Wikileaks: Top Clinton Aides Detail “Expensive Gifts” and Unethical Deals By Clintons Through Their Foundation

bill_clinton_by_gage_skidmorecvt6lyevuaq0z7-jpg-smallWikileaks has issued new and troubling emails from its hacking of Democratic accounts. Top Clinton aide Doug Band sent emails that raised objections to the use of the Foundation by Bill Clinton over alleged conflicts of interest. He specifically mentions the giving of “expensive gifts” and other conduct from sponsors. At the same time, top Hillary Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, is found complaining about a “mess” created by Hillary Clinton in securing a massive contribution from the King of Morocco of $12 million allegedly in exchange (or with the expectation) for a meeting with her as part of an event for the Clinton Global Initiative May 2015.

The Band disclosure concerns the Clinton Global Initiative and a new business started by top Clinton aide Doug Band called Teneo Holdings. Both Band and Clinton’s held dual positions with Teneo and CGI. Bond wrote a November 17th email to John Podesta, Chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and long-time Clinton confidant. He objected to Pedestal that “I signed a conflict of interest policy as a board member of cgi . . . Oddly, [Bill Clinton] does not have to sign such a document even though he is personally paid by 3 cgi sponsors, gets many expensive gifts from them, some that are at home etc. . . I could add 500 different examples of things like this.” Band was on the Clinton Foundation payroll through 2011, but, in June 2011, he and co-founder Declan Kelly, a former economic envoy for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, started Teneo in June 2011. They then made Bill Clinton a paid adviser. Chelsea Clinton was then appointed to the CGI board. Teneo then accepted money from groups like MF Global, a controversial brokerage firm that reportedly lost $600 million of investors’ money and had business deals that could be benefited by an association with the Secretary of State.

At the time of the emails, the Clinton campaign staff were worried that there were questions being asked abut the relationship between CGI and Teneo. Band comes across as defensive and accusatory. He indicated that he knew of far worse conflicts by Bill Clinton and demanded “How then do we go through an exercise like this and [Bill Clinton] doesn’t as he is far more conflicted every single day in what he does?” Band later raised a Hillary Clinton with even worse “issues.”

In the meantime, Abedin (who is generally viewed as Hillary Clinton’s closest aide) authored a startling email that suggested a type of quid pro quo by Hillary Clinton in a foundation trade-off with Morocco for $12 million commitment to meet with the King of Morocco. The critical memo came in January 2015 with two top advisers Podesta and Robby Mook. It appeared that after cutting the deal for the money, Clinton had gotten cold feet due to the election. Abedin wrote that “this was HRC’s idea” and “she created this mess and she knows it.” It was decided that Hillary Clinton who go to campaign in Nevada and California while they had Bill and Chelsea meet with the Moroccans. Morocco at the time was under great pressure for what the U.S. government denounced as “arbitrary arrests and corruption.”

The last presidential debate with moderator Chris Wallace was the first to seriously probe allegations of a “pay to play” scheme associated with the Foundation. Clinton did not respond directly to the allegations but these emails are likely to magnify the concerns in the final weeks of the campaign.

161 thoughts on “Wikileaks: Top Clinton Aides Detail “Expensive Gifts” and Unethical Deals By Clintons Through Their Foundation”

  1. “The Doctrine of the Democrats

    The strange phenomenon of our times — one which will probably astound our descendants — is the doctrine based on this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the legislator. These three ideas form the sacred symbol of those who proclaim themselves totally democratic.

    The advocates of this doctrine also profess to be social. So far as they are democratic, they place unlimited faith in mankind. But so far as they are social, they regard mankind as little better than mud. Let us examine this contrast in greater detail.

    What is the attitude of the democrat when political rights are under discussion? How does he regard the people when a legislator is to be chosen? Ah, then it is claimed that the people have an instinctive wisdom; they are gifted with the finest perception; their will is always right; the general will cannot err; voting cannot be too universal.

