-
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
They promised the donations wouldn't increase above a million or so.
The donations did not increase above a million or so.
~The End~
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
More like, it didn't actually violate the agreement.
I'll be critical of her AFTER she's President, thanks very much.
In fact, I'm going to hold her to frikkin' task. Won't be that hard as the supreme-court-justice-appointment-denying and impeachment process and ACTUAL VIOLENT REVOLUTION might start immediately after.
Lazy vs Crazy
Member
The agreement said they would disclose when a new country donated or a previous country made a drastic increase in money donated and this was neither so the agreement was not violated.
ShironRedshift
Member
The whole premise is that it's problematic because it would supposedly be a "material increase" which would require asking the State Department for approval first, which wasn't done. However, the original story contradicts itself on this immediately and notes that Qatar has made similar large donations in the past, including some over $1 million:
Thus, since it wasn't a substantial increase after all, there's no need for approval, since it was already within previous norms. It was within the previous trends for the Qatari government and not an abnormal donation at all. Thus, not a material increase, thus no need for special state department approval, thus no story since the core premise is defeated.
Or if you mean because it's Qatar, it's inherently a negative, I addressed that in my previous post. It's a charity. For fighting disease like malaria and HIV/AIDS and stuff. I don't get who the money is from is relevant in any way. Either way, it's going to a tremendous good and wonderful cause. If they refused it simply because of the source, all that means is that money would stay in Qatar (and likely be used to fuel the human rights abuses and the like instead of being used for good), and less people would be helped. Instead, they accepted the money and people were indeed helped.
I can't see how in any way this can actually be considered "something" at all without an instant negative reaction to anything involving Qatar, Clinton, or the Clinton Foundation. There's nothing here as far as I can see.
Corronchilejano
Member
It's like having two shirts. One is white with a few stains. The other one is made of manure.
A Serious Man
Member
Clinton promised to disclose new or increased donations from foreign governments. Qatar had been giving a million or more since 2002 so the million given here is neither new nor is it increased.
That is an extremely naive way of thinking and has nothing to do with the problem at hand. The reason why this is a problem is that as Secretary of State, in charge of foreign policy, you should not be influenced by foreign governments. Having a state donate to your foundation while you are in that position can bring up issues. Now there are regulations put in front to prevent any kind of bribe, influence or bias and apparently she has breached one of those by not declaring this donation. Now sure this can be nothing but just a slip.. nonetheless it is something to inquire about, no matter how unfortunate the situation is. We and journalism should keep everyone accountable and ask questions no matter how shittier the surrounding is.
It seems tho that people need to make everything about Trump these days, so...
This is why Leona Lewis's anecdote rings so true... unless she's an actual killer, she shouldn't be judge because Trump happened.
EDIT: I also believe that this attitude is also why quite a few people vote Trump. I think that's just silly and naive as well, but doesn't make these kind of reactions less of part of the problem.
prag16
Banned
You must be new to HildawgGaf. Otherwise you wouldn't seem surprised.
ShironRedshift
Member
What influence would that be? It's a donation to a charity, not a bribe or a check to her own pocketbooks, and a routine charity donation in line with previous donations from them. How did it influence her exactly? What's the exact accusation here and what is it based on? I mean, that seems like a pretty ineffective bribe--donating to a charity, and only donating within previous norms, not even significantly increasing the donation compared to previous ones. Nothing about the idea makes sense.
Are you saying they are both the same!!11!??!
/s
It's terrible that we have gotten to the point where we, as citizens, can't even paint both candidates as accurately as possible. Sure, Donald Trump is way, way worse than Hillary, but that doesn't mean we should sweep stuff under the rug. If we actually worked to look at every politician as accurately as possible without irrational bias, then maybe we could have much better candidates. I get the feeling that some people choose candidates like sports teams and stay loyal no matter what. I'm not saying that's the case everywhere here, but it's a problem on all sides and it ultimately harms the average citizen. With this election especially, a major reason why both candidates are popular is because of name recognition. This is a massive country with many, many people that could run. We shouldn't be arguing over who is the worse candidate.
eyeball_kid
Member
Sure, but it doesn't mean that you can't look at your wardrobe and think, "Jesus, I haven't bought a new shirt since the 1990's."
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Criticize her once she's president. That's more productive right now.
Yeah, like why would they try to give her dirty money through her charity if they wanted to buy influence (which she doesn't even control anymore), when they could just contribute to SuperPACs instead?
well, these are the shirts we have, and we probably won't have the money to buy new shirts until 2024
so put one on
No one here is saying to not put on the least bad one. But, let this also be a lesson for the next time you go shirt shopping that it doesn't have to be this way. The store sells thousands and thousands of shirts. You can absolutely find the near perfect one and it isn't always the most popular brand. However, if you refuse to acknowledge that both shirts are not the best, then you can't learn that lesson.
Corronchilejano
Member
You need to get right on that, but for now, the white one is fine.
Monocle
Member
This seems like a balanced and informed assessment.
What? It's very hard to read tone on this forum so I don't know if you're joking or not. I'll assume you're not with the benefit of looking like a fool.
As a person in charge with foreign policy in a country there would be a lot of influence involved when you accept a donation from a foreign country. When you are in a position of power that conflicts with your own extra work, things change. If you give me Christmas presents at the office because we're colleagues that's ok... but if I'm promoted, I can't accept those gifts anymore. If I do and want to send them to charity I need to check in with HQ just to make sure everyone is aware of it and there's no foul play involved. The problem is not that she received money... is that the foundation did not go through the proper channels and the proper notification process.
