Is there a plan B if HRC slips

[awake]

While not saying this will bring Hillary down it is "one more thing"

"WASHINGTON (AP) — The newly released financial files on Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton's growing fortune omit a company with no apparent employees or assets that the former president has legally used to provide consulting and other services,...."

http://news.yahoo.com/bill-clinton-company-shows-complexity-family-finances-180745584--election.html

How many more shoes will drop before real damage is done? We should not take for granted that HRC will be our best nominee, having a good plan B would be a good idea. Thoughts on our best backup plan.

[leftofcool]

1. More right wing hit pieces against Bill Clinton and his charity.

The media never tires of this.

[awake]

3. This was posted from a AP report

Just calling everything a right wing hit does not answer my question what is our backup plan if one of the "hits" on Hillary sinks her

[leftofcool]

13. And yet it still came from a right wing source.

And yes, the hit pieces on Bill Clinton ALL come from RW sources. That's what they do. They have all received their orders from Rove, Limbaugh and the rest of the ilk.

[awake]

26. I do not think the AP is a right wing source

Are you suggesting that Rove or Limbaugh keep Hillary from disclosing the "JWC LLC" on her disclosure report. I am not saying that she "Broke any laws" just that by not disclosing everything she left herself open to attack, I am sure this will not be the last attack but lets hope that there are no more self inflicted mistakes.

"WJC, LLC was set up in Delaware in 2008 and again in 2013 and in New York in 2009, according to documents obtained by The AP. The company did not appear among holdings in the Clintons' financial disclosure released last week or in previous Hillary Clinton disclosure reports between 2008 and 2013, when she resigned as secretary of state."

[leftofcool]

33. Keep trying!

Because I am so sure that most voters care so much about Bill Clinton's holdings or charities. This story has already been pretty much debunked, even on Morning Scumbag. But, you keep trying.

[peacebird]

40. You are changing your reasoning. AP is not a rightwing source, so you pivot....

[NYC_SKP]

50. Look! "the hit pieces on Bill Clinton ALL come from RW sources."

And that's that!

If it's a hit piece on a Clinton, it's a rightwing source!!!

That is all!!!

[snooper2]

37. LOL, the article brings up the same issue we pounded on Mitt Rmoney about-

If you had read it...

It's okay-


MARTIN O'MALLEY

[KamaAina]

79. They're even trying to connect the Clinton Foundation to the FIFA scandal!!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/27/corrupt-fifa-has-clinton-foundation-ties-world-cup-host-qatar-gave-millions.html

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. There are other folks running in the Democratic primary.

To refer to them as 'plan B' is pretty dismissive. Also, anyone who already supports HRC is just going to say this is nothing more than 'Benghazi smear talk' - ie, that they'll say there's no 'there' there.

[awake]

5. I did not intend it to be dismissive of other any other candidates

I just wanted the people who assume that Hillary's win is a "done deal" to look at who else is available and consider who they could support if one of the "Hits on Hillary" sink her.

[JoePhilly]

4. Yawn.

An LLC that uses Bills initials, WJC.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Joe Biden is the Plan B in the highly, highly... highly unlikely scenario Hillary falters

Here's a stat to ponder... Bill Clinton received 54% of the two party vote in 1996 in spite of the fact that exit polls suggested 54% of voters didn't find him "honest and trustworthy."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/newsdesk/why-hillary-clinton-doesn-t-need-americans-to-trust-her-20150506


That suggests to me voters will overlook a lot if they think you are competent.

[awake]

7. Yes but 1996 was a 3 person race and Hillary does not have the "New face" that Bill had in 96

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. How can an incumbent president have a new face?

Who do you believe is our plan B?

[awake]

10. I stand corrected it was 92 not 96 that he was a "new face"

I think there is more than one person who can win the Whitehorse, I am not backing anyone yet, I would like to hear the thoughts of others as to who would be our best shot to not only keep the Whitehorse but to retake the congress as well.

