-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Reuters: Hacked emails raise possibility of Clinton Foundation ethics breach
- Thread starter MassiveNights
- Start date
- Status
MassiveNights
Banned
These questions were not asked from a position of racial discrimination, there's a big difference.
If people think it's nothing, that's totally fine, but I thought it was a interesting article from a news organisation not generally known for sensationalism.
evilromero
Member
So nothing criminal, just an issue of ethics. Ok. And in this case a very odd example of any wrongdoing on the Foundation's part even with illegally obtained private emails, which just goes to show how deep opponents have to reach for any kind of dirt.
I have to admit I basically fell for right wing propaganda. I assumed there was *something* to the idea of the nefarious Clinton Machine -- I assumed it with every politician but especially the case with the Clintons.
But we're literally seeing thousands and thousands of private internal conversations among the absolute highest levels of her campaign. For both campaigns 2008 and 2016. And we saw her secretary of state mail. And the DNC mail. And there's frankly shockingly little real dirt. They constantly tweak language, they change things to appeal to one demographic or another, they get snarky when people attack them, the post critical articles and say, "Ok what's the response to this attack?" Everything just seems so actually normal politics, but like a pretty West Wing version of it, where's the House of Cards stuff?
Can you imagine if we saw all the internal correspondence of the RNC, the Trump campaign, and the Trump business (corresponding to the Secretary of State emails)?
But we're literally seeing thousands and thousands of private internal conversations among the absolute highest levels of her campaign. For both campaigns 2008 and 2016. And we saw her secretary of state mail. And the DNC mail. And there's frankly shockingly little real dirt. They constantly tweak language, they change things to appeal to one demographic or another, they get snarky when people attack them, the post critical articles and say, "Ok what's the response to this attack?" Everything just seems so actually normal politics, but like a pretty West Wing version of it, where's the House of Cards stuff?
Can you imagine if we saw all the internal correspondence of the RNC, the Trump campaign, and the Trump business (corresponding to the Secretary of State emails)?
I think it's partially the no dynasty narrative that was on at the beginning of the primaries that is no longer going because she's one of the two choices left. The potential Bush dynasty was easily thwarted and now you're left with the potential Clinton dynasty. People really just don't want another Clinton in office.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
The guy had the balls to go after the Clintons on women and sexual transgressions knowing what his own past was like. Now imagine him on professional corruption or virtually every other issue he claims some kind of high ground on.
Would have said the same thing about the AP a few weeks ago.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
When you're the ruling family of a monarchy in the middle east who practices in the stoning of raped women, what exactly is your incentive to want to donate to the Clinton Foundations causes? I'm not asking it as an accusation- I am literally dumbfounded by the idea that Qatar and Saudi Arabia have any wish to be philanthropistic in their social foreign issues when they are some of the most cruel places on earth. SA with its human rights record, and Qatar being a living slave state.
If you only frame these question on Clinton you're just setting up the same narrative of putting her to a higher standard- It's clear that across the political lines it is common practice to make bread with scrupulous royal dictators who engage in mass killings. How exactly does it ever look good or seem when those families donate? Regardless if it's under Bush or Obama or Clinton or whoever.
If you only frame these question on Clinton you're just setting up the same narrative of putting her to a higher standard- It's clear that across the political lines it is common practice to make bread with scrupulous royal dictators who engage in mass killings. How exactly does it ever look good or seem when those families donate? Regardless if it's under Bush or Obama or Clinton or whoever.
RustyNails
Member
This so much.
Ethics breach my ass. If this is the worst they could dig up, it means Clinton Foundation is a pretty squeaky clean charity. Keep in mind it's the top rated charity, rated higher than Red Cross.
Trying to have a rational discussion about Hillary's faults in this election is like worrying about if the fire department paid its taxes properly while trapped in a burning building surrounded by people screaming for help. Now really isn't the time to bring up the Clinton Foundation and what it may or may not have done wrong.
UnemployedVillain
Member
At this point it feels like these publications are almost desperate to find something scandalous, if only to justify all that time they've wasted harping about emails and combing through tens of thousands of them. Quite frankly it's sad and pathetic
Version 3.0
Member
There are probably thousands of journalists who've been assigned the boring ass job of reading through all this leaked (I mean stolen) stuff. It's their job to try and find anything newsworthy.
And yet this vague crap is the best they can do. In my opinion, it makes Clinton look like a saint.
I'm actually surprised there haven't been some more fraudulent "leaks" in among the actual stuff.
And yet this vague crap is the best they can do. In my opinion, it makes Clinton look like a saint.
I'm actually surprised there haven't been some more fraudulent "leaks" in among the actual stuff.
CrocMother
Banned
Isn't this exactly the time to be bringing it up? Before we elect her as president of the country?
SoundofSilence
Member
No. Not when the alternative will utterly destroy the pillars of our democracy.
Bringing up actual wrongdoing is swell.
Bringing up the vague possibility of wrongdoing for the thousandth time based on stolen emails disseminated as propaganda? Nah.
As someone who thinks this story is pathetic reaching, that's a shitty reason not to post an anti-Clinton story.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Wait. So what exactly do the emails show then? I am confused.
