Hillary Clinton is Done

[Doghouse Reilly]

Here's the New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

 

[marplots]

American politicians only go down for sex scandals, never for financial ones. Remember the "Keating Five"? At the time it was the biggest politician finance scandal ever. Whatever happened to those guys? Oh yeah. One of them ran for president and even the opposition didn't bother bringing it up. Most people don't understand financial stuff, and thus let it slide on by. The Clintons can roll around in dirty money from sunrise to sunset; as long as they don't roll around in it with interns it won't hurt them a bit.

It's not just the money though, it's the foreigners buying influence. Not as Tru-Merican as just money. Sex scandals are for Republicans anyhow. It's the corporate interest peddling and money that might tweak the Democrat base.

Maybe I'm being misled by the words "Pulitzer Prize Winner" and "New York Times." I guess we'll know in a month or two.

Maybe Hillary is immune to anything short of eating live puppies on television. This is just the first one I think might have a chance.

 

[Republicus]

Not a hope. I look forward to her election just to see thousands of conservatives heads explode

As a liberal myself, I often think the last genuinely good thing accomplished by the Republican party was revealing the Clintons for the political and moral chimeras that they are.

About the only thing that could convince me to vote for her are the current Republican candidates.

 

[The Big Dog]

As a liberal myself, I often think the last genuinely good thing accomplished by the Republican party was revealing the Clintons for the political and moral chimeras that they are.

About the only thing that could convince me to vote for her are the current Republican candidates.

That is why I hope O'Malley will run.

 

[Nova Land]

Can you read?

Yes, I can. That's how I can tell that the link in your OP is to a Breitbart article (not to the New York Times) and that the text you quote in your OP is from a Breitbart article.

The Breitbart article quotes from and refers to a New York Times article. That does not make it a New York Times article.

Until you go to the New York Times article and read it, the New York Times is not your source. It is Breitbart's source, not yours. Your source is Breitbart.

I am puzzled why you don't want to go to the Times article for yourself. There will likely be material there supportive of the points you are trying to make. (Probably not as supportive as the spin Breitbart puts on the bits it extracts, but supportive nonetheless.)

If you take the time to go to the Times article, read it, and extract the parts you feel are relevant, then I (and likely others) will be more inclined to spend some time looking into what you've posted. If, on the other hand, you feel it's not worth your time to read the Times article, I'll take that as a recommendation that it's not worth my time either.

 

[Republicus]

The New York Times article is pretty damning. You really should read it. I only clicked on the Breitbart article to see his sources, but so you don't have to give them traffic here's the link (again).

 

[The Fool]

She is done she won't even be able to run for president my prediction is she resigns or worse ends up in Jail.

and then you wake up.....DAMMIT it was all just a wet dream

 

[Puppycow]

Not sure this story means she's "done".

I did read the Times article yesterday, minus the Breitbart spin. This was money given to the Clinton Foundation, a charitable organization, and not the Clintons themselves. Nevertheless, such donations could still tend to make the Clintons more sympathetic to the person giving the donation, even though the money doesn't go directly into their pockets. That seems like human nature. But does that mean her decisions were any different than they otherwise would be? It's another gray issue, not really a black-and-white one for a lot of people I would imagine. And the money supposedly goes to a good, charitable cause. So make of it what you will.

 

[The Fool]

The New York Times article is pretty damning. You really should read it. I only clicked on the Breitbart article to see his sources, but so you don't have to give them traffic here's the link (again).

Doesn't seem all that Damning to me........

Disclaimer: I am hopelessly sexually attracted to Hillary Clinton

 

[Damien Evans]

Does that mean you'd vote for her anyhow, even if the story is true?

It isn't Melbourne, Florida that Lionking lives in.

 

[Puppycow]

By the way, here's another article from the Washington Post:

For Clintons, speech income shows how their wealth is intertwined with charity

Bill Clinton was paid at least $26 million in speaking fees by companies and organizations that are also major donors to the foundation he created after leaving the White House, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records and foundation data.

