swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,390
|
Post by swamp on May 24, 2017 18:30:33 GMT -5
MIttmentum.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,924
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on May 24, 2017 18:43:06 GMT -5
Slightly OT, I think most folks don't understand how the Clinton Foundation works, so they assume its what is not, like Carly Fiorna. Its closer to something like the American Red Cross than it is to a Foundation that usually hands out grants. The below article, may not clear much up, but given they had 2000 employees in 2015, the mudslingers are probably not looking at it accurately.
www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina says that “so little” of the charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation “actually go to charitable works” — a figure CARLY for America later put at about 6 percent of its annual revenues — but Fiorina is simply wrong.
Fiorina and others are referring only to the amount donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work is performed in-house. One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,924
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on May 24, 2017 18:44:00 GMT -5
At least it was better than the Trump train.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,123
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on May 24, 2017 19:30:45 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,754
|
Post by Tennesseer on May 24, 2017 19:43:18 GMT -5
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,252
|
Post by tallguy on May 24, 2017 21:42:13 GMT -5
The evidence that the Clinton Foundation, The Clinton Global Initiative et al were a front for a pay to play scheme is prima facia. Unlike the ridiculous muh Russia nonsense where there is not one shred of evidence that the Trump campaign nor anyone associated with it conspired with Russia to hack into DNC servers, and the servers or accounts of Hillary Clinton, John Podesta and others to sway the election towards Donald Trump. In fact, there's no evidence Putin even wanted Trump to win-- the Clinton Foundation scandal is one where there are mountains of evidence and the Clintons really do have to explain it. The problem now, is that they backed Trump into a corner- and I know most of you still haven't figured this out- and Trump is NOT a "Republican". He's a fighter, and he's pissed. He tried playing footsie with the establishment, he was very conciliatory towards Hillary after the campaign, he dropped the discussion of prosecuting her, and now he can't believe they're piling on him with this Russia garbage. Ya'll better buckle up because Trump just got rid of the last obstacle to really diving into the Clinton Foundation scandal, the illegal private email server she maintained, her violations of the espionage act, extortion, obstruction of justice, public corruption and bribery, and racketeering- to scratch the surface. Like the firing of James Comey- Trump has a carefully thought out plan which he has probably already begun to execute involving the 90% of the intelligence and law enforcement community that hates Comey and the Clinton corruption machine. He is going to clean house. Do not doubt me. Most of us haven't figured what out, Paul? Just because you say something is the truth doesn't mean it is, indeed, the truth. Most of us have definitely figured that out. Most of us are far more educated and aware than you give credit for. For that reason, I always doubt you. Doubt is really NOT a strong enough word here. You know that, right?
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 24, 2017 22:49:53 GMT -5
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,924
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on May 24, 2017 22:56:38 GMT -5
Brilliance so sheer, it can't be seen at all.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 25, 2017 2:15:24 GMT -5
He told the Israelis that "he just got back from the Middle East".
While he was in the Middle East. What a tremendous grasp of geography!
Absolute genius! Brilliant! He's the most bigly smart man in the world.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,252
|
Post by tallguy on May 25, 2017 2:36:24 GMT -5
And then there is this from Larry Summers: And,
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 25, 2017 7:49:04 GMT -5
It's a well-written article, although there are numerous grammatical errors and odd tense changes. If you're going to start a hard-hitting blog, hire an editor to make sure your i's are dotted and t's are crossed. As for the content, I was aware of most of it from my time here on YMAM. The long history between Mr. Comey and the Clintons was new to me. I have to agree it presents (at the very least) a formidable conflict of interest. Do I think Comey's firing was a stroke of strategic brilliance by Pres. Trump? No. You're giving the man far too much credit. He fired Comey over perceived disrespect and a lack of loyalty. Having said this, you make a good case for Mr. Comey being too deeply mired in the "swamp" of past administrations. If the facts you present about his work history are accurate (and I'm going to boldly assume that they are), he ought to be summarily disqualified from heading up any investigation even tangentially related to the Clintons, and Russiagate certainly qualifies. This isn't to say I concur with your "Clinton lackey" thesis. The worst we can conclude about him based on the patchwork of facts in your article is that he has motive and opportunity. You should actually be underwhelmed as not much has been presented, just OMG they must be close because they worked in Washington.
