• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State Department OK'd most Bill Clinton speech requests within days

I don't think Mitt Romney's wife is Secretary of State.

So what? Exactly what is the objection here?

People aren't asking Bill Clinton to speak at an event because he is the husband of (former) SecState. They are asking him to speak because he is Bill Clinton, former President of the United States.
 
Last edited:
Try again Monte and I doubt the AP is being partisan. It was a nice try on your behalf. Not even Jimmy Carter has 330 requests in any small time span. Moreover reading the link gives a couple of specifics.



By the end of January 2011, Clinton had mingled with top Barclays clients at a private dinner in Davos, Switzerland, and at a conference in Singapore — and collected $650,000 in fees for his work.

The State Department's scrutiny, which went beyond the standard ethics requirements for all federal officials, was a voluntary process agreed to by both Clintons to avoid "even the appearance of a conflict of interest," according to a January 2009 memo sent by David Kendall, Bill Clinton's personal lawyer, to Jim Thessin, who oversaw the vetting in the State Department. Clinton's office agreed to provide the names of organizations hosting the former president at least 14 days before the event, according to the memo. Lawyers at the agency would then aim to complete their review within five days.

Only a handful of proposed arrangements appear to have been rejected. A consulting contract with Saban Capital Group Inc., a firm headed by major Clinton donor Haim Saban, was rejected because of what the State Department deemed as Saban's active involvement in foreign affairs, particularly the Middle East. On Thursday, Saban hosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's campaign at his Beverly Hills home, raising at least $1.2 million from 450 attendees.....snip~

US approved most Bill Clinton speech requests within days

Dude, I've already agreed with you that it is suspicious. But as Tim pointed out, unless it can be shown that its a break from SD norms, its a non story. Demonstrate that or drop it.
 
This would have more legs if you could show that the process of approving similar requests took longer or was out of the norm?

Tim-

Yup, the AP didn't do a great job here. It should say "Normally it takes x days/months to approve a request". Responsible journalism is a thing of the past.

I think the much bigger "story" here is exactly who he was asking permission to hang with. A great number of them - including Barclays - were under investigation by our government.
 
So what? Exactly what is the objection here?

People aren't asking Bill Clinton to speak at an event because he is the husband of (former) SecState. They are asking him to speak because he is Bill Clinton, former President of the United States.

You have to ask the person who brought up Romney's name.
 
Yup, the AP didn't do a great job here. It should say "Normally it takes x days/months to approve a request". Responsible journalism is a thing of the past.

I think the much bigger "story" here is exactly who he was asking permission to hang with. A great number of them - including Barclays - were under investigation by our government.

I agree with both points.
 
Yup, the AP didn't do a great job here. It should say "Normally it takes x days/months to approve a request". Responsible journalism is a thing of the past.

I think the much bigger "story" here is exactly who he was asking permission to hang with. A great number of them - including Barclays - were under investigation by our government.

My first question is whether most people even bother to ask in the first place. And why.
 
I don't think Mitt Romney's wife is Secretary of State.

Aaaaaannnnddddd so what? I thought the whole point of this is "well Barclays does unethical practice"? 1.)All banks do. and 2.)If that is actually the point then well, they give campaign moeny to a **** ton of elected individuals, and give speaking money to a lot of others as well, let not be hypocritical with our criticism now shall we?
 
State Department OK'd most Bill Clinton speech requests within days | Fox News


"Honest" Hillary doesn't bat an eye at taking care of hers and herself by any means. What a fine example of integrity!! She should be President.

/sarcasm off



Doesn't do much for me. All US presidents make $ off of speaking engagements.

The fact that the secretary of state easily approved the requests of a former and recent two term president, someone she could trust with the message the administration wanted is a non starter
 
Aaaaaannnnddddd so what? I thought the whole point of this is "well Barclays does unethical practice"? 1.)All banks do. and 2.)If that is actually the point then well, they give campaign moeny to a **** ton of elected individuals, and give speaking money to a lot of others as well, let not be hypocritical with our criticism now shall we?

I thought the whole point of the AP article was the speed of the State Department approving Bill Clinton's request to rub elbows with groups that were under investigation. How did you get that the article was a referendum on Barclay's business practices?
 
Doesn't do much for me. All US presidents make $ off of speaking engagements.

The fact that the secretary of state easily approved the requests of a former and recent two term president, someone she could trust with the message the administration wanted is a non starter

I don't think he was representing the administration on these speaking engagements.
 
I thought the whole point of the AP article was the speed of the State Department approving Bill Clinton's request to rub elbows with groups that were under investigation. How did you get that the article was a referendum on Barclay's business practices?

