Is Hillary's 'there was no quid pro quo' a good defense?

[whirlingmerc]

Charles K discusses the sprawling mess of Clinton Inc

http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...ons-last-line-of-defense-no-quid-pro-quo.html

Bernie Sanders never understood the epic quality of the Clinton scandals. In his first debate, he famously dismissed the email issue, it being beneath the dignity of a great revolutionary to deal in things so tawdry and straightforward. Sanders failed to understand that Clinton scandals are sprawling, multilayered, complex things. They defy time and space. They grow and burrow. The central problem with Hillary Clinton’s emails was not the classified material. It wasn’t the headline-making charge by the FBI director of her extreme carelessness in handling it. That’s a serious offense, to be sure, and could very well have been grounds for indictment. But it was always something of a sideshow.....

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Bernie Sanders never understood the epic quality of the Clinton scandals.

You're actually asking us to believe that you are a credible authority on what Bernie Sanders understands? That's simply laughable.

 

[Revoltingest]

Charles K discusses the sprawling mess of Clinton Inc

http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...ons-last-line-of-defense-no-quid-pro-quo.html

Bernie Sanders never understood the epic quality of the Clinton scandals. In his first debate, he famously dismissed the email issue, it being beneath the dignity of a great revolutionary to deal in things so tawdry and straightforward. Sanders failed to understand that Clinton scandals are sprawling, multilayered, complex things. They defy time and space. They grow and burrow. The central problem with Hillary Clinton’s emails was not the classified material. It wasn’t the headline-making charge by the FBI director of her extreme carelessness in handling it. That’s a serious offense, to be sure, and could very well have been grounds for indictment. But it was always something of a sideshow.....

The lack of a specific quid pro quo deal doesn't exculpate the little people
when they engage in bribery, extortion, & other illicit/illegal transactions.
But when one is "too big to jail", such lame perfunctory defenses are enuf
to satisfy those who are loathe to prosecute their future boss-to-be.

Note that Bill & his AG (Holder) sold pardons in his final days as prez.
Quite a pair, eh?

 

[whirlingmerc]

Rev... 'too big to jail' indeed

JayHawk.....You're words are too kind, but the article is not mine, but Charles Krauthammer's

Not sure why it's an ethical imperative to vote for a gal who the FBI admits mislead the American people on about 01 counts... why do you feel that way?
Both candidates are significantly flawed and its a race to the bottom with the slower dropping one winning the faster dropping wining. Pense is fairly good I like him

 

[Lyndon]

Hillary runs a charity that has helped millions of people, Donald Rump runs a sham business that has defrauded and ripped off thousands of people, and you have the nerve to propose that Hillary's choice of email provider is the most important issue here?????

 

[Nous]

According to Krauthammer:

The Associated Press found that more than half the private interests who were granted phone or personal contact with Secretary Clinton — 85 of 154 — were donors to the foundation.​

http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...ons-last-line-of-defense-no-quid-pro-quo.html

That seems to be his most serious charge--that 85 of 154 "private interests" who got to talk with Secretary Clinton either in person or phone were donors to the Foundation. Did any of these 85 get some kind of special favors from the State Department? If so, which ones, and what were the special favors they got?

For a Secretary of State to talk on the phone or in person with someone is a long way from engaging in wrongdoing.

 

[Augustus]

Hillary runs a charity that has helped millions of people, Donald Rump runs a sham business that has defrauded and ripped off thousands of people, and you have the nerve to propose that Hillary's choice of email provider is the most important issue here?????

Hillary's charity often seems to get large donations from people who need a favour or two done.

Trump's repulsiveness shouldn't act as a shield for political cronyism and moneyed special interests. Corruption isn't ok just because it is 'your side' that does it. The problem is that too many people of all political persuasions make excuses for it as they don't want to give succour to the enemy.

It's things like this that give fuel to Trumpist populism as the power elite have scant regard for the hoi polloi.

 

[Nous]

The lack of a specific quid pro quo deal doesn't exculpate the little people
when they engage in bribery, extortion, & other illicit/illegal transactions.

It doesn't? Whom are you talking about? Name them.

Note that Bill & his AG (Holder) sold pardons in his final days as prez.