[AtomicKitten]

11. He won with 49.23% of the vote, not 54%.

54% said he wasn't trustworthy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Reading is fundamental

" Bill Clinton received 54% of the two party vote in 1996 ..."

-DemocratSinceBirth

[AtomicKitten]

18. Yes, it is and that's not what the link reads.

Last edited Wed May 27, 2015, 03:32 PM - Edit history (2)

The quote you cite is not in the article you linked to. It was not a 2-party contest. The only 54% mentioned was the percentage of voters that said he wasn't trustworthy.

This is what the quote says in the article you posted that you are misquoting:

"On the day Bill Clinton was reelected by more than eight million votes in 1996, a solid 54 percent majority of voters said in exit polling that they did not consider him honest and trustworthy."

1) http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1996 49.23%
2) http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1992 43.01%

Bill Clinton never broke 50% in 1992 or 1996.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Right, because he ran in three candidate races

Right, because he ran in three candidate races where in one instance the third party candidate received a greater percentage of the vote than any candidate since the "hero of San Juan Hill" and in the other instance the same candidate won a larger percentage of the vote than any third party candidate since George Wallace.

" Bill Clinton received 54% of the two party vote in 1996..."

-DemocratSinceBirth

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

-John Adams

[AtomicKitten]

25. Try being less snotty and read your own link.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. I read my link at least twice.

Clinton 49

Dole 41

Perot 8

"Bill Clinton received 54% of the two party vote in 1996..."

[awake]

30. The key point that many forget both times Bill Clinton won the Whitehorse were 3 person races

We will never know if he would have won in a 2 person race

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. "We will never know if he would have won in a 2 person race"

If Mr. Perot had not been on the ballot, 38 percent of his voters said, they would have voted for Gov. Bill Clinton, and 38 percent said they would have voted for President Bush. Of the 31 states where Mr. Perot garnered more than 20 percent, 17 were won by Mr. Clinton and 14.

...

Charts: "What Perot's Voters Said" That if Ross perot had not been on the ballot today, they would have voted for?... Clinton 38 Bush 38 Other 6 Would not have voted 14



http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/05/us/1992-elections-disappointment-analysis-eccentric-but-no-joke-perot-s-strong.html

[truebluegreen]

42. Nah ga happen.

[AtomicKitten]

70. apparently

[ieoeja]

74. Since DSB would rather be difficult than simply explain his point ...

... I will do it for him.

While Clinton only got 49.23% of the total vote, he got 54.73% of the "two party" vote.

47,400,125 = Votges for Clinton/Gore
39,188,755 = Votes for Dole/Kemp
86,598,880 = 47,400,125 + 39,188,755 = Total votes cast for only the two major party candidates
96,275,640 = Total votes cast for all candidates

54.73% = 47,400,125 / 86,598,880
49.23% = 47,400,125 / 96,275,640

[AtomicKitten]

75. He misquoted his own link.

Last edited Wed May 27, 2015, 06:26 PM - Edit history (2)

The article never mentioned a 2-party vote, but did say 54% of voters on exit polling said Bill Clinton wasn't trustworthy.

The computation of a "2-party vote" is kinda silly when it wasn't a 2-party election. Clinton never broke 50% in either multiparty election; the facts don't fit the theory. Methinks it's a magic trick to restate reality to sound better. LOL.

[awake]

76. This is a straw man 1992 and 1996 were 3 party races (so was 2000 with Nader)

By this logic one could say Bill won 100% of the vote if it had been one party race

[karynnj]

81. Your logic - rather than admitting you were wrong is convoluted

I get your definition of Bill Clinton winning 54 percent of the sum of the votes for the Republican and the Democrat. However, why then compare it with 54% of the total population that did not find him honest -- as if the two percents were from the same population?

Given that the economy was doing well and we were at peace and the Republicans chose a person who had been the hatchet man of the party for years and was quite unlikable, it may well explain why he did not win in a landslide.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. My statement was correct

I may not be as smart as some of the denizens of this august board are or think they are but I can interpret numbers.



I don't need to be condescended to by anyone.

[karynnj]

83. In a truly Clintonian way, it is literally true

- as my comment said. It also said that it was then strange to compare two percentages when they were off two different populations. I would ask if you were the one trying to be clever by creating an unusual measure - the % the Democrat got - not of the total vote but of the vote that voted for one of the 2 major parties.

For good measure, add to the description I wrote of the 1996 election and the natural advantages Clinton had, that he is considered to be a political genius. Yet, all this added to less 50%.

[TheNutcracker]

60. Foot n mouth Biden will never beat Bernie 'never waste a syllable'!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. Joe Biden has a great resume, has served our Democratic president with verve and devotion.

He is a good man.

[MohRokTah]

9. I love how wingnut hit pieces against the Clintons gain so much lavish praise here. eom

[FSogol]

12. Yeah, that's pretty pathetic.

This is for you, DU.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. It is what it is...

I see your candidate is getting in the race on Saturday, good luck to him... I also see the Nat'ls are doing good in the standings.

[FSogol]

19. Thanks, the amount of time between the announcement and official announcement is frustrating.

(but I do recognize it is important for fund raising reasons.)

[leftofcool]

28. I am glad to see O'Malley getting in the race.

I hope he does well. I might support Hillary but would love to see O'Malley do well in the polls because I think even if he does not win, his run now may very well be a good start fora later run. If Hillary wins, I would also love to see him as a contender for VP. He has an awesome record on the environment.

[awake]

17. Unfortunately most of the hits on Hillary at this time are self inflicted

So far we have yet to see the real bullshit that the right-wingers will throw at Hillary or any candidate we choose.

I am not saying that Hillary should or should not be our candidate but her campaign has not gone as smoothly as I would have thought it would have up till now. I feel we need to view to situation honestly and be aware that the Clintons have inflicted on them selfs a number of missteps which are coming back to hound them.

[MohRokTah]

24. .

It's all rehash of much ado about nothing. We've been here before. It didn't stick then it won't stick now.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. I don't believe most persuadable voters care nearly, nearly, nearly...nearly

I don't believe most persuadable voters care nearly, nearly, nearly...nearly as much about the Clinton's finances as they do about their own. My belief will be tested soon.

[NCTraveler]

15. "How many more shoes will drop before real damage is done? "

No shoes have dropped. Starting with a false narrative will lead the rest of your thoughts to be false. Right wingers heads are exploding. It is a beautiful thing.

[hughee99]

20. Nothing to see here, this sort of thing

Is only an issue when republicans do it.

[Man from Pickens]

21. Hillary is inevitable

no amount of evidence pointing to one of the largest pay-for-play political operations in history can bring her down! Kneel and pay tribute (or you go on The List).

[MosheFeingold]

58. Pretty sure I am on The List

I really don't understand the loyalty she gets here.

She's possibly the most damaged candidate in the history of modern politics, and the Repugs haven't even warmed up the first attack ad.

[FSogol]

22. All 3 of the Democratic candidates would make a fine President.

You can't say that about any of the 20 GOP people running. If a front runner falters or drops out, we have other great candidates. We will see how the primaries play out. Zero need for a plan B.

[oberliner]

34. All 3?

I thought there were only two so far.

[FSogol]

38. Martin O'Malley officially announces Saturday. He's already leased 7,500 sq ft of office in Balt,

hired a finance manager, and a campaign manager (Bill Hyers, who ran De Blasio's campaigns).

Bernie Sanders officially announced yesterday and you may have heard that HRC is running too.

Why do I support O'Malley?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12813
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12814

[oberliner]

39. Cool

I will read up on him.

[awake]

45. Point taken we do have 3 good people running

Joe Biden May still run he has said he won't

So if any of them go down we have a great bench to go to unlike the clowns on the right

[one_voice]

49. This is true. n/t

[drm604]

31. What is the problem here?

I read the article and it seems to be a lot of hand-waving about nothing. The Clinton's finances are complex? Okay. So? It doesn't say that they're trying to hide income, it just tries to imply that there must be something shady but never says exactly what. Which is what the right has been doing to the Clinton's for years.

