HRC's Appearance of Conflict issues damn well are an issue of concern for me [View all]

[cali]

It's not faux anything, it's something that I find troubling. I don't understand the flat denial that she has an appearance of conflict of interest in quite a few specific instances. I think her actions in this case and others speak to a lack of judgment and a troubling arrogance- that she's different and we shouldn't be concerned about anything she does.

This article is not from a right wing reporter or a right wing source- though I've been told by HRC supporters that Vox is right wing, it's not. Markos Moulitas of Daily Kos is one of the founders. Allen is a democrat. I've been told by various HRC supporters that Vanity Fair, Slate, The Atlantic, Salon and other outlets that lean more left than right, are all right wing. In fact every single piece I've posted that's critical about HRC has been deemed as right wing.

This story about HRC and Corning presents as clear a picture of the appearance of conflict of interest as any story about any politician could. It's the stone cold facts that paint that picture, not that it's right wing or left wing or anything else. If this was a republican, there's not an HRC supporter that wouldn't be reacting with with disgust.



Almost a decade ago, as Hillary Clinton ran for reelection to the Senate on her way to seeking the presidency for the first time, the New York Times reported on her unusually close relationship with Corning, Inc., an upstate glass titan. Clinton advanced the company's interests, racking up a big assist by getting China to ease a trade barrier. And the firm's mostly Republican executives opened up their wallets for her campaign.

During Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, Corning lobbied the department on a variety of trade issues, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The company has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to her family's foundation. And last July, when it was clear that Clinton would again seek the presidency in 2016, Corning coughed up a $225,500 honorarium for Clinton to speak.

In the laundry whirl of stories about Clinton buck-raking, it might be easy for that last part to get lost in the wash. But it's the part that matters most. The $225,500 speaking fee didn't go to help disease-stricken kids in an impoverished village on some long-forgotten patch of the planet. Nor did it go to a campaign account. It went to Hillary Clinton. Personally.

The latest episode in the Clinton money saga is different from the others because it involves the clear, direct personal enrichment of Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate, by people who have a lot of money at stake in the outcome of government decisions. Her federally required financial disclosure was released to media late Friday, a time government officials and political candidates have long reserved for dumping news they hope will have a short shelf life.

<snip>

By this point, most Clinton allies wish they had a button so they didn't have to go to the trouble of rolling their eyes at each new Clinton money story. The knee-jerk eye-roll response to the latest disclosure will be that there's nothing new to see here. But there's something very important to see that is different from the past stories. This time, it's about Hillary Clinton having her pockets lined by the very people who seek to influence her. Not in some metaphorical sense. She's literally being paid by them.

<snip>

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money

Here is the NYT story referred to in the first paragraph, and written nearly 10 years ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/nyregion/12hillary.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.