    When it is time to vote, apparently the voter is not to be asked for any guarantee of his wisdom. His will and capacity to choose wisely are taken for granted. Can the people be mistaken? Are we not living in an age of enlightenment? What! are the people always to be kept on leashes? Have they not won their rights by great effort and sacrifice? Have they not given ample proof of their intelligence and wisdom? Are they not adults? Are they not capable of judging for themselves? Do they not know what is best for themselves? Is there a class or a man who would be so bold as to set himself above the people, and judge and act for them? No, no, the people are and should be free. They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do so.

    But when the legislator is finally elected — ah! then indeed does the tone of his speech undergo a radical change. The people are returned to passiveness, inertness, and unconsciousness; the legislator enters into omnipotence. Now it is for him to initiate, to direct, to propel, and to organize. Mankind has only to submit; the hour of despotism has struck. We now observe this fatal idea: The people who, during the election, were so wise, so moral, and so perfect, now have no tendencies whatever; or if they have any, they are tendencies that lead downward into degradation.”

    Sound familiar? That was written nearly 170 years ago by Frederic Bastiat in “The Law”.

  2. Thanks Olly. You’re correct, if it’s their tyrant they will love and worship that tyrant. I really wasn’t prepared for the level of depravity that Democrats tolerate and even cheer just so long as it’s their guy or gal doing the dirty work.

  3. Here’s part of the reason Obama refuses to allow the US to be brought before the ICC: “On October 20, 2011, Libya’s Muammar al-Gaddafi was brutally murdered by a mob of NATO-backed ‘rebels’, after first being beaten and violated in the most barbaric fashion. History leaves no doubt that not only was the Libyan leader murdered on this day but Libya itself.

    The regime-change crew who dominate Western governments have a long indictment sheet against their names. Since 9/11 they have wrought havoc and human misery on a grand scale in their determination to reshape and own a world that has never been theirs to own. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya – Syria currently embroiled in a pitiless conflict for its survival as a secular, non-sectarian state – this is the miserable legacy of nations which speak the language of democracy while practising the politics of domination.

    Of the aforementioned victims of Western imperialism, there is a strong argument to be made that Libya’s destruction constitutes an especially grievous crime. After all, in 2010, the year before it experienced its ‘revolution’, the United Nations Development Programme considered Libya a high development country in the Middle East and North Africa. In concrete terms this status translated to a literacy rate of 88.4%, a life expectancy of 74.5 years, gender equality, and various other positive indicators. In addition, Libya enjoyed 4.2% economic growth in 2010 and could boast of foreign assets in excess of $150 billion.

    Compare this record to Libya in 2016. According to testimony provided by US Army General David Rodriguez to the US Senate Armed Services Committee in March, it is a failed state, with the general estimating it would take ‘“10 years or so” to achieve long-term stability in what is a “fractured society”’…

    The impact of the chaos that has engulfed the country since Gaddafi was overthrown and murdered can be measured by the flood of Libyans who have attempted the perilous journey across the Mediterranean with the objective of reaching Europe. In the process untold thousands have perished..

    Loyalist Gaddafi forces were defeated by NATO not the opposition forces emanating from Benghazi. Indeed it was at the point at which the country’s armed forces were approaching Benghazi, preparatory to crushing the uprising, when NATO intervened – based on the lie of protecting civilians when in truth it was intent on regime change.

    Gaddafi’s crime in the eyes of the West was not that he was an authoritarian dictator – how could it be when their closet ally in the region is Saudi Arabia? His crime in their eyes, it was revealed in a tranche of classified Clinton emails, released by Wikileaks in January of this year, was his intention of establishing a gold-backed currency to compete with the euro and the dollar as an international reserve currency in Africa. In this regard the then French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, and then US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, were key actors in pushing for NATO intervention. Libyan oil was also a factor.

    The classified emails prove beyond any doubt that what took place in Libya was a monstrous crime for which those responsible have yet to be held accountable. On the contrary, Sarkozy is currently in the process of preparing a political return as French president, while Hillary Clinton is favorite to win the race for the White House against Republican nominee Donald Trump.