So, if you do even a small bit of research, you find out in the Clinton years James Comey was only an assistant US attorney. These work under one of the 93 US Attorneys who head up each district. He did not become a US attorney, until the Bush years. So if you go by fly by night assumptions over real proof, he's more Bush's man than anyone else's.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Comey en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney
There are 93 U.S. Attorneys located throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. One U.S. Attorney is assigned to each of the judicial districts, with the exception of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands where a single U.S. Attorney serves both districts. Each U.S. Attorney is the chief federal law enforcement officer within his or her particular jurisdiction, acting under the guidance of the United States Attorneys' Manual.[5] They supervise district offices with as many as 350 Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) and as many as 350 support personnel.[6]
That's only one of the three Clinton connections Paul mentions, and it's not the one I'm concerned about. He was either counsel for or on the board of two major Clinton Foundation donors embroiled in pay-for-play scandals.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on May 25, 2017 8:14:49 GMT -5
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,252
|
Post by tallguy on May 25, 2017 8:39:55 GMT -5
No more worth reading than stuff here, I would bet. Heavily.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on May 25, 2017 9:21:21 GMT -5
No dezi, it appears that it is a site that you can join and post your own "articles". There is some explanation on the site itself if you look for it. thanks...ok
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on May 25, 2017 9:22:57 GMT -5
No more worth reading than stuff here, I would bet. Heavily. This is enough for me actually...among friends even those always in disagreement with...
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,924
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on May 25, 2017 10:32:19 GMT -5
You should actually be underwhelmed as not much has been presented, just OMG they must be close because they worked in Washington.
So, if you do even a small bit of research, you find out in the Clinton years James Comey was only an assistant US attorney. These work under one of the 93 US Attorneys who head up each district. He did not become a US attorney, until the Bush years. So if you go by fly by night assumptions over real proof, he's more Bush's man than anyone else's.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Comey en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney
There are 93 U.S. Attorneys located throughout the United States, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. One U.S. Attorney is assigned to each of the judicial districts, with the exception of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands where a single U.S. Attorney serves both districts. Each U.S. Attorney is the chief federal law enforcement officer within his or her particular jurisdiction, acting under the guidance of the United States Attorneys' Manual.[5] They supervise district offices with as many as 350 Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) and as many as 350 support personnel.[6]
That's only one of the three Clinton connections Paul mentions, and it's not the one I'm concerned about. He was either counsel for or on the board of two major Clinton Foundation donors embroiled in pay-for-play scandals. The RW spinmeisters have convinced you and others there is a pay for play scandal. They have yet to actually come up with proving there was a definitive pay for a specified play. Lockheed Martin is the biggest defense contractor in the world. It is also the biggest contractor to the US government and has been for years. It took in over $47 billion in revenues. I finally found their donation on the Clinton Foundation website. Melissa and Bill Gates are listed in the top 7 donors. Lockheed Martin is way way down, under Merck and others. They are in the donation amount of 100,001 to 250,000 of lifetime giving through December 2016.
www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%24100%2C001%20to%20%24250%2C000&page=4
Elsewhere, I don't know if its true, its alleged they started donating to the Foundation in 2016. When Clinton was not formally employed by the US govt. One of their biggest areas for contracts is now the Dept of Energy. I'd love to know what specific play the RW spin machine thinks this donation bought or could buy. Actually, I don't think the spin machine is looking for or trying for that info. Because their goal is to seed doubt with the smallest amount of vague info hoping any conspiracy minded individual with fill the gaps with some fantastic bad vision they could not come up with. Why Comey who investigated Clinton, put the nail in her election hopes by giving out a vague announcement that there might be might be more emails on Weiner's laptop, would be also soliciting charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation, confuses me. The fact that you have bought into this without apparently doing any research worries me.
Comey did work for Lockheed Martin. But he doesn't now. He is not on their current board. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin
In August 2005, Comey left the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and became general counsel and senior vice president of Lockheed Martin, based in Bethesda, Maryland.[citation needed] In 2010, he became general counsel at Bridgewater Associates, based in Westport, Connecticut. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Comey www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/corporate/documents/2016-annual-report.pdf (Page with current board and executives)
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on May 25, 2017 11:25:58 GMT -5
Let's get off the subject of Paul and back on the subject of the thread, please. Otherwise, posts are going to disappear. This is the Politics board. We're not here to discuss the pros and cons of one another. Thanks.
mmhmm, Politics Moderator
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on May 25, 2017 11:32:39 GMT -5
Trump is so brilliant, that UK intelligence will not share any terrorist information with him.
