The Guilt by Association Association

Is Hillary Clinton the handmaiden of Wall Street and For-Profit Ed? Well, Senator Sanders and his supporters (including my front page colleague Hillary downstairs here) have made that insinuation.

But during the last debate, when Senator Sanders was asked to name one example of a decision Clinton had made on the basis of donations, he whiffed. Still, insinuations are powerful, even if they are in reality pretty meaningless.

I’ll give you an example: My late mother regularly received cash from a deeply misogynist, homophobic organization with an appallingly bloody history and a recent track record of functioning as a child rapist protection racket.

Does that mean my mom was in favor of sexism, homophobia and pedophilia? You might think so from the above statement, but nope — it means she was a nurse at a Catholic hospital.

Here’s another example, and one from the political realm: Suppose a US Senator recently made a statement that was praised by a pack of blood-drenched psychopaths who think the proper response to the shooting deaths of a classful of first graders is MOAR GUNZZZZ!

Can we conclude then that the senator in question is a gun-humping moron who is indifferent to the murder of children? I don’t think it would be fair at all to characterize Senator Sanders that way.

In summary: it’s fair to ask questions or investigate ties that raise your suspicions. But if guilt by association is the standard by which we judge folks, we’re all guilty, including Senator Sanders.






458 replies
  1. 1
  2. 2
    PsiFighter37 says:

    Both sides do it!

  3. 3
    Mnemosyne says:

    I wondered something near the bottom of the last thread, but I think it got lost:

    If the problem is that money leads to better access, maybe we should consider tackling the problem from the other end and mandating equal access. So if a politician meets with, say, BP about a new pipeline, s/he would be required to also meet with the environmental group that’s opposed to said pipeline.

    Yes, it wouldn’t be perfect, and it wouldn’t stop outright corruption, but could it help prevent politicians from getting trapped inside that bubble where only people with money have access to them?

  4. 4
    Baud says:

    I feel guilty being associated with you guys.

  5. 5
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Baud: You should feel guilty for employing bad grammar.

  6. 6
    Mike J says:

    @Mnemosyne: Who becomes the official scheduler? Will green-friendly pols be forced to waste time listening to drivel from oil companies?

  7. 7
  8. 8
    Anonymous At Work says:

    @Mnemosyne: Equal Time laws for broadcasting didn’t work for a wide variety of reasons. This would fail as well. Sadly, there’s not a good answer to the issue of concentrated-but-narrow versus broad-but-diffuse interests.

  9. 9
    jl says:

    @Baud:

    ” I feel guilty being associated with you guys. ”

    The feeling will be mutual after my ‘Blame Baud’ scapegoating campaign sweeps the nation if the Democratic nominee loses in November.
    You should have dropped out sooner and not split the party.

  10. 10
    Loviatar says:

    @Betty Cracker

    For an Obot, you occasionally get it right.

    Now give me something on the 30+ year smearing of the Clintons and how its impacted Democratic politics.

  11. 11
    Mike J says:

    I was told here the other day that Sanders no longer genuflects to the NRA on every issue. We can thank Hillary for dragging him to the left.

  12. 12
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    Yeah, I’m a little confused about the corruption charges. I hear that a lot from the BernieBros (actual brothers, not white kids) I’m on a forum with. They just hammer on the corruption thing, saying they could never vote for that corrupt woman. I think it’s probably more to do with sexism but I don’t have a natural opening to make that criticism.

  13. 13
    patroclus says:

    I used to be a fundraiser for United Way and we accepted money from (gasp!) conservative Republicans! So, I guess the Children’s Home and Aid Society and the Lighthouse for the Blind and all the other charities that United Way funnels money to are utterly and completely tainted by immigrant bashers, carpet bombers, warmongerers, torturers, wall builders, waterboarders, economy wreckers, women’s liberty haters etc… Those blind kids are just corrupt!

  14. 14
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Baud: Yeah, so that broke my comment, then.

  15. 15
    Baud says:

    @Baud:

    BTW, my guilt notwithstanding, I will continue to accept contributions from Big BJ.

  16. 16
    Bob in Portland says:

    This is the most amazing thing, the Balloon Juice villagers have no concept of the connection between money going to politicians and what the politician does in office.

    You keep working it, Betty. You’ve almost convinced yourself.

  17. 17
    WarMunchkin says:

    I think it’s right to talk about the effect of the revolving door on elite consensus, and I think it’s a hard thing to do to be able to talk about that in the context of specific people without insinuating bribery. Because you then have to prove the bribe, when the actual criticism is something like “because you do that, your universe has a different center than it should have”, which can’t really be proven.

  18. 18
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @Mike J: Bernie Sanders has proven he can learn and change.

  19. 19
    OzarkHillbilly says:

    Well Hell, that’s where I’m going then. At least I can laugh with the sinners.

  20. 20
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Anonymous At Work:

    Actually, Equal Time laws worked pretty well until they were done away with. Among other things, Fox News would have been impossible under those regulations.

    It certainly wouldn’t be perfect, but it’s worth thinking about. If it’s currently impossible to get rid of money in politics thanks to Citizens United, we need to think of another way around the problem. Doesn’t everyone here always tell me the best way to counter bad speech is with more speech?
    ;-)

  21. 21
    debbie says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    I’d be happy if nothing was secretive and everything was openly acknowledged. Let the voters know and let them decide what they think of it.

  22. 22
    singfoom says:

    @Bob in Portland: Villager Villager Villager.

    Drink!

  23. 23
    ruemara says:

    As I’ve continuously pointed out to friends who love to share those “corporate” donations memes, without a clear source with the details of actual real donations from a company, this is worthless. Because every political donation requires where you work to compile that data. Based on this charting methodology, Obama was funded by big local government and Hilz would be funded by Big Animal Behavior.

  24. 24
    FlipYrWhig says:

    As I said downstairs,

    If the way we’re keeping score on these things is by the way the candidate’s spouse handles issues related to education, maybe we should talk about the way Jane Sanders parlayed having no experience but a politically-connected husband into a gig fucking up Burlington College nine ways to Sunday and then took a golden parachute to go away. Five years ago, not 25.

  25. 25
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Bob in Portland:

    This is the most amazing thing, the Balloon Juice villagers have no concept of the connection between money going to politicians and what the politician does in office.

    Show us the quid pro quo, Bob. You say it’s there and easily visible, so give us some links.

  26. 26
    Mnemosyne says:

    @WarMunchkin:

    That’s why I’m starting to think the solution is to change who gets to go through the door rather than just regulating the money surrounding the door.

  27. 27
    dollared says:

    @Mnemosyne: So Money in politics has no corrupting influence. Amazing how the more one supports Hillary Clinton, the more one argues Republican Talking points

  28. 28
    Emma says:

    You know what really offends me? The penny ante figures. $200,000 is chickenshit money in today’s politics. If the Clintons were for sale, they would charge five times more as a starting figure. And get it, funneled through a nice discreet Swiss bank account.

    (added) The real money goes into think tanks and media empires. Massive so-called “grass roots” movements. Things like that.

  29. 29
    jl says:

    I suppose Sanders could have argued about her vote on the bankruptcy bill.

    But I think a ‘quid pro quo’ or ‘changed a vote’ standard is far too strict. It was a stupid gotcha question posed by a corrupt and stupid corporate media that has an immense financial interest in keeping the current corrupt system going. There are many ways that the influence of big money, and the influence of having to spend so much time with rich people, and pretending to take all their views very seriously, can corrupt a politician’s judgment. Outright bribes for specific actions is just the crudest and stupidest way the influence of money works.

    I think HRC is approximately as corrupt as any other national Democratic politician who chooses to operate in a corrupt system. Nothing especially corrupt about her personally.
    I also think it is silly to think voting or supporting Sanders is some magic key for reforming a corrupt system. Reform requires operating on several fronts over a long time horizon, since any one effort will probably fail, or be subverted. Sanders could get elected and get exactly nothing passed on campaign finance reform, and all of his DOJ and FEC initiatives shot down in court, and at the end of his term he would go away, for example.

    And of course, in the general, no matter what one thinks about HRC, what about her GOP opponent in November?

  30. 30
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @ruemara: Hypothetically speaking, imagine if the CEO of Goldman Sachs decided to run for political office… as a Democrat! I have to think Bernie Sanders’s campaign manager would refuse to take such ill-gotten filthy lucre! *cough*JonCorzine05*cough*

  31. 31
    geg6 says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I do not know this story. Can you enlighten me?

  32. 32
    pat says:

    Is there a link to some info about Jane Sanders?
    Thanks.

  33. 33
    Hillary Rettig says:

    @dollared: Bingo! They’re just paying for speeches, right?

  34. 34
    eemom says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Bernie Sanders has proven he can learn and change.

    Speaking of that — anyone notice how the bernouts who keep congratulating themselves on “moving Hillary to the left” discount every word she says that DEMONSTRATES said “move to the left” on the ground that she must be lying cuz DOOOONAAAAAAATIIIIIIIUUUUUUNZ from evil DOOOOOOONNNNEEEERZ.

    Exhibit A: Two posts ago.

  35. 35
    the Conster, la Citoyenne says:

    Jeff Weaver being asked tough questions on MSNBC, and flailing badly – basically insinuating all the right wing talking points against Clinton are out there and they haven’t used them… but… they’re out there, so yeah. Guilt by association is all they’ve got.

  36. 36
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @geg6: @pat: Here’s a story from Politico:

    What happened at Sanders U.: When Bernie Sanders’ wife was in charge of small, private Burlington College in Vermont, it sank into debt.

    I don’t want to put too much energy into that story, but if we’re banging on about colleges and spouses, you know, there’s that expression about sauces and ganders that comes to mind.

  37. 37
    Renie says:

    Its becoming tiresome to see people nitpick through the people/industries that have donated to Hillary. If we decide to be purity ponies and not take any donations except for those ‘pure’ groups the Republicans would always win cuz they don’t care who they get donations from. Now I don’t mean its okay to take money from hate groups, etc., but let’s be pragmatic here. This is the way politics is played. It’s like saying you don’t like football cuz people get injured when they tackle so your team is not going to tackle anyone. Your team will lose every time cuz the other side will tackle. Change the campaign laws first to even the playing field.

  38. 38
    Anonymous At Work says:

    @jl: The bankruptcy bill is a bad example. It was fait accompli the second time around, especially with President Bush in office. President Clinton’s veto was important the first time. The second time, when it was clear it had the votes and no veto, Clinton made a deal to protect child support payments from bankruptcy as her “cost”, not campaign donations, just a major amendment to protect families. That was politics, that was playing the system, and it saved dead-beat dads from declaring bankruptcy to get rid of paying child support.
    Sanders wasn’t an idiot when he passed on that example.

  39. 39
    Calouste says:

    Sanders refuses to release more than one year of tax returns. We have* to assume that there is something rather odious in there. Was Jane Sanders a board member of an arms manufacturer? Was she a paid consultant to the NRA, trying to minimize the fallout of the Sandy Hook massacre?

    *) I don’t believe that there is anything like that in it. What’s pretty sure is in there is that Bernie and Jane Sanders were 1%-ers until Jane got sacked from her job as President of Burlington College. The same 1%-ers that Sanders was railing against on the campaign trail.

  40. 40
    AkaDad says:

    If your mom’s last name isn’t Clinton, then I’ll give her the benifit of the doubt.

  41. 41
    the Conster, la Citoyenne says:

    @pat:

    Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission. She’s a board member, and still gets payments from them for being on their board. They poisoned poor Latinos, but it doesn’t count against Bernie because reasons.

    Also google her and Burlington College.

  42. 42
    Gimlet says:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....9c59d6c430

    Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has a pretty terrible suggestion for how to get a woman on U.S. currency without bumping Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill: put Harriet Tubman on the rarely used $2 bill instead.

    After news broke that the U.S. Treasury intends to replace Jackson with Tubman, the former GOP presidential hopeful told Fox Business’ Neil Cavuto he disagreed with the decision.

    “Andrew Jackson was the last president who actually balanced the federal budget, where we had no national debt,” Carson said in an interview Wednesday. “In honor of that, we kick him off of the money.”

  43. 43
    Calouste says:

    @Hillary Rettig: Why is Sanders not releasing his tax returns?

    And apparently you aren’t aware (but you aren’t aware of much, so no surprise there), but Hillary Clinton is an A-list celebrity. People pay money, quite a lot of money, to see and hear A-list celebrities.

  44. 44
    the Conster, la Citoyenne says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    I’m still waiting for him to also apologize for – actually even acknowledge – his vote for the crime bill, unless I missed it.

  45. 45
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Anonymous At Work: Yes, but I’m pretty sure Sanders never does anything like that, getting provisions he agrees with into bills he takes issue with. What’s that? It’s supposedly the thing that defines his achievement as a member of the legislature for a decade and a half and that gets lauded to the skies by his most ardent defenders? Oh. Have I mentioned GOLDMUN SAX SPEECHUZ?

  46. 46
    jl says:

    @Anonymous At Work: I just said it was an example that could be argued. Thanks for your side of the argument, though I would call some of your argument a weak excuse (it would have passed anyway, for example).

    But I’m not going to argue for that her vote on the bankruptcy is a gotcha, since I think the ‘quid pro quo’ standard is far too strict a standard for how big money contributions corrupt politics. I think far more important channels are decisions on what issues to prioritize, what legislation gets written and introduced, what gets out of committee, etc. Betty Cracker asked for an example of a vote, and I gave one that i think is arguable.

  47. 47
    Mnemosyne says:

    @dollared:

    It depends on why you think money is corrupting. If you think money in and of itself is automatically corrupting and anyone who makes more than $50,000 a year is already evil beyond redemption, then there’s no conversation to be had.

    If you think the problem is that money allows corruption by providing access that people without money don’t have, then why not think about how to solve the access problem?

    Money is a tool. It’s not intrinsically evil any more than a hammer or a screwdriver or, yes, a gun is intrinsically evil.

  48. 48
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @Mnemosyne: I don’t like that idea, myself. Would we want the Flat Earth Society to have equal time when the National Science Foundation budget is up for consideration? Lobbyists will always try to game mandated “equality” – the stakes are too high for it not to be.

    I think something that might work is immediate disclosure. “Congresswoman Smith met with Mr. X and Ms. Y of 123 Corp for 10 minutes on 1/4/2016 and they discussed topics a, b, c.” At the end of the day, that gets put on Congresswoman Smith’s official web page.

    I think we could live in post-Citizens United world like that too – the problem now isn’t so much that unlimited amounts can be spent on politics, it’s that we don’t really know who’s doing the donating and the spending (or only find out months/years later). Is HRC’s campaign getting money from the Evil Corporate CEOs for her race in NJ? Is Bernie’s campaign getting money from some Evil GOP Front to damage HRC? We don’t know.

    Cheers,
    Scott.
    (Who doesn’t think that Bernie is actually getting GOP money to any significant extent.)

  49. 49
    Amaranthine RBG says:

    @dollared:

    Exactly so.

    People demanding evidence of Clomtons being bribed somehow are no different to someone arguing that there is no empirical proof that Citizens United has ever affected the outcome of an election. Where’s the proof? Where’s the proof?

  50. 50
    dollared says:

    @Emma: @Emma: So you’re complaining that she sold herself out for too little? You sound like a Republican complaining about how Democrats are bought too cheaply.

  51. 51
    Loviatar says:

    @Hillary Rettig:

    Bingo! They’re just paying for speeches, right?

    They’re paying for association with someone they admire or consider famous/impressive. The more they admire or consider someone famous/impressive the more they’re willing to pay.

    I’ve done it, I’ve sat in on the meetings where it was discussed on who we would bring in to our next sales meeting or next executive retreat and we usually went with the most famous/impressive person we could afford. Its what corporations do, Its what humans do, we want to associate with those we admire or consider famous/impressive.

  52. 52
    Calouste says:

    @dollared: Hey, now I know why Sanders doesn’t release his tax returns. He is ashamed he sold himself to the NRA so cheaply.

  53. 53
    dollared says:

    @Mnemosyne: Yes. Money is a tool. Hillary has been fully tooled. In a way that is absolutely unprecedented for a Democratic politician. It reflects poorly on her.

    And I would support your access idea except it’s pretty much unworkable. Far better that we (sensibly) judge people by the company they keep and the people they accept cash from. Which is what we all do (except Clinton supporters and other Republicans).

  54. 54
    the Conster, la Citoyenne says:

    @Calouste:

    The failure to release them is a total tell. Guess how everyone knows about Clinton’s speeches?

  55. 55
    BaldwinBro says:

    @Calouste: Uncalled for hostility, it’s not your blog.
    It’s always “pile on” here.

  56. 56
    Brachiator says:

    @Bob in Portland: Where are the rest of Bernie’s tax returns? He must be hiding something. He must be corrupt.

  57. 57
    dollared says:

    @Calouste: I don’t know why he hasn’t released his returns. It’s bad. But they won’t show venality on a scale that the Clintons have displayed. Nor will it show personal friendships with genocidal maniacs like Kissinger and all the African dictators they have palled around with to raise money for their “Charity.”

  58. 58
    Emma says:

    @dollared: Spare me the cutesy zap. Unless you’re an illiterate, you know exactly what I was saying.

    Jesus, at this point, Bernie must be feeling like Marechal Villars: Lord, protect me from my friends; I can take care of my enemies.

  59. 59
    patroclus says:

    @Gimlet: Well, the last time the federal budget was balanced was in the 1990’s under Bill Clinton. And not having a national debt means that you aren’t doing anything and you have little to no credit with lenders – that was the central tenet of a guy named Alexander Hamilton, who pretty much founded the American financial system. Carson has no clue.

  60. 60
    Greg says:

    Heh, indeed.