    Of the two, it is Clinton who was filmed clapping her hands and laughing at the news of Muammar Gaddafi’s murder in 2011. It is Clinton who pressed for the military intervention that ended in Libya’s destruction. And it is Hillary Clinton who has the gall to present herself as a moral giant in comparison to her rival for the US presidency.

    The Libyan people may well disagree.” Counterpunch

    This is who and what Democrats want to vote for. And they call Republicans fascists? Hypocrites!

    1. See, Isaac was correct when he said:

      “Her husband may have opened the door but she has accomplished more on her own than Trump could ever hope to.”

      Of course the good or bad of those “accomplishments” depends on one’s worldview. In Isaac’s progressive utopia, Clinton is just the tyrant he can support.

      Good post Jill!

    2. Very good post Jill. Saddam Hussein also talked about turning his back on the petrodollar. We absolutely need that to prop up our state, and we’ll do anything to stop any competing models–like the Asian agreement consisting of notoriety China and Russia. There’s your Ukraine, Syria, and wherever else they (she) can start opposition.

      1. slohrss29 – if Saddam wanted to turn his back on the petrodollar, why did he invade Kuwait? Easy women?

        1. Saddam invaded Kuwait because they were stealing Iraqi oil by slant drilling. He got an OK by the US before he moved (testimony of Karen (can’t remember her last name) of the US Embassy who got the word from the State Dept.). 30 days later we got the spectacle of Swartzkopfe (sp?) dancing with glee as he told about all the Iraqis that were killed.

  4. This comes from a National Review article that fact-checked Clinton’s claim in the debate that 17 intelligence agencies said the Russian government was behind the hack.

    “An unclassified October 7, 2016 joint DNI-DHS statement on this issue said the hacks . . . “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow — the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europa and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”

    How about turning the bright light on George Soros and his proven efforts to influence American politics?

    1. Olly – in America we call it an ‘October surprise!’ For Trump it was all the women coming out against him with their claims.
      I think the Russians would have dropped only the really choice bits against Hillary, instead of dropping all of Podesta email.

      1. Paul, there seems to be a level of willful ignorance at which no “surprise” can penetrate. The only real surprise would have been if it made any difference. When we have an electorate with a gnat’s worldview, these surprises won’t have an impact until they slam into the windshield.

  5. The Podesta 15 are out. One of the e-mails involves a discussion that someone close to the clintons said to follow the money and there one would find the real corruption of HRC. Podesta and another aid hope someone is keeping tabs on the man who said this.

    I’m certain they are. But the important point is to follow the money. The level of corruption in Obama’s administration and Clinton’s State Dept. Foundation and campaign is truly amazing.

    If we had a real press, this would be what they were doing, following the money. Instead we have willing lackeys and collaborators in the fraud. This is what has become of this govt. Please just don’t sit around justifying it as fine. It’s really not.

  6. It wasn’t Russia that hacked the emails. Clinton said something about UFOs and the UFO fanatics went looking for more. The conflict of interest stuff was a by-product. Many Trump supporters do so because they hate Clinton, just as many Clinton supporters hate Trump. Trump’s corruption is for the benefit of himself. Clinton’s corruption is for the Clinton dynasty. I’m not too fond of either of them and won’t vote for either. This is a positive election only for those who are supporting Stein. If all the “lesser-evil” folks would vote for Stein or that other guy, we’d have a real horse race.

  7. Tax tips from the IRS man. Who are you trying to kid. You don’t give to charity out your heart. You do it for greed.

  8. I was in NYC not too long ago and standing on a wharf looking at boats when some guy came up and began peeing off the dock into the water. Several of us asked him to stop. He replied that it was just a “wikileak”.

  9. So Trump’s father gave Donald $14 million for investing.

    Chelsea Clinton’s net worth is $15 million & lives in a $10 million apartment.
    Where is all this cash coming from? Maybe the Clinton Foundation?

    1. Chelsea’s husband was (is?) a Goldman guy. Maybe after he helped destroy Greece he made some serious $$$

      1. Chelsea’s husband is a hedge fund trader also worth $15 million. He gave donations to the Clinton Foundation. And bought Chelsea as a wife. It’s a “pay to play” thing.

