Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

dooner

(1,217 posts)
Sat May 7, 2016, 12:59 PM May 2016

From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer

Hope we are all prepared to deal with Clinton family baggage if HRC becomes our candidate.

Last year, The Atlantic (once considered a slightly left-leaning publication, now considered centrist) published a primer on Clinton scandals.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

I think it's safe to assume that Trump and the Republicans are very aware of these "scandals" and more, and will be bringing it all up in a most unflattering light in the next few months. All of this "scandal" biz contributes to why Bernie's supporters believe HRC cannot (and probably should not) be elected. Are HRC supporters ignoring the scandal and bad judgement? Or are they correct that there is nothing wrong and this doesn't matter?

Here's a few other stories with information guaranteed to cause trouble for HRC on her way to the White House.

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

http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline

*Edited because I realized the Atlantic story was from a year ago. Still relevant, but lacking new info on emails.


57 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer (Original Post) dooner May 2016 OP
Oh damn griffi94 May 2016 #1
You know who doesn't know the older.stuff? Voters under 40. cali May 2016 #2
So why not present the fact that none of amounted to squat? BootinUp May 2016 #7
none of amounted to squat? serious? floppyboo May 2016 #33
You know who doesn't care? griffi94 May 2016 #12
The primary is not the general. cali May 2016 #18
That is correct griffi94 May 2016 #20
Yes, she does good compared to Trump, but 3x less than Bernie nationally floppyboo May 2016 #35
So what griffi94 May 2016 #36
Yes, we are agreeing! Hillary beats Trump. floppyboo May 2016 #38
I agree Trump will lose griffi94 May 2016 #39
The difference is Cruz dropped out, and never had a chance anyways whereas Sanders floppyboo May 2016 #52
"Hillary still crushed Sanders." dchill May 2016 #4
It is over griffi94 May 2016 #10
You wouldn't even know how to win gracefully. dchill May 2016 #14
I really don't worry that much about being graceful. griffi94 May 2016 #16
1978-79: Cattle Futures. A person born that year would be 38 years old today. CentralCoaster May 2016 #3
The author of the OP wants to be sure EVERYONE knows about this. Buzz Clik May 2016 #6
Although it happened in 78/79, it wasn't public knowledge until 1994. thesquanderer May 2016 #8
How many journalists are going to be dredging up old stories from the nineties Nye Bevan May 2016 #22
Wiki catnhatnh May 2016 #29
It's important for DUers to keep the ball rolling. Buzz Clik May 2016 #5
Pizza soon come CorkySt.Clair May 2016 #13
July 29th latest... revmclaren May 2016 #24
Unfortunately it isn't just RW bs dooner May 2016 #47
What I'm going to provide (when the time comes) is justification for your banishment. Buzz Clik May 2016 #48
Results... Major Nikon May 2016 #49
when has the Atlantic EVER been considered even slightly left? niyad May 2016 #9
When they ran many articles critical of Bush dooner May 2016 #43
FFS, you couldn't find any handly links from Freeperville or Red State? n/t SFnomad May 2016 #11
Redstate.com is pro-Hillary, fyi. I'm not sure about FreeRepublic. Electric Monk May 2016 #31
They are certainly not "pro Hillary" ... but Erick Erickson is definately anti tRump SFnomad May 2016 #34
I don't visit there.. dooner May 2016 #45
That headline sounds like something out of Free Republic. Beacool May 2016 #15
It's actually a Factcheck Timeline and is pretty favorable to Hillary KoKo May 2016 #41
You nailed the problem dooner May 2016 #44
Did you forget to post about when Hillary killed Vince Foster? COLGATE4 May 2016 #17
You must have some interesting sources dooner May 2016 #46
Well, since the Bernie folks are replaying all the oldies and goodies COLGATE4 May 2016 #57
Hillary likes to talk about "getting things done", but the only things that will get done 99th_Monkey May 2016 #19
There's That..See Post #54. n't KoKo May 2016 #51
This message was self-deleted by its author 99th_Monkey May 2016 #55
WOW. This "Whitewater", "Benghazi", and "Vince Foster" stuff is FASCINATING new material. Nye Bevan May 2016 #21
Sad how HRC divides democrats so bitterly dooner May 2016 #23
Post removed Post removed May 2016 #25
Do you mean those same Democrats griffi94 May 2016 #27
Oh bullshit. nt Codeine May 2016 #30
Wasn't this posted originally on FR dlwickham May 2016 #26
I wouldn't know dooner May 2016 #28
if you had posted any facts, that would be one thing dlwickham May 2016 #32
Apparently you didn't read.. dooner May 2016 #37
It would be helpful if people who reply would READ before replying... KoKo May 2016 #53
it's bullshit dlwickham May 2016 #56
I've read dlwickham May 2016 #54
There's more than enough garbage in her voting record... TCJ70 May 2016 #40
Post removed Post removed May 2016 #42
This is a very chilling read from "Harpers" titled "Shaky Foundations" KoKo May 2016 #50

griffi94

(3,733 posts)
1. Oh damn
Sat May 7, 2016, 01:05 PM
May 2016

I never heard about any of this before hahahahaha.

