Can someone explain emailgate to me?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > Can someone explain emailgate to me?

«‹›8 »

Amgard: Dec 28, 2006

gobbagool posted:

It's surprising that he has time given that he's a VIDEO GAMER DESIGNER/ACE PROGRAMMER/ SOCIOLOGIST/ HISTORIAN/ POLITICAL SCIENTIST/ HEROIC SOCIAL WORKER/ WORLD'S GREATEST SUPERGENIUS,

Wrong, he's a

quote:

I'M OBDICUT, ~~A VIDEO GAMER DESIGNER/ACE PROGRAMMER/ SOCIOLOGIST/ HISTORIAN/ POLITICAL SCIENTIST/ HEROIC SOCIAL WORKER/ WORLD'S GREATEST SUPERGENIUS, EVERYTHING some of what I SAY IS RIGHT AND IF YOU DON'T AGREE~~ I'LL POST LOTS OF DUMB CONDESCENDING BULLSHIT AT YOU ~~arguments about why you're wrong that might wind up hurting your feelings if you're super-sensitive.~~

# ? Mar 4, 2016 21:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 5, 2024 23:09

7c Nickel: Apr 27, 2008

stephenfry posted:

the delegate count is p much what we'd expect it to be if the candidates are neck-and-neck nationally, because if super-delegates want to keep the party intact they are going to start switching to Bernie. I don't know that clinton or her lawyers will see much return on investment in turning their attention to emailgate.

You'll be welcome on our team if she gets indicted, I don't even care if pizza and capri suns is some kind of coded racism

Is this just more "ANY DAY NOW THEY'LL INDICT THAT WITCH!" or do you actually think super delegates are going to start switching to the candidate with less delegates because REVOLUTION? Hillary has 50% more pledged, not super, delegates than Bernie does right now.

# ? Mar 5, 2016 03:54

stephenfry: Nov 3, 2009; I AM AN IDIOT.
I AM AN IDIOT.
I AM AN IDIOT.
I AM AN IDIOT.
I AM AN IDIOT.
I AM AN IDIOT.
I AM AN IDIOT.
I AM AN IDIOT.

7c Nickel posted:

Is this just more "ANY DAY NOW THEY'LL INDICT THAT WITCH!" or do you actually think super delegates are going to start switching to the candidate with less delegates because REVOLUTION? Hillary has 50% more pledged, not super, delegates than Bernie does right now.

Not quite. I was making fun of

JeffersonClay posted:

...she can afford to ignore it...

and yeah, if I'm going to consider Bernie's nomination a remote possibility such that I'll work toward it, which I am, then I should also be open to the slightly greater possibility that the clintons might get charged for at least one of the crimes they're linked to. I'm not depending on either

Bernie's got about 19 unbound delegates? Nobody really 'has' any, but yes they'll switch, and no, it won't be when Bernie has fewer bound delegates. Not even necessarily when HRC has fewer, under a certain margin. I'm not sure why I'm bothering to reply to your obviously uncharitable post, I guess I'm feeling insecure and wrongly challenged :saddowns:

# ? Mar 5, 2016 05:18

EngineerSean: Feb 9, 2004; by zen death robot

Obdicut posted:

I am a not-rich person with most of my income budgeted for rent and food and books and stuff

Hillary is definitely going to make this better for you

# ? Mar 5, 2016 11:09

ate shit on live tv: Feb 15, 2004; by Azathoth

EngineerSean posted:

Hillary is definitely going to make this better for you

# ? Mar 5, 2016 18:11

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Obdicut posted:

Do you naturally think in terms of false dichotomies? Neither. Because going by her senate record, if they have influence it's not substantial. She's voted for strong financial restrictions. I'm sure that all the connections and all the donations do have influence on her, but that influence is not 1:1. It is not that for every dollar given to her or every banker she knows personally she is 1 unit less likely to enact legislation against them, obviously. I think this also represents a popular misunderstanding of what super-rich people use their access to politicians to do. Some people definitely give money directly to curry favor or get favors related to their business, but a ton of other people use that money to influence other issues that aren't directly related, like wanting the government to fund more autism research, or to support gay marriage, or to curtail gambling, or to oppose gay marriage, or enable consuming raw milk. This sort of influence is still bad and lovely, dollars should not be considered speech, but you're making the facile assumption that every dollar donated from the finance industry is even an attempt to influence financial legislation.

Shorter answer: Because her senate record, and her stated agenda, don't show any significant influence.

I find it remarkable that you're so willing to disregard -- indeed you don't even mention it here -- the pattern of companies with important business before the state department who made significant donations to the Clinton fund. You're suggesting that when the Saudi government gave at least $10 million to the Clinton fund they did this for philanthropic reasons? Or that the majority of the corporations and super wealthy individuals who have business overseen by the state department were giving money to the Clinton fund around that same time out of a commitment to philanthropy and without any expectation of greater access or influence?

Meredith McGehee, who is Policy Director at the Campaign Legal Center, an organization that seems to have a solid record of opposing bad decisions like Citizens United and which supports various initiatives to reduce the role of money in politics, has repeatedly singled out the Clintons for their bad behavior in this regard. One example:

International Business Times posted:

Former President Bill Clinton accepted more than $2.5 million in speaking fees from 13 major corporations and trade associations that lobbied the U.S. State Department while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, an International Business Times investigation has found. The fees were paid directly to the former president, and not directed to his philanthropic foundation.