  10. The Nation has endorsed HRC in a ringing editorial. Paul Krugman has done the same in his TNYT op-ed today.

    As for WikiLeaks, I have to question whether the purported emails were fabricated.

    1. WikiLeaks has never been wrong in their 10 year history. I wouldn’t trust Krugman with my son’s piggy bank.

      It’s absolutely stunning to watch the denial. WikiLeaks is just verifying things. Most intellectually honest people have already come to these conclusions just by looking at the facts.

      As a Libertarian, Gary Johnson is the only honest one in the room. I’d rather have someone that blanked out over “Aleppo” than some one who claims to be a champion of women yet takes millions of dollars from oppressive regimes. If you can’t find it on a map you’re not going to bomb it.

      If Clinton gets into office, we will be at war with either Russia or Syria or both.

      1. Excellent points. Alas, for me, as a liberal or progressive (I have yet to see a good formal distinction), the issue with Libertarians such as Johnson is their general approach to economics. They are at least consistent, but I don’t think draconian austerity is as effective economically as it is appealing in the mind to some. Brexit comes from such austerity, and I think other EU members will follow. I completely understand that some would disagree strongly.

      2. “As a Libertarian, Gary Johnson is the only honest one in the room” that is bs. Johnson is a tool and a fake Libertarian as he is for TPP!!

    2. LOL Paul Krugman. Hes a lying Democrat and he always has been.

      Wikileaks fabricated? Wake the hell up son

    3. The Nation started to shill for the Hil several months ago. Sad, to see a once fine publication lose its way. As far as Krugman he’s angling for a WH position

  11. The Democrats have been taken over by the Neo-Cons and most of their voters are too stupid to see it

  12. Hillary will most likely be the next President and I think all of these issues that are not being covered by the msm, will haunt her.

    1. Susan,

      They will haunt us and the rest of the world as she goes to war with Russia and bails out the banks with the people’s money again. We’ll get wars and austerity and her donors will get everything they ever wanted.

  13. The bottom line is that the change has to come from the bottom up. The first and foremost problem is the collective American ego that somehow it has always been this way and it is sacred. Point in fact, Scalia gave corporate concentrated financial ability to buy politicians some perverted right stemming from 1776. Clinton will appoint judges with the opposite bent. That maybe her only valuable legacy. It will be more than with Trump. Trump will sewer the Supreme Court and America. Nobody seems to want to hear the truth. Clinton is evil but she is competent. Trump is more evil and almost totally incompetent. If he had anything at all he would be leading by 20 points. Trump is plain stupid.

    1. issac – anything positive that Trump does is not covered by the MSM, anything negative done by Hillary is not covered by the MSM. That is why Trump is not up by 20 points. Politifact gave a false to a true statement that Trump made. You even have to fact-check the fact-checkers.

        1. phillyT- They said it was mostly false that Hillary wanted Open Borders, which she has said she wants.

      1. Paul, I pay no attention to the polls. I see Trump continue to fill his rallies and more women attending them. So the MSM can continue their echo chamber of lies. No one but Hilbots pays them any attention. I also think Jill is way higher than reported.

      2. Trump has never done anything positive except make money on a third of his enterprises. He failed/bankruptcy in a third, a third are neutral, and with a third he was successful. He was born into the business/royalty and tutored, connected, and financed in his initial adventures. There is no truth whatsoever that he started with a small million dollar loan. There is no truth to most of what Trump says. Check the fact checkers. Clinton lies occasionally but Trump lies constantly. His dad backed him to the tune of 70mil in construction loan guarantees. His dad’s lifetime of experience gave him every connection necessary. I worked in real estate development and understand how easy things can be with permits and how hard they can be if you don’t have the connections. Donald Trump couldn’t have failed initially if he tried when it came to simple real estate adventures. He did fail when his ego got the better of him. Trump’s main failures lie where and when he left the cozy world of New York real estate development, its 900 million worth of incentives and his dad’s connections. Trump is not the cracker jack that he and others make him out to be, especially when you apply his resume to the Presidency. Anyone who goes into public service or excels in business must have a high estimate of themselves, an ego. Trump is all ego and not much public service. Clinton is ego and public service. They both are corrupt. It is the ego that fuels both the achievements and the corruption, a double edged sword. Study your history and you will find this so.

        Clinton is simply the more sane of the two, the more experienced, and for what it’s worth the most progressive. When Trump first started debating he actually had my attention with two statements: he was going to get rid of concentrated private funding in politics or the oligarchs and he was going to create a single payer health insurance system. He stated that once and has never repeated it. Regarding the insurance issue the Republican party would not allow it and as far as oligarch go, Trump is an oligarch. Clinton may sleep with them but Trump is one. Clinton has shared Trump’s bed in that respect. In its place he has continuously exhibited a lack of stability and supported himself on cliches or branding. Regarding the MSM read the Washington Times. Trump is supported plenty in the MSM. You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. The lack of support Trump gets in the MSM that leans left is primarily because he is such an idiot and shoots himself in the feet. Trump is newspaper fodder. What is now most interesting is that even the W. Times or Fox can’t make him look good. That is the kicker.

        If you want to have an intelligent conversation regarding left and right then use Kasich or Reagan, or Bush. Oh wait, Reagan lowered taxes and increased spending and caused a seven year recession the worst since the Great Depression-he even admitted that on TV. Oh wait, Bush………well if your memory’s that bad……

          1. Paul

            You obviously have no idea of Hillary’s background. Her husband may have opened the door but she has accomplished more on her own than Trump could ever hope to. Regardless of the negatives of them both, Hillary is more equipped to be President than Trump. Trump has shown he is not equipped to keep a third of his adventures from going bankrupt. Trump’s entire life has been the involvement of the greasing of the palms of the rich and flashy. Trump is an entertainer who you love or love to hate. There simply is no there, there. If that has not made itself apparent to you by now, then ??????

            1. issac – list the accomplishments of Hillary at the State Dept. or as junior Senator from New York.

            2. she has accomplished more on her own than Trump could ever hope to.

              Only if ‘accomplishment’ is measured in value of bribes laundered.

          1. I have owned and operated businesses from myself only to 14 employees. I started from nothing. I was not born into a multibillion dollar empire as the new prince. Trump makes those Saudi princes that toss billions around the world and party crazily look like choir boys. It might interest you to compare and contrast Trump with some of these princes from the oil rich empires, if you have the minerals.

    2. But Hillary will not appoint someone like Professor Turley, who judges fairly and without political bias, strictly on the basis of the Constitution and written law.

      She will inject as much politics into the Court as possible.

      1. Turley has shown himself, through this blog, to be an entertainer. He could create an interesting unbiased newspaper. That would reflect his interests and serve the public better than as a judge. We desperately need some truly unbiased media.

  14. Sorry Professor T, but Wikileaks did not hack anyone’s email. All they do is publish stuff that other people hack.

    You are standing by this Russian state-sponsored hacking as if it’s a good thing, as if it’s OK to take it all at face value.

    It’s certainly delicious and gossipy and bitchy and nasty, but doesn’t the whole Putin-Trump thing give you pause?

    1. By that reasoning, doesn’t this give you pause:

      “Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta’s membership on the executive board of an energy company, Joule Unlimited, which received millions from a Putin-connected Russian government fund, also included “75,000 common shares,” according to an email exchange uncovered by the Wikileaks hacks.”

      Hillary Clinton is trying to blame the Russians to move the focus away from her, because she can have nothing, whatsoever, to say that will excuse what was in the emails. She cannot comment on the bribe of $12 million by the King of Monaco for a “speech”, in which Huma and her campaign staff was able to convince her to send Bill and Chelsea in her stead, since the optics were bad. Or any number of other seedy revelations.

      So…”it’s the Russians!” I have no idea where the hacker lives. What I find really interesting was that Obama lied about having no knowledge of Hillary’s emails, but the email dump showed he’d emailed her under a false name. You see, what happens when you keep catching someone lying over and over again, whether it’s a sullen teenager or someone in the high levels of government…you don’t believe them anymore. They’ve lost credibility. There are all sorts of moral tales about lying – notably in Aesop’s Fables, like the boy who cried wolf.