None of this is new.
The Clintons have been the target
of multiple witch hunts since Bill had the nerve to
become president and win re-election.

Interesting point tho.
In spite of all these "scandals" Hillary still crushed Sanders.
I guess most people either think it's all crap or they don't think
it matters either way.

floppyboo

(2,461 posts)
33. none of amounted to squat? serious?
Sat May 7, 2016, 04:08 PM
May 2016

She may have been Teflon - those around her, not so much.

Also, what about 'inappropriately taking' 141K worth of things from the WH Bill was indicted? Politifact says mostly false claims, which also means, partly true. It's really no wonder her favourability ratings are where they are. And it isn't just the right wing. If you watch the above indie doc, (yes, that means take with a grain of salt - but remain open) you'll see Carter was also appalled at many of the Clinton's behaviours. When you own the media, sowing forgetfulness and RW conspiracies are part of the job.

griffi94

(3,733 posts)
12. You know who doesn't care?
Sat May 7, 2016, 01:37 PM
May 2016

The millions more voters that chose Hillary over Bernie.

And they're still not going to care after Bernie goes back to the senate.

griffi94

(3,733 posts)
20. That is correct
Sat May 7, 2016, 01:55 PM
May 2016

But she polls ahead of Trump in the GE as well.

Bernie gave it a good shot.
He's had his 15 minutes.

Muckraking non scandals from 25 years ago isn't going to change
the fact that Bernie lost.

The superdelegates aren't going to flip.

He's finished. Even he knows it.
That's why he didn't rule out being her VP if he were asked.

floppyboo

(2,461 posts)
35. Yes, she does good compared to Trump, but 3x less than Bernie nationally
Sat May 7, 2016, 04:12 PM
May 2016

So, if you want to hedge your bets...
Here's the swing states from latest polls on Real Clear Politics (ie - the ones dems NEED to win):

from RealClearPolitics. Sorry it's not in a pretty frame.

state Sanders Trump spread (Hillary spread)

National 56 40 16 (6)
Florida 50 42 8* (5)
New York 56.7 33.5 23.2 (21)
Penn 51.3 38 13.3 (8)
Ohio 46.3 42 4.3 (3)
Michigan 55 36 19* (10)
NCarolina 46 43 3* (2)
Virginia 49 36 13* (10)
NewHamp 58 31 27* (8)
WI 52 33 19* (11)
Iowa 49 40 9 (7)

*took the most recent instead of average, where averages do not reflect the last 3 months

floppyboo

(2,461 posts)
38. Yes, we are agreeing! Hillary beats Trump.
Sat May 7, 2016, 04:36 PM
May 2016

You were talking about the GE and likely outcomes, no? And so, all conjecture for now. What's wrong with looking at the Bernie matrix? Something to consider by any level headed person more concerned with the future of a country than the future of a candidate I think. But, I'm sure there are other ways to weigh things. Trump will loose. Vigilance required.

griffi94

(3,733 posts)
39. I agree Trump will lose
Sat May 7, 2016, 04:40 PM
May 2016

but there's no reason to look at the Bernie Matrix.

I'm not trying to sound snarky but it's the same reason there's no reason to look
at the Cruz Matrix.

The race is between Hillary and Trump.

Everything else is a footnote at this point.

And yes vigilance is required.

floppyboo

(2,461 posts)
52. The difference is Cruz dropped out, and never had a chance anyways whereas Sanders
Sat May 7, 2016, 08:19 PM
May 2016

has not dropped out, and while his chances are slim to next to none, he is still a legitimate contender. I admire the fact that he is willing to carry on and have the votes counted across the US so that the Democratic Party will have a somewhat better idea of where its base is. (I say somewhat because the base extends beyond registered party members, most evident in open primaries - and numbers are needed!)

dchill

(38,465 posts)
4. "Hillary still crushed Sanders."
Sat May 7, 2016, 01:19 PM
May 2016

You just go on believing that. First of all, it's not even over, yet. Second, Clinton's meager lead could never be reasonably construed as "crushing."