What? Provide your sources for these sales of pardons.

 

[Augustus]

Did any of these 85 get some kind of special favors from the State Department? If so, which ones, and what were the special favors they got?

Why do you think noted woman's rights champions like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia donate large sums of money to a charity that promotes women's rights?

 

[Revoltingest]

It doesn't? Whom are you talking about? Name them.
What? Provide your sources for these sales of pardons.

I know in advance that everything I'd provide would start an endless cycle of quibbling.
I'll pass.

 

[Nous]

Hillary's charity often seems to get large donations from people who need a favour or two done.

Who got favors, and what were the favors?

 

[Nous]

Why do you think noted woman's rights champions like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia donate large sums of money to a charity that promotes women's rights?

Perhaps these two countries didn't realize that their donations were going to be used to promote women's rights. You haven't identified any sort of wrongdoing, have you?

 

[Nous]

I know in advance that everything I'd provide would start an endless cycle of quibbling.

Asking someone to substantiate his charges of wrongdoing is not "quibbling." It seems the safest assumption is that your claims are without substance.

 

[Augustus]

Perhaps these two countries didn't realize that their donations were going to be used to promote women's rights. You haven't identified any sort of wrongdoing, have you?

The problem is that it is not 'wrongdoing' it is the all part of the game.

They are buying access. Lobbying.

 

[Lyndon]

The point is Hillary has devoted half her life to at least trying to help people, Trump has devoted his whole life to helping only himself, how is that superior????

 

[Nous]

The problem is that it is not 'wrongdoing' it is the all part of the game.

They are buying access. Lobbying.

So you can't identify any actual wrongdoing that Clinton engaged in?

 

[Augustus]

So you can't identify any actual wrongdoing that Clinton engaged in?

Read my post again. It was only 2 sentences.

Do you believe that all political donations are done for altruistic reasons?

 

[Lyndon]

If the money is going to help starving African children, like some of the Clinton Foundations money is, it doesn't really matter what reason you have for giving the money, no one questions the motivations of contributors to other major charities like the Red Cross, and they get a significantly worse rating for excessive administration costs than the Clinton Foundation.

Even if some major contributors to the Clinton Foundation think they are getting favours from the US government, it doesn't mean they actually are getting any favours, and as of so far, no one has actually come up with any hard evidence of favours being given in exchange for donations.

 

[Nous]

Read my post again. It was only 2 sentences.

Obviously you haven't identified any wrongdoing that Clinton engaged in. My question to you was merely an invitation for you to do so.

Do you believe that all political donations are done for altruistic reasons?

I don't know what "political donations" you are referring to. The Clinton Foundation is a charitable organization, and, yes, I believe that donations to charities are done to help others (i.e., are done for altruistic reasons).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not sure why it's an ethical imperative to vote for a gal who the FBI admits mislead the American people on about 01 counts... why do you feel that way?
Both candidates are significantly flawed and its a race to the bottom with the slower dropping one winning the faster dropping wining.

That is a rather good question, so let me take some time to address it.

Politics is not a beauty contest. I view the Clintons as poster children of a cynical and imperious political machine - the new Kennedys but wholly lacking the latter's sophistication and gravitas. When cornered, they will twist the truth to whatever extent necessary; should this prove insufficient they will simply lie. This coexists effortlessly with a centrist (and often left-centrist) political orientation which they share with what has been called by some the "liberal elite."

What this means, for example, is that Hillary Clinton can be expected to hedge the truth as she navigates the bounds of her position, but she can simultaneously be expected to defend Planned Parenthood and appoint Supreme Court Justices least likely to overturn Roe v Wade. She may maneuver around the issues raised by the minimum wage but she will nevertheless defend an increase in that minimum wage. She may compromise on specifics surrounding immigration, but she will indeed advocate for a path to citizenship.

I vote based upon my expectations of the intended and unintended consequences of that vote. A successful vote for Hillary Clinton will result in a President with a clear and predictable predisposition. Conversely, voting for an narcissistic nativist demagogue who speaks of committing war crimes and imposing ideological certifications will do inestimable damage to women's rights, minority rights, and the struggle for social justice.

Pense is fairly good I like him