Evidently, he's such a blabbermouth, he can't be trusted.
How's that for brilliance?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,924
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on May 25, 2017 12:47:01 GMT -5
The RW spin machine makes use of the general populations lack of knowledge, and assumptions about proximity and time. Comey did get $6 million from Lockheed when he left, but we don't know why. The spin machine doesn't give out more information than needed, because they are counting on assumptions to make things sound bad.
I just did some Google research. The average general counsel in a Fortune 500 firm pulls in about $2 million a year in base pay and bonuses. I found a link on best paid general counsels. abovethelaw.com/2014/07/who-are-americas-best-paid-general-counsel-2014-rankings/2/?rf=1
They do not include stock options or exercising thereof in their calculations. In the article you will find two people mentioned who got stock options of $55 mil and $66 mil or thereabouts in one year. On page 2 there is a list of people ranked solely on pay, not stock. Its for 2014 and also shows the base pay for 2013 and the take home pay of those on the list for 2013. Notable is that #1's take home pay of $5.8 mil is remarkably similar to his base pay in 2013 & take home pay in 2013. In fact he ranks as the second lowest in take home pay in 2013. The top person was $19mil, but less than $5.8 mil base pay.
Bottom line, is we as not 1%er's do not have the understanding of finances and pay of people at that level. So when the number $6 mil is trotted out, I expect few follow my lead and wonder what that 6 mil is actually from. Is it a golden parachute? Delayed compensation? Exercised stock options? Draining of a retirement account? We don't know. And that's an important omission, because since its a big number to most of us, its easy to assume its a payoff. And if believe that, somehow the critical part of your thinking might not engage and ask why the heck a company Comey is leaving would give him any input on charitable donations?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,924
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on May 25, 2017 13:05:17 GMT -5
Other spin tricks - proximity
No one thinks Marcia Clark was in OJ's pocket and that's why he got off
but
because of the RW spin machine, some actually think its plausible and likely, that Clinton was not convicted in Whitewater or during the FBI investigation because of Comey. And since Comey was there, insert assumptions here, bam the RW spin machine can suck you in. Comey was an assistant US attorney during Whitewater. He was hired by a US attorney, not the Clintons. He wasn't appointed as a US attorney until Bush, a fellow Republican, appointed him.
Do you really believe that the Clintons befriended a US assistant attorney that they had no connections to during an investigation? On the opposing side? That a US assistant attorney they do not know would be the key to getting them off, not dealing with Kenneth Starr? Doesn't this sound absolutely bat shit crazy if you think about it logically for any time at all?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 25, 2017 19:09:52 GMT -5
That's only one of the three Clinton connections Paul mentions, and it's not the one I'm concerned about. He was either counsel for or on the board of two major Clinton Foundation donors embroiled in pay-for-play scandals. The RW spinmeisters have convinced you and others there is a pay for play scandal. They have yet to actually come up with proving there was a definitive pay for a specified play. Lockheed Martin is the biggest defense contractor in the world. It is also the biggest contractor to the US government and has been for years. It took in over $47 billion in revenues. I finally found their donation on the Clinton Foundation website. Melissa and Bill Gates are listed in the top 7 donors. Lockheed Martin is way way down, under Merck and others. They are in the donation amount of 100,001 to 250,000 of lifetime giving through December 2016.
www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%24100%2C001%20to%20%24250%2C000&page=4
Elsewhere, I don't know if its true, its alleged they started donating to the Foundation in 2016. When Clinton was not formally employed by the US govt. One of their biggest areas for contracts is now the Dept of Energy. I'd love to know what specific play the RW spin machine thinks this donation bought or could buy. Actually, I don't think the spin machine is looking for or trying for that info. Because their goal is to seed doubt with the smallest amount of vague info hoping any conspiracy minded individual with fill the gaps with some fantastic bad vision they could not come up with. Why Comey who investigated Clinton, put the nail in her election hopes by giving out a vague announcement that there might be might be more emails on Weiner's laptop, would be also soliciting charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation, confuses me. The fact that you have bought into this without apparently doing any research worries me.