When the FBI report comes out, then we can have a conversation about who is/has been crushed.

griffi94

(3,733 posts)
10. It is over
Sat May 7, 2016, 01:36 PM
May 2016

Meager lead? Hahahahahaha
She's up 300 delegates and over 3 million votes.

Yeah I'm sure the indictment fairy will be along any minute.
That's the same wishful thinking that fueled all the made up scandals in this OP.

She's not going to be indicted.
She is going to be president.

Bernies 15 minutes are over.
Even he knows it.

griffi94

(3,733 posts)
16. I really don't worry that much about being graceful.
Sat May 7, 2016, 01:44 PM
May 2016

Bernie was rejected.

RW talking points from 25 years ago aren't going to change that.

Pretending he got really close doesn't make it reality.
She's been way ahead since Super Tuesday.

The superdelegates aren't going to flip.
The indictment is wishful thinking.

Bernie lost. End of story.

 

CentralCoaster

(1,163 posts)
3. 1978-79: Cattle Futures. A person born that year would be 38 years old today.
Sat May 7, 2016, 01:17 PM
May 2016

A person of voting age that year would be 56 years old today.

How many registered voters know nothing about these scandals and questionable business deals???

Most people under 56 probably has never heard of these things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
6. The author of the OP wants to be sure EVERYONE knows about this.
Sat May 7, 2016, 01:24 PM
May 2016

Ignorance is no excuse -- just put it out there.

thesquanderer

(11,982 posts)
8. Although it happened in 78/79, it wasn't public knowledge until 1994.
Sat May 7, 2016, 01:29 PM
May 2016

So people who were old enough to be politically aware in 1994 may be aware of it. Voting age in 1994 would be 40 today. Certainly many people under 56 should know of it. But yeah, probably not too many millennials.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
22. How many journalists are going to be dredging up old stories from the nineties
Sat May 7, 2016, 02:00 PM
May 2016

that anyone can find on the Google news archives?

catnhatnh

(8,976 posts)
29. Wiki
Sat May 7, 2016, 03:56 PM
May 2016

In a Fall 1994 paper for the Journal of Economics and Finance, economists from the University of North Florida and Auburn University investigated the odds of gaining a hundred-fold return in the cattle futures market during the period in question. Using a model that was stated to give the hypothetical investor the benefit of the doubt, they concluded that the odds of such a return happening were at best 1 in 31 trillion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
5. It's important for DUers to keep the ball rolling.
Sat May 7, 2016, 01:23 PM
May 2016

Repost RW bullshit so that we are "prepared."

You're doing a great service.

dooner

(1,217 posts)
47. Unfortunately it isn't just RW bs
Sat May 7, 2016, 06:23 PM
May 2016

There are plenty of good democrats who are concerned about it.

So you need to provide better talking points about things like HRC's private email server and how the Clinton Foundation is funded, because you're going to need more than insults to convince other voters not to worry about it. And you're going to need those voters to win an election.

All I'm hearing are insults for asking questions. Nobody has anything to say about why it was OK for the Secretary of State to send emails from a private server rather than a secure .gov server.

And nobody seems to be worried that it doesn't look good when foreign governments give your family's "foundation" large sums of money when you are Secretary of State making decisions about how to deal with issues in those same countries.

 

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)
48. What I'm going to provide (when the time comes) is justification for your banishment.
Sat May 7, 2016, 06:36 PM
May 2016

We'll deal with the GOP at the same time.

Major Nikon

(36,827 posts)
49. Results...
Sat May 7, 2016, 07:09 PM
May 2016

On Sat May 7, 2016, 06:56 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

What I'm going to provide (when the time comes) is justification for your banishment.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1920117

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

No comments added by alerter

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat May 7, 2016, 07:07 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Just stupid BS. No one should take it personally.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Threatening another DUer is inappropriate.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No comments were provided by the juror
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No comment = leave.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Please provide an explanation for the alert. They aren't usually so clear cut as not to need one.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

 

SFnomad

(3,473 posts)
34. They are certainly not "pro Hillary" ... but Erick Erickson is definately anti tRump
Sat May 7, 2016, 04:08 PM
May 2016

Their "support" for Secretary Clinton is only as far as they don't want tRump in the White House. You can rest assured that the day that Hillary Clinton is declared the next President of the United States, they will go back to their typical right wingnut ways.

dooner

(1,217 posts)
45. I don't visit there..
Sat May 7, 2016, 05:45 PM
May 2016

I try to educate myself by reading a variety of more reputable news sources.

Where do you like to get your information?

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
41. It's actually a Factcheck Timeline and is pretty favorable to Hillary
Sat May 7, 2016, 05:12 PM
May 2016

since you didn't take the time to read the article before criticizing it.

The "Atlantic" is a very well respected Magazine..now Online. They have an excellent interview with Barack Obama by Jeffrey Goldberg up on their site, now, and have published many articles from varying viewpoints which is what a good "Zine" does.

The only questions they feel may be a problem for the future with Hillary/Bill are the Clinton Foundations possible conflicts with Hillary's role as SOS.

It's a mild read but an interesting one. I can't imagine Hillary's supporters getting freaked out by anything in the article, if they take the time to read it.

dooner

(1,217 posts)
44. You nailed the problem
Sat May 7, 2016, 05:32 PM
May 2016

They don't seem to actually read anything.

I agree with you that the Atlantic "primer" is actually pretty favorable to Hillary.. and shows how
much she's been attacked by the right for things that were never proven and eventually died down.

The Harpers article seems very anti-Cllinton, and the link in that story to another on Sidney Blumenthal is interesting reading but pretty vicious.

The Thompson Timeline is a lot to digest but seems more balanced and very factual.

I'm concerned that the Clinton Foundation influence/dealings combined with the private/shared server could spell trouble for Dems.

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
17. Did you forget to post about when Hillary killed Vince Foster?
Sat May 7, 2016, 01:44 PM
May 2016

I heard it was with her bare hands - and then she drank his blood.

dooner

(1,217 posts)
46. You must have some interesting sources
Sat May 7, 2016, 05:57 PM
May 2016

You should probably stick with more reputable ones..

Vince Foster and Clintons' Travelgate were covered pretty well by PBS in a Frontline episode.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/etc/foster.html

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
57. Well, since the Bernie folks are replaying all the oldies and goodies
Sat May 7, 2016, 09:34 PM
May 2016

I didn't want them to forget that one. It might actually persuade some voter somewhere to vote for Bernie.

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
19. Hillary likes to talk about "getting things done", but the only things that will get done
Sat May 7, 2016, 01:54 PM
May 2016

are rearguard actions fighting off indictments and impeachment proceedings ...
NOT what our nation needs right now.

She loves to play the victim card whining about "right-wing attacks" but much
of this she's brought onto herself, with a lot of help from Bill Clinton.

Response to KoKo (Reply #51)

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
21. WOW. This "Whitewater", "Benghazi", and "Vince Foster" stuff is FASCINATING new material.
Sat May 7, 2016, 01:58 PM
May 2016

No doubt the media will be absolutely transfixed by it and will focus nonstop on it to the exclusion of all things Trump.

Response to dooner (Reply #23)

griffi94

(3,733 posts)
27. Do you mean those same Democrats
Sat May 7, 2016, 02:56 PM
May 2016

who have given Hillary a 300 delegate lead and 3 million more votes.

Those Democrats?

Or were you talking about all those Democrats that couldn't vote
in closed primary states because they weren't registered as Democrats
mainly because most of them never considered themselves
Democrats til a few days before the primary.

Those Non Democrat Democrats are certainly divided angry too.

It'll be alright tho.

Hillary's got this in the bag.

dooner

(1,217 posts)
28. I wouldn't know
Sat May 7, 2016, 03:54 PM
May 2016

I don't hang out there.

But the facts, questions, and accusations are certainly up for discussion right, left, and center.

dlwickham

(3,316 posts)
32. if you had posted any facts, that would be one thing
Sat May 7, 2016, 04:07 PM
May 2016

but you posted the same old right wing shit that gets trotted out to attack Hillary

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
53. It would be helpful if people who reply would READ before replying...
Sat May 7, 2016, 08:35 PM
May 2016

but...it is what it is with minds who close down, rather than engaging in discussion about differing opinions.

dlwickham

(3,316 posts)
56. it's bullshit
Sat May 7, 2016, 09:05 PM
May 2016

and you and your bros know it's bullshit yet you keep on throwing it to try and smear Hillary

your candidate lost

get over it

TCJ70

(4,387 posts)
40. There's more than enough garbage in her voting record...
Sat May 7, 2016, 04:59 PM
May 2016

...that should stop anyone paying a modicum of attention from supporting her. Whitewater/Vince Foster/90's scandals/Benghazi are not worth anyone's time. Aside from those four items, the rest is fair game.