      So…it may be “the Russians!” or it may not, but neither Hillary nor Obama’s word carry much weight anymore.

      Shouldn’t the most important issue be that she did this, and not who revealed it? Because it really sounds like she is telling us that if “the Russian’s!” hadn’t gotten involved, we’d all still be ignorant of her misdeeds, so it’s patently unfair!

      Besides, didn’t Obama say the 80’s wanted their foreign policy back? Who cares about “the Russians!” Right Obama? We’re BFF after the Russian Reset that Hillary engineered…before they invaded and conquered the Crimea, and are aiding Syria to keep Assad in power so he can use WMD on civilians, like using chlorine gas on kids. So thank goodness our best SOS ever engineered such a positive relationship with them, being the most traveled person ever to hold the job, the smoothest, most qualified…

      Sounds like the whining of a corrupt criminal who’s been caught, to me.

      1. Oh my god what was that?

        Multiple government and security agents have said it was the Russians. You have something to counter that other than trying to pin it on Hillary and Barack?

        I am not saying the emails aren’t true, but how would you know? And if the Russians are hacking emails in order to influence the election in Donnie’s favor, isn’t that a big deal? Or would it only be a big deal if it was hurting trump somehow?

        Thank jeezus this election is almost over.

        1. David Duke on Twitter: “@wikileaks – America owes you, bigly! Thank you and God bless you!
‎ – 13 hours ago Glad it is almost over and hopefully the white nationalists will not win.

        2. Wow are you naive! The Russians, China, little Tommy in his Mom’s basement, so what? Influence an election? You mean the American people might decide to vote a particular way because they’ve been exposed to the truth about a candidate? Noooo, can’t have that! If Wikileaks had video of Hillary eating a late-term aborted baby, you and your ilk would focus on blaming Putin for trying to influence an election.

          The myopia is strong with your crowd.

        3. phillyT – the only government operatives that have said the Russians are doing it are trying to save Obama’s skinny a**. They are all political appointees.

          1. If you honestly believe that, I have a lovely casino investment opportunity you would like.

        4. “Oh my god what was that?” – Me, complaining about corruption?

          “Multiple government and security agents have said it was the Russians.” I believe you.

          No one has denied the emails are true. Assange has a pretty good track record of checking the veracity and bona fides of his information. What I found most telling was that HRC did not provide any excuse or really talked about the data at all. She went right to “the Russians!” If “the Russians!” discovered she’d murdered someone, what would be most important, that she was a murderer, or who revealed it?

          Trump has been in the media and the public eye for 50 years. He’s not two-faced. He’s pretty crude in public. What could a hacker discover? More crude names to add to the pile? A Penthouse screensaver? His tax returns, which of course will have every tax deduction legally possible? Meanwhile, the media has been complicit in covering up for Hillary. I’m grateful that we’ve got the smoking gun in the corruption and shady deals that may finally catch up to her, because the lawlessness has bothered me for a while. She’s been absolutely brilliant at evading criminal repercussions for her behavior, even claiming that merely reading the WSJ accounted for growing an investment of $1,000 to $100,000, when the account was really managed by a poultry industry lawyer, and it was a laundered bribe. There’s just this long string of seedy behavior, but she’s evaded it time and again like Al Capone.

          It’s been unequal, and this Wikileaks release has evened up the scrutiny just a bit, and let us know the truth. Plus, perhaps it shows the world’s lack of respect for our current administration, which has projected weakness, and multiple “red lines.” Obama didn’t react when Russia conquered the Crimean Peninsula, when it gave material aid to Assad to bomb little kids, but he’s good and steamed that they released embarrassing emails! So much that now he’s really going to do something about it, like launch a cyber counter attack! Well, thank goodness he’s got a limit to what he’ll take from Russia. Kids scorched by chlorine gas, global aspirations of Russia…that’s nothing, but now they’ve gone too far when he’s embarrassed us by revealing truthful emails!