Comey did work for Lockheed Martin. But he doesn't now. He is not on their current board. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin
In August 2005, Comey left the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and became general counsel and senior vice president of Lockheed Martin, based in Bethesda, Maryland.[citation needed] In 2010, he became general counsel at Bridgewater Associates, based in Westport, Connecticut. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Comey www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/corporate/documents/2016-annual-report.pdf (Page with current board and executives) I'll simplify: No corporation that bids on defense contracts should be permitted to donate money to the organization (be it a charity or otherwise) founded by the US Secretary of State, and vice versa. No former senior man (including board members and senior VPs) at any corporation that donated large sums of money to organization X and may have subsequently benefited from these donations should be at the head of an investigation into X, X's founder or X's founder's arch nemesis. Whether or not pay-for-play actually occurred during Mr. Comey's respective tenures is irrelevant. The two cases above constitute summary conflicts of interest. Find somebody else to conduct the investigations. I'm not sure you grasp how "pay for play" works. I want money, and I'm willing to sell out for a quarter million dollars. It's not a huge amount, but it can't be. I don't want to raise suspicion by soliciting massive donations. On the bright side, if I sell out a lot--a $500K speech here, a $250K business contract there, a $300K donation to my foundation--I can still make hundreds of millions over the long run. You're a corporation that wants a $500 million government contract that I'm in a position to help you get. Here's an idea!: you pay me $250K and I'll pull some strings to help get you that $500 million contract. Your profit margin is $50 million, so you just made a 200-fold return on your $250K investment, assuming nobody catches us doing this.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,924
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on May 25, 2017 20:45:54 GMT -5
The RW spinmeisters have convinced you and others there is a pay for play scandal. They have yet to actually come up with proving there was a definitive pay for a specified play. Lockheed Martin is the biggest defense contractor in the world. It is also the biggest contractor to the US government and has been for years. It took in over $47 billion in revenues. I finally found their donation on the Clinton Foundation website. Melissa and Bill Gates are listed in the top 7 donors. Lockheed Martin is way way down, under Merck and others. They are in the donation amount of 100,001 to 250,000 of lifetime giving through December 2016.
www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%24100%2C001%20to%20%24250%2C000&page=4
Elsewhere, I don't know if its true, its alleged they started donating to the Foundation in 2016. When Clinton was not formally employed by the US govt. One of their biggest areas for contracts is now the Dept of Energy. I'd love to know what specific play the RW spin machine thinks this donation bought or could buy. Actually, I don't think the spin machine is looking for or trying for that info. Because their goal is to seed doubt with the smallest amount of vague info hoping any conspiracy minded individual with fill the gaps with some fantastic bad vision they could not come up with. Why Comey who investigated Clinton, put the nail in her election hopes by giving out a vague announcement that there might be might be more emails on Weiner's laptop, would be also soliciting charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation, confuses me. The fact that you have bought into this without apparently doing any research worries me.
Comey did work for Lockheed Martin. But he doesn't now. He is not on their current board. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin
In August 2005, Comey left the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and became general counsel and senior vice president of Lockheed Martin, based in Bethesda, Maryland.[citation needed] In 2010, he became general counsel at Bridgewater Associates, based in Westport, Connecticut. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Comey www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/corporate/documents/2016-annual-report.pdf (Page with current board and executives) I'll simplify: No corporation that bids on defense contracts should be permitted to donate money to the organization (be it a charity or otherwise) founded by the US Secretary of State, and vice versa. No former senior man (including board members and senior VPs) at any corporation that donated large sums of money to organization X and may have subsequently benefited from these donations should be at the head of an investigation into X, X's founder or X's founder's arch nemesis. Whether or not pay-for-play actually occurred during Mr. Comey's respective tenures is irrelevant. The two cases above constitute summary conflicts of interest. Find somebody else to conduct the investigations. I'm not sure you grasp how "pay for play" works. I want money, and I'm willing to sell out for a quarter million dollars. It's not a huge amount, but it can't be. I don't want to raise suspicion by soliciting massive donations. On the bright side, if I sell out a lot--a $500K speech here, a $250K business contract there, a $300K donation to my foundation--I can still make hundreds of millions over the long run. You're a corporation that wants a $500 million government contract that I'm in a position to help you get. Here's an idea!: you pay me $250K and I'll pull some strings to help get you that $500 million contract. Your profit margin is $50 million, so you just made a 200-fold return on your $250K investment, assuming nobody catches us doing this. Since you are being rude, I'm going to act in kind.
I'm not sure you grasp how evidence for "pay for play" works.
One needs to have proof that whatever payment that went into a foundation, comes out in a similar sized check to the receiver directly. It is not pay for play if the donation stays in the foundation and is used for charitable works.