The amount, about one-quarter of Clinton’s overall speaking income between 2001 and 2013, demonstrates how closely intertwined Bill and Hillary Clinton’s charitable work has become with their growing personal wealth.

The Clintons’ relationships with major funders present an unusual political challenge for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Now that she has formally entered the presidential race, the family may face political pressure and some legal requirements to provide further details of their personal finances and those of the foundation, giving voters a clearer view of the global network of patrons that have supported the Clintons and their work over the past 15 years.

So if $26 million is one quarter of Bill Clinton's overall speaking income, that would mean he's earned about $100 million dollars giving speeches since leaving the presidency. Nice work if you can get it I say.

One wonders what the people who pay a six-figure fee to hear Bill Clinton give a speech are really buying. Are the words themselves actually that valuable? Or is what they are really hoping to buy political influence?

 

[marplots]

It isn't Melbourne, Florida that Lionking lives in.

Absentee ballots are all the rage.

 

[Republicus]

Doesn't seem all that Damning to me........

Disclaimer: I am hopelessly sexually attracted to Hillary Clinton

Sounds like it wasn't Elf Grinder's wet dream, then.

 

[SezMe]

It's not just the money though, it's the foreigners buying influence. Not as Tru-Merican as just money. Sex scandals are for Republicans anyhow. It's the corporate interest peddling and money that might tweak the Democrat base.

Since that cuts both ways, neither side can flog the issue. For example, we are now in what has been called the Adelson (sp?) Primary. The one in which potential candidates line up to kiss Sheldon's patootie in hopes of getting the ~$100 he plans to spend on the 2016 election. Remember it was Sheldon alone that kept the Gingrich bandwagon going for as long as it did.

Both sides suck up to Big Money so that as a corruption issue just doesn't have legs.

PS: I'm going to try to remember this thread and rub EG3K's nose in it come November, 2016.

 

[MG1962]

One wonders what the people who pay a six-figure fee to hear Bill Clinton give a speech are really buying. Are the words themselves actually that valuable? Or is what they are really hoping to buy political influence?

Oh I think the networking opportunities help drive the price up as well.

 

[This is The End]

Maybe Hillary is immune to anything short of eating live puppies on television.

You can leave off the "Maybe".

 

[Kaosium]

Consider the source.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/04/23/abc-news-finds-more-errors-in-schweizers-clinto/203390

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/20/clinton-cash-author-peter-schweizers-long-histo/203209

And there's this:



Oh, this book is bound to be scrupulously fair and unbiased.

Indeed, consider the source. Media Matters is David Brock's media massaging machine. He sold out body and soul to the Clintons long ago, who knows why. He was a sleazy muckraker for the Right once, he's still a sleazy muckraker but now works for the Left--and especially the Clintons.

His being involved is more suggestive there might be something to this. Here's another article on Schweizer's book, and the book he's writing now about Jeb Bush which might have some of the same sorts of revelations....

 

[Ladewig]

Apparently the hedge fund backing a uranium mine gave 145 Million dollars to Hillary Clinton. This was a Russian company who wanted to get a deal done and donated to the Clinton machine.

I think if you ask the MODS nicely, then they will change the title at your request; if you add the date into the title, then as months roll by everyone will know that you were the first to call the time of death on Hillary Clinton's political campaign.

Unfortunately, there's is a rule against all caps in a title. That is a shame because this thread needs an all caps title.

Of course, even though there is a rule about titles, there is no rule about posts. You could state each post with HILLARY CLINTON IS DONE! I would put it in bold type and use center tags, but that is just me. Go ahead EG3000, shout it from the mountain tops.

 

[MikeG]

Hillary Clinton is Done

As Ladewig says, this is now permanently on the forum, and of course will never, ever be quoted back at you once she is President. Your visceral hate for anyone and anything left of Ghengis Khan is obvious. Your wisdom in making yourself a hostage to fortune.....not so much.

 

[sloinker]

If the OP turns out being correct and Hillary drops out.....my vote is for Elizabeth Warren!