  61. 61
    Mike J says:

    @Loviatar: It’s amazing how many people want to influence the way Beyoncé and Jay-Z vote on public policy issues. It must be true because people pay a million bucks to have Beyoncé show up at a party.

  62. 62
    shortribs says:

    If Hillary is the hand-maiden of Wall St. and for-profit Ed. because of her speeches then she’s also the hand-maiden of women’s groups, a recycle organization, world health and education organizations, etc. where she also gave speeches.

  63. 63
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Gimlet:

    Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has a pretty terrible suggestion for how to get a woman on U.S. currency without bumping Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill: put Harriet Tubman on the rarely used $2 bill instead.

    I suspect that putting Harriet Tubman on the $2 would rather quickly turn it into a “frequently used” bill. (Not that I think it’s a good idea — I want her on the $20 for all kinds of symbolic reasons, which have been covered thoroughly elsewhere.)

  64. 64
    Mandalay says:

    Judges routinely recuse themselves from cases when there is the faintest whiff of a possibility of an allegation of potential bias, yet politicians are free to take large amounts of money from those who may be directly impacted by the work the politician does, and we are supposed to believe the money never impacts the conduct of the politicians in any way? It doesn’t pass the smell test.

    Of course politicians routinely demand “proof of corruption” in legal terms because they know there is none. In return for payment politicians will insert an extra clause into legislation, or do favors behind the scenes, or quietly drop proposed legislation, or be given a job when they leave office. There is nothing legally corrupt in any of that, but it is morally corrupt.

  65. 65
    patroclus says:

    @Mike J: I want Adele to vote FOR the comprehensive immigration bill!!! I don’t care how morally corrupt it makes her feel.

  66. 66
    David 🍁Canadian Anchor Baby🍁 Koch says:

    Insinuations = McCarthyism

    Sad seeing liberals go this route

  67. 67
    Just One More Canuck says:

    @Emma: Hanlon’s razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”

  68. 68
    Elie says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    And some of these observations about his support for the military industrial complex…Typical but oh nos for Mr Pure, I guess…

  69. 69
    Gimlet says:

    @Mandalay:

    Judges routinely recuse themselves from cases when there is the faintest whiff of a possibility of an allegation of potential bias

    If this were true, Scalia would never have gone duck hunting with Cheney and then presided over a ruling that involved him.

  70. 70
    dollared says:

    @David 🍁Canadian Anchor Baby🍁 Koch: So……decrying the influence of money in politics is McCarthyite? That’s what you’re going with? Now, in support of Hillary Clinton, you are actually using words that the Koch Brothers use to justify their $1B expenditure to subjugate workers and families in 30 states over the last 5 years.

    Are you proud?

  71. 71
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @the Conster, la Citoyenne: Sanders said he voted for the crime bill to put more Wall Street criminals in jail.

  72. 72
    starscream says:

    I wonder what Clinton’s favorability is in blue states + swing states. She had better numbers than Bernie in NY. Maybe she’s pretty popular everywhere except some deep red states, where she gets a bunch of goose eggs.

  73. 73
    chopper says:

    @shortribs:

    don’t forget the american camping association.

  74. 74
    Mike J says:

    @patroclus:

    A wealthy South African businessman was forced to change his daughter’s wedding plans, after it was discovered that the £2.5million fee to book Adele was a little out of his price range.

    I’m sure he wanted to sway her vote on Brexit.

  75. 75
    Gimlet says:

    @starscream:

    She had better numbers than Bernie in NY.

    Not the same thing when nonDemocrats get to vote in November.

  76. 76
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @dollared:

    Nor will it show personal friendships with genocidal maniacs like Kissinger and all the African dictators they have palled around with to raise money for their “Charity.”

    In 1985, he became the highest-ranking American official to visit Nicaragua at the time, and met with President Daniel Ortega. In his book, he called the trip “profoundly emotional” and praised Ortega. Burlington and Managua, Nicaragua’s capital, became sister cities.

    He also visited Cuba with Jane in 1989 and tried to meet with Fidel Castro, but it didn’t work out and he met with the mayor of Havana and other officials instead. [MSNBC: The 25 Best Things We Learned from Bernie Sanders’s Book]

    Good thing neither Ortega nor Castro ever had any culpability for human rights abuses!

  77. 77
    Keith G says:

    Although the primary process continues, the contest is over. Even if Hillary Clinton is the handmaiden of Wall Street and For-Profit Ed as as well as the Goddess of War, she will be our nominee. So, the wise amongst us will turn our gnat-like attention spans to what comes next.

    Hillary will be keenly interested in firming up an expansive coalition which can carry her to a decisive victory in November (she certainly will want to beat her hubby’s numbers). Those whom have found HRC highly problematic might want to find common cause with groups who share some of those concerns and are already Hillary-connected.

    Hillary wants to get things done and she will cut the deals that help her on her way (it’s called politics). The way that HRC and her campaign have mostly held their fire in response to Bernie, shows that she values the possibility of future cooperation.

    Don’t blow it.

    Its better for your issues for you to be inside the tent being a part of the conversation than to be outside of the tent pissing on the stakes.

    edit

    Oh and the entire enterprise will be smoother if some on the Hillary side would consider enjoying her win with dignity.

  78. 78
    dollared says:

    @Emma: bullshit. $200,000 per night. $10M or more across a couple of years. You don’t fucking think that affects a person’s thinking? How intellectually dishonest can you be? What would your reaction be if somebody offered you $10m for a few weeks of speaking engagements? Do you think your thinking would not be affected?

  79. 79
    dollared says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Really? You want to go with that? You want to compare to the Contras? Batista?

    Again, the more you support Hillary Clinton, the more you speak, act and advocate Republican positions, and in your case excusing the mass murders committed by Republican overseas puppets. You are proving that right now. Perfectly.

  80. 80
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    @Bob in Portland:

    This is the most amazing thing, the Balloon Juice villagers have no concept of the connection between money going to politicians and what the politician does in office.

    Keep Putin on the Ritz, Bob.

  81. 81
    hitchhiker says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    How about we just require that all the meetings with donors and lobbyists be taped for later review, like shady police interrogations.

  82. 82
    Punchy says:

    Sick and tired of these posts. Cant we get a hockey and NBA playoff thread instead of this crapola?

  83. 83
    hitchhiker says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    How about we just require that all the meetings with donors and lobbyists be taped for later review, like shady police interrogations.

  84. 84
    Loviatar says:

    @Mike J:

    We had a Sr. Vice President of Communications who was a huge Toronto Maple Leafs fan. He paid $25,000 plus another $2,000 in travel arrangements to have Tiger Williams speak at an executive retreat. Tiger who????????

    Found out later that he was the NHL career leader in penalty minutes. Not that big, but he had a very aggressive mean I’m an asshole and I will whip your ass to show you how much of an asshole I am look to him.

  85. 85
    benw says:

    @Punchy: co-signed. How did your half marathon go?

  86. 86
    Mnemosyne says:

    @dollared:

    Money is a tool. Hillary has been fully tooled. In a way that is absolutely unprecedented for a Democratic politician.

    Links? Or is this just your deep belief that she must be corrupt because she took the same amount of money for a speech to Goldman Sachs as she did for a speech to the National Camping Association? And what goodies is Big Camping going to demand from her, anyway?

    No wonders Sanders supporters went to George Clooney’s house to throw dollar bills at Hillary and call her a whore. After all, Clooney is himself a multi-millionaire, so clearly he’s inherent corrupt and could only be supporting her so he can start fracking for oil in his backyard.

  87. 87
    nastybrutishntall says:

    @dollared: Hillary has been fully tooled. In a way that is absolutely unprecedented for a Democratic politician. It reflects poorly on her.

    Nope. Not true.
    Next!

  88. 88
    Emma says:

    @dollared: I would grab it and run. No questions asked. And then did whatever the hell I wanted. There can be no contract for criminal acts, so it’s “I say, you say” all the way. Sheesh, don’t nobody here know how to play this game?

    BTW, as far as I know, Goldman Sachs didn’t pay Hillary for annual speeches. Just once. ONCE. GS throws away more money than that in an employees’ Christmas party.

  89. 89
    Elie says:

    @dollared:

    Bernie can’t keep track of his foreign contributions. Weird huh? Do you think its the Koch brothers laundering their money through contributions to a weak Democratic candidate that they would like more than Hillary? See how that works? Who are these “foreign” contributors? No wonder he is awash in money….

  90. 90
    bemused senior says:

    @FlipYrWhig: And serving as an alternate commissioner on the Texas commission that oversees disposal of the Vermont and Maine nuclear waste (see recently released tax return.)

  91. 91
    shortribs says:

    @dollared:

    What would your reaction be if somebody offered you $10m for a few weeks of speaking engagements?

    I can’t speak for anyone else but I would think, “I’m damn good at this, I’m gonna give more speeches!”.

  92. 92
    nastybrutishntall says:

    @Mnemosyne: You beat me, you scoundrel.

  93. 93
    benw says:

    @hitchhiker: I fully support a law that requires all lobbyists and donors to have to wear GoPro’s on their heads at all times when in D.C.!

  94. 94
    eemom says:

    @Keith G:

    Oh and the entire enterprise will be smoother if some on the Hillary side would consider enjoying her win with dignity.

    We would if the bernouts didn’t keep sliming our candidate with their hypocritical bullshit.

  95. 95
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @dollared: I’m sure the LGBT populations of Nicaragua and Cuba appreciate everything the foreign leaders adored by Bernie Sanders did for them.

  96. 96
    Davebo says:

    @Amaranthine RBG:

    So we have Bernie supporters using “Clomtons” and of course “Barry Sotero” here on BJ.

    No wonder Bernie is getting his clock cleaned. Too many of his supporters are too young to vote or, to childish to figure what’s required to be able to vote.

  97. 97
    MazeDancer says:

    Nicely played, Betty. Really well done.

    The only actual, iron clad reality about current politics is any GOP President (Goddess forbid such a thing) will appoint monsters to the Supreme Court. After strip mining every possible aspect of the economy to benefit rich people. And probably hatchet Social Security and Medicare.

    How fortunate we are to have such a wonderful alternative to that. An experienced, strong, brilliant candidate with a huge heart who knows how to get things done. (And getting to have the First Woman President, too!)

  98. 98
    scav says:

    Someone offered me a lot of money to speak, I’d probably think they were touched in the head, but I’d take it. Oddly enough, I took money for years off a company without it in any way altering my fundamental persecution that the owners and upper management were either MBA bozos that shouldn’t be put in charge of a lemonade stand or craven MBS working on a scorched earth bulldozing of the place. (Luckily I had good co-wage-slaves and a range of products we took pride in).

  99. 99
    Sir Nose D'Voidofcks (fka nastybrutishntall) says:

    Bernie is in the pocket of Big Baby.

  100. 100
    Mnemosyne says:

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:

    Would we want the Flat Earth Society to have equal time when the National Science Foundation budget is up for consideration?

    Sure. In fact, it would probably do a lot of politicians good to find out how much of the opposition to good programs comes from a place of batshit insanity. Equal access doesn’t mean everyone gets a concession. It means that politicians would be able to honestly say that they heard all sides of an issue.

  101. 101
    nastybrutishntall says:

    Bernie is in the pocket of Big Baby.

  102. 102
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Can we conclude then that the senator in question is a gun-humping moron who is indifferent to the murder of children?

    But Betty, that’s different. Bern is not the devil who wears Prada!

  103. 103
    Davis X. Machina says:

    I’ve always assumed that people who think that the only reason anyone does anything is for the money, are basically venal themselves — given their difficulty in imagining alternative explanations.

  104. 104
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @bemused senior: Are you saying that someone who’s close to an influential politician got a paying gig from an interest that might want to be on that politician’s good side? That sure doesn’t sound antithetical to everything Bernie Sanders supposedly stands for when applied to the rest of the human race!

  105. 105
    the Conster, la Citoyenne says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    I actually believe he would say that, and that the Berniebros would totes believe it. Too bad he recently scrubbed it from his 2007 website where he touted it as one of his signature principled votes, because that’s the principled thing to do. If you’re delusional.

  106. 106
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @BaldwinBro:

    Uncalled for hostility, it’s not your blog.

    And who the fuck are you?

  107. 107
    Mandalay says:

    @Gimlet:

    If this were true, Scalia would never have…

    But it is true, as a matter of fact.

    Just because you can conjure up some example where you believe that a judge inappropriately failed to step aside doesn’t change anything.

  108. 108
    Mnemosyne says:

    @dollared:

    Far better that we (sensibly) judge people by the company they keep and the people they accept cash from.

    So should Planned Parenthood return the money they received from the Romneys, or is it too late now that they’ve demonstrated that they’re a deeply corrupt organization that will take money from anyone?

  109. 109
    Mandalay says:

    @BaldwinBro:

    Uncalled for hostility, it’s not your blog.

    WTF???…..

  110. 110
    Chyron HR says:

    @dollared:

    U SOUND LIKE FOX NEWS!!!!!

    It’s fortunate that Fox News has never in the past 25 years said anything about Hillary Clinton being corrupt, or people might think you were a hypocrite.

  111. 111
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Davis X. Machina: No, see, they’re bribing her into doing the things she already believes in, because… wait.

  112. 112
    the Conster, la Citoyenne says:

    @nastybrutishntall:

    If whining equaled winning, Sanders and his supporters would be champions of the universe.

  113. 113
    gf120581 says:

    @Davebo: “Clomtoms?” Sounds like the name of a Doctor Who villain.

  114. 114
    Calouste says:

    @dollared:

    But they won’t show venality on a scale that the Clintons have displayed.

    Good thing you are a clairvoyant, or more likely, easily fooled.

  115. 115
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Keith G:

    Hillary wants to get things done and she will cut the deals that help her on her way (it’s called politics). The way that HRC and her campaign have mostly held their fire in response to Bernie, shows that she values the possibility of future cooperation.

    Sorry, this is far too logical and sensible for the crowd that believes that money is inherently corrupting. It reeks of politics, fer Chrissakes! We can’t have politics in politics!

  116. 116
    Keith G says:

    @eemom: Well fricking act like the adult in the room (you know, like our hero BHO) and do not take the bait. It’s not personal. If they are wrong, lost, or entirely in a far away galaxy, then wish them well and tell them you will leave a light on for them in hopes of their eventual return.

  117. 117
    WarMunchkin says:

    @Mnemosyne: Well at that point the argument goes in circles. “Change who goes through the door” just means voting for someone who you believe is incorruptible.

    It’s goddamn strange that we seem to be incapable of having the discussion with subtlety of what happens to people when they have to rely on Big Money in order to remain in government. It’s spending all your time courting donors so that you can remain in power so that you can protect the interests of people you represent, who you can’t hear because you have to spend all your time fundraising.

    Clinton getting paid by for-profit education centers means that she sat there and schmoozed with them, which means they own an infinitesimally small section of her space and time. So do we accuse people who spend small sections of their corporeal existence with high-dollar donors of being corrupt?

    I don’t know – I’d like a government where politicians weren’t spending their time with donors and where appointees to financial posts didn’t have a strong network of friends and associates in financial industries. Same thing with any other department, such as the Department of Energy or Defense Department.

    Failing to talk about this issue with nuance doesn’t really help. The debate keeps devolving into show me on the doll, but everyone here is smart enough to realize that politicians or government employees with conflicts of interest arising via their personal and professional networks have peripheral effects on values and sympathies, and nobody should be dumb enough to argue that that’s bribery.

  118. 118
    Calouste says:

    @BaldwinBro: You must be new here, shithead.

  119. 119
    Gimlet says:

    Hillary doesn’t need money for speeches.

    WASHINGTON – The disclosure that Hillary Rodham Clinton parlayed $1,000 into nearly $100,000 through highly speculative commodities trading may create political embarrassment for the Clintons, who have sharply criticized a national culture of greed during the Reagan and Bush years in the White House.

  120. 120
  121. 121
    nastybrutishntall says:

    BernieBros/Babe logic:
    Accepting money is potentially corrupting to politicians.
    Accepting money is required under the current election scheme in order to wage a campaign with staff, media, etc, unless you are self-funding.
    Ergo, anyone running for office is potentially corrupted by donations, except for self-funders.

    Therefore, Trump is less corrupt than Sanders, potentially.
    .
    .
    .
    .

    BERNIE OR BUST!1!

  122. 122
    dollared says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Priceless. Glad to see you have a well developed sense of proportionality and history.

    I remember this sad movie about a black gay artist in Cuba who was targeted by the regime and ended up in prison. It was deeply unfair, even though at the time the US was not much better because sodomy laws were being enforced at the time and gays were beaten and murdered with impunity. But this black gay artist was born to a sharecropper in Matanzas, the year of the revolution. They lived in a hole in the ground covered with a tarp, and after the revolution they moved to a house and he got a college education, and became an artist.

    No one wants to deal with the irony of the situation. He would have died of disease or malnutrition as a child if Castro had not come along. Castro’s regime saved that poor black child, fed and housed him, and got him a college education. And yes, they failed morally because, like most other governments in the world at the time, they did not accept gays and oppressed them.

    But to suggest that somehow leftists are bad people because they have enough common sense to remember Batista and conclude that Castro is better, is to be……simply ignorant.

  123. 123
    Elie says:

    @Keith G:

    Ah Keith — what would the fun be in that? There wouldn’t be any comments — we could just retire to polite silence while they commented to themselves?

  124. 124
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @shortribs: You forgot that HRC is in the sleeping bag with Big Camping!

  125. 125
    Mnemosyne says:

    @benw:

    I fully support a law that requires all lobbyists and donors to have to wear GoPro’s on their heads at all times when in D.C.!

    I’m on board!

  126. 126
    BaldwinBro says:

    @Calouste: I’m here to run up the comments tally.

