• 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

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,041
Reaction score
33,367
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
State Department OK'd most Bill Clinton speech requests within days | Fox News

State Department officials under Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton moved quickly when aides to Bill Clinton asked them in March 2010 to approve plans for the former president to address clients of a multinational British bank, Barclays. Within four days, the department's ethics office signed off on the request -- as it did for hundreds of others from the former president during his wife's four-year tenure leading the agency.

Its standard response, fired off in a short memo: "We have no objection."
"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
 
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

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.
 
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.

It plays to her integrity and suitability as a Presidential candidate.
 
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-

Clearly that's the purpose of the article. An article articulating that the normal amount of time was taken would be ludicrous.
 
Clearly that's the purpose of the article. An article articulating that the normal amount of time was taken would be ludicrous.

Agreed, but I failed to read anywhere in this article where the compared and contrasted similar situations, and for me, this is no news unless they can make that showing.


Tim-
 
Sounds like Ms, Clinton knows how to cut-out red tape & make government more efficient!

Hire her!

:p
 
For a country that prides itself on First Amendment free speech rights, I'm at a loss to understand why the State Department would have any say in whether or not a private citizen gets to make a speech anytime, anywhere. Is this something to do with being a former President? If so, why? Jimmy Carter seemed to travel and bloviate at will, slamming the US and its leaders frequently, and I don't think he always or frequently got State Department approval.

This sounds really odd to me. Billy Boy is a dick, but he should have the same first amendment rights as anyone.
 
First, Bill didn't have to get clearance for those speeches. He was a private citizen. He did it to help his wife avoid the appearance impropriety. It failed, of course.

And four days seems reasonable. I wouldn't be surprised if it got special consideration. Not because of his wife, but because he is a former PRESIDENT.

Hillary has done all sorts of shady crap. This isn't one of them.
 
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-

Heya Hicup. :2wave: Here I can help with that. ;)



During Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as the top U.S. diplomat, lawyers and other ethics officials in the State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser gave near-blanket approval to at least 330 requests for Bill Clinton's appearance at speeches, dinners and events both in the U.S. and around the globe. More than 220 paid events earned the family nearly $50 million, according to a review of State Department documents and Hillary Clinton's financial disclosure forms by The Associated Press.

Now, as Hillary Clinton moves forward with her presidential campaign, the ease with which her husband was repeatedly cleared to address companies and governments around the world highlights the potential ethical complications that are likely to intensify if she becomes the country's next president.

The State Department also green-lighted requests by several foreign governments to hire the former president, despite the potential complications for his wife's international diplomacy.....snip~

US approved most Bill Clinton speech requests within days
 
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



Yeah it goes with the other info that came out in the last few days. Grim had a thread up on it and naturally more can be added to it. When it concerns the Clintons grifting the country and foreign donors.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...t-funding-remains-elusive.html#post1064616034
 
Heya Hicup. :2wave: Here I can help with that. ;)



During Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as the top U.S. diplomat, lawyers and other ethics officials in the State Department's Office of the Legal Adviser gave near-blanket approval to at least 330 requests for Bill Clinton's appearance at speeches, dinners and events both in the U.S. and around the globe. More than 220 paid events earned the family nearly $50 million, according to a review of State Department documents and Hillary Clinton's financial disclosure forms by The Associated Press.

Now, as Hillary Clinton moves forward with her presidential campaign, the ease with which her husband was repeatedly cleared to address companies and governments around the world highlights the potential ethical complications that are likely to intensify if she becomes the country's next president.

The State Department also green-lighted requests by several foreign governments to hire the former president, despite the potential complications for his wife's international diplomacy.....snip~

US approved most Bill Clinton speech requests within days

That doesn't speak to Tims request whatsoever. Can it be substantiated that the SD usually denies most such requests?
 
That doesn't speak to Tims request whatsoever. Can it be substantiated that the SD usually denies most such requests?

It doesn't give a specific, but it does point out to at least 330 requests which they know 220 of those paid events earned the family 50 million. Note how it didn't say just Bill or a Foundation.

Oh and 330 requests for one individual is out of the norm. Even if he was a former president.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't give a specific, but it does point out to at least 330 requests which they know 220 of those paid events earned the family 50 million. Note how it didn't say just Bill or a Foundation.

Oh and 330 requests for one individual is out of the norm. Even if he was a former president.

Yes I know and agree that it seems problematic. I'm just saying that Tim has a point. Unless this can be shown to be in contrast with normal SD protocol, it falls under the category of partisan bull****. And, as I already pointed out, the partisan left wouldn't indict her on this even if a Quid pro quo was produced. IOW, as usual, partisan politics at its finest.
 
Yes I know and agree that it seems problematic. I'm just saying that Tim has a point. Unless this can be shown to be in contrast with normal SD protocol, it falls under the category of partisan bull****. And, as I already pointed out, the partisan left wouldn't indict her on this even if a Quid pro quo was produced. IOW, as usual, partisan politics at its finest.



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
 
You're over the edge.

Right there in that link American. It says that State rejected a request from Saban due to involvement in foreign affairs. Yet on Thursday he raised 1.2 mil for Hillary.

Even Stevie Wonder can see.....Its she lovely.
 
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?
 
Back
Top Bottom