          I’ll bet the Russians, along with the entire world, are laughing at this circus of an election. Perhaps they wanted to reveal to the world that our high ideals are meaningless, when enough of our population will vote for someone they KNOW is a liar, and they KNOW is corrupt.

          “Thank jeezus this election is almost over.” No kidding.

  15. I have noticed in the world outside this blog in talking with people who are professed democrats/liberals, when it comes to politics (which is most of their daily conversation with others if the talk is to be for a short length of time) most of what they talk about is how much they hate Donald Trump. They seldom if ever praise Hillary Clinton. In fact, I suspect that is the majority of the DNC and their supporters in the MSM seem to present as their propaganda strategy–that Trump is evil.

    This is to many a pathetic approach: that most of this election is about how bad he is while keeping your candidate away from the press and direct questioning about the merits of her candidacy. Surprisingly, she hasn’t pled the 5th when asked any questions from a neutral news medium, or that plea being her campaign slogan. Her evasiveness and continual lying is more consistent with a suspect in a criminal investigation who is on the verge of lawyering up, a minute away from expressing her right to silence.

    1. It makes perfect sense. The Democratic Party is a clanking collection of tribal groups with the bourgeois segment playing status games all the time. Rank and file Democrats have nothing left anymore but their resentments and pretension and confusion. (Well, there’s Harold Pollack). As for policy, everything they do is dedicated to manufacturing patron-client relations and feeding their pets.

    2. But so many just love her. They literally do not want to hear a bad word about her.

      I got so hammered by Obamacare. Even though a relative “saved me” by giving me a P/T job, and employer insurance, I cannot forget all the millions of people suffering under this humanitarian catastrophe that is Obamacare. My experience was, for those who haven’t heard me going on and on about it…negative. My biggest issues this election are repealing (not “fixing”) Obamacare, the economy, making our country more small business friendly, stopping the bleed of jobs overseas, forcing all immigration to go through legal channels, and terrorism. HRC is corrupt, and wants to keep Obamacare, AND she praised it all these years until, suddenly, inexplicably, in an election year, she suddenly acknowledged that it’s killing people it’s so unaffordable.

      Hillary Clinton was among those who, for years, praised this monstrosity of a bill as just wonderful. Any criticism was dismissed as right wing propaganda, totally untrue. And yet, on the cusp of the election, suddenly, she has a problem with it. Suddenly, Bill Clinton admits it’s “crazy” and people are killing themselves trying to afford it. All of a sudden, her camp is admitting that this has been one of the worst financial catastrophes to hit the middle class since the Great Depression.

      Suddenly, she’s gone from its biggest fan to a critic. And there’s no remark on this interesting turnaround. But it gives her a nice little platform – she wants to “improve it.” Improve a bill that stacks up to literally 6 feet, that was deliberately written in impenetrable people to, and I quote, “take advantage of the stupidity of the American public”? The problem is in its very infrastructure. “Fixing” it is like trying to tack on additions or bust out walls of a condemned house that is totally not up to code.

      People act like it is literally impossible to write a new raft of tightly written, SHORT, bills that each address the couple of things that people like about it – like no pre-existing conditions exclusions. They lied to us to get it through, and then they insult us further by claiming that they can’t repeal it now! It’s gone on too long.

      So, clearly, they are still banking on the “stupidity of the American people” – in the words of the architects of Obamacare.

      The takeaway that I get from the pre-existing conditions exclusions is that we have gotten to the point that health care is too expensive to afford without an insurance company subsidizing it. It’s not really “insurance” that we want, because we need our pre-existing health conditions covered. That’s not “insurance” at all.

      So we have to think outside of the box and bring that cost down, without falling for the trap where subsidies raise prices, as companies charge more when they know you’re getting a subsidy to help pay for it.

      1. Karen,

        Here are two suggestions:

        * Invite Cuban doctors to practice medicine here

        * Require insurance companies to cover the costs of visits to Nurse Practitioners

        * Place restrictions on Rx companies’ ability to use advertising to promote over-priced drugs to the public

Comments are closed.