  127. 127
    The Sheriff Endorses Baud 2016 says:

    @dollared:

    Really? You want to go with that? You want to compare to the Contras? Batista?

    Let’s go with that since you instantly hit the deflection button. You’re A-OK with Castro and the Sandinista’s human rights abuses and disdain of democracy then.

  128. 128
    horatius says:

    Did Berniebros repeat all the anti-Hillary Republican talking points yet? I lost count at 120.

  129. 129
    Mandalay says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    I’ve always assumed that people who think that the only reason anyone does anything is for the money, are basically venal themselves — given their difficulty in imagining alternative explanations.

    A nice straw man you built there; I don’t recall anyone ever arguing that “the only reason anyone does anything is for the money”.

    But the argument does apply in specific scenarios. What are your alternative explanations for Clinton accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars for a few speeches to Wall Street if it wasn’t for the money? She didn’t want to hurt their feelings by refusing, and she knew they’d be offended if she refused payment?

  130. 130
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @the Conster, la Citoyenne:

    I actually believe he would say that, and that the Berniebros would totes believe it. Too bad he recently scrubbed it from his 2007 website where he touted it as one of his signature principled votes, because that’s the principled thing to do. If you’re delusional.

    I don’t he’s delusional, I mean not so much you’d notice. He’s running for President. It would sort of be like Hillary dancing on the header of a pipeline the couple of times she wanted to have it both ways.

  131. 131
    Mnemosyne says:

    @dollared:

    Yes, I’m sure all the women dying in Nicaragua because Daniel Ortega supported a total ban on abortion are thinking with their dying breath, Well, at least it’s a leftist country that’s killing me unnecessarily!

  132. 132
    patroclus says:

    Can someone please explain Clomtoms to me! I’m not up on the latest cute little nickname that I’m sure is derogatory.

    On substance, I favor overturning Citizen’s United and Buckley v. Valeo – I don’t think money = speech. Then, I’d like to see a new campaign finance statute, with enforceable contribution and spending limits. But until then, I don’t think money = corruption either, unless there is a quid pro quo.

  133. 133
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA: That’s similar to my sin: being a member of the Lumber Cartel.

  134. 134
    The Sheriff Endorses Baud 2016 says:

    @dollared:

    But to suggest that somehow leftists are bad people because they have enough common sense to remember Batista and conclude that Castro is better, is to be……simply ignorant.

    “Human rights abuses are OK when my side does it!” Yet another absolutist jackwagon reveals themself as an authoritarian jackwagon as well. Quelle surprise.

  135. 135
    seaboogie says:

    @Bob in Portland:

    “If you can’t drink a lobbyist’s whiskey, take his money, sleep with his women and still vote against him in the morning, you don’t belong in politics.”

    Jesse Unruh (D-CA State Assembly)

  136. 136
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @patroclus:
    Inside baseball reference to a typo in a previous thread. They meant Clinton.

  137. 137
    Emma says:

    @The Sheriff Endorses Baud 2016: Let’s be fair, it’s not quite that. It’s more like they live in a binary Universe. If Batista bad, then Castro good. If Bernie good, then Hillary bad. The idea of a spectrum of human behavior where two people can be differently good or differently bad does not compute.

  138. 138
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @dollared: Look, dude, you were the one who said, unprompted, that Bernie Sanders didn’t pal around with dictators. He palled around with one and tried desperately to pal around with another. Kind of a problem with the whole thesis, ¿Claro?

  139. 139
    Origuy says:

    @Gimlet: You didn’t provide a link for that quote, of course, so I searched and found it here. A 1994 article in the business blog of the Seattle Times. Want to try to find a scandal in this century?

  140. 140
    Mike J says:

    @Elie: There’s not taking the bait and there’s allow the opposition to dominate every conversation. As much as I hate Salon, there was a decent article about how Clinton fans in Brooklyn had tended to keep it to themselves because they wrongly believed that if so many white guys liked Bernie he must really be winning. And then it turned out everybody but white guys preferred Hillary.

    Honestly, Hillary supporters were way too quiet for way too long here. For months people were allowed to equate disagreement with immorality. It wasn’t really until it intruded on my off-line life that I cared (because who gives a shit what a moron on a blog (me included)thinks.). But yeah, I was radicalized by being told I was evil for preferring the most competent liberal in the race. I no longer assume good faith. When Bernie endorses Hillary, I might believe he’s not a corrupt, power hungry old coot who got high on his own supply. Until then, Bern it down.

  141. 141

    @horatius:

    Did Berniebros repeat all the anti-Hillary Republican talking points yet?

    I haven’t seen a single complaint about Vince Foster or her being a lesbian on this thread, so no.

  142. 142
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @benw: No, they should wear one of these.

  143. 143
    dollared says:

    @The Sheriff Endorses Baud 2016: No. But you have to pick sides. And you appear to be preferring the mass murderers supported by the Republicans to the socialist revolutionaries supported by the left wing of the Democratic party at the time. And we know that the former committed far, far, far more egregious human rights violations than the latter, and they actually committed genocide, as determined by the UN among others.

    So you appear to be either amoral, an idiot, or a McCarthyite redbaiter. Pick one.

  144. 144
    shortribs says:

    @Gimlet:

    The disclosure that Hillary Rodham Clinton parlayed $1,000 into nearly $100,000 through highly speculative commodities trading

    I did that by buying stock in Apple in 2000, smartest decision I ever made.

  145. 145
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Mandalay:

    What are your alternative explanations for Clinton accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars for a few speeches to Wall Street if it wasn’t for the money?

    You mean other than pointing out that she accepted the same amount of money from multiple other organizations that are not Wall Street firms?

    It’s not like she did one or two speeches and they were all to Wall Street. She gave dozens of speeches, all paying the same, to dozens of different organizations, most of which were not financial firms.

    So, again, if Hillary is in the pocket of Goldman Sachs after giving a speech there, isn’t she equally in the pocket of the American Camping Association, which paid her the exact same amount? If not, why not?

  146. 146
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Mandalay: Why doesn’t it figure into the picture at all that she gave speeches to all kinds of groups and organizations? It’d be one thing if she only gave paid speeches to investment banks. That’s kind of how the Berniacs make it sound, sometimes because they’re willfully obfuscating, sometimes because they’re repeating a story that they’ve heard. _But we know that’s not at all what happened_.

  147. 147
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @dollared:

    So you appear to be either amoral, an idiot, or a McCarthyite redbaiter. Pick one.

    And apparently, you are an asshole or a ratfucker. Pick one.

  148. 148
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @dollared: “Bernie Sanders doesn’t pal around with dictators who commit human rights abuses, he pals around with _socialist_ dictators who commit human rights abuses! Gotcha, haters!”

  149. 149
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Mnemosyne: You must have been writing yours while I was writing mine… bit of a synchronicity there…

  150. 150
    The Sheriff Endorses Baud 2016 says:

    @dollared:

    No. But you have to pick sides.

    Absolutist authoritarianism at its core. The prosecution rests, recommending a sentence of ‘go fuck yourself.’

  151. 151
    Mike J says:

    @Origuy: Even then no scandal. “But the information released yesterday by the White House covering investments in 1978 and 1979 also appears to support the couple’s contention that they had done nothing illegal or unethical in the trades.” But since they had been mean to some rich people, it was wrong for them to make money.

  152. 152
    patroclus says:

    Sam@A Ghost To Most: Thanks. Sam Rayburn’s old rule was that “if you can’t smoke it, drink it or eat it within 24 hours, don’t take it.” But that was before big money corrupted everything. I’m sympathetic to Bernie’s argument that there’s too much money in politics because there can be corrupting influences, and I’d like to see a new paradigm with enforceable spending limits and contribution limits but I’m not sympathetic to his argument that if you accept any campaign contributions at all, then you are inherently corrupt. And his supporters’ arguments that it is Hillary and Hillary alone (or the generic “Clintons”) that is/are especially corrupt are ridiculous and deserve to be mocked.

  153. 153
    Gimlet says:

    @Origuy:

    No link necessary for all you Hillary experts, unless you selectively remember only the good stuff.

    She is who she is. Her time in Arkansas is not the same as a teenage Goldwater girl. Does your dismissal of it mean you acknowledge it as true and it just no longer matters?

  154. 154
    dollared says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Sorry, now you’re trying to find a way out with semantics. Ortega was not a dictator. He was the leader of the winning force in a civil war, and after a period of governmental rebuilding he turned his government over in a free election. BTW, neither was Chavez. If you know anything about Latin America, the right wing always calls socialists “Dictators.” And the US media tends to play along. In point of fact, Ortega submitted to elections and was voted out in 1990. End of history lesson.

  155. 155
    🌷 Martin says:

    The problem with the by association accusation, hinted at above, is that the intention behind the transaction is not conveyed in the act. That is, nobody external to the transaction knows why the money was given without projecting some motive onto it, and there are all kinds of motives for these transactions, many of which are pretty innocuous.

    Consider that the (presumed evil) Koch brothers have funded PBS Nova for as long as I can remember. Nova routinely does pieces on global warming and risks to the environment, and if you presume that the Koch brother’s primary motivation in life is the denial of climate change and the elimination of regulation for their industry that funding seems contradictory. You have to therefore assume that they have some other motivation for funding the the program, something unrecognized. The Smithsonian has the David Koch Hall of Human Origin, an extensive exhibit of human evolution. They are routinely called ‘anti-science’ but by most appearances they are ‘pro-science except for the science which threatens our business’. So why do they fund the Smithsonian and PBS? No idea, but I don’t think those organizations are poisoned because of it. I think extremely few people would view the Smithsonian as being a tool of the Koch Brothers.

    And the real problem with these kinds of conclusions is that a large amount of private donations are made anonymously. Some big donors never attach their name to their donations. If Jamie Dimon anonymously gave $100M to Greenpeace, nobody would know and should we think less of Greenpeace for accepting a pile of money that they could do really valuable things with simply because we dislike Dimon’s economic policies? This is an attitude at odds with how reality works.

  156. 156
    Gimlet says:

    @shortribs:

    Some say

    It was textbook money laundering.

    I know you’re shocked – SHOCKED to think that a Clinton could be involved in anything untoward, but I’m afraid it is true.

    Back in the 80’s in Arkansas, Bill and Hillary were the power couple ascending first to the position of Attorney General and then to the governor’s mansion. Being the psychopathic whores that they both are, they were all about cashing in on their power and accepting de facto bribes and payola.

    In Arkansas the Tyson family (as in Tyson chicken) were the big players at the time. Wal-Mart was still getting off the ground. Old Man Tyson wanted to buy off the Clintons, and so a money laundering scheme was hatched. A futures account would be opened with a broker named Red Bone (no joke) in HILLARY’S NAME. Red Bone cleared through a company called Refco, which would later become MF Global.

  157. 157
    Mike J says:

    @Roger Moore: My only regret was that after she decorated the White House Christmas tree with dildos I didn’t get to see it.

  158. 158
    Andrey says:

    @dollared:

    Hillary has been fully tooled. In a way that is absolutely unprecedented for a Democratic politician.

    Absolutely unprecedented? How much money do you think JFK had? FDR?

  159. 159
    Gvg says:

    sigh, we need some logic classes. Or perhaps teach fair play. These silly accusations of Hillary strike me as a kind of bigotry, coming from deep inside for unexamined reasons. No facts are changing certain Hillary bashers minds. The mentality is of stupid spite.
    How many remember the beginning of monicagate? The prior several years were full of dumb scandals that turned out to not be real as Republican’s started to go nuts. I saw a sign impeach Clinton before he was inaugurated the first time and wondered what that was about. Then years of dumb nothing’s. I was convinced the accusations against him were fake again until the semen tests on the blue dress. Facts matter. Have you ever heard the parable of the boy who cried wolf? If Hillary actually does do something corrupt, and someone breaks the news, it won’t be believed while the haters, GOP, and foolish media will pursue yet another false trail on something else.
    There is not enough in your links. Hillary’s actions as SOS and senator’s votes matter. Those are the best predictors. Don’t bother reaching so far. You need to save your credibility.
    Bernie is losing because not as many people think he best. People evaluated the same info as you and came to a different conclusion.

  160. 160
    Mnemosyne says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I’m not surprised that he’s unaware that women are currently dying in Nicaragua thanks to Ortega’s policies. But, hey, you can’t have a leftist omlet without breaking a few eggs, amirite?

  161. 161

    @Mnemosyne:

    So, again, if Hillary is in the pocket of Goldman Sachs after giving a speech there, isn’t she equally in the pocket of the American Camping Association, which paid her the exact same amount? If not, why not?

    If big camping were really a thing, I might be worried about her talking to the American Camping Association; since too big to fail banks really are a thing, there’s reason to question her getting money from Goldman Sachs. I’m personally willing to accept the argument that she was getting speaking fees for speaking and not as a way of disguising influence peddling, but I can certainly see how somebody else would disagree. I also am willing to listen to the argument that the only reason we even know about her speaking fees is because she’s been so much more open with her finances (and the finances of the Clinton Foundation) than any other candidate.

  162. 162
    dollared says:

    @The Sheriff Endorses Baud 2016: Explain yourself. Tell me which civil war has ever occurred where some magical pixie dust fell and everyone instantly turned into a New England style town hall democracy.

    Oh that’s right. You’re actually Thomas Friedman in disguise.

  163. 163
    Immanentize says:

    I always seem to shake loose too late, but I want to follow up on something relevant that Raven said last thread. So I am in higher Ed. At a smallish “comprehensive” (which means undergraduate plus Ph.D. And professional degrees) in a wicked hahd mahket — the Boston metro area. There are crazy elite private schools ( like Tom L.’s MIT) and huge publics like UMass and huge privates like Northeastern and hardly heard from colleges (like Bay State).
    There are also, in the market for-profit colleges. I could go on and on because this is my area of focus right now, but for-profits did more for veterans and non-traditional students than any institution since the post-WWII GI bill schools.

    Then everything went to hell because, profit. But in its inception and original iteration, no one had a better handle on democratizing education in this country than Apollo (Phoenix). Then they went sideways. And I’m saying this as one who has to pick up for-profit pieces daily.

  164. 164
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @dollared: Oh jesus cristo. Right, so, he was a dictator _but only for a little while_ and then he stopped being a dictator. And I’m the one playing semantics. Ay que lastima.

  165. 165
    smintheus says:

    Seriously, Betty, this is a straw man. Bill Clinton worked for years for a notorious for-profit corp, earning $16.5 million as their pitchman. He only stopped when Hillary ramped up her presidential campaign. That money is now the joint possession of both Hillary and Bill. The Clintons have always invited us to view them as a two-fer. It’s not a stretch in the slightest to say that both Clintons should be embarrassed by Bill’s work for Laureate.

  166. 166
    Immanentize says:

    @dollared: The war of the five armies? I mean they definitely had pixie dust.

  167. 167
    Schlemazel (parmesan rancor) says:

    @A Ghost To Most:
    I vote for ratfucker. Several media types have mentioned that KKKarl Rove’s America’ Cross toads has been feeding them a lot of Sanders/Clinton bickering. When I run across a bellowing buffoon like blob or ol short changed there I always wonder if they are Rove operatives, its the sort of shit he might fund and would surly approve of.

  168. 168
    horatius says:

    @Roger Moore: Just a matter of time.

  169. 169
    Mike J says:

    @Gimlet: Just can’t get away from that whore meme, can you?

  170. 170
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @Mike J:

    Honestly, Hillary supporters were way too quiet for way too long here.

    You are delusional.

  171. 171
    A Ghost To Most says:

    I will be glad when I finally smell burning PUMA. I love the smell of burning PUMA … It smells like victory!

  172. 172
    Schlemazel (parmesan rancor) says:

    @The Sheriff Endorses Baud 2016:
    so say we all

  173. 173
    bemused senior says:

    @FlipYrWhig: It was pursuant to the not savory Sierra Blanca affair. Seems likely that the unwillingness to publish the tax returns is that they have multiple examples of embarrassing income sources, related to Jane Sanders’ employment.

  174. 174
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @smintheus:

    The Clintons have always invited us to view them as a two-fer.

    That was then. She was heralded as a co-president. But when Bill’s legacy started being seen in a different light, she didn’t have anything to do with all that nonsense.

  175. 175
    Mike J says:

    @Gimlet: And your source seems to be a blog with the footer, “Furthermore, I consider that islam must be destroyed” . Should we start being worried about the people you associate with?

  176. 176
    Gimlet says:

    @Mike J:

    As you probably noticed it was a quote, even though you seem to misinterpret what you read.

  177. 177
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @Schlemazel (parmesan rancor):
    No reason he can’t be both; he’s accomplishing both.

  178. 178
    Gimlet says:

    @Mike J:

    I prefaced it as rumor “Some say”.

  179. 179
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Roger Moore:

    When you hear, She made a speech at Goldman Sachs! it sounds bad. When you further investigate and discover that it was one of a dozen similar speeches she made that year, it becomes a whole lot less significant, which is why none of the people complaining about the speeches have responded to the fact that she gave a dozen speeches that year.

  180. 180
    Schlemazel (parmesan rancor) says:

    @Gvg:
    The foul mouthed Dick, Armey was interviewed before the inauguration and said “When we impeach Bill Clinton”

    I forget, how did that work out?

  181. 181
    Keith G says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: Some blinders are totes big, it seems.

  182. 182
    Aimai says:

    @eemom: seconded. Until bernie suspends his campaign and disarms hrc is still battling for the nomination. Not fighting the bernie smears would be foolish. Besides arent we all being told to thank bernie for “making her a better campaigner” and ” forcing her” to fight and not just get “crowned” (refuse to say coronated!) well –pushing back is what an experienced campaign does. I want hillary to win the primary and the general. And if she has to get to it over the smoking wreckage of sanders supporters feelings and sanders reputation so be it. They brought the dynamite? She will bring the match.

  183. 183
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Gimlet:

    Some say you never stopped beating your wife. Your response?

  184. 184
    Gimlet says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    I’m single.

    Probably something you read on a blog.

    Actually the post was a response to an earlier comment that implied Hillary invested $1,000 in Apple and made off with $100,000.

  185. 185
    WarMunchkin says:

    @🌷 Martin:

    That is, nobody external to the transaction knows why the money was given without projecting some motive onto it, and there are all kinds of motives for these transactions, many of which are pretty innocuous.

    @Gvg:

    Hillary’s actions as SOS and senator’s votes matter. Those are the best predictors.

    Right, these things. The real next point is that at some point, if you want to measure a person’s corruption, you can’t simply do it in dollars, you need a data-driven approach. The data-driven approach is an analysis of their record. What did they vote for, what did they lobby for, what did they fight to include or exclude from a particular bill or executive office?

    But that also utterly undermines the money in politics as The Central Problem argument. Nobody paid a Senator to support free trade agreements – there’s no real data there. But hanging out with moneyed people may have resulted in a person not realizing the effect on midwestern communities as viscerally, which may have caused them to vote against an agreement.

    That’s something to address – aggressively and urgently – through public policy, but it’s not quite something that we should outright hang a politician for. For individual politicians – what’s their record like? What’s the data?

  186. 186
    Hal says:

    @Gimlet:

    WASHINGTON – The disclosure that Hillary Rodham Clinton parlayed $1,000 into nearly $100,000 through highly speculative commodities trading may create political embarrassment for the Clintons, who have sharply criticized a national culture of greed during the Reagan and Bush years in the White House.

    Holy fucking shit. Did you really just pull a random headline on everybody’s favorite murderers the Clinton’s, from the conspiracy filled 90s no less? To quote the Emperor; “Let the hate flow through you!”

  187. 187
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @Keith G: Right? I’ve seen you telling the junior Clinton campaign operatives that they’ve been off the hook so I know it ain’t only me that’s been seeing it from jump.

  188. 188
    JPL says:

    @Gimlet: omg.. that’s awful.. I’m going to vote for Trump……………………………..not

  189. 189
    Annie says:

    I used to associate with convicted murderers, rapists, child molesters and drug dealers — when I worked for an outfit that helped convicted criminals find attorneys for their appeals. Oddly enough, I did not as a result turn into a murderer, rapist, child molester or drug dealer.
    I think of this every time I read a news story about how Person X was “associated” with Evil Person Y, so Person X must be evil too.

  190. 190
    🌷 Martin says:

    @shortribs:

    I did that by buying stock in Apple in 2000, smartest decision I ever made.

    A lot of people can claim to be in this club. I’ve done it more than once, one of which was buying Apple in 1997. For others it was Google or Facebook or a number of other investments. I know two people that did it with bitcoin. I know a bunch of people that did it by funding their own business.

    I don’t know anyone who did it expecting it to work out so well, however. But all of them could do the research and work out a reasonable risk/reward scenario and they were willing (and in a position – don’t underestimate that little bit of privilege) to take the risk. They figured they were likely to come out ahead, and found themselves much farther ahead than they could have expected.

    Not saying it’s easy, but it’s a lot more common than people may realize. I also know just as many people that turned $100K back into $1000. It cuts both ways.

  191. 191
    ThresherK says:

    Hoo gawd, I just tuned in to Caps/Flyers and the whole arena is completely silent. A Flyer is being tended to and put on a stretcher. I think it’s Laughton, #21.

    Been awhile since I saw something like this.

  192. 192
    Gimlet says:

    @Hal:

    Good one.

    The world began in 2009 with the Obama administration. All history before that is questionably recorded.

  193. 193
    Mike J says:

    @Gimlet: The site that is from has a page explaining why she says Islam must be destroyed.

    Islam MUST be destroyed. Anything less is suicidal, effeminate insanity. This satanic political system must be wiped from the face of the earth. Not contained, not tolerated, not quarantined, not “reformed”, not compromised with, not dialogued with, and encountered only for the sole purpose of destroying it.

    The FAQ page of the blog has other charming things like, “additionally, women shouldn’t have to lead men. Men need to reassert themselves and their masculinity if Western Civilization has any hope of survival. The destruction of the West is an intrinsically feminine phenomenon. Only men, acting as men, can restore it.”

    This is your inside source explaining how evil “The Clintons” are?

  194. 194
    Gimlet says:

    @JPL:

    Trump?

    Neither Trump nor Bernie have anything to do with events in Hillary’s past.

  195. 195
    gwangung says:

    @Immanentize: Facts and unique informed viewpoint? You sure you want to do that around here?

  196. 196
    eemom says:

    @Keith G:

    fricking act like the adult in the room

    Sorry, that is above my pay grade.

    OTOH, if someone were to pay me to give a SPEECH….

  197. 197
    Gimlet says:

    @Mike J:

    The NYTs, but you knew there were other sources.

    The string of winning trades began in October 1978, as Mr. Clinton, then the state’s Attorney General, was leading in polls in the race for Governor.

    The White House insisted today that Mrs. Clinton received no improper financial assistance on the trades from the lawyer, James B. Blair, a close friend who at the time was the top lawyer for Tyson Foods of Springdale, Ark., the nation’s biggest poultry company. Mr. Blair has said that he had suggested that she get into the commodities market, and that he used his knowledge of trading to guide her along the way.

    During Mr. Clinton’s tenure as Governor, Tyson benefited from several state decisions, including favorable environmental rulings, $9 million in state loans, and the placement of company executives on important state boards.

    Mr. Blair and the Clintons denied any favoritism or conflict of interest when the trades were first reported earlier this month.

  198. 198
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Annie: Did you hear that one of the two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination had a high-ranking staffer who was paid handsomely by the CEO of Goldman Sachs? With a populist, anti-establishment mood roiling the country this election season, that has the potential to cause headaches for… Bernie Sanders.

  199. 199
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @ThresherK:
    He was moving everything after it happened; hopefully just precautionary.

    The check didn’t look like much.

  200. 200
    seaboogie says:

    @shortribs:

    I can’t speak for anyone else but I would think, “I’m damn good at this, I’m gonna give more speeches!”.

    Exactly – thank you for making me laugh!

  201. 201
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Gimlet: Put up a fucking link, asshole.

  202. 202
    Mnemosyne says:

    @WarMunchkin:

    I’m sorry, but this is altogether too sensible. You can’t ask people to take a politician’s actual record into account when they can cherry-pick donors and paid speeches.

    More seriously, here’s an example. Dick Cheney was the head of Halliburton. He became VP, and his Halliburton portfolio went into a blind trust. We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and Halliburton got massive government contracts.

    Now, is that a quid pro quo? Nope. But you can look at the decisions he made and the policies he favored and see how those benefited him and his bank account.

    I would like someone — anyone! — on the anti-Hillary side to point me to a similar instance in her past. At a bare fucking minimum, please articulate what you expect her to do in the future.

    Do you honestly believe she’s going to reverse Obama’s current policies against for-profit colleges because she and Bill made money from them? Yes or no?

  203. 203
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Gimlet:

    Just out of curiosity, how old were you in 1978?

  204. 204
    Cat48 says:

    Hillary Rettig needs to know that Sanders has raised money for the Senate Pac for reelection, so,he is also a “corporate whore” because he attended lavish fundraisers on Martha’s Vineyard & Palm Beach, etc. The article at Cnn called him a “prolific fundraiser” for the Senate Pac. Guess this is ok, but don’t see how, since Hillary is responsible for every piece of Legislation passed when she was Flotus.

    It was truly egregious that Dr. Song called Hillary a whore since his wite, Lisa Ling, was begging Obama to rescue her sister who was being held by North Korea. President Clinton was asked to go on the “rescue mission” & he borrowed a “corporate jet” from one of his friends & happily went on the adventure to rescue her. Now, however, they are all corporate whores, including the entire Dem Party & Obama.

    Just a longtime Lurker here, who sees a lot of of hypocripsy from the “purists” & it just upsets me.

  205. 205
    jl says:

    @Gimlet: I’m not a Hillary fan, and have not been a supporter. But, that stuff is as common as dirt in politics. How is that supposed to indict HRC as particularly personally corrupt compared to almost anyone else who might run instead of her?

    Edit: I do think the system is corrupt, and it corrupts people who have to work in it, and that is why it needs to be changed. But I don’t see HRC as particularly personally corrupt. One of Sanders real contributions is showing a large national campaign can be run on small contributions. But Sanders, even in the best light, is not a magic bullet that will change the system.

  206. 206

    @Mnemosyne:

    When you further investigate and discover that it was one of a dozen similar speeches she made that year, it becomes a whole lot less significant

    Or becomes significant in a different way. Cashing in by giving high value speeches to anyone with the money is at least unseemly, where “unseemly” could be interpreted as corrupt by people so inclined. I sort of agree with Cole on this point: it’s not that there’s anything illegal or unethical about the speeches, but they were foolish because they give free ammunition to people who want to attack her.

  207. 207
    Davebo says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    With Cheney it goes deeper than that even. As Sec. of Defense he contracted with Halliburton to do a study on outsourcing certain military functions to save money.

    As the authors of the study, Halliburton wasn’t supposed to be eligible to bid on the contracts the study found would save money but they got a “special exemption” and, not surprisingly, several of the contracts.

  208. 208
    gwangung says:

    Lots of binary thinking here. For profit colleges are slimy cesspools…they’ve always been slimy cesspools and folks should have known better (despite the gradual revelation of evil doing and apparently the gradual adoption if such tactics).

    Not necessarily condoning any behavior, but more precision is helpful.

  209. 209
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Roger Moore:

    Anything Hillary does gives people ammunition to attack her. The Clintons were subjected to multiple investigations of a land deal that they lost money on. And that was just the biggest one. Remember the Rose Law Firm “scandal,” which happened because one of the diligent investigators didn’t bother to turn over a piece of paper to see that the information he was seeking was written on the other side?

    So I have to admit, when people tell me there’s smoke around the Clintons, I want them to show me at least a couple of actual flames before I freak out.

  210. 210
    dollared says:

    @Mnemosyne: Did you know that Nicaragua is a majority Catholic country? And the total abortion ban is because Ortega is an ELECTED LEADER IN A DEMOCRACY? Have we also decided that our presidents cant visit Ireland and Chile because of their abortion ban? Can you idiots be any more ignorant?

  211. 211
    Aimai says:

    @Gvg: everyone should read, or re-read, joe conason and gene lyon’s book ” the hunting of the president.” It is jaw dropping to see the right wing forces arrayed against bill clinton (and hrc) from long before he officially began his run. Its a great read.

  212. 212
    gwangung says:

    @Roger Moore: Hm. Could be fir the Clintons. But for me personally, my sense is for the legal and the ethical for me, others be damned.

  213. 213
    jl says:

    @Roger Moore: In HRC’s case, ambition may be more likely issue. Maybe she wanted to make sure she was friendly to all and sundry in order to not make enemies or even merely slightly skeptical bystanders when she ran for office in the future. Speaking when invited is way to show she is friendly to the powerful. A subtle corruption can enter a pol’s thinking that way.

    The system is corrupt, and it corrupts people who chose, or feel they need, to play by its rules. But that does not make HRC anything special as far as I’m concerned, since almost everyone does it (even to a much smaller extent, Sanders).

  214. 214
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Roger Moore: I think this is fair: it’s “unseemly” for an already rich person to make more money. Then again, there is the whole matter of the charitable foundation that wants to accomplish various good deeds. Then again again, many critics allege that the charitable foundation is itself a front for shady back-scratching and influence-peddling. I’m not that worried about what’s “unseemly,” I suppose. Valid, but not dispositive.

    I also feel like the quien es mas pobre thing is such a staple of contemporary politics that it doesn’t resonate with me: I think it leads to Scott Brown’s pickup truck. It’s easy to be Everyman. Everyone wants to like Everyman. Bernie Sanders has decided, as many old lefties and old academics before him have too, that looking shabby and disheveled is part of the way to project a kind of hermit-like abstemious virtue. He likes the idea of rejecting money and the moneyed. Bully for him.

  215. 215
    Gimlet says:

    @jl:

    How is that supposed to indict HRC as particularly personally corrupt compared to almost anyone else who might run instead of her?

    It’s not.

    But there seems unrealistic denial on these threads about any influence all this money going to Hillary and the Clinton foundation have on their actions. Unless there is an absolute Quid pro Quo for the many Hillary supporters on BJ, then all the money these cold-hearted miserly tax-avoiding corporations must be giving money altruistically just for “good government”.

    “Gee I wish someone would give me hundreds of thousands for a short speech. Good for you Hillary…”

  216. 216
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @Gimlet: Really? “Cattle Futures” again? It wasn’t beaten to death and beyond decades ago?

    I hear she was a Republican when she was a teenager. Discuss.

    :-/

    Cheers,
    Scott.
    (Who thinks that Hillary must be the second coming of Jesus if the only things worth talking about happened 3-5 decades ago.)

  217. 217
    Emma says:

    @dollared: I have never ever cursed anyone but you’re tempting me .

    http://www.ticotimes.net/2015/.....th-or-jail

    Abortion law in Nicaragua was imposed by legislators fully owned and operated by the Catholic Church. And, as usual, hurts the poor the most — you know, those that Ortega was always swearing to protect?

    In January, one of the 17, Carmen Guadalupe Vásquez Aldana, was granted clemency after seven years in prison. Vásquez had been raped by her employer when she was 18. She had a miscarriage that resulted in heavy bleeding, which sent her to a hospital — against her employer’s will.

    There, the doctors suspected an abortion. After an operation, Vásquez woke up handcuffed.

    Vásquez was a domestic servant, living with the family she worked for and the man who raped her. With an average salary of $250 a month, domestic servants are unlikely to have the means to fund a safe abortion.

    In Nicaragua, where, like in El Salvador, politics are strongly influenced by the Catholic Church, abortion has been officially outlawed since 2006, even if the pregnant woman’s life is in danger.

    Ruth María Matamoros, a psychologist who works with the Nicaraguan women’s organization Grupo Venancia, said that the abortion ban creates a divide between rich and poor.

  218. 218
    Gimlet says:

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:

    Really? “Cattle Futures” again?

    I’m sure I read on BJ that it was an early investment in Apple. Totally innocent. Happens all the time. Anything critical of Hillary is all RW smear.

  219. 219

    @jl:

    The system is corrupt, and it corrupts people who chose, or feel they need, to play by its rules.

    Which, unfortunately, is just about anyone who wants to run for office higher than dog catcher.

  220. 220
    Mnemosyne says:

    @dollared:

    No, I get that you don’t give a shit that women in Nicaragua are dying thanks to Bernie’s new pal. I’m just pointing out that you’re a fucking hypocrite with one standard for your favored candidate and a different standard for everyone else.

    I don’t expect our presidents to not go to Ireland or Peru, but I’m also not claiming that what My Guy (or Gal) does is automatically above reproach while everything Your Guy does is inherently evil. You’re the one claiming that all of Hillary’s associations are corrupt but Bernie’s aren’t.

  221. 221
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @dollared: Maybe you shouldn’t have decided to bring up the entirely unnecessary point that Bernie Sanders isn’t the sort of person who would be friendly with dictators. Because among the things to try to use to besmirch Hillary Clinton by comparison, that’s a particularly dopey one.

  222. 222
    WarMunchkin says:

    @Gimlet: What is the actual accusation?

  223. 223
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Gimlet:

    Still curious — how old were you in 1978?

  224. 224
    Mandalay says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Why doesn’t it figure into the picture at all that she gave speeches to all kinds of groups and organizations?

    It does, and it certainly isn’t just Hillary Clinton doing it. But it was the O/P who chose to write about Clinton and Wall Street.

    ETA And for those of you who are blissfully unconcerned about what Clinton did, wait until Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio take gazillions from Boeing and Exxon in a couple of years, while insisting that they have no intention of running for president in 2020.

  225. 225
    Emma says:

    @Gimlet: No, they’re giving money to have one of the most famous women in the world give an anodyne speech. Because in this benighted world a lot of people get a kick of saying, “hey, my company had Hillary Clinton speak at its retreat this year.”

  226. 226
    Gimlet says:

    @WarMunchkin:

    ??

    I think it started when I said Hillary didn’t need to make big money from speeches, she was a whiz in the market turning $1,000 back in the day into $100,000.

  227. 227
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Gimlet: Uh, so, I think you misread shortribs‘s comment above, which wasn’t that Hillary Clinton literally invested in Apple, but that shortribs had, giving rise to the sort of profit that when made by Hillary Clinton (according to the story) was supposed to raise an eyebrow.

  228. 228

    In thinking about the Clintons, I think “21st-century social climbers.” It’s not that they do things that are — exactly — illegal, but they have supported the banks and the austerians, and that support has been richly repaid.

    The question arises whether we might reasonably want a supporter of banks and austerians to be President and, honestly, I can’t see why, unless we are really fond of poverty and poor economic policy-making.

  229. 229
    Emma says:

    @Raven Onthill: We do because otherwise we’ll have either a self-annointed Messiah or a psychopath.

  230. 230
    WarMunchkin says:

    @Gimlet: I meant when you were saying that there was denial about the contributions having some effect on avtions. What is the accusation on HRC in that context?

  231. 231
    debbie says:

    Enough of the arguing how many Hillary purists fit on the head of a pin. I heard on the news just now that the Koch Brothers were pulling out of the GOP convention!

    This is all that’s online at the moment. Please let this turn out to be true!

  232. 232
    dww44 says:

    @Mnemosyne: I actually LOVE this idea. Please make it happen!

  233. 233
    Gin & Tonic says:

    Purity ponies should keep in mind that in the US political system as it is currently structured, a successful run for President requires, in round numbers, a billion dollars. For someone to amass that amount based solely on individual donations of, say, $27, would require over 37 million donors. That is, again in round numbers, about 10 times the number of “small donors” that Barack Obama (a uniquely inspiring politician) had, and about 15 times the number of people who have voted for (not donated to) Bernie Sanders so far. In other words, you can’t make it there on small, pure donors. Nobody can.

  234. 234
    Gimlet says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    It took it to mean there was an ordinary, happens all the time explanation for it and it was out of place to think there might be something scandalous behind it.

  235. 235
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Mandalay: But that’s the whole thing — it makes a huge difference in the stories you can then generate. If it’s “Hillary Clinton made hundreds of thousands from speeches to Goldman Sachs and other investment banks,” that sets up something like the quid-pro-quo story: “aha, they kiss her butt, she kisses theirs, it’s all very cozy and when she’s president they’ll benefit handsomely.” If it’s “Hillary Clinton made millions from speeches [mostly repetitive and platitudinous] to business groups, professional associations, and nonprofits,” IMHO that sets up at worst the “unseemly” charge Roger Moore brought up earlier. Because the “she’s so cozy with the worst sorts of people who wrecked the economy” thing can’t be made to stick to the International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association and the Fresh Produce Association and the National Federation of Convenience Stores [those are from memory, actual organization names may be slightly different].

  236. 236
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Raven Onthill:

    It’s not that they do things that are — exactly — illegal, but they have supported the banks and the austerians

    [Citations omitted]

    and that support has been richly repaid.

    [Citations omitted]

  237. 237
    Mandalay says:

    @Gimlet:

    But there seems unrealistic denial on these threads about any influence all this money going to Hillary and the Clinton foundation have on their actions

    This. A common and weak argument made by some (including Hillary Clinton) is “Present your evidence of wrongdoing or STFU”.

    But it’s not unreasonable to assume that corporations are expecting something in return for their donations. In fact it defies credibility that they want nothing in return. The exchange is inherently a corrupt one, however honorable the parties involved may be.

  238. 238
    jl says:

    @Gimlet:

    ” But there seems unrealistic denial on these threads about any influence all this money going to Hillary and the Clinton foundation have on their actions. ”

    There does seem to be an evolution in attitude. There is a difference between acknowledging systematic corruption and putting it in perspective, and arguing that there is no problem at all with all the big money going to politicians.

  239. 239
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Gimlet: OK, then I misunderstood your understanding. The refrain of “Apple” got me confused and I thought you meant it literally.

  240. 240
    hamletta says:

    @Aimai: Joe Conason’s National Memo has an abridged version with just the parts about Hillary for free at their site.

  241. 241
    horatius says:

    @Gimlet: No. A fucking right wing smear pulled out of right wing cesspools is a right wing smear.

    A play right out of the right wing playbook insinuating things that are not there is a right wing smear. Or did you sleep through the fucking 90s?

  242. 242
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Mandalay: And what does the International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association want in return? Because I think what they want is the ability to say that Hillary Clinton, world-famous person who’s deciding on her political future and who at any minute could say or do something newsworthy, spoke at their event.

  243. 243
    Gimlet says:

    @WarMunchkin:

    I presented as implausible the big picture of a known set of greedy people (not all wealthy are greedy or uncharitable) generously donating with no expected favor in return. I do not have time or access to go deeper than that

  244. 244
    Sophie says:

    I’m just appalled that there are all these grown-up people here who think they know about politics and business and so forth, and yet they’ve never heard of the lecture circuit. It’s one thing if you’re a kid or a college student. They’ve never heard of anything. They’re too young. But grown-ass adults? Jesus Christ.

  245. 245
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Mandalay:

    But it’s not unreasonable to assume that corporations are expecting something in return for their donations.

    Of course they expect something in return. I’m sure the American Camping Association is hoping that Hillary will give support to national parks, which will benefit their business.

    My question is, why is the automatic assumption that she’s only going to do things that will benefit the companies you hate most? Why are all of the dozens of other companies that made similarly-sized donations ignored when you are determining who Hillary is going to favor later on?

  246. 246
    dollared says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Except it is completely accurate. Henry Kissinger, mass murderer, is one of her foreign policy advisors. Her family foundation has accepted tens of millions from mass murderers. comparing that to a visit to Daniel Ortega 30 years ago is unbelievably stupid – and a Ted Cruz level talking point.

  247. 247
    dollared says:

    @Mnemosyne: Or privatize the camping concessions at the national parks. Or allow private development inside parks. Or grant blanket releases of liability for makers of defective camping equipment. T@Mnemosyne:

  248. 248
    Gimlet says:

    @horatius:

    Feel better now?

  249. 249
    dollared says:

    @Mnemosyne: And I’m telling you that Daniel Ortega is not a mass murderer. And Hillary pals around with them to get money for her foundation. And I am 100% correct on both counts, and you are continuing to confuse DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY to acts of mass murder and terrorism. Which is arrogant and stupid.

  250. 250
    Mnemosyne says:

    @dollared:

    Yes, I realize the unmitigated evil that is Hillary could only want the worst possible outcomes. That’s going a long way to prove you totally don’t have an irrational hatred of her.

  251. 251
    FlipYrWhig says:

    I will be very curious to see what Bernie Sanders, freshly minted political celebrity, does at the end of his time in office. Under somewhat similar circumstances, Robert Reich, proud Sanders supporter, signed up with a speakers’ bureau, and gives speeches, for a set fee. People probably would like to hear what Bernie Sanders says about things, life, etc. And maybe the Bernie Sanders Foundation can carry on his legacy, like Wellstone Action does. I would have no objection to any of that. What rules do you think he’d put on who donates and how the money gets raised?

  252. 252
    Betty Cracker says:

    @Gin & Tonic: That’s a really great point. I don’t know of any Democrat, including Hillary Clinton and PBO, who thinks the status quo is okay. But we can’t unilaterally disarm.

  253. 253
    Sophie says:

    Former cabinet officials have been going on the lecture circuit for far longer than I’ve been alive. Cabinet officials, politicians, authors, adventurers, entrepreneurs, whoever the hell is famous or interesting enough that corporations and clubs will pay to have them as a speaker. Whether you’re Neil Gaiman or the guy who nearly died on Everest or a Cabinet official or Mike Huckabee, it’s the same: you have your little spiel, your agent puts you on the circuit, your fee is whatever you can command. And you take as many bookings as you can fit into your schedule. Women’s clubs, corporate retreats, professional conferences, whoever the hell.

    When did this become “corruption”? There’s nothing corrupt about it. It’s the fucking lecture circuit. It’s older than God.

    Only with Hillary Clinton has this suddenly become evidence of some dark evil thing. Only with Hillary. What could be the cause? What, I wonder, is special about Hillary, different from other presidential candidates? What oh what could it possibly be…

  254. 254
    Mnemosyne says:

    @dollared:

    And I’m telling you that Daniel Ortega is not a mass murderer.

    There are a few thousand women’s families in Nicaragua who would disagree with you.

    And if your argument is that he didn’t actually kill them himself, it was only his policies that did it, well …

  255. 255

    @dollared: You’re forgetting her support of the Honduras coup. That one scares me.

    I think I likely that under Clinton, US foreign policy, influenced by Kissinger, will kill many more thousands. She may even abandon Obama’s fragile alliance with Iran, which would be an utter shame, since Saudi Arabia has apparently turned hawkish and have become an even less reliable ally.

  256. 256
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @dollared:

    Henry Kissinger, mass murderer, is one of her foreign policy advisors.

    False.

    You brought up friendship with unsavory foreign leaders, man. That was entirely your doing. Of all the things to bring up, you chose that. In tennis I think it’s called an “unforced error.”

  257. 257
    amk says:

    What, only a half Tbogg unit? Slackers.

  258. 258
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Sophie:

    When did this become “corruption”?

    When Team Bernie decided that it was the highly symbolic smoking gun to prove that Hillary Clinton loves Wall Street. Because Team Bernie, perhaps especially at its highest levels, is roughly on par with random blog commenters and DailyKos diarists when it comes to political acumen.

  259. 259
    Cacti says:

    But during the last debate, when Senator Sanders was asked to name one example of a decision Clinton had made on the basis of donations, he whiffed.

    Sanders kind of whiffed on everything in New York.

    But fret not, Bernfeelers. The progressive bastions of Montana and the Dakotas still await.

  260. 260
    satby says:

    @Roger Moore: She’s been attacked for nearly 30 years. She must have decided to “bucket”

  261. 261
    Davebo says:

    @Raven Onthill:

    Saudi Arabia is not a US ally. It is however a client state, much like Israel.

  262. 262
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Sophie:

    When did this become “corruption”? There’s nothing corrupt about it. It’s the fucking lecture circuit. It’s older than God.

    I swear, some people have never, ever attended a work conference, or had a corporate initiative like Earth Month where they bring speakers in. Never attended a fundraising dinner for a charity, either.

  263. 263
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Raven Onthill: “Influenced by Kissinger.” Keep fucking that chicken, Raven.

  264. 264
    Gimlet says:

    @Sophie:

    Before there were high paying speeches, there used to be these book deals by Regnery Publishing with unbelievable advances. All ethical and legal mind you. It was a mission to right the wrongs of history’s scribes and and inform the public.

  265. 265
    A Ghost To Most says:

    The smell of flop sweat,desperation, and ratfuckery hung in the air.

  266. 266
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Mnemosyne: I worked for a museum that paid Patti Smith to give a benefit concert. I’m totally in the pocket of Big Punk. No, wait, I mean Patti Smith is totally in the pocket of Big Art Museum. SHAME ON YOU PATTI SMITH

  267. 267
  268. 268
    dollared says:

    @Mnemosyne: Again, you don’t seem to understand how democracies work. Was Eisenhower a mass murderer of women when abortion was illegal in many states in the US in the 50s?

    I really don’t understand you. How can you compare Daniel Ortega to the Saudis, or African genocidists? Do you realize how crazy you sound?

  269. 269
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Gimlet: Yeah, future presidential candidates really shouldn’t be signing book contracts. A sordid business, that.

  270. 270
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Gimlet: Holy shit, JFK “wrote” Profiles in Courage (and “won” a Pulitzer Prize) sixty fucking years ago. Were you born yesterday?

  271. 271
    Gimlet says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    That’s entertainment!

    Not the lecture circuit referred to here.

  272. 272
    dollared says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Yes, they frequently socialize – even vacation together – and she cites his approval of her work as Secretary of State on the campaign trail.

    Your denial runs deep.

    http://www.motherjones.com/pol.....e-la-renta

  273. 273
    Gimlet says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    Regnery published that?

    You fox, I stand corrected.

  274. 274

    @Gimlet:

    I presented as implausible the big picture of a known set of greedy people (not all wealthy are greedy or uncharitable) generously donating with no expected favor in return.

    But there is an obvious thing they are getting for their money: they are getting a famous person to show up to give a speech at their event. Believe it or not, this is a real thing that people will pay good money for. They may even have chosen a politician because they’re hoping to convince the people at their event that they’re politically connected, but the main point is to have a famous person at their event.

  275. 275
    Formerly disgruntled Clinton supporter says:

    Slow and steady wins the race! Progress is whatever little you can get, ASAP.

  276. 276
    Mnemosyne says:

    @dollared:

    How can you compare Daniel Ortega to the Saudis, or African genocidists? Do you realize how crazy you sound?

    As Flip pointed out, you’re the one who started out claiming that purported “friendships” with foreign dictators are bad. You only went ballistic when you discovered that Bernie was not quite as lily-white as you’d always imagined and that his pal Daniel Ortega is complicit in the deaths of thousands of women, not in the 1950s, not in the 1980s, but right now. This minute.

    And, again as multiple people have pointed out, charities accept donations from unsavory people all. the. time. And yet it’s only when the Clintons do it that it’s a sign of deep personal corruption.

  277. 277
    Formerly disgruntled Clinton supporter says:

    @Mnemosyne: Hear frickin HEAR

  278. 278
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Roger Moore: And maybe get a picture taken of the speaker and themselves that can go on their I love me wall

  279. 279
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Gimlet: Jeez, you really *are* an idiot.

  280. 280
    Gimlet says:

    @Roger Moore:

    They would say that, wouldn’t they?

    I’ll concede that it might be true occasionally.

  281. 281
    Sophie says:

    @Gimlet:

    Before there were high paying speeches, there used to be these book deals by Regnery Publishing with unbelievable advances.

    Horse. Shit. The lecture circuit dates back to the 19th century, and has nothing to do with right-wing vanity presses.

    But of course you know that. What are you, some kind of ratfucker? Aren’t you upthread talking about how the Clinton Foundation is corrupt? I have yet to see a Sanders supporter who isn’t either painfully naive and gullible (hence the kids) or a ratfucker.

    By the way, in real life I work in international development, and I’ve crossed paths with the Clinton Foundation many times. They are doing excellent programmatic work in difficult areas. Calling them corrupt and insinuating that they’re paling around with dictators for shits and giggles — jesus. Ratfuckers like you are just scum.

  282. 282
  283. 283
    gwangung says:

    @Gimlet:

    Before there were high paying speeches, there used to be these book deals by Regnery Publishing

    Bullshit point. Plain and simple.

    Try again. Stop showing your ignorance.

  284. 284
    Weaselone says:

    @dollared:

    You do realize that there is a difference from taking a-hole leaders’ money to do charity work and traveling to see a-holes because you actually admire them, right?

  285. 285
    Mnemosyne says:

    @dollared:

    “We have two house rules,” says Oscar (de la Renta), laughing. “There can be no conversation of any substance and nothing nice about anyone.”

    Yep, she’s clearly taking foreign policy dictation straight from Kissinger.

    Though I have to admit, I really admire you people who only have friends and family that you agree with politically on all things. It must make your holidays much more restful than mine are.

  286. 286
    gwangung says:

    Yep, she’s clearly taking foreign policy dictation straight from Kissinger.

    Sorta like The Notorious RBG taking legal theory from Scalia?

  287. 287
    dollared says:

    @Mnemosyne: Jesus you are fucking dense. Answer my question: was Dwight Eisenhower a mass murderer? How about another: is the President of Ireland a mass murderer? While you’re at it, provide a link to those thousands of deaths in Nicaragua you talk about. Not only do you have your cause and effect completely fucked up, your math is wrong by probably 2 orders of magnitude.

    Daniel Ortega was a man who helped liberate an impoverished oppressed nation to become a democracy. We should be fucking erecting statues to him. Unless, of course, you don’t believe in democracy. To compare him to a mass murdering, African dictator for life – or to the Saudi royal family, is to dishonor every person killed by those people – and to dishonor all the people who died in Nicaragua so they could determine their own destiny.

    But to defend Hillary Clinton, you will abandon all principles and all intellectual integrity. Because to defend her venality, you must. She and Bill cashed in. In the 60s and the 70s, it would have disqualified them from electability. But now, people who pretend to be Democrats rush to defend her friendships with mass murderers and dictators.

  288. 288
    Gimlet says:

    @gwangung:

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckayc......mn1VknJw6

    For example, Tim Pawlenty, a short-lived presidential candidate in 2012, received an advance of around $340,000 for his 2010 book Courage to Stand. But the book went on to sell only 11,689 copies, according to Nielsen Bookscan, which tracks most, but not all, bookstore sales. What’s more, Pawlenty’s political action committee bought at least 5,000 of those copies itself in a failed attempt to get it on the New York Times best-seller list, according to one person with knowledge of the strategy.

    This pattern continues as you scan the works of recent and prospective Republican presidential candidates. According to one knowledgeable source, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker received an even larger advance than Pawlenty’s, and Bookscan has his 2013 book Unintimidated selling around 16,000 copies.

  289. 289
    Bob In Portland says:

    @singfoom: Cave-dwellers?

  290. 290
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Gimlet: Whoosh…. That was the point, sailing right passed your head.

  291. 291
    The Sheriff Endorses Baud 2016 says:

    @dollared:

    Daniel Ortega was a man who helped liberate an impoverished oppressed nation to become a democracy.

    Absolutism, authoritarianism, and now revisionism: Its the whole Maoist package!

    Is there a pie filter where I can replace certain posters with quotes from the Little Red Book?

  292. 292
    Emma says:

    @Sophie: Mark Twain. Arthur Conan Doyle…

  293. 293
    WarMunchkin says:

    @Gimlet: So what are we even arguing about? We, and most Democrats are largely in agreement that having politicians fundraising for hours on end per day subtly alters their sense of what normal people are like.

    But that’s an abstract criticism. Which is fine for systems as a whole! But if we’re talking about actual actors, systemic critiques need to be specific and relevant to those actors. How do we measure Clinton’s degree of change due to fundraising? What is the empirical data for this actor? Telco immunity?

  294. 294
    horatius says:

    @gwangung: In my notorious RBG fanfic manga, she kept taking little Nino to opera with a couple of bags of cheetos, and little Nino ate himself into an early grave.

    Not early enough for me, but still.

  295. 295
    Emma says:

    @Raven Onthill: “I think it likely” “she may even.” Gotcha. You work for Fox News.

  296. 296
    A Ghost To Most says:

    @The Sheriff Endorses Baud 2016:
    The BernieBros have morphed into the CheBros

  297. 297
    dollared says:

    @The Sheriff Endorses Baud 2016: this didn’t happen? Try reading Wikipedia.

  298. 298

    @FlipYrWhig: You drop it; that connection is not defensible. Kissinger is her friend and mentor. (Lots more on this.) I suspect her support of the 2009 Honduran coup was his idea; it has his feel to it.

    BTW, Ortega was decades ago and a socialist hope, back when. Sanders modest support of the Sandinistas was a long time back.

  299. 299
    horatius says:

    @dollared: You got to fucking stop. You sound like a Republican.

  300. 300
    opiejeanne says:

    @Raven Onthill: Social climbers? Really? What a snobby thing to say.

  301. 301
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    Dying thread but…

    @Gimlet:

    But there seems unrealistic denial on these threads about any influence all this money going to Hillary and the Clinton foundation have on their actions. Unless there is an absolute Quid pro Quo for the many Hillary supporters on BJ, then all the money these cold-hearted miserly tax-avoiding corporations must be giving money altruistically just for “good government”.

    Maybe your perception of what is being posted here is faulty.

    Bernie’s campaign has been making statements for months about the Corrupt Campaign Finance System where Millionaires and Billionaires are Buying Our Elections™. Since you seem to agree with that characterization, based upon my reading of your posts in this thread, I’m simply asking how that applies to Hillary. How is she Corrupt™. Specifics, please.

    Does the Clinton Foundation accepting $10M from Elton John make her Corrupt™?

    Does WJC getting a $15M advance on his memoirs make him Corrupt™?

    Does the Clinton Foundation getting a $25M donation from UNITAID make them Corrupt™? Is pooled funding to buy AIDS drugs somehow Corrupt™?

    Yeah, proving a quid-pro-quo is hard. But help me out here – where’s the Corruption™ that you see in HRC’s actual actions (not some witchhunt from the 1990s)? Did HRC write the tax law that makes Foundations able to avoid taxes or something? You know that the Clintons don’t get paid by the Foundation, right?

    Thanks.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  302. 302

    @Emma: And here I thought it was scholarly judiciousness.

    I’m not making hard and fast predictions because no-one can, but Clinton’s foreign policy record is well-documented and worrisome.

  303. 303
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Raven Onthill: Sandinista is a great album and deserves more than modest support.

  304. 304
    Weaselone says:

    @dollared:

    Wikipedia also mentions some unsavory actions on the part of Ortega regarding the native Hondurans and touches briefly on the unpleasantness involved in his enforced collectivization. I’m sure those are the actions of a good democrat or just slipped your mind.

  305. 305
    dollared says:

    @Mnemosyne: “Ben Norton and Jared Flanery went through Clinton’s e-mails from her tenure as secretary of state and found that Clinton and Kissinger did, indeed, often “check in” with one another, each flattering the other. One e-mail reveals Clinton worried that her relationship with Obama didn’t quite rise to the inimitable level of Kissinger’s to Nixon: “I see POTUS at least once a week while K saw Nixon everyday,” Clinton wrote. “Do you see this as a problem?”

    http://www.thenation.com/artic.....and-peace/

  306. 306
    dollared says:

    @Weaselone: They were part of a civil war. Please provide an example of a civil war in which the winners never took action against groups allied with their opponents. You can start with the US War of Independence.

  307. 307
    Gimlet says:

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:

    http://www.motherjones.com/pol.....arms-deals

    In 2011, the State Department cleared an enormous arms deal: Led by Boeing, a consortium of American defense contractors would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, despite concerns over the kingdom’s troublesome human rights record.

    In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Times investigation released Tuesday.

  308. 308
    Emma says:

    @Raven Onthill: You know, for someone who throws around insults like “social climbers” at people, you know damnall about how those upper crusts behave. People like Oscar de la Renta — the tastemakers — throw house parties to groups of people they think will be interesting. Anything from minor European royalty to the poet flavor du jour. Nothing of much importance takes place, except maybe discreet infidelity. If that’s all you got, you got nothing.

  309. 309

    The problem with the whole line of argument made here is that it is far too much like Citizens United. No, there is no smoking gun. No, it is not believable that that money and the related social connections had no influence on the Clintons and supporters of Hillary Clinton have to tie themselves into knots defending them.

    I am reminded, too, of aristocratic politics. The Clintons, starting from humble beginnings, have joined the rich and powerful: vacations with Henry Kissinger, daughter marrying a bankster (talk about access!) What else am I to think if not social climbing and loyalty to their adopted class? It seems that along with the return of 19th-century disparities of wealth has come the return of 19th-century class conduct and relations.

    Does this mean that all their acts are negative? No, of course not. And it is easy to imagine that President Trump, Cruz, or Kasich would be much, much worse. But neo-liberal economic policy is only good for the very wealthy and brutal anti-democratic foreign policy is … come to think of it only good for the very wealthy, too. Anything the rest of us get from a Clinton Presidency will come from condescension.

    Which is better than nothing. But I would rather have someone who was of all the people.

  310. 310
    opiejeanne says:

    @Gin & Tonic: And my Republican parents bought that book, and watched the tv series that came from it.

  311. 311
    Mnemosyne says:

    @dollared:

    While you’re at it, provide a link to those thousands of deaths in Nicaragua you talk about.

    Sure — here’s Amnesty International (pdf) on the crisis. I know, I know, they’re just shills for the Clintons and can’t be trusted, and who gives a shit about women’s lives when there’s a revolution going on, amirite?

  312. 312
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @dollared:

    In the 60s and the 70s, it would have disqualified them from electability.

    I’m not so great with history, according to you, but I believe that John Kennedy, son of Joseph P., and Richard Nixon, associate of various ne’er-do-wells, were elected somewhere during that time.

  313. 313
    Weaselone says:

    @dollared:

    His actions included forced reallocations of civilians. It wasn’t just killing armed insurgents.

  314. 314
    horatius says:

    @Raven Onthill: Yes. Yes. Unilateral disarmament is the need of the hour.

  315. 315
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Weaselone: dollared hasn’t gotten to that paragraph of the Wikipedia page yet.

  316. 316
    Weaselone says:

    @Gimlet: Seriously. Not this shit again. That deal was getting approved regardless of Boeing’s donation and was also signed off on by the Secretary of Defense.

  317. 317
    Bob In Portland says:

    @Mnemosyne: Look, if you really believe that money has no influence on politics then I won’t be the person to tell you there is no Santa.

    I posted to an article awhile back that showed huge donations to the Clinton Foundation in coordination with various Middle Eastern arms sales. But that was dismissed immediately here. Then there was the half million that Penny Pritzker donated to a foundation to help Flint, Michigan a couple days after the mayor of Flint endorsed Clinton. Chelsea and the mayor were put in charge of the half-million. I’m sure that Penny Pritzker, who’s slipped money to Clinton in all sorts of ways during this cycle, merely donated that half million coincidentally.

    But if you can’t see a connection between campaign donations and politicians’ actions in office, you won’t see it. So Citizens United is nothing, because all that money going to politicians doesn’t do anything. No one is influenced by money.

    I just love it when people pretend not to see the obvious. I seem to remember you finding it unremarkable that the CIA filmed a faux Oswald at the Russian embassy and Cuban consulate six or so weeks before the JFK assassination. Hmm, you said something about a Mexican twist party but couldn’t wrap your lobes around the possibility that….

  318. 318
    eemom says:

    @horatius:

    You sound like a Republican.

    Hey, if we were all mclaren, we could point out that the berntards on this thread are no doubt paid Koch bros whores laboring in some Koch bros basement for whorishly high hourly rates to trash HRC and elect President Cruz. Cuz even if they were, they couldn’t generate comments any more dishonest and hellbent on destruction of progressive goals than what we’ve got here.

  319. 319
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Raven Onthill:

    But I would rather have someone who was of all the people.

    Like Richard Nixon! He didn’t care for all those “Franklin” swells either!

  320. 320

    @Gimlet:
    Yeah, because the US never would have sold arms to Saudi Arabia if Hillary hadn’t pushed for it.

  321. 321
    cahuenga says:

    I’ll let Ms. Warren present your example of a ‘bought’ Hillary:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/09/elizabeth-warrens-critique-of-hillary-clintons-2001-bankruptcy-vote/

    “Hillary Clinton pledged to help stop the bill and Warren writes that she later learned the Clinton White House — which had been poised to approve the legislation — turned on a dime after the first lady’s concern became apparent. Bill Clinton vetoed the bill after it passed Congress in his waning days in office.”

    “Warren blames Clinton’s about-face as senator on the impact of campaign contributions. “The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not,” she wrote. “Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position. Campaigns cost money, and that money wasn’t coming from families in financial trouble.”

  322. 322
    Emma says:

    @Raven Onthill: Chelsea Clinton’s husband is the son of former congressman Edward Mezvinsky of Iowa and former congresswoman Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinksy of Pennsylvania. His father is persona-non-grata in the family for having swindled them, btw. He owns a hedge fund company which AFAIK, isn’t illegal and it ain’t big enough to crash an iced cream cart, much less an economy.

    You’re a ratfucker. Bored now.

  323. 323
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Raven Onthill:

    daughter marrying a bankster

    Oh, my, the daughter of a President marries the son of a Congresswoman. That’s all kinds of evil. Worse, that Congresswoman and her husband were personal friends with the President and his wife. The perfidy!

    Do you have any idea how the world works?

  324. 324
    Joel says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: the end result of a long process of media incubation.

    see: richard jewell

  325. 325
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Bob In Portland:

    So Citizens United is nothing,

    Of course. Ask Republican front-runner Jeb Bush.

  326. 326
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Bob In Portland:

    Then there was the half million that Penny Pritzker donated to a foundation to help Flint, Michigan a couple days after the mayor of Flint endorsed Clinton. Chelsea and the mayor were put in charge of the half-million. I’m sure that Penny Pritzker, who’s slipped money to Clinton in all sorts of ways during this cycle, merely donated that half million coincidentally.

    Well, it’s a good thing there isn’t any kind of clean water crisis in Flint that might require an influx of cash to help solve.

  327. 327

    @Gin & Tonic: “Do you have any idea how the world works?”

    And your point is? Money marrying power is one of the oldest stories in the world. But it is antithetical to democracy.

  328. 328
    Bob In Portland says:

    @Weaselone: Because at the end of the sale Boing execs looked at the extra 900k and thought, “Well, we’re in the business of making money by selling our planes, so let’s not put it in the bank, let’s not give it to execs for bonuses, let’s not hire a few more guys on the assembly line. No let’s give it to the CLINTON FOUNDATION. Yeah, that’s the ticket!”

    Admit it, Weasel, even you are a little embarrassed. I bet Bob McDonnell is happy to hear this wave of no-nothingness here at Balloon Juice.

  329. 329
    Terry chay says:

    @shortribs: at this point I’m 99%(*) certain that Bob in Portland and dollared are part of a pro-Hillary AstroTurf PAC funded by the money from Hillary and Bill’s paid Goldman Sachs speeches.

    (*)I’m using Bernie campaign math to derive thisorobability so you know it’s rigorous.

  330. 330
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Raven Onthill: Look out, thousands of years of history, Raven and Bernie Sanders are here to wag their fingers at you. But wait, doesn’t Bernie Sanders have tens of millions of dollars at his disposal now and refuses to share it? ANTITHETICAL TO DEMOCRACY

  331. 331
    Mnemosyne says:

    @cahuenga:

    Did you read to the end?

    In the end, however, Clinton was against the bankruptcy bill at the moment it really counted — final passage in Congress. (In all, 26 Democrats opposed the bill and 18 supported it, along with all 55 Republicans.)

    So for all the money the financial interests contributed to Clinton’s campaign, she did not give them the support they desired. At the same time, however, the vote was so lopsided that Clinton’s support was not needed. (emphasis mine)

    In light of subsequent events, Warren’s comments from 2004 at this point appear out of date. We would be curious to know if Warren’s experience as senator has changed her perspective on Clinton’s actions in 2001.

  332. 332
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Gin & Tonic: You should always marry the poorest person possible. It helps if you have nothing in common, too, and that you barely know each other. I’m pretty sure that’s how Jane Austen writes these things.

  333. 333

    @Emma: so are you Dark Willow then?

    You are tying yourself into knots explaining how this would-be aristocrat is the best choice for the leader of the greatest Republic the world has ever known.

    @FlipYrWhig: Nixon proposed the first version of a regulated-insurance health plan, did you know? It was, I have heard, more liberal than the ACA. Senator Robert Kennedy shot it down as inadequate. (I think, but memory fails me, also the first version of the a negative income tax.) Politics is a strange thing.

    Nixon never tried to stand for all the people. That is what I would prefer.

  334. 334
    Bob In Portland says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    Do you have any idea how the world works?

    That seems to be how Ukraine works. That’s why the country is a mess. One set of oligarchs replaces another set of oligarchs.

    But it’s interesting. The two defenses of H. Clinton and her relationship with money are 1. There is no connection between money donated to Clinton and any possible outcomes of her political career, and 2. That’s the way the world works. You guys need to get on the same page. From my point of view GIn & Tonic is a little more realistic than Betty, Mnem et al.

    How about this, folks? Yes, Hillary’s on the take, but I don’t see my lot being threatened by her Presidency.

  335. 335
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @Gimlet: Connect the dots for me. Where’s the Corruption™?

    State.gov:

    ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHAPIRO: Thank you, everyone, for coming and we are here – Ambassador Vershbow and I are here to officially announce the Administration’s plan to sell to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia a significant defense package that will promote regional security and enhance the defensive capabilities of an important Gulf partner with whom we have had a longstanding and close security relationship. There have been a number of press reports since the summer anticipating this sale. And for those of you who tried to question us about it, you know that it is U.S. Government policy not to comment on any possible arms sales until formal congressional notification has taken place. Often for major arms sales such as this one, a lot of work has to be done before we can notify, including discussions within the U.S. Government, interagency bilateral discussions with the receiving government, not to mention pre-consultations with congressional staff and members.

    That said, we are undertaking this sale because it supports our wider regional security goals in the Gulf by deepening our security relationship with a key partner with whom we’ve enjoyed a solid security relationship for nearly 70 years. Let me just take a couple of minutes to describe how this potential arms – we view this potential arms sale package as benefiting the United States and advancing U.S. national security. The Administration analyzed Saudi Arabia’s request for these new aircraft within the context of the U.S. Government’s conventional arms transfer policy, which outlines a criteria that includes the country’s legitimate security needs and broader security objectives.

    In accordance with the Arms Export Control Act, the Secretary of State is responsible for providing continuous supervision and general direction of arms sales. This includes determining whether proposed arms sales or export of defense articles and services are authorized and ensuring that they best serve U.S. foreign policy. In practice, this responsibility falls to the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher and is enacted by the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs.

    The Bureau of Political-Military Affairs is the Department’s lead for arms sales request and has worked closely on this sale with counterparts at the Department of Defense who are responsible for implementing foreign military sales such as the proposed Saudi package. I’m happy to say that we have accomplished all the hard work necessary to complete this package and this interagency effort has been a top priority for both Secretary Gates and Secretary Clinton and reflects the strong cooperation between our departments to support our wider national security goals.

    Is Ellen Tauscher somehow Corrupt™? How about SecDef Gates? Was he paid off by the KSA too?

    I thought Hillary was in the back pocket of Israel since Israeli-American Billionaire Haim Saban gave millions to the Clinton Foundation.

    It’s like people on opposite sides of an issue contributing to their foundation have no influence on HRC’s actual actions in office. It’s so confusing!!

    :-/

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  336. 336
    horatius says:

    @Bob In Portland: Wait. Did you just compare the Clintons to Bob McDonnell??

    With Democrats like these, is it any wonder they get thrashed in the mid-terms?

  337. 337
    Miss Bianca says:

    I’ve asked David Koch (not the Canadian Anchor Baby) for money for literacy programs. I suppose that means that my literacy programs were beholden to Koch Industries. Devil’s bargains…

    Honestly, I’m so sick of Hillary hate I could scream. I pinned one of my fellow Democrats to the wall at our “Drinking Liberally” night – he kept saying, “well, I don’t trust her.” “Why don’t you trust her?” I don’t trust her to do what she says she’ll do”. I kept asking, “have you looked at her record as Senator? As Secretary of State? Can you give me ONE CONCRETE EXAMPLE of a time when she said she was going to do something and didn’t? – or said she wasn’t going to do something and *did*?” Of course, he couldn’t, and since he was getting pissy about being pressed on it, and this was supposed to a ” ‘appy occasion – let’s not bicker and argue over ‘oo killed ‘oo” – I decided to stop before either of us threw up or threw punches.

  338. 338
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Bob In Portland: How about this: it takes a billion dollars to win the Presidency. I’d rather have Hillary in that slot than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. Simple. Is she perfect? Of course not. Is she the best possible? Yes, I think so.

  339. 339
    Bob In Portland says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Wrong answer, Whig. The answer is that it doesn’t matter if the person is poor or rich because money has no effect on anyone or anything.

  340. 340
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Raven Onthill: Say, what happens if in trying to “stand for all the people” it turns out that some of the people you prefer to stand for have contrary beliefs to others of the people you prefer to stand for, and to please them both a little bit you have to displease them both a little bit, or maybe displease some of them a lot? I hear a few people have thought about this in the past few millennia, and the consensus among them is that it’s, to coin a phrase, fucking hard. But I’m sure you’ve got it all worked out. At least the preferring part, which is, as we all know, the particularly labor-intensive part. Not the doing part, which kind of just spontaneously occurs, if you get good and mad and appear outside Mitch McConnell’s window.

  341. 341
    Emma says:

    @Raven Onthill: “The greatest Republic the world has ever known” has been led by all sorts of people, many of them highly compromised ethically. An it has survived. I do know this: it will not survive the pseudo-messiah or the psychopath.
    Of course, you believe in the Republic only if you can dictate its leaders. After all, your fellow Democrats have clearly chosen Hillary Clinton, but what do they know and how dare they prefer her.

  342. 342
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Bob In Portland:

    The answer is that it doesn’t matter if the person is poor or rich because money has no effect on anyone or anything.

    Even after 300+ comments, Bob still lacks reading comprehension. Quelle surprise.

  343. 343
    Bob In Portland says:

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Don’t ask us to do your work. You’d pretend not to see anything anyway.

    Money doesn’t affect anything, slick. It’s just random coincidence who the rich throw their money at. Some of us just aren’t standing on the right corner when the limo goes by.

  344. 344
    dollared says:

    @Mnemosyne: And it proves both my points. The report recognizes that the ban is a legal LEGISLATIVE action, not any Daniel Oetega dictatorship action, and it says TOTAL maternal deaths from all causes in Nicaragua is about 120 per year total, and they don’t see a massive rise. So this is bad, I agree, but if there are deaths, there are a few per year, not the THOUSANDS OF DEAD WOMEN you were making up.

    Thanks for providing the link.

  345. 345
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @Bob In Portland: It’s really hard to have a conversation with you, Bob, when you continually respond to things that nobody has said.

    Money affects lots of things. Like being able to repair a broken city water system. Money doesn’t automatically mean Corruption™ though. If you want to claim Corruption™ then you should be willing to show your work when called on it.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  346. 346
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @horatius: Bob’s more Единая Россия than Democrat.

  347. 347
    Bob In Portland says:

    @Mnemosyne: It’s not reading comprehension, Mnem. It’s your idiotic stand that money won’t affect Hillary’s judgment. We’ve finally cut to the chase. All the talk of purity thrown at Sanders supporters has merely been you folks defending a very dirty politician.

  348. 348

    @FlipYrWhig: a difficult problem. But I’m pretty sure it is not solved by becoming an aristocrat or choosing (in another word, electing) aristocrats to rule. That’s a trip back to the bad old days which I would rather not take.

    @Emma: But will it survive a resurgent aristocracy? I hope only.

    I believe in the land and the people and the peace of the Republic, whether or not I approve of its leaders. But O my people! O my country!

  349. 349
    Mnemosyne says:

    @dollared:

    Oh, well, only a few women die every year because they can’t get abortions after being raped or getting cancer. Why would liberals give a shit about that?

  350. 350
    Miss Bianca says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Speaking of “Sachs”…isn’t one of Bernie’s top economic advisors named Jeffrey Sachs? The same Jeffrey Sachs who was instrumental in trashing Russia’s economy upon the break-up of the USSR? I’m sure Bob in Portland could tell us all about that. Sure, he’s allegedly had a change of heart and it was a long time ago but ESSENTIAL CHARACTER NEVER CHANGES, right? Who is this Sachs guy *really* working for now?

  351. 351
    amk says:

    @Bob In Portland: yeah, it’s real pity 10 million voters didn’t buy bs’s bs, ain’t it?

  352. 352
    horatius says:

    @Bob In Portland: Very dirty? Fuck you Bob.

  353. 353
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Bob In Portland:

    It’s your idiotic stand that money won’t affect Hillary’s judgment.

    Well, if you really think that Big Camping is running the show at Hillary’s campaign because they gave her the same amount of money as Goldman Sachs did, more power to you.

    But, of course, that’s not what you think at all. You think that, when the American Camping Association and Goldman Sachs pay Hillary equal amounts of money to do a speech, she will ignore the ACA’s issues while doing everything in her power to boost GS.

    Why is, that, exactly? Isn’t the American Camping Association’s money just as good as Goldman Sachs’ money? What is it that’s so magical about the money from Goldman Sachs that it automatically corrupts a politician in a way that no other industry’s money possibly can?

  354. 354
    Bob In Portland says:

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:

    Money doesn’t automatically mean Corruption™ though.

    And there is no connection between the three billion dollars of wealth (from the wealthy) that the Clintons have accrued over fifteen years and anything either of them have done or have promised to do in the future.

    Well, continue with the self-delusions, BJers.

  355. 355
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Miss Bianca: I wouldn’t say that Sachs was “instrumental in trashing Russia’s economy.” His legacy is much more complicated than that. His work with Yegor Gaidar was probably not only necessary but unavoidable at that particular time.

  356. 356
    dollared says:

    @Mnemosyne: Shameless. Just like your fearless leader.

  357. 357
    Bob In Portland says:

    @Mnemosyne: Don’t worry, my dear. Nothing is connected. Nothing except virtue and Hillary.

  358. 358
    horatius says:

    @Bob In Portland: And there is no position in between. You can’t possibly be this stupid.

  359. 359
    Mnemosyne says:

    @dollared:

    Hey, if you don’t give a shit about women dying unnecessarily because of a policy that Daniel Ortega personally supported and signed into law, that’s not my problem. I’m sure the improved economy of their country is a great comfort to them as they die screaming in pain from an ectopic pregnancy they weren’t allowed to end.

  360. 360
    Bob In Portland says:

    @Miss Bianca:

    Speaking of “Sachs”…isn’t one of Bernie’s top economic advisors named Jeffrey Sachs?

    But you can’t see any connection between the three billion the Clintons have picked up from the wealthy and their political careers. Truly amazing.

    Hey, you bought it, you own it. The world extends beyond the village. You’re going to have to defend your political myopia when you go out into the real world.

  361. 361
    Aqualad08 says:

    @Bob In Portland:

    It’s your idiotic stand that money won’t affect Hillary’s judgment.

    Some might say huge fundraising has affected Mr. Clean’s judgment on a whole host of issues, not the least of which creating new and dishonest ways to milk his donors of money they don’t have to spend on a campaign that simply can’t deliver. Sure, I’m SURE the superdelegates will flip for him, because REASONS….

  362. 362

    @Miss Bianca: Professor Jeffrey Sachs (no relation to Goldman Sachs) is a neo-liberal economist who advocates ending poverty. Feet of clay, Bernie, feet of clay.

  363. 363
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Bob In Portland:

    Bobbo, you’ve been telling us for months that there is no connection whatsoever between Crimea and Russia and the Crimeans just magically decided theirownselves that they totally wanted to be back together with Mother Russia. Are you now changing your mind and saying that maybe things can be connected?

  364. 364
    WarMunchkin says:

    I remember when Tony Rezko was going to sell real estate out of the WH

  365. 365
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Bob In Portland: Gee, Bob, way to not address the issue. WTF are you even talking about? So: how come Bernie isn’t held accountable for his associations, and the Clintons are? If we’re all being pinned to wall for decisions made 25 years ago, how come Sachs – and, by association, Sanders – gets a pass?

    @Raven Onthill: Yeah, well…isn’t it interesting how he came to that route. From Chicago Boy to “shop for poverty alleviation!”

  366. 366
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Gin & Tonic: We’ll agree to disagree. At least until we’ve had a glass of vodka and discussed the matter further (you do drink vodka, right?)

  367. 367
    shortribs says:

    @Gimlet:

    Actually the post was a response to an earlier comment that implied Hillary invested $1,000 in Apple and made off with $100,000.

    Your reading comprehension is extremely poor. I was making a comment that making $100,000 from a $1000 investment is even something us normal folk do, and I did it by investing my money in Apple stock. I didn’t say Hillary did that. I didn’t say I would be shocked she would do something “untoward” (gasp!) nor did I comment on her profit from her investments being legal, illegal or anything else. So, uh yeah, maybe stick to your script and don’t try to improvise next time.

  368. 368
    Bob In Portland says:

    @FlipYrWhig: It’s been a common way to launder money among the rich or soon-to-be rich. You can tell when someone signs a five million-dollar book deal and six months later you see the book going for cheap in the remainders bin.

  369. 369
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Bob In Portland: Accrued? Personally or to their Foundation? It makes a difference.

  370. 370
    columbusqueen says:

    @Emma: And (first and most notably) Dickens. Also William Jennings
    Bryan, who made a bundle on the circuit after losing three elections for President. . .

  371. 371
    dollared says:

    @Mnemosyne: I oppose this law and I lament any suffering caused by it.

    And I note that you’re a liar and you still haven’t made any case for why Daniel Ortega is anywhere near as bad as the Kazakh dictator or the Saudis.

  372. 372
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Gimlet: I’d love to see you turn down hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech…it’s easy to scream “SELL OUT!!” at others when no one’s offering to buy *you*, baby.

  373. 373
    Bob In Portland says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Two billion to the Foundation. 130-some million in speaking fees. Something around 650 million in campaign donations starting with the 2000 cycle. An unknown amount acrued through Clinton Global Initiatives.

    Of course, certain monies are more fungible than others, but if you’ve got two billion in your foundation it’s amazing how you can use it. You don’t need me to explain this to you, do you?

    Three billion dollars passed from the richest of the world into the Clintons’ hands. I’m sure that that money would ever affect the Clintons’ support for anything.

    Jeez, do you people get embarrassed at all?

  374. 374
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Miss Bianca: I could offer some interesting anecdotes for $25,000 a pop.

  375. 375
    Bob In Portland says:

    @Miss Bianca:

    I’d love to see you turn down hundreds of thousands of dollars for a speech…it’s easy to scream “SELL OUT!!” at others when no one’s offering to buy *you*, baby.

    You ever wonder why someone would pay a politician that much money for a speech? Come on, Bianca, think really, really hard.

  376. 376
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Bob In Portland: How did HRC vote on the Bankruptcy Bill?

  377. 377
    Mnemosyne says:

    @dollared:

    If you expected Bernie to stop doing business with the Saudis once he became president, you were destined to be sorely disappointed, but I suppose I should let you keep your illusions.

    I do actually have stuff to do tonight, so good night to all. Congratulations on exactly embodying Betty’s headline.

  378. 378
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Bob In Portland: Tell me, Bob, if you are the one who has figured all this out – from Gehlen to Hillary, why are you still alive?

  379. 379
    nutella says:

    @Raven Onthill:

    The question arises whether we might reasonably want a supporter of banks and austerians to be President and, honestly, I can’t see why, unless we are really fond of poverty and poor economic policy-making.

    Well, when our other choices are:

    1) A faithful supporter of the gun lobby and the F-35 boondoggle who says only issues of economic class matter while issues related to racism and sexism can wait while taking advice from a shock-doctrine economist.

    2) Donald Trump

    3) Ted Cruz

    Those are our actual choices. None of them are clean. None of them are untouched by the influence of money in politics. All of them are participants in our unfortunately organized political system that’s afloat in millions of personal and corporate donations which is unavoidable for anyone who wants to win any national office.

    None of them are clean. Each of us will choose which candidate is best in our judgement (or least worst, really).

    ETA: Or refuse to participate because none of them are clean and so we can feel personally clean while the country goes to hell without our input.

  380. 380
    Bob In Portland says:

    Mnem, considering your attack on Daniel Ortega, were you supportive of the whole Iran-contra thing? Maybe felt a little pride about the death squads in El Salvador being backed by Uncle Ronnie?

    By the way, I’m just guessing this, but of the five hundred people who drowned in the Mediterranean last week trying to escape the living hell of “I came, I saw, he died” I bet that some of them were women. And people killed by those weapons deals Hillary signed off on coincidentally when large sums of cash went to the Clinton Foundation, some of them were women too.

  381. 381
    Brinks Truck Driver says:

    @Bob In Portland:

    Agreed. Raising money for a foundation is prima facia corruption. Thank goodness Sen. Sanders has never raised money for anybody at all.

    I would also point out that we shouldn’t listen to a word Bob says, since he himself is being paid by a country that has invaded numerous other countries in the past hundred years and therefore, is just a mouthpiece for Eeebbbbuuulllll!

  382. 382
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @Bob In Portland: Show us the connection, Bob. Show us the Corrupt™ connection between donations to HRC’s campaign, or the Clinton Foundation, and policies that HRC advocates. That’s what we really care about, isn’t it, Bob? What she’ll do if she’s elected President?

    It should be easy, right?

    Maybe Elton John giving the Clinton Foundation $10M was in return for a wink-wink-nudge-nudge promise that he’ll get the White House Travel Office contract, amirite?

    Boeing gave $188M in donations worldwide in 2014. The Clinton Foundation receiving 0.5% of that in one year from Boeing says what, exactly? Come on, you can tell us.

    Is it possible that HRC and WJC set up the Foundation to actually do some good, rather than somehow enrich themselves? Or since they’re Democrats and they’re Clintons and they’re from Arkansas, then they’re obviously poor white trash grifters who don’t know their place, maybe? Is that it?

    You know they don’t get a salary from the Foundation, right?

    Show your work – don’t continue to insinuate that it’s obvious.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  383. 383
    burnspbesq says:

    @Bob in Portland:

    We get it. But you can’t prove it.

  384. 384
    Bob In Portland says:

    @nutella: I’ll take the gun lobby guy.

  385. 385
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Bob In Portland: Oh, Bob…I’ll let you do all my thinking for me. I’m just a poor little woman who sees moral complexity and ambiguity where you see black and white and simplicity. And quid pro quo.

  386. 386
    dollared says:

    @Mnemosyne: more dishonesty from you, but a perfect illustration. Nobody asked the President to not deal with the Saudis. That’s absurd. But It’s reasonable that we ask that our President not have accepted millions from them for a personal project first. Any normal person would call that a conflict of interest.

  387. 387
    Bob In Portland says:

    @burnspbesq:

    We get it. But you can’t prove it.

    Finally, a Balloon Juicer who can clearly state the morality of the Village.

  388. 388
    dollared says:

    @Bob In Portland: Bingo. Plausible deniability. Yet another Republican invention adopted by the BJ crowd in order to adopt their new chosen heroine.

  389. 389
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Man…I’ll have search my other pair of jeans for my gold card…

  390. 390
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Bob In Portland: You don’t know any of the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes, and satire. Do you?

  391. 391
    Brinks Truck Driver says:

    @Bob In Portland: by your own admission, you’re being paid by the government that helped back those death squads, but you seem to have preserved your purity.

  392. 392
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: No. And he wouldn’t recognize an allegory on the banks of the Nile if it bit him on the ass.

  393. 393
    amk says:

    Guess bob, dollared and their ilk are ranting and venting in this bj ‘bubble’ because out there in the real world, peeps are pointing and laughing at them?

  394. 394
    Bob In Portland says:

    @Miss Bianca:

    Oh, Bob…I’ll let you do all my thinking for me. I’m just a poor little woman who sees moral complexity and ambiguity where you see black and white and simplicity. And quid pro quo.

    I note that there’s a lot of this faux feminist bullshit thrown up as defense for anything Hillary. Sorry, I don’t know what anyone’s sex here is. And I’m not saying you’re stupid. You know. I know. She takes money, and favorable things seem to come to those people who dispense the money.

    I really wonder how much money you have to make to be this willfully blind to reality. I think the “We get it. You can’t prove it.” is a lot more honest than your game-playing.

  395. 395
  396. 396
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @dollared: I disagree with you about who would be the better candidate. A good number of other commenters agree with me. And you are signing on to Bob’s argument? Plausible deniability? Really?

  397. 397
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @dollared: Addressed already in #335.

    Where’s the Corruption™?

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  398. 398
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Bob In Portland: Fuck you, asshole. What did you say your pension from the post office was? Tell me. Is it more than $20,000 per year? Then congratulations – you make more than I do. Hug yourself. No one else will. You are a sanctimonious prick and I, for one, have ceased to find you amusing.

  399. 399
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Miss Bianca: Who ever found him amusing? I haz a confused?

  400. 400
    dollared says:

    @amk: Funny. In my bubble they recognize conflicts of interest. I have a different profession these days, but I taught corporate and non profit board trainings throughout the 90’s, and wrote internal corporate trainings on employee conflicts of interest in the 2000’s for a Fortune 500 company. I’ve also conducted investigations and arranged for the dismissal of about a half a dozen employees for violations over the years.

  401. 401
    Bob In Portland says:

    @Brinks Truck Driver: Yeah, I have. By the way, postal pay and pensions are not paid by the US government. The USPS has been a self-sustaining entity since Nixon was President.

    However, I am getting Medicare now, so I guess you could possibly draw a line as to some kind of collusion there.

    But really, Brinks, there is a difference between me getting a pension for working half my life at the post office carrying mail and the Secretary of State’s personal charity getting bucks from Boing right after she signs off on a their arms deal.

    But then maybe you can’t see the difference.

  402. 402
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @dollared: Then you should be able to spell out exactly what “conflict of interest” HRC has in these various things that have been brought up in this thread. It can’t be that hard to back up the insinuations you’re making…

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  403. 403
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: I try, m’dear. I try and try with everyone until…I SNAP.

    ETA: Remember…”I used to be amused, now I’m just disgusted”?

  404. 404

    @dollared:

    What would your reaction be if somebody offered you $10m for a few weeks of speaking engagements? Do you think your thinking would not be affected?

    $10 million might be a lot of money for you, but it’s not so much to someone who is already rich.

  405. 405
    dollared says:

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Yup, that’s how it works. In corporate America, she’d be repaying that $900k to Boeing and she’d be fired. In fact I’ve had a vice president reprimanded for exactly this – facilitating business in exchange for donations to her favorite nonprofit. But here at BJ, we think corporate ethics are far too strict.

  406. 406
    dollared says:

    @David Parsons: Yup, that is why we all think Donald Trump should be president. Because he doesn’t need the money. Yet another Republican talking point from the BJ commentariat. They just keep coming…..

  407. 407
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    Damn, I thought this thread was dead* 3 hours ago.

    *Like the horse they keep on beating.

  408. 408
    dollared says:

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: She has a choice of which supplicants to devote her time and effort and influence to support. A Big Company gives her family foundation a shitload of money. She uses her time and effort and influence to support Big Company’s business. I don’t think you understand – there is no further evidence needed. It is a fireable offense in most contexts.

