive who gets things done.” I had to laugh. And it wasn’t just because former President Bill Clinton – the centrist Triangulator-in-Chief – was standing behind her, beaming and clapping.
"Like her husband, Hillary can come off as either centrist or progressive depending on the audience. And depending on the season – left-leaning during primary election season, and corporate centrist in office."
A quick review of Hillary Clinton’s record shows that much of what she gets done is anti-progressive (not unlike President Clinton in the 1990s). For example:
Promoting Fracking Worldwide is Not Progressive: On behalf of Chevron and other US oil companies, Secretary Clinton and the State Department pushed fracking globally, as Mother Jones has documented: “How Hillary Clinton’s State Department Sold Fracking to the World.”
Boosting Corporate-Friendly Trade Deals is Not Progressive: Secretary Clinton repeatedly praised the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – as it was being negotiated by the US Trade Representative and her State Department – and she recruited countries into the deal. In October, with Bernie Sanders climbing in the polls, Clinton said she no longer supported the pact, and prevaricated about her earlier boosterism.
Enabling Military Coups is Not Progressive: When she headed the State Department, it enabled a military coup in Honduras that overthrew democratically-elected President Manuel Zelaya, a progressive. Clinton was briefed on the dishonesty that allowed aid to illegally reach the coup government.
Pocketing Millions from Corporate Lectures Fees is Not Progressive: When Wall Street, Big Pharma and other corporate interests paid a soon-to-be presidential candidate an average of $230,000 for a speech, did Hillary Clinton think it was for her brilliant stand-up comedy? Or was it more akin to political bribery? Clinton now says these firms just wanted to hear the views of a former Secretary of State on our “complicated world” – or about the Bin Laden raid. But Politico reported in 2013 soon after one of her three speeches to Goldman Sachs: “Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish.” (Releasing the speech transcripts would help settle the matter.)
Escalating the Afghan War is Not Progressive: As insider books on the Obama administration have revealed, Secretary Clinton was among the most hawkish of Obama’s advisors in country after country – for example, vociferously urging the failed and pointless 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan.
Chaotic Military Intervention in the Middle East and Libya is Not Progressive: If not for Hillary Clinton’s 2002 Senate vote in support of Bush’s Iraq invasion, Obama would not have defeated her in 2008. As if having learned nothing from the post-invasion chaos in Iraq, Secretary Clinton was one of the strongest voices in 2011 urging Obama to militarily depose Qaddafi in Libya, a country now in total, deadly chaos.
More: http://commondreams.org/views/2016/02/04/hillary-clinton-turns-stand-comic-im-progressive-who-gets-things-done
Profile Information
Gender: MaleCurrent location: Potlandia
Member since: Fri Sep 28, 2007, 04:39 PM
Number of posts: 19,326