I don't know why you or anyone is convinced Hillary would be a great contact for Lockheed Martin. The majority of their contracts with the US govt are with the DOD and the Dept of Energy. Even if you believe Lockheed would worry they wouldn't be awarded the contract and wanted her to whisper into Obama's ear to put pressure on the decider for that particular DOD contract lets say, why go to Hillary over multiple decades of contacts in the DOD?
Here's an idea! How does the pay get to Hillary? She takes no salary. While she gets pretty nice air travel as a perk of being part of the Foundation, where's the $$? $250K is large enough you aren't going to physically get it out of the company by stealing the company flat screen TVs and microwaves for home. Show me the pay in Hillary's hand!
Here's the no salary link- www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/sep/01/hilary-rosen/democrat-pundit-clintons-get-no-personal-benefit-f/
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 26, 2017 0:00:05 GMT -5
I'll simplify: No corporation that bids on defense contracts should be permitted to donate money to the organization (be it a charity or otherwise) founded by the US Secretary of State, and vice versa. No former senior man (including board members and senior VPs) at any corporation that donated large sums of money to organization X and may have subsequently benefited from these donations should be at the head of an investigation into X, X's founder or X's founder's arch nemesis. Whether or not pay-for-play actually occurred during Mr. Comey's respective tenures is irrelevant. The two cases above constitute summary conflicts of interest. Find somebody else to conduct the investigations. I'm not sure you grasp how "pay for play" works. I want money, and I'm willing to sell out for a quarter million dollars. It's not a huge amount, but it can't be. I don't want to raise suspicion by soliciting massive donations. On the bright side, if I sell out a lot--a $500K speech here, a $250K business contract there, a $300K donation to my foundation--I can still make hundreds of millions over the long run. You're a corporation that wants a $500 million government contract that I'm in a position to help you get. Here's an idea!: you pay me $250K and I'll pull some strings to help get you that $500 million contract. Your profit margin is $50 million, so you just made a 200-fold return on your $250K investment, assuming nobody catches us doing this. Since you are being rude, I'm going to act in kind.
I'm not sure you grasp how evidence for "pay for play" works.
One needs to have proof that whatever payment that went into a foundation, comes out in a similar sized check to the receiver directly. It is not pay for play if the donation stays in the foundation and is used for charitable works.
I don't know why you or anyone is convinced Hillary would be a great contact for Lockheed Martin. The majority of their contracts with the US govt are with the DOD and the Dept of Energy. Even if you believe Lockheed would worry they wouldn't be awarded the contract and wanted her to whisper into Obama's ear to put pressure on the decider for that particular DOD contract lets say, why go to Hillary over multiple decades of contacts in the DOD?
Here's an idea! How does the pay get to Hillary? She takes no salary. While she gets pretty nice air travel as a perk of being part of the Foundation, where's the $$? $250K is large enough you aren't going to physically get it out of the company by stealing the company flat screen TVs and microwaves for home. Show me the pay in Hillary's hand!
Here's the no salary link- www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/sep/01/hilary-rosen/democrat-pundit-clintons-get-no-personal-benefit-f/
The foundation doles out work to businesses/government on contract. The Clintons or their friends then get kickbacks from those businesses/governments in various ways. You might just say this is shrewd business, but it turns out many of these businesses are run by extremely corrupt, extremely powerful people, and the contracts leave the people the donations are supposed to be helping in a state as bad or worse than if they hadn't been "helped". As for why Ms. Clinton might be a particularly attractive contact, take your pick: She's been around forever. She and Pres. Clinton have more contacts in DC and more clout with those contacts than any other people on Earth. She's a known quantity, assuming the many allegations of graft are true. And when seeking to grease palms, as a rule of thumb you always go to the highest level of management that you possibly can (since you can exert immense influence down and not so much up). Does all of this amount to hard proof of pay for play? No. Generally speaking, hard proof is impossible to obtain. The best we can do is amass circumstantial evidence, which is what documentaries like "Clinton Cash" and countless books have done. I also doubt it's a coincidence the foundation's donations and major projects all but ground to a halt one week after Ms. Clinton lost the 2016 election.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 26, 2017 0:13:03 GMT -5
The RW spinmeisters have convinced you and others there is a pay for play scandal. They have yet to actually come up with proving there was a definitive pay for a specified play. Lockheed Martin is the biggest defense contractor in the world. It is also the biggest contractor to the US government and has been for years. It took in over $47 billion in revenues. I finally found their donation on the Clinton Foundation website. Melissa and Bill Gates are listed in the top 7 donors. Lockheed Martin is way way down, under Merck and others. They are in the donation amount of 100,001 to 250,000 of lifetime giving through December 2016.
www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors?category=%24100%2C001%20to%20%24250%2C000&page=4
Elsewhere, I don't know if its true, its alleged they started donating to the Foundation in 2016. When Clinton was not formally employed by the US govt. One of their biggest areas for contracts is now the Dept of Energy. I'd love to know what specific play the RW spin machine thinks this donation bought or could buy. Actually, I don't think the spin machine is looking for or trying for that info. Because their goal is to seed doubt with the smallest amount of vague info hoping any conspiracy minded individual with fill the gaps with some fantastic bad vision they could not come up with. Why Comey who investigated Clinton, put the nail in her election hopes by giving out a vague announcement that there might be might be more emails on Weiner's laptop, would be also soliciting charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation, confuses me. The fact that you have bought into this without apparently doing any research worries me.
Comey did work for Lockheed Martin. But he doesn't now. He is not on their current board. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin
In August 2005, Comey left the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and became general counsel and senior vice president of Lockheed Martin, based in Bethesda, Maryland.[citation needed] In 2010, he became general counsel at Bridgewater Associates, based in Westport, Connecticut. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Comey www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/corporate/documents/2016-annual-report.pdf (Page with current board and executives) I'll simplify: No corporation that bids on defense contracts should be permitted to donate money to the organization (be it a charity or otherwise) founded by the US Secretary of State, and vice versa. No former senior man (including board members and senior VPs) at any corporation that donated large sums of money to organization X and may have subsequently benefited from these donations should be at the head of an investigation into X, X's founder or X's founder's arch nemesis. Whether or not pay-for-play actually occurred during Mr. Comey's respective tenures is irrelevant. The two cases above constitute summary conflicts of interest. Find somebody else to conduct the investigations. I'm not sure you grasp how "pay for play" works. I want money, and I'm willing to sell out for a quarter million dollars. It's not a huge amount, but it can't be. I don't want to raise suspicion by soliciting massive donations. On the bright side, if I sell out a lot--a $500K speech here, a $250K business contract there, a $300K donation to my foundation--I can still make hundreds of millions over the long run. You're a corporation that wants a $500 million government contract that I'm in a position to help you get. Here's an idea!: you pay me $250K and I'll pull some strings to help get you that $500 million contract. Your profit margin is $50 million, so you just made a 200-fold return on your $250K investment, assuming nobody catches us doing this. It's really not hard is it?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,924
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on May 26, 2017 8:16:46 GMT -5
I'll simplify: No corporation that bids on defense contracts should be permitted to donate money to the organization (be it a charity or otherwise) founded by the US Secretary of State, and vice versa. No former senior man (including board members and senior VPs) at any corporation that donated large sums of money to organization X and may have subsequently benefited from these donations should be at the head of an investigation into X, X's founder or X's founder's arch nemesis. Whether or not pay-for-play actually occurred during Mr. Comey's respective tenures is irrelevant. The two cases above constitute summary conflicts of interest. Find somebody else to conduct the investigations. I'm not sure you grasp how "pay for play" works. I want money, and I'm willing to sell out for a quarter million dollars. It's not a huge amount, but it can't be. I don't want to raise suspicion by soliciting massive donations. On the bright side, if I sell out a lot--a $500K speech here, a $250K business contract there, a $300K donation to my foundation--I can still make hundreds of millions over the long run. You're a corporation that wants a $500 million government contract that I'm in a position to help you get. Here's an idea!: you pay me $250K and I'll pull some strings to help get you that $500 million contract. Your profit margin is $50 million, so you just made a 200-fold return on your $250K investment, assuming nobody catches us doing this. It's really not hard is it? The concept, no. Apparently actually proving it is happening with Hillary Clinton is. There has been proof that Trump bought a couple portraits with his foundation money AND paid off a politician with it. If it so not hard, why are all the RW spin meisters staying with the front end of allegations without any proof to back them up?
Is the RW spin machine that incompetent? Or are they just wrong?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 26, 2017 10:00:29 GMT -5
It's really not hard is it? The concept, no. Apparently actually proving it is happening with Hillary Clinton is. There has been proof that Trump bought a couple portraits with his foundation money AND paid off a politician with it. If it so not hard, why are all the RW spin meisters staying with the front end of allegations without any proof to back them up?
Is the RW spin machine that incompetent? Or are they just wrong?
Of course there's proof. It's been very carefully laid out, and the Clinton's don't even deny any of the facts. They deny there's any conflict of interest- for which we are supposed to simply take their word. That's why the "concept" as you say, needs to be the focal point. And for what it's worth, I would apply the "concept" even handedly. I'm not thrilled with a lot of what Trump has done, either. The question therefore, is why do we put up with it? From anyone?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 26, 2017 10:54:08 GMT -5
Kids this is how American government works. Money talks. And the Supreme Court made it worse a few years ago with their Citizen's United decision.
However, if you think the squeaky clean Clinton Foundation, which is investigated and observed to the nth degree, is an example of American political corruption, then look again. The corruption lies deepest where you can't see it, and where the party in power vests it. Currently that is the Republicans.
Regarding the problems with corruption and pay for play, let's address the real problems, shall we? We should not allow paid lobbyists within earshot of Congress, let alone on the floor of Congress. We should not allow corporate contributions. We should not allow PACs. I don't think we are going to address any of those though, do you?
I know there's plenty of corruption and pay to play in the GOP's house too. And I agree your campaign finance laws are anathema to the very spirit of democracy. Campaign finance reform was supposed to be one of the things Pres. Obama tackled. It was a big part of his 2008 campaign. By 2016, Americans seem to have given up hope so completely that it wasn't even an election issue.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 26, 2017 12:25:27 GMT -5
I know there's plenty of corruption and pay to play in the GOP's house too. And I agree your campaign finance laws are anathema to the very spirit of democracy. Campaign finance reform was supposed to be one of the things Pres. Obama tackled. It was a big part of his 2008 campaign. By 2016, Americans seem to have given up hope so completely that it wasn't even an election issue. I do think it came up in '16, but in more visceral terms- such as "drain the swamp", which is a vague and sweeping promise to do even more. I think it is and will be a recurring theme because everyone knows it is wrong. Even the politicians will admit to it being a problem, but only so far as the "non-stop" fundraising that they must now do year round. They would certainly not cut off the flow of cash at the source- and they are the only ones who can do it. And that his been the problem since the first days of the Republic. We have a similar problem here in Canada in that the two biggest parties--the Liberals and the Conservatives--do their utmost to oppose fundraising reform that would cripple their own ability to pull in huge amounts of cash. If it wasn't both of them, we'd have a reasonable shot at flushing corporate money out of politics, but alas they're the bosomest of buddies on this one issue. P.M. Trudeau took a major hit last year when he backed out of promises that would have given minority parties greater political clout and relative fundraising ability. I had no use for the man's policies long before then, but I think it was the first time many Canadians finally realized: party first, optics second, Canada third. I wish I could say it was unprecedented.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on May 26, 2017 13:46:33 GMT -5
I wonder if Trudeau, like Obama, realized that he faced considerable back blow from his own party if he tried such a thing? I'm guessing he did. Absolutely. And the party knew they'd be getting blowback from the voters. They still did it. They're not going to kill the golden goose.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on May 26, 2017 14:44:29 GMT -5
You know who REEAAALLLY hates campaign finance reform-- which is a loaded term considering what it means legislatively here in the US-- but to my mind is simply 1. ONLY individuals legally eligible to vote in the United States may give a LIMITED amount of money, and it must be personally, to a campaign (I'm thinking in the $5,000 range) 2. Individuals eligible to vote, but who work for the federal government, or who own or work for an entity that transacts business with the United States government may not give- including federal employees.
I realize this presents Constitutional problems, and if need be I'd favor an amendment to address these issues. I am in agreement, actually, with the court, that "money is speech"; HOWEVER, this necessarily means that speech can be measured in money and as such should be regulated to give everyone as equal a say as possible. No one should be "shouted down" by someone else with more money- right? I mean if we're following the same logic?
As to federal employees and entities that do business with the federal government- smaller government is the ultimate solution to that influence. The federal government should not be a money laundering scheme whereby taxpayer dollars are converted into lobbying dollars for the purpose of obtaining more taxpayer dollars. Again, I don't deny there are Constitutional issues at stake- but I'm willing to tackle them head on to fix the clear and obvious problems we've got now with money buying influence in politics.
But I digress- the people that really hate campaign finance reform are consultants and media outlets. Campaign spending season is big money time for political consultants and media outlets who sell ad time.
|
|