  409. 409
    Bob In Portland says:

    @Miss Bianca:

    Fuck you, asshole.

    Sorry, someone else pulled this exact same poor-mouthing game a couple of weeks ago. Yes, maybe you live tucked under an overpass and only use the public library’s computers to get on the internet. And between scrounging in garbage cans or stealing bottles at night from people’s recycling you work yourself into an outrage because somewhere out there someone has besmirched the honor of Hillary Clinton. I got it. My pension mumble mumble.

  410. 410
    amk says:

    @BillinGlendaleCA:

    only 4/5th tbogg unit has been achieved. need some moar rants and whines about bj commentariat cluelessness to get to full tbogg. cheetos on the house.

  411. 411
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @Bob In Portland: Eh, what’s a pension?

  412. 412
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @dollared: Move to strike as unresponsive.

    What was the conflict of interest? What was the Corruption™?

    FAQ:

    How was Secretary Clinton involved with the Foundation and its partners while she was Secretary of State?

    Secretary Clinton was not involved in the work of the Foundation when she was serving as Secretary of State. During her time in office, she attended the Annual Meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative – as did many other national and international leaders, including heads of state, U.S. Cabinet members and President Obama himself.

    After leaving office, she served on the Board of Directors of the Foundation, and helped launch three initiatives:

    No Ceilings: The Full Participation Project is an initiative to inspire and advance the full participation of girls and women around the world;

    Too Small to Fail, is an initiative to help parents and businesses take meaningful actions to improve the health and well-being of children ages zero to five, so that more of America’s children are prepared to succeed in the 21st century;

    Job One, an effort to help close a critical gap in our country’s education and economic systems through business-designed and implemented training, hiring, and mentoring pathways for youth.

    […]

    Do the Clintons receive any income or personal expense reimbursement from the Foundation?

    No. President Clinton and Chelsea Clinton, who serve on the Board of Directors, do not take a salary from the Clinton Foundation and receive no funding from it. Secretary Clinton did not take a salary when she served on the Board of Directors.

    I’ll ask yet again – where’s the Corruption™? Where’s the “conflict of interest”? Show your work.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  413. 413
  414. 414
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet:

    Show your work.

    I think dollared will have to do work first.

  415. 415
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @dollared:

    She uses her time and effort and influence to support Big Company’s business.

    Reread #335 and tell me how the facts relate to your supposition above. Smarmy insinuations about Corruption™ aren’t evidence and aren’t a convincing argument.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  416. 416
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    I did my part to get to a TBogg. Someone else will need to take over. Should I mention mc… 3 times? ;-)

    Night all.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  417. 417
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Bob In Portland: “Oh, gee, Miss Bianca, whom I’ve just accused of being a faux feminist and a rich bitch…you must be *lying*. How do *I* know? I’m just talking out my ass, why would you call me on my shit? And if you’re *not* rich, why would you be in the pocket of BIG CLINTON?”

    Come on, Bob. I’m waiting. How much *do* you make? Is it more than $20,000 per year? How much in the pocket for Big Male are you? Where’s your goddam male/moral superiority now? Do I get to be a Real Feminist if I’m poorer than you, or is Faux-Feminisminity a state of mind to you? Oh, right…how could I forget already? I’M PROBABLY LYING TO MAKE SOME KIND OF POINT TO SOME STUPID SHITHEAD ON THE INTERNET. Because..,reasons, mumble mumble conspiracy Ukrainian fascists.

  418. 418
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Bob In Portland: That was a truly assholish comment. You should apologize.

  419. 419
    dollared says:

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Jesus. Dense. Here’s Wells Fargo: “It is not appropriate for you to influence, or attempt to influence, anyone for the purpose of having them handle a transaction or process in a way that results in an improper personal benefit to you, your friends, relatives, or even to that particular team member.”

    In other words, Secretary Clinton’s husband and daughter have an interest in the Foundation. Bang! Conflict of interest.

  420. 420
    Quaker in a Basement says:

    Would someone please just shoot the watermelon and settle this once and for all?

  421. 421
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: I had to click on the link to see which comment you were referring to, there’s so many of BiP’s assholish comments to choose from.

  422. 422
    BillinGlendaleCA says:

    @Quaker in a Basement: Is Dan Burton still with us?

  423. 423
    dollared says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Omnes, she’ll make a competent president and I’ll support her. But their naked pursuit of money and influence has always been distasteful, and you must admit they have been, well, not super careful about who they take money from, whatever the purpose.

    And the only reason I am filibustering this thread is because the crew really seems to be embracing Republican ethics about both conflicts of interest and about the acceptability of using politics to get rich. And since I always was glad I don’t live in Argentina, I find that makes me sad.

  424. 424
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @dollared: I disagree with you about the Clintons; I think they were as liberal as was possible in the ’90s. I expect the same now.

  425. 425
    dollared says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: I can pick many small examples where I think that your view of the 90s is overstated, but I get your drift. I do think that he didn’t need to do NAFTA, and he very clearly looked the other way when immigrants really were used to bust unions, particularly in construction and the meatpacking industry. However, her current militarism is wholly unnecessary. She didn’t need to sit on WalMart’s board. And Bill’s participation in fixed stock deals in for profit education was very slimy. And she doesn’t need to cozy up to Kissinger. It’s pretty clear she’s at best a market-based neoliberal and a hawk. Pretty close to a third term of Obama, with all the limiatations that entails.

  426. 426
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @dollared: If you want me to say that she is perfect. you will find silence. If you want me to say that she is the better candidate, I’ve done it already.

  427. 427
    dollared says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: more than fair.

  428. 428
    No One You Know says:

    @dollared: If you haven’t seen them, you don’t know. Isn’t that the point?

  429. 429
    cleek says:

    @dollared:

    he very clearly looked the other way when immigrants really were used to bust unions

    no, Sanders financier, American Crystal Sugar, didn’t use immigrants when they tried to bust up the union. they just locked em out. to great effect!

  430. 430
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @dollared:

    She didn’t need to sit on WalMart’s board.

    She didn’t need to be a voice for gender equity and environmentalism on the Wal Mart board, but, welp, there she was.

  431. 431
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @dollared: What was the “improper personal benefit” again?

    Show your work.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  432. 432
    J R in WV says:

    @Anonymous At Work:

    “Equal Times” aka the Fairness Doctrine worked fine for decades, until Ronald Reagan killed it off, so the Republican Party could use the ownership of the TV media by rich republicans to their advantage.

    We should strictly limit broadcast media whether land-based, cable, or sat-based as to the fairness of their broadcasts, lest distorted big lie techniques, already proven to work on mass populations, end our democracy and our freedoms as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow.

    The fairness doctrine worked for decades, and our politics were more healthy for it.

    One more thing to thank Saint Ronald Reaganous for, Fox news, all lies all the time….

    I can’t get over the fact that when a prominent Republican is arrested or other wise newsworthy for a negative reason, Fox always shows on the screen the name of the politician as Senator Smith, D-ST no matter now long and how famous the pol’s history with the R party may be. The first time I saw it, I was taken aback. The second and third time, I wanted to ensure that they couldn’t to weather forecasting any longer.

  433. 433
    John D says:

    @Bob In Portland:

    You ever wonder why someone would pay a politician that much money for a speech?

    I don’t know about her, but I don’t.

    Because I know how the fucking lecture circuit works. You keep sliming via innuendo, never giving any sort of evidence for corruption. So.

    Don’t answer this with a question. Explain to me how getting paid to speak is inherently corrupt. Explain to me how corrupt it is that an entertainer, an athlete, a politician and a celebrity can all be paid over a hundred thousand dollars to speak.

    I don’t want innuendo. I don’t want you to respond with anything about me. I just want you to answer the fucking question, for once. Why is speaking for cash inherently corrupt?

  434. 434
    El Caganer says:

    If big speaking fees automatically equate to influence peddling, how does one explain the five- and six-figure amounts that George W. Bush gets? Judging by the effect he had on his brother’s campaign, he wouldn’t seem to have a whole lot of political stroke. And I have a very hard time believing that people want to hear the keen insights he developed over his time in the White House.

  435. 435
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @El Caganer: No, see, it’s big speaking fees TO HILLARY CLINTON that equate to influence peddling. Because that’s just the kind of person she is. I mean, look at those big speaking fees for proof!

  436. 436
    Aimai says:

    @FlipYrWhig: my father sits on a bunch of boards. Recently he saw that one company was fucking over its female workers and pretending to the board they didnt know. So he sent them an official letter pointing this out, sent it to the womens lawyers, and resigned. A lot of good gets done on boards by good people. Also, iirc, walmart was ark largest employer at the time clinton sat on the board. It was also, at its start, not the predatory business it is now. To have the governors wife sit on the board of such a corporation might better be understood as putting a watchman in to keep the board focused on arkansas needs rather than a pay off.

  437. 437
    dollared says:

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: So. Dense. I’ve explained it to you and shown how it violates a standard Fortune 500 coi policy: Her family members got a $900k donation to their private foundation. Bang. If you think that private foundations cannot be exploited to enrich family members, then you are one stupid fuck. And if you think the rules operate on a basis of “just wait for ten years and see if the abuse actually occurred,” then you are even a stupider fuck.

  438. 438
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Aimai: Darn it, there you go again, bringing “nuance” and “complexity” into a very simple equation…get with the program, aimai: Walmart= Evil
    Clinton(s) (cause it’s *always* plural) = Corrupt
    Hillary Clinton + Walmart = EVIL AND CORRUPT!! Together! Again! At last!

  439. 439
    dollared says:

    @Aimai: At the time she was on the board, it was the most virulently anti union large corporation in America. It also fought successfully to block the largest sex discrimination case in history by writing the class action rules to exclude wronged classes of employees, essentially defanging plaintiffs discrimination class actions permanently. She dis mot resign in protest.

  440. 440
    El Caganer says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Indeed. If the argument got any more circular you could roll it down the street.

  441. 441
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @dollared: So your argument is:

    1) The Clinton Foundation has the name “Clinton” in it therefore, since HRC has the name Clinton, she is using it as a piggy bank.

    2) Someone who asks for actual evidence of #1 is “stupid” or “dense” or worse.

    You have no evidence of #1, and I’ve posted evidence to the contrary – namely that she (and WJC) get no salary from the CF – but you insist (again, without evidence) that it’s true.

    The CF is a legal entity that is separate from the Clintons. Donations to the CF are not payments to HRC or WJC or Chelsea. “Her family members” didn’t get the donation – the CF did. You’ve provided no evidence to the contrary.

    You have not posted any evidence to support your position that HRC has a Corrupt™ relationship with the CF, or has received an “improper personal benefit” from donors to it, and are reduced to name-calling when that is pointed out.

    Noted.

    Cheers,
    Scott.
    (Or as ALS might say, “Tracking”. ;-)

  442. 442
    dollared says:

    @El Caganer: you guys do realize that the very concept of conflict of interest very specifically excludes any requirement of proof of quid pro quo? Because it is almost impossible to prove. So for almost all of recorded history there has been a presumption that when somebody pays you, they expect something in return, so follow the money.

    But none of you objected when Clarence Thomas as a critical vote on all the health care lawsuits while his wife was making $500,000/year from anti-ACA lobbying groups, right? Because money doesn’t matter? Or when Dick Cheney got that $30M severance payment from Halliburton, and then they got those $25Billion in nobid contracts in the Iraq War, right? We trust all our betters, don’t we?

  443. 443
    dollared says:

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: You stupid fuck. It is a PRVATE FOUNDATION IN WHICH HER FAMILY MEMBERS ARE PAID AND HAVE A LEADERSHIP ROLE. AND NO EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL, DIRECT ENRICHMENT IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE TRANSFER TO A PRIVATE FOUNDATION CONNECTED TO HER FAMILY IS PER SE ILLEGAL UNDER ANY FORTUNE 500 CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY.

    Go Google “Per se.” And learn something. For once.

    I realize you are being deliberately stupid. But wow, shamelessness. It’s the Clinton way, I’m glad you’re learning..

  444. 444
    I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet says:

    @dollared: But her family members are not paid by the CF. I’ve posted links to prove that.

    Are you unable to read my posts due to some vision impairment? Or is it your rage at being questioned when you know The Truth™ that sets you off to the point that you cannot understand simple English sentences?

    Maybe you should pie me. It might help your blood pressure.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  445. 445
    dollared says:

    @I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: And that does not matter whether direct payment is involved. If they want to not have them be considered part of the private foundation, they need to resign their board positions and cease all public and private associations with it.

    Once they do that, they are free. Not until then. And then it’s probably not a private foundation. Try reading this, if you can: https://www.irs.gov/Charities-%26-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Private-Foundations

    Pretty apparent that you didn’t Google “Per Se. ” Get on that too, Mr. Proudly Ignorant.

  446. 446
    El Caganer says:

    @dollared: Boeing was involved in deals with KSA well before she was SOS. Boeing is still involved in deals with KSA. While I might prefer we beat our swords into plowshares, that’s not happening any time soon. It’s a conscious decision that has been made by a number of administrations to sell an assload of expensive weaponry to KSA despite the dreadful human rights record and ongoing war crimes in Yemen and support for various Salafi groups – if we don’t, the Russians or Chinese or French or Swedes would be delighted to take our place. The decision to sell weapons wasn’t hers to make alone.

  447. 447
    dollared says:

    @El Caganer: That at least is a cogent argument. The policy decision side of it is sad, but it is far less troubling than the payment to the foundation and its timing.

    Yeah, sucks that our only growth export industry is killing machines, but we’ve made 70 years of bad decisions leading to that reality…..

  448. 448
    feckless says:

    So Hillary Clinton is the same as your mother?

    Does your Mother hold office?
    If wall street is like the Catholic church, will they give me $800k to talk at them for 45 minutes?

    Does the Catholic Church brag that providing a charity hospital gives it access to political power? Have you seen the picture of the Clintons at Trump’s latest wedding?

    I like Harry Reid, but when his entire extended family are employed as lobbyists, it gets hard to believe he’s on my side.

  449. 449
    Grumpy Code Monkey says:

    There’s an old saying that goes something like, “if you can’t take their money and vote against them anyway, you don’t belong in politics.”

    Can money be corrupting? Oh hell yes. But to go from “accepted money for speeches” to “corporate whore” is a bit much. I’d like to see some evidence that Clinton’s votes in the Senate were unduly influenced by campaign contributions.

  450. 450
    DCF says:

    @dollared:

    HRC will, in all likelihood, be the Democratic Presidential nominee come November 2016. I’ve accepted that probability because it is, in all likelihood, the foreseeable outcome of the Democratic Party primary process. If this is indeed the case, I will vote for her as a bulwark against the ‘barbarians at the gates’….

    I can do this while at the same time acknowledging who/what HRC is under the harsh light(s) of past and present political/historical review. I would ask all Democrats/liberals/progressives not to engage in ahistorical revisionism regarding both the strengths and weaknesses of our likely nominee. Such an approach does not serve us well – tactically or strategically. We need to be candid – and honest – about the past policies, present position(s) and future direction(s) of our party.

    In the words of Larry Wilmore, let’s ‘keep it at 100’….


    Commentary — November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm
    Shaky Foundations
    The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.

    By Ken Silverstein

    https://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/

  451. 451
    Sophie says:

    @DCF:

    The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.

    By Ken Silverstein

    That? You’re posting that as evidence? Dear god, if Ken Silverstein wrote that Habitat for Humanity was obviously a slush fund for Jimmy Carter to spend on hookers and blow, would you believe it?

    I don’t know what Silverstein’s issue is (Clinton Derangement Syndrome? secret Koch funding? brain tumour?), but he is not somebody you want to cite as evidence. Breathless articles full of unnamed sources who say things at the Clinton Foundation sure look fishy..

    Look, I work in international development. That’s my job. I’m not just on the sidelines reading blog posts about stuff I don’t understand; this is my work. The Clinton Foundation and its associated entities are real, programmatic foundations doing real, lifesaving work. They are no more corrupt than the Gates Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies, the Packard Foundation, or, for that matter, Habitat for Humanity. Which is to say, they aren’t corrupt at all.

    Do you have any understanding of what the Clinton Foundation is actually doing? Do you care? Are you a ratfucker, or just a BernieBro who is so consumed with Clinton hate that you don’t give a shit about the lives being saved?

  452. 452
    Miss Bianca says:

    @Sophie: This. Thanks.

  453. 453
    dollared says:

    @Sophie: It isn’t just how you spend the money, it’s how you raised it. And as for spending the money, those of us close to the Gates Foundation fully understand what a mixed bag it is. Such as its billion dollar alliance with the Walton Family to bust the teacher’s unions and privatize public education in the US. http://nonprofitquarterly.org/.....democracy/

  454. 454
    Sophie says:

    @dollared:

    those of us close to the Gates Foundation

    Oh son. Oh my gosh. So, so funny.

    Did you not read the part where I said that I work in this sector? You’re actually trying to bullshit somebody who knows this stuff?

  455. 455
    lukeness says:

    Please read this item by David Dayen in The New Republic.

  456. 456
    Cleos says:

    I’d say “cue the mighty chorus of excuses”, but I’m two days too late. Damn that job; they expect me to show up!

  457. 457
    Cleos says:

    @Mike J: Won’t work. Men are supposed to be the ones to drag women to wherever they want them to go.

    Very unfeminine of her, not to let the boy win.

  458. 458
    Cleos says:

    @Keith G:

    Oh and the entire enterprise will be smoother if some on the Hillary side would consider enjoying her win with dignity

    .

    Yes, we should celebrate quietly, at home. Too bad it’s so difficult to sip tea while wearing a burqua but there’s just nothing to be done about that.

Comments are closed.