CrocMother
Banned
I want to know everything about the person I'm voting for. If you want to quash news stories about Clinton because you're that afraid of Trump than you're just as bad as some of the crazies on the right.
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
MANY PEOPLE HAVE SAID THIS.
Father_Brain
Banned
First of all, Clinton is many times more likely to win the election than Trump, no matter how much bed-wetting and hand-wringing some of her supporters are presently choosing to engage in.
Second of all, the notion that our ostensibly independent press should abandon its duties and cease to even investigate anything that might reflect negatively on the front-runner for the most powerful head of state on earth, just because her opponent is worse, is loathsome and frankly toxic to democracy in itself.
MassiveNights
Banned
Have they? OK. I haven't seen that. No need to shout.
apparently the leaks say a donation happened, but they don't know for how much, or even what date it happened on, or even if it happened during the period when Hillary was SoS.
so, yeah...
Father_Brain
Banned
Prior to 2016, the press only reported on information that was legally obtained for altruistic reasons.
If you care so much about the press, hold them to a higher standard than the National Enquirer.
I wouldn't have a problem with the press poring over illegally obtained info if they could glean something substantive from it. But they haven't. Instead they have waffled with half-baked theorizing over unlikely possibilities.
Look at this shit.
They talk about Clinton promising the foundation would not accept unauthorized donations from foreign governments, even though there's no evidence the donation was made.
Maybe I'll treat these stories with more respect when they actually have something that deserves coverage. Not squeezing blood from a stone.
Journeywalker
Member
It's unfortunate that Republicans have so often created the illusion of a conflagration using smoke and mirrors that I approach this story with a bias of doubt.
Hillary's scandals commonly reveal behavior that, while not illegal, is morally suspect. And if she were lower down on the totem pole, she might actually face official reprimand. It's that soupy gray moral area I like to call the "Clinton Zone."
In this case, the wrongdoing is all conditional. If the donation was made, and it was during her time as SoS, and it was not a continuation of prior donations, and Clinton is influenced by the donation, then it is wrong. Otherwise, it is only a potential conflict of interest.
Hillary's scandals commonly reveal behavior that, while not illegal, is morally suspect. And if she were lower down on the totem pole, she might actually face official reprimand. It's that soupy gray moral area I like to call the "Clinton Zone."
In this case, the wrongdoing is all conditional. If the donation was made, and it was during her time as SoS, and it was not a continuation of prior donations, and Clinton is influenced by the donation, then it is wrong. Otherwise, it is only a potential conflict of interest.
MassiveNights
Banned
You can't see why they asked the foundation to confirm whether it was made or not? Really?
There is an e-mail about arranging a meeting to accept a $1m cheque promised for Bill's birthday. They asked if this was a donation or a gift since the email falls in the period of Hillary's time as SoS. They ask if the donation took place at all. No answers.
The party in question are also on record as having donated to the Clinton Foundation.
If the foundation deny the donation takes place at that time there is no story. They didn't.
It's pretty basic stuff and I don't know why people are implying there is a bias from Reuters.
MassiveNights
Banned
No, that is what the original e-mail is about.
Ghost is Bad
Banned
if they can't even conclusively prove that it happened then why is this even a thing
The investigations are fine. There's no fucking reason to report this shit unless you've actually found something though. This is just more "Maybe she did something wrong. Who knows! We'd have to look into it to find out, but its easier to just point and go '?'." a.k.a. They've printed this type of story 100 times in the last two years and every single one of them has done nothing useful except make someone who's doing their best to follow the rules look like they're not following the rules.
This last paragraph is the definition of journalistic bias and something no self-respecting editor lets through.
To uphold this nothing article as a bastion of journalistic integrity is laughable.
MassiveNights
Banned
The article is valid. Is it a huge scoop? No. Is anyone treating it like that? No.
People are way too defensive round here right now.
Not every report on the election needs to be itsfuckingnothing.gif or OMG EXPOSED. There is a middle ground.
The media is so used to pushing the false equivalency narrative they feel the need to give coverage to anything potentially bad for Clinton no matter how vague or speculative it is. Now news shows tomorrow will talk about Trump assaulting 5 more women for 30 minutes then talk about this for a segment in the interest of "fairness". Not that matters at this point.
It'd probably be fuckin' boring too.
Well maybe not from the Trump campaign. But when it comes to people who actually know how the game works, yes.
But there is nothing here. It's starts with the vaguest of headlines and does nothing to further inform.
You don't accuse others of ethics breaches without evidence. That's kinda ... unethical.
Just dead on correct. Too many people have lost their fucking minds during this election.
MassiveNights
Banned
There is a refusal to deny that Qatar donated $1m to the Clinton Foundation when Hillary was serving Secretary of State, led by reference to such a donation in a Foundation e-mail when she was serving.
If that doesn't pique your interest then fair enough but nothing about the story is unethical.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Do you perchance work for Reuters?
It's the only explanation for you to spend THIS MUCH time defending a terribly shitty, pointless, unproven and biased article.
Refusal to comment on unsubstantiated claims is not interesting, no.
And it's only not unethical because it's to vague and poorly sourced to be considered as such. The Washington Post and Times have shown what proper journalism looks like in 2016. This ain't it.
They did comment by saying if it did happen it would not be an ethics breach.
It's still not interesting though.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked