• 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'm suprised giving a speech at a private event has to be "ok'd" by the state department in the first place... And if you're point is that he spoke at events in which a Banking company (Barclays) broke the law....Ummmm you do know its BANKING we are talking about?

You really wanna go down that path? Mitt Romeny is collecting a fat check from them giving speeches to the same group (Barclays). And if you whole beef is that they gave money to Clinton, you might wanna check out their PAC funds, and who they gave $$$ to... https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00448852&cycle=2014

But hey if your point is that we need to get money out of politics and severly restrict it and its influence! Then, hell yea! Im with you.

But if your point is "look! Hillary bad! Bad!" meh, I agree that I I'm not Clinton fan, but I'm not falling for this partisan argument.

Sooo what you are saying is that a vote for Hilary is a vote for Romney. That'll definitely separate her from Bernie Sanders!
 
I am sick of these partisan threads (from both sides).

'The other party is evil' crap is absolute nonsense and is destroying America.
 
Thats a politician.


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


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

So when the campaign season is in full swing can I expect that whenever a Republican is shown to be unethical you will rush in to point out that they are just politicians?
 
Politician=/=Corruption

Using the power of your political position to stuff your pockets with money from companies that do business with your office is corruption, however. Do you think money in politics leads to corruption or is that just politics? You can't have it both ways.
 
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?

Never fear. If you don't look, you won't see anything.
 
Politician=/=Corruption

Politician =/= statesman necessarily, either. When a person in a position that's defined by placing the interests of the country above partisan politics uses that position for political gain, then the position has been corrupted by the person occupying it.
 
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.

Yeah. I understand that to the left here nothing unusual has happened. Speaks volumes.
 
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.

Not at all, you were wrong which is why the link showed the times for Bilbos request. Moreover it did state 330 requests within a certain time span. So again you were wrong about that it didn't show Tim what was not normal.

Moreover don't even try with the dishonest BS. My weight has been established here, long before you ever came around Monte.

Now you really are reaching.....what does BO have to do with Bill Clinton and this issue? My disliking BO peep has no bearing on Clinton and this issue at all. But I am glad to know how you equate all things that is happening, to BO. Thanks for showing how you just can't let go of your man. ;)
 
Yeah. I understand that to the left here nothing unusual has happened. Speaks volumes.



Maybe it was the spelling that threw them off track. :confused:



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......snip~
 
Never fear. If you don't look, you won't see anything.

Yeah, the left's argument that all politicians are corrupt combined with their demand for more government control seems, I don't know... crazy?
 
Using the power of your political position to stuff your pockets with money from companies that do business with your office is corruption,
Barclay did "business" with the US? What kind of "business"? Paying a fine?

however. Do you think money in politics leads to corruption or is that just politics? You can't have it both ways.
Oh it leads to corruption, but the thing is its essentially legal corruption.
 
So when the campaign season is in full swing can I expect that whenever a Republican is shown to be unethical you will rush in to point out that they are just politicians?

Please see post #4
 
Yeah, the left's argument that all politicians are corrupt combined with their demand for more government control seems, I don't know... crazy?

Nixon got a dog, and the Clintons get a couple of hundred million. See? They all do it. What we truly need is more corruption, not less.
 
I don't think Mitt Romney's wife is Secretary of State.

GEEZUZ! FINALLY someone said it. 24 freakin' comments in. I was wondering if there was anyone to speak directly to the point.
 
I would ask conservatives who raise objections here this question:

Under what circumstances should the state department have said no to a private citizen speaking at a private event, and how many of these speeches meet that criteria?

I agree with the question. I would also say that frankly...its not all that out of the realm of possibility that ANY former US president might be given fast track treatment by the State Department and that being married to the Sec of State should have a few perks.

The only level of concern I have remains with who was signing the paychecks. These were people that were a-known to be sanctioned for improper dealings with Iran and b-People with whom the foundation was getting direct cash contributions from AND that had business dealings that appear to have been facilitated by the state department.

Or not. Let the muck continue. Its going to be a long year and a half.
 
GEEZUZ! FINALLY someone said it. 24 freakin' comments in. I was wondering if there was anyone to speak directly to the point.

Ann Romney has ties to Hillary, though. They know each other's names and stuff. So who knows what could've transpired? We'll never know the true depth of the Romney's corruption. Harry Reid pretty much nailed it.
 
Politician =/= statesman necessarily, either. When a person in a position that's defined by placing the interests of the country above partisan politics uses that position for political gain, then the position has been corrupted by the person occupying it.

Almost all aspiring politicians have used various positions for personal gain, be it a resume filler, or a way to work their way up the ladder of power.
 
Ann Romney has ties to Hillary, though. They know each other's names and stuff. So who knows what could've transpired? We'll never know the true depth of the Romney's corruption. Harry Reid pretty much nailed it.

But does Ann have a brother, who is a scam artist and complained he would have to take a job making only 75k a year?

You know.....one that thought he could be his own charity.
 
I agree with the question. I would also say that frankly...its not all that out of the realm of possibility that ANY former US president might be given fast track treatment by the State Department and that being married to the Sec of State should have a few perks.

The only level of concern I have remains with who was signing the paychecks. These were people that were a-known to be sanctioned for improper dealings with Iran and b-People with whom the foundation was getting direct cash contributions from AND that had business dealings that appear to have been facilitated by the state department.

Or not. Let the muck continue. Its going to be a long year and a half.



Mornin VM :2wave: Well it is clear others overseas.....thought Hillary could be influenced.



Morocco’s team of American lobbyists regularly communicated with State Department officials during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s four-year tenure and several are supporting her candidacy for the 2016 presidential election, according to disclosures filed with the Justice Department. Meanwhile, a controversial cache of what appear to be Moroccan diplomatic documents show how the Moroccan government courted Clinton, built a cooperative relationship with the Secretary of State, and orchestrated the use of consultants, think tanks and other “third-party validators” to advance the North African nation’s goals within elite U.S. political circles.

The DOJ filings and Moroccan leaks help flesh out the story of how a strategically important Arab nation — one that’s been widely denounced for holding one of the last remaining colonial territories in the world — has sought to influence U.S. politics in general and Clinton in particular. Clinton, who has called Morocco “a leader and a model,” saw her and her family’s relationship with the nation burst into the national consciousness earlier this month when Politico reported that the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation would accept more than $1 million in funding from a company controlled by Moroccan King Mohammed VI to host a foundation event in Marrakech on May 5-7. Other foreign contributions to the foundation have also generated controversy, but none as intensely as the Morocco gift.

Documents suggest that the Moroccan government has long sought to influence the Clinton family over U.S.-Morocco relations. Mandatory disclosures filed by Morocco’s many American lobbyists provide one window into these efforts. Another side of the story can be seen through the cache of apparent Moroccan diplomatic documents believed to have been hacked by critics of the government. The diplomatic cables began to appear online seven months ago but are receiving fresh scrutiny given news of the donation to the foundation......snip~

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/22/inside-morocco-clinton-influence-campaign/
 
Almost all aspiring politicians have used various positions for personal gain, be it a resume filler, or a way to work their way up the ladder of power.

Are you saying all politicians have no ethics?
 
Are you saying all politicians have no ethics?

Depends on the said actions of said aspiring politician, and ones views on ethics.
 
So not all.....correct?

It would depend on ones view of ethics and one could also argue that politics in and of istelf is inherently unethical.
 
Back
Top Bottom