It's a way of diverting your attention away from the corruption of the Clintons.
 
Dude, I've already agreed with you that it is suspicious. But as Tim pointed out, unless it can be shown that its a break from SD norms, its a non story. Demonstrate that or drop it.

The link does that with the noted times. All it takes is reading. So deflecting that it doesn't show that it wasn't normal, which is what I showed Tim. Just isn't nor was ever the case. So get over it.....you were wrong!
 
The link does that with the noted times. All it takes is reading. So deflecting that it doesn't show that it wasn't normal, which is what I showed Tim. Just isn't nor was ever the case. So get over it.....you were wrong!

No you're wrong, but not just wrong, you're dishonest, such is your patronising bs, and hatred of our president. I can't get over that.
 
I thought the whole point of the AP article was the speed of the State Department approving Bill Clinton's request to rub elbows with groups that were under investigation. How did you get that the article was a referendum on Barclay's business practices?

Is there a problem of politicians spouses "rubbing elbows" with bankers or something? I thought this was a common practice in politics and is well known?
 
I don't think he was representing the administration on these speaking engagements.

Heya TB.
hat.gif
Looks like on this one Bilbo Undercut US Policy.



The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side. The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.....snip~

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...ssed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=2
 
Is there a problem of politicians spouses "rubbing elbows" with bankers or something? I thought this was a common practice in politics and is well known?

Hillary wasn't a politician at the time. She was supposed to be a stateswoman - you know - representing the best interests of the United States - not a politician. That's what the Secretary of State is supposed to do. Perhaps you can show how Bill Clinton's speaking engagements were in the best interests of the United States, because it appears to all the world they were certainly in the best interests of the Clintons. Both Bill and Hillary.
 
Hillary wasn't a politician at the time. She was supposed to be a stateswoman - you know - representing the best interests of the United States - not a politician. That's what the Secretary of State is supposed to do. Perhaps you can show how Bill Clinton's speaking engagements were in the best interests of the United States, because it appears to all the world they were certainly in the best interests of the Clintons. Both Bill and Hillary.



Cmon now 50 mil.....they had Bills. :lol:

tmdsu15051120150512052910.jpg
 
Hillary wasn't a politician at the time. She was supposed to be a stateswoman
Thats a politician.

- you know - representing the best interests of the United States - not a politician.
No matter how you describe it, its still a politician.

That's what the Secretary of State is supposed to do. Perhaps you can show how Bill Clinton's speaking engagements were in the best interests of the United States, because it appears to all the world they were certainly in the best interests of the Clintons. Both Bill and Hillary.
Why does it matter? Was Bill Clinton the Secretary of State or something?
 
Thats a politician.

No. In reality, whatever politicking the Secretary of State did before he or she held the Sec job doesn't mean the duties of the Secretary of State are political. They are in fact administrative, and charged with implementing the foreign policy of the administration. That is distinctly not the job of a politician.


No matter how you describe it, its still a politician.

See above. To the left, everything is political. I certainly agree that with both of the Clintons, Hillary as secretary was certainly purely political and possibly for personal financial gain.

Why does it matter? Was Bill Clinton the Secretary of State or something?

See above.
 
No. In reality, whatever politicking the Secretary of State did before he or she held the Sec job doesn't mean the duties of the Secretary of State are political. They are in fact administrative, and charged with implementing the foreign policy of the administration. That is distinctly not the job of a politician.




See above. To the left, everything is political. I certainly agree that with both of the Clintons, Hillary as secretary was certainly purely political and possibly for personal financial gain.



See above.

You really wanna go with the elementary argument of "well its supposed to be that way"? Get past the elementary description of positions.
 
So Mitt Romney was unfit to be president? I agree.

I actually think Mitt Romney would have been one of the all-time great Presidents. There is nothing about the man that even gives the hint that he isnt Presidential material. Hell, he even looks the part.
 
You really wanna go with the elementary argument of "well its supposed to be that way"? Get past the elementary description of positions.

Ahhh, yes. I do. Do you really wanna go with the "yeah, it's corrupt, but that's a given" thing?
 
Ahhh, yes. I do. Do you really wanna go with the "yeah, it's corrupt, but that's a given" thing?

I can't figure out what the corrupt part is. He's a private citizen speaking at a private event. Where's the conflict of interest?
 
Ahhh, yes. I do. Do you really wanna go with the "yeah, it's corrupt, but that's a given" thing?

Mornin HB :2wave: they aren't up on whats ethical despite the AP talking about an ethics problem and the conflict of interest.

Its why you will see them talk about how they don't see anything wrong with what was being done. They tend to skip over what the AP stated and their emphasis.
 
Back
Top Bottom