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

2016 Postmortem

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)

29. damned if she does, damned if she doesn't

Reply to Turin_C3PO (Reply #26)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 11:19 AM

Jun 2016

transparency means fodder for rightwing fishing expeditions, so no matter where she draws the line, there will be accusations of a lack of transparency.

the speeches thing is a perfect example. why do we know about the speeches? because she provided full transparency as to her sources of income.

so her reward for revealing that she gave speeches for money--something she was not required to do--was to be accused of hiding something by not publishing the transcripts.

and then if she publishes transcripts, it would be "where's the video?" etc etc.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Now that Hillary is the presumptive nominee, it's time [View all] cali Jun 2016 OP

I have no intention of SwampG8r Jun 2016 #1

Well, we'll miss you. Tarc Jun 2016 #2

They will do what they feel is best. boston bean Jun 2016 #3

jaysus. that comment really reveals your blind support cali Jun 2016 #4

Yes, I am a blind supporter without any brain. LOL boston bean Jun 2016 #7

You said it. cali Jun 2016 #9

You are so kind. nt boston bean Jun 2016 #18

maybe but since they take no salary and never have and since it is non-profit Florencenj2point0 Jun 2016 #5

it is a conflict of interest. Period. cali Jun 2016 #10

Wake up and smell the reality ... Scuba Jun 2016 #11

This bullshit again from Peter Schweizer and Alex Jones! randome Jun 2016 #14

Your reply does nothing to counter the claims in the New York Times ... Scuba Jun 2016 #17

Your bogus worship of the likes of Peter Schweizer and Alex Jones is 'lame'. randome Jun 2016 #19

So you're not disputing the NYT report, but will cast aspersions on it. Lame, like always. Scuba Jun 2016 #20

Reporting without context, when something just happens to coincide with one's politics... randome Jun 2016 #21

I provided context. You, on the other hand, defended lies by attacking the messenger. Scuba Jun 2016 #22

That's probably a good idea democrattotheend Jun 2016 #6

How much more can you 'step away' from a public charity organization? randome Jun 2016 #8

Pretty much. I'm saying neither Bill or Chelsea should cali Jun 2016 #13

This message was self-deleted by its author randome Jun 2016 #15

It would be a great PR move and maybe protect HRC to some degree if they announced karynnj Jun 2016 #12

This is problematic and goes to the point that many stated about Clinton Foundation... HumanityExperiment Jun 2016 #16

exactly. That story is a perfect example. cali Jun 2016 #23

that's sound political advice, then again Hillary not giving her speeches geek tragedy Jun 2016 #24

I like Hillary a lot Turin_C3PO Jun 2016 #26

damned if she does, damned if she doesn't geek tragedy Jun 2016 #29

She had no choice regarding the speeches. cali Jun 2016 #31

he's more than just some e-trader geek tragedy Jun 2016 #33

Surely you can see that this story illustrates the points made in the op cali Jun 2016 #34

there's an obvious reason he stepped down two days later. geek tragedy Jun 2016 #35

Good points. Turin_C3PO Jun 2016 #32

I think they should if she wins. Adrahil Jun 2016 #25

It is clearly a freaking huge conflict of interest..... Sivart Jun 2016 #27

I agree bigwillq Jun 2016 #28

I agree. It's likely to cause problems. nt Maven Jun 2016 #30