[awake]

44. When Hillary decided not to disclose everything she opened herself up to attack

If this was the only thing that she did no problem but with her using a home email server, which she then wiped clean giving paper copies of emails to the state department instead of electronic copies which are simpler to search, messing up reports about the Clinton foundation... her desire to keep everything private has created an impression that she has something to hide which has left her open to attack. I wish she would be more straight forward and less secretive it would service her and our party better.

[drm604]

46. There was nothing to disclose.

This was a legal company with no assets. What was there to disclose?

This is just people looking for something, anything, to criticize her for.

If this is what they come up with then it shows that they're having difficulty finding any legitimate complaints. Their strategy is reduced to finding anything that can be somehow framed as problematic. Then, when they amass a number of such things, any attempt to dismiss any one of them is countered by "sure, it's small, but there's so many of them!"

It doesn't matter how many there are. If each one is innocent and unfairly characterized then the whole mass of them are. Adding zeros gives you zero regardless of how many there are.

[awake]

47. From the AP report

"The company did not appear among holdings in the Clintons' financial disclosure released last week or in previous Hillary Clinton disclosure reports between 2008 and 2013, when she resigned as secretary of state."....

"Pass-through, or shell, companies became an issue in the 2012 presidential campaign when Republican candidate Mitt Romney disclosed a private equity entity worth $1.9 million despite failing to report the company on his previous federal disclosure. Romney aides said the company previously held no assets but then received the $1.9 million "true up" payment — a catch-up payment to make up for private equity fees from defunct investment advisory businesses that had not been previously paid."

I never said anything was illegal but when Hillary decided not to disclose the LLC she needlessly opened herself up to questioning like was done with Mitt Romney in 2012. I hope that she does not hold back anything else even if there are no "legal" requirement to disclose, in my mind better to not even appear to have something to hide.

[CountAllVotes]

32. Plan B = BERNIE!!!

[peacebird]

41. He's my Plan A!

[CountAllVotes]

80. :)

[spanone]

35. mouse doo doo

[rock]

43. Dropping empty shoes does no real damage

And from the first, the RW has been brainless, dickless, hopeless, and toothless with it's accusations against Hillary.

[Cali_Democrat]

48. Plan B is the winner of the most delegates.

Simple.

Easy peasy.

[Doctor_J]

51. Clinton will cruise to the nomination and the white house

As shown in this thread, no amount of exposure of her shady history or status as the quintessential insider will diminish her in the eyes of her fans. She is also the choice of wall street and their Big Media subsidiary. She won't do anything to upset the current (im)balance of power, and will have a republican congress to use as cover for enacting a turd way agenda.

No plan b needed

[NYC_SKP]

52. .

OMG!

[NYC_SKP]

53. OMG, this is a classic Tax Dodge!!!

Among the revelations turned up following the latest round of financial disclosures by Bill and Hillary Clinton is that the former president started a limited liability "pass-through" company titled WJC, LLC.

The company has no listed financial assets and no employees, the Associated Press reported, and Hillary Clinton's campaign was not legally required to report its existence in campaign finance reports. Its purpose, according to the AP story, was to channel payments for consulting work to the former president.

In some cases, consultants and lawyers—including former presidential candidates John Edwards and Newt Gingrich—have used pass-through entities to avoid payroll taxes. They do that by classifying their earnings as profit distributions instead of wages. It's not clear if Bill Clinton used that strategy or a similar one through his LLC, but the former president's press secretary said Tuesday that there was nothing unusual about the company.

"President Clinton set up a commonly used mechanism to manage his personal business affairs," Angel Urena, said in an e-mailed statement. "All of the income has been reported and is accounted for. Anyone trying to paint this as anything more than that is playing politics."

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-26/what-we-know-about-wjc-llc-bill-clinton-s-consulting-company

State Department officials approved Bill Clinton's consulting work for longtime friend Steve Bing's Shangri-La Industries and another with Wasserman Investments, GP, a firm run by entertainment executive and Democratic party donor Casey Wasserman. The ethics officials turned down Bill Clinton's proposed work with a firm run by entertainment magnate and Democratic donor Haim Saban because of Saban's active role in Mideast political affairs.