For the tenth fucking time, yes they did, and there was no increase above the million or so.
eyeball_kid
Member
Oh, yeah I already put on the one that isn't fetid after a mob of people came and took the Free Tibet shirt off me.
I tried to go through this thread from beginning to end to find the sources that said for "9 other fucking times" that they confirmed they did go through the proper channels. What I've found as sources were the original thread post and this quote from Yahoo news
We can discredit this article and look further. My whole point was about that... as opposite to simply dismissing it because crooked Hillary is a meme and because Trump exists. If you have sources that state The Clinton Foundation actually went through the proper channels I would be more than happy to read them and to assess further.
Just to be clear, the Clinton Foundation is a public charity. The Trump Foundation is a private foundation. They're different. Public charities aren't that easily abused since they're easy to watch. And they are watched. Lots and lots and lots of people (including the independent boards that run them) watch public charities to make sure they're not just abusing the money. That's why there hasn't been a single "The Clinton Foundation uses its money to buy a fancy steak dinner" story this election cycle. Just lots of insinuation that somehow Hillary and Bill can use the charity as their own personal rainy day bank account.
Hillary and Bill make all of their money from books and speaking engagements.
Actually, the problem isn't Trump so much as it's the fact that "every bad thing" Hillary has done is a list grossly inflated by fanfiction making it so that anyone who might want to honestly discuss whatever legitimately bad things she's done has to spend more time sifting through a pile of fabricated or overblown claims that it's just not worth it. When even Fox News feels compelled to apologize for adding to that pile, you know you've gone too far.
Unfortunately this has been the response of the fanbase this whole election since it came down to clinton vs. trump. On one hand I get it, because people really don't want trump, but the blind bias is overwhelming. I see a ton of negative trump stories posted and immediately people are ready to accept it as fact, but anything seedy that comes out about clinton is written off as conspiracy or "wow its fucking nothing". Either way the sentiment has been stressed by a bunch of people, and I've grown tired of the argument. Trump has made people so angry that there is no time for objectivity. So maybe it's a conversation we can have after trump loses. Either way I'm voting for clinton, but she has plenty of question marks for me.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
mercenar1e
Member
not sure if Kim Dotcom is credible but he tweeted this out few hours ago. does anyone think another surprise is coming?
this isn't related to the Huma/Weiner investigation but Clinton server.
https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/with_replies
this isn't related to the Huma/Weiner investigation but Clinton server.
https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/with_replies
StopMakingSense
Member
This is probably some telephone version of 'yeah amongst huma's emails they found there could very well be a few that were deleted'
No, he's not.
RustyNails
Member
LOL. You need to ask??
Intheflorsh
Banned
His name is Kim Dotcom ffs
mercenar1e
Member
he might be the 400 pound guy Trump is talking about lol
If you have to ask, though, call Steve at the CIA and whisper "abra kadabra" while you play Miley Cyrus' Wrecking ball in the background. Then, he will email you all of the emails.
broncobuster
Banned
Man, is the new Call of Duty that bad for Mr. Dotcom to spend his time spreading rumors?
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
Wow $1million!
I'm sure Hillary Clinton would've done anything to get those sweet sweet Qatari oil bucks.
jim-jam bongs
Member
I thought we'd moved on from Clinton Foundation and emails to Satanism and pedophilia, aren't those the made up scandals of today?
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Can confirm
ColdDeckEd
Member
Qatar figured they would like their charity to actually do good things for people so they donate alot of money to the Clinton Foundation.
I still don't get it.
It's a highly rated charity that spends most of it's endowments on good works.
Where is the evidence that this actually means anything for Qatar to donate? How does Hillary benefit from this? How did Qatar benefit?
I'm not some Clinton apologist; I just haven't seen evidence of this foundation being anything but legit.
It's a highly rated charity that spends most of it's endowments on good works.
Where is the evidence that this actually means anything for Qatar to donate? How does Hillary benefit from this? How did Qatar benefit?
I'm not some Clinton apologist; I just haven't seen evidence of this foundation being anything but legit.
Journeywalker
Member
It's in the OP, it's not that hard to find:
OP said:
Also per the OP, they were already giving donations in excess of $1M on a semi-regular basis. The matter of interpretation is whether you consider the birthday present a new donation or a continuation of a previous pattern.
The entire premise of this story, and the thread about it, is that Hillary Clinton violated an ethical agreement by not notifying the State Department when the Clinton Foundation received a $1 million donation from Qatar in 2011.
But, the crux of that agreement was that State only needed to be notified and given a chance to review/approve Foundation donations from foreign governments if they marked either new or increased support. The Qatar donation was neither; Qatar had been a foundation donor since 2002, and had given donations of $1 million or more before.
So the conclusion is that the reason Hillary did not notify State about the Qatar donation in 2011 is because it did not represent any change from the semi-regular Qatar donations made in the nine years prior. You can criticize Hillary for accepting donations from Qatar at all, which I think is fine, but as far as this particular alleged bout of unethical behavior goes, I'd say it is null and void.
freenudemacusers
Member
so if i'm reading some of the comments in this thread correctly, we need to hold off any/all criticisms of a job applicant until after they get the job, because the other applicant is a poor choice. I should try this next time i'm up for promotion.
Journeywalker
Member
I agree with the sentiment that criticizing Clinton is perfectly reasonable. However, people are nervous because Trump is legitimately dangerous with power, especially because there is no safety net like bankruptcy as a president.
Yup. Another manufactured "ethics breach". It's sad to see Reuters go down this route.
There are some legitimate criticisms of Clinton, but they tend to be few and far in between. Most of the stuff that shows up are just dumb things like this, and it only reveals how terrible some of her critics are.
Maybe if you are only paying attentions to things that confirm your current beliefs.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked