2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFrom 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.
griffi94
(3,733 posts)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.
cali
(114,904 posts)BootinUp
(47,138 posts)floppyboo
(2,461 posts)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)The millions more voters that chose Hillary over Bernie.
And they're still not going to care after Bernie goes back to the senate.
cali
(114,904 posts)griffi94
(3,733 posts)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)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
griffi94
(3,733 posts)She only has to beat him.
There aren't any extra points for beating him by a bigger margin.
floppyboo
(2,461 posts)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)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)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)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.
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.
dchill
(38,465 posts)griffi94
(3,733 posts)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)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)Ignorance is no excuse -- just put it out there.
thesquanderer
(11,982 posts)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)that anyone can find on the Google news archives?
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)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)Repost RW bullshit so that we are "prepared."
You're doing a great service.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)revmclaren
(2,511 posts)and there will be much whine with the pizza. Huge number of advance orders too.
dooner
(1,217 posts)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)We'll deal with the GOP at the same time.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)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
niyad
(113,232 posts)dooner
(1,217 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)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)I try to educate myself by reading a variety of more reputable news sources.
Where do you like to get your information?
Beacool
(30,247 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)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)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)I heard it was with her bare hands - and then she drank his blood.
dooner
(1,217 posts)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)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)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.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Response to KoKo (Reply #51)
99th_Monkey This message was self-deleted by its author.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)No doubt the media will be absolutely transfixed by it and will focus nonstop on it to the exclusion of all things Trump.
dooner
(1,217 posts)Can only imagine how that will work on a national scale.
Response to dooner (Reply #23)
Post removed
griffi94
(3,733 posts)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.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)dlwickham
(3,316 posts)?
dooner
(1,217 posts)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)but you posted the same old right wing shit that gets trotted out to attack Hillary
dooner
(1,217 posts)http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Email_Scandal_Timeline
This is new, with pages and pages of research and facts.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)but...it is what it is with minds who close down, rather than engaging in discussion about differing opinions.
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)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
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)it's bullshit and you know it
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...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)
Post removed
KoKo
(84,711 posts)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. Thats 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 its 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 Rockbased accounting firm called BKD, a regional auditor with little international experience.
Its 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 its worth emphasizing here that smaller firms are typically far less likely to challenge major clients, and the Clinton Foundation was one of BKDs major sources of revenue.
The new audit that was released yesterday was prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), a major accounting firm. Ive 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, its 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 didnt 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 Partnershipwhich is run by one of Bill Clintons close friends, Frank Giustrahas been moving significant sums of money into the Clinton Foundations flagship in New York. Theres no way for the public to know precisely how much total money the CGEP has taken in over the yearsor how much it has forwarded on to the Clinton Foundationbecause, unlike in the United States, under Canadian non-profit law charities dont 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 Foundations 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; its like Al Capone forming a foundation.
One money-laundering expert and former intelligence officer based in the Middle East who had access to the foundations 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 doesnt give to the Clinton Foundation in New York because its 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/