WJC, LLC was also cited by Band in a June 2011 memo sent to State Department ethics officials asking for clearance to allow Bill Clinton to advise Band's international consulting company, Teneo Strategy LLC. Band's request said Teneo would use "consulting services provided by President Clinton through WJC, LLC." State Department officials approved the three-year contract between the two companies.

None of the proposals detailed how much Bill Clinton would be paid.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_CLINTON_COMPANY?SITE=OKTUL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

No worries. Romney did it, too.

Pass-through, or shell, companies became an issue in the 2012 presidential campaign when Republican candidate Mitt Romney disclosed a private equity entity worth $1.9 million despite failing to report the company on his previous federal disclosure. Romney aides said the company previously held no assets but then received the $1.9 million "true up" payment - a catch-up payment to make up for private equity fees from defunct investment advisory businesses that had not been previously paid.

[COLGATE4]

77. In no way is this a "tax dodge".

An LLC is by definition a company whose profits and losses pass directly through to its owners ("Members&quot and, as such, are declared on the Member's personal income tax return. The major advantages of an LLC are 1) no double taxation, such as would occur if the business were a corporation and 2) extremely limited liability for the Members, just like a corporation.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

54. Slips like in

slips and falls ?

[obnoxiousdrunk]

59. I hope that doesn't

happen to her or people wishing it to happen to her.

[NYC_SKP]

62. It is used as a metaphor not to be taken literally.

nt

[upaloopa]

55. Since none of this matters why should you care?

There will be many more gotcha incidents before 2016. None if them amount to a hill of horse shit!
Bengazi anyone!

[awake]

63. I care because I do not want a candidate who makes decisions that come back and bit them

There is plenty of false bullshit that will be flung by the right wing no need to create questions of your truthfulness by failing to disclose your finances or action you have taken even if no "laws were broken"

If anyone here thinks that any of our candidates will have a cakewalk to the White House WAKE UP it will be a hard slog against a well financed wall of lies thrown at whom ever we chose, so lets get it right and not assume that none of the mistakes will mater.

[upaloopa]

66. Ok you don't want Hillary so you come here and spread

a lot of anti Hillary horse shit. It won't make one dent in her campaign or popularity.

[awake]

73. I do want Hillary to run a better campaign

I have not said that I do not want Hillary or any other candidate, I am asking Hillary to step up her game and stop with the self inflicted wounds by "forgetting" to disclose information. I want people not to be "True believers" and assume that no one will care about her lack of disclosing information. I feel that with all of the money and support Hillary has a masted we would have seen a stronger campaign by now, but what I get here "do not question her" shut up and get back in line otherwise I must be some part of a right wing conspiracy.

[donf]

56. Hillary IS my "plan B!"

[DanTex]

64. If this kind of total non-issue is the best the GOP can smear her with, there won't

be any need for a plan B.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. + 1

[stevenleser]

67. If it comes to that, Joe Biden is a built in and obvious plan B. nt

[Android3.14]

68. Plan B?

Treat with willful ignore-ence perhaps?

[LanternWaste]

69. Plan A is one's preferred candidate. Plan B is one's second-in-preference candidate.

Plan A is one's preferred candidate. Plan B is one's second-in-preference candidate. Plan C is one's third-in-preference candidate.

Simplistic thoughts, I know. But sometimes, we have to wrap our brains around the obvious and simple concepts to avoid looking insincere, disingenuous and somewhat half-educated when we post-- unless of course, that was our goal the entire time...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. Sure there is. It's tried and true. Blame the Left.

[madokie]

72. Plan Bernie

is my plan A. Nothing else matters. Bernie has no skeletons in his closet, that you can bet on otherwise they'd already surfaced by now.

Bernie will win by the biggest landslide in American History.

[KamaAina]

78. Funny you should mention Plan B. B is for...