Response to dooner (Original post)

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
50. This is a very chilling read from "Harpers" titled "Shaky Foundations"
Sat May 7, 2016, 08:03 PM
May 2016

by Ken Silverstein who does Investigative Reporting:
---------------
Shaky Foundations

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

By Ken Silverstein

After endless delays and excuses, the Clinton Foundation released its 2014 tax return as well as amended returns for the previous four years and an audit of its finances. That fulfilled a pledge made last April by Clinton Foundation acting CEO, Maura Pally, who acknowledged that the foundation had previously made a few unfortunate accounting “mistakes.”

Journalists are going to be scouring through this new financial information and pumping out “balanced” stories that evade what is already evident, namely that the Clintons have used their foundation for crass profiteering and influence peddling.


If the Justice Department and law enforcement agencies do their jobs, the foundation will be closed and its current and past trustees, who include Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton, will be indicted. That’s because their so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich Clinton family friends.

It is beyond dispute that former President Clinton has been directly involved in helping foundation donors and his personal cronies get rich. Even worse, it is beyond dispute that these very same donors and the Clintons’ political allies have won the focused attention of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton when she served as Secretary of State. Democrats and Clinton apologists will write these accusations off as conspiracy mongering and right-wing propaganda, but it’s an open secret to anyone remotely familiar with accounting and regulatory requirements for charities that the financial records are deliberately misleading. And not coincidentally, those records were long filed by a Little Rock–based accounting firm called BKD, a regional auditor with little international experience.

It’s odd that a small Arkansas-headquartered firm would handle the books for a giant entity like the Clinton Foundation, and even odder given that BKD has been implicated in a variety of misconduct. For example, last year the Securities and Exchange Commission sanctioned BKD for “violating auditor independence rules when they prepared the financial statements of brokerage firms that were their audit clients.”

It brings to mind Bernie Madoff, who also used a small accounting shop when he was running his notorious Ponzi scheme. And it’s worth emphasizing here that smaller firms are typically far less likely to challenge major clients, and the Clinton Foundation was one of BKD’s major sources of revenue.

The new audit that was released yesterday was prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), a major accounting firm. I’ve been told by multiple sources with knowledge of the review that PwC was under tremendous outside pressure to turn in a truthful audit as opposed to the shoddy work performed by BKD. “The audit is the key, it’s far more important than the amended tax returns,” Charles Ortel, an independent financial expert, told me. “PwC is a top firm and they will not be able to claim they didn’t know that the past audits were fraudulent because they have been informed of problems. If they certify that the Clinton Foundation is clean, when it is apparent it is not, PwC is done. It may go the way of Arthur Andersen.” Ortel, a former managing director of Dillon, Read & Co., who helped expose massive financial fraud by GE, GM, and AIG before the 2008 global financial meltdown, was referring to the accounting firm that missed massive fraud by Enron and subsequently collapsed.

A Canadian charity called the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership—which is run by one of Bill Clinton’s close friends, Frank Giustra—has been moving significant sums of money into the Clinton Foundation’s flagship in New York. There’s no way for the public to know precisely how much total money the CGEP has taken in over the years—or how much it has forwarded on to the Clinton Foundation—because, unlike in the United States, under Canadian non-profit law charities don’t need to report donors to tax authorities. Earlier this year, after being severely criticized by the Canadian press, the CGEP released the names of twenty-four of its donors, but more than 1,000 are still unknown. (CGEP wrote in an email that “going forward [it] will publicly disclose all future donors.”)

The Clinton Foundation’s list of donors on its website puts the CGEP in the top category of $25 million-plus, however a financial-industry source who has seen the relevant records estimated that the figure is at least $33 million. According to Ortel that number is certainly understated. “There are no effective controls over the Clinton Foundation or the Giustra entity,” he told me. “No independent party has had access to the bank account records, including wire transfer records. There are no independent directors ensuring compliance with the law. Only a fool would have any confidence in their numbers; it’s like Al Capone forming a foundation.”

One money-laundering expert and former intelligence officer based in the Middle East who had access to the foundation’s confidential banking information told me that members of royal families in Middle Eastern countries, including Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, have donated money to the CGEP that has then been sluiced through to the Clinton Foundation. He added that the CGEP has also received money from corrupt officials in South Africa during the regime of Jacob Zuma and from senior officials in Equatorial Guinea, one of the most brutal and crooked dictatorships in the world. “Equatorial Guinea doesn’t give to the Clinton Foundation in New York because it’s too embarrassing,” he said. “They give the money anonymously in Canada and that buys them political protection in the United States. The Clinton Foundation is a professionally structured money-laundering operation.”

Continued and an Interesting Read at........

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

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»From Whitewater to Bengha...