Many of the companies that paid Bill Clinton for these speeches -- a roster of global giants that includes Microsoft, Oracle and Dell -- engaged him within the same three-month period in which they were also lobbying the State Department in pursuit of their policy aims, federal disclosure documents show. Several companies received millions of dollars in State Department contracts while Hillary Clinton led the institution.

The disclosure that President Clinton received personal payments for speeches from the same corporate interests that were actively seeking to secure favorable policies from a federal department overseen by his wife underscores the vexing issue now confronting her presidential aspirations: The Clinton family is at the center of public suspicions over the extent of insider dealing in Washington, emblematic of concerns that corporate interests are able to influence government action by creatively funneling money to people in power.

�The dynamic is insidious and endemic to this system,� said Meredith McGhee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, a campaign finance watchdog group in Washington. "The fact is that the wealthiest .01 percent on the outside of government believes -- fervently -- that by paying speaking fees, or making campaign contributions, that it can gain access and influence."

And this is just the really egregious stuff. The fact is that what you said is also true: political corruption isn't always a 1:1 pay-for-play situation. But that really doesn't make the Clintons look any better, it just reinforces the extent to which powerful corporate players have spent years cultivating deep relationships with the Clintons that will help ensure that the Clintons -- in addition to a fair amount of old school money-for-influence style shenanagins -- are also just primed to view these corporate titans very favourably after years or even decades of close relations and big cash payouts.

quote:

It's not like you did a real analysis, you just said Hillary 'oversaw' the process of Libya's wholesale destruction, which is fatuously crediting her with far more power than she has. I'm not going to spend time making a long counter-argument to your bare assertion, especially right after you set up the silly false dichotomy above.

You're slinging all these insults but without posing those "false dichotomies" (and your answer suggests it wasn't that false after all) getting any kind of actual statement of how you think about Clinton or her role in various positions is like pulling teeth.

Anyway I'll just quote a few news stories and maybe you can react to them.

According to this report, based on numerous interviews with leaked tapes, it was Clinton who spearheaded the decision to attack Libya. Apparently other senior US officials and elected representatives, from Pentagon generals to Dennis Kucinich, were so disturbed by Clinton's jingoism that they took the almost unheard of step of establishing back door communications with the Libyan government to try and resolve the crisis.They also pointed out that US interests were not at stake and that many of the NATO backed rebel groups appeared to be motivated by radical Islamist ideology

quote:

Numerous U.S. officials interviewed by The Times confirmed that Mrs. Clinton, and not Mr. Obama, led the charge to use NATO military force to unseat Gadhafi as Libya�s leader and that she repeatedly dismissed the warnings offered by career military and intelligence officials.

In the recovered recordings, a U.S. intelligence liaison working for the Pentagon told a Gadhafi aide that Mr. Obama privately informed members of Congress that Libya �is all Secretary Clinton�s matter� and that the nation�s highest-ranking generals were concerned that the president was being misinformed.

The Pentagon liaison indicated on the tapes that Army Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., a top aide to Adm. Mullen, �does not trust the reports that are coming out of the State Department and CIA, but there�s nothing he can do about it.�

In one conversation to the Libyans, the American intelligence asset said, �I can tell you that the president is not getting accurate information, so at some point someone has to get accurate information to him. I think about a way through former Secretary Gates or maybe to Adm. Mullen to get him information�

The recordings are consistent with what many high-ranking intelligence, military and academic sources told The Times:

Mrs. Clinton was headstrong to enter the Libyan crisis, ignoring the Pentagon�s warnings that no U.S. interests were at stake and regional stability could be threatened. Instead, she relied heavily on the assurances of the Libyan rebels and her own memory of Rwanda, where U.S. inaction may have led to the genocide of at least 500,000 people.

�Neither the intervention decision nor the regime change decision was an intelligence-heavy decision,� said one senior intelligence official directly involved with the administration�s decision-making, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. �People weren�t on the edge of their seats, intelligence wasn�t driving the decision one way or another.�

Here's a New York Times report with more on-the-record discussion of Clinton's key role as one of the most hawkish of Obama's advisors in pushing the reluctant administration into the war:

quote:

It was late afternoon on March 15, 2011, and Mr. Araud had just left the office when his phone rang. It was his American counterpart, Susan E. Rice, with a pointed message.

France and Britain were pushing hard for a Security Council vote on a resolution supporting a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from slaughtering his opponents. Ms. Rice was calling to push back, in characteristically salty language.

�She says, and I quote, �You are not going to drag us into your lovely war,�� said Mr. Araud, now France�s ambassador in Washington. �She said, �We�ll be obliged to follow and support you, and we don�t want to.� The conversation got tense. I answered, �France isn�t a U.S. subsidiary.� It was the Obama policy at the time that they didn�t want a new Arab war.�

In the preceding weeks, a series of high-level meetings had grappled with the escalating rebellion, and some younger White House aides believed the president should join the international effort.

But a far more formidable lineup was outspoken against an American commitment, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.; Tom Donilon, the national security adviser; and Mr. Gates, the defense secretary, who did not want to divert American air power or attention away from Afghanistan and Iraq. If the Europeans were so worried about Libya, they argued, let them take responsibility for its future.

�I think at one point I said, �Can I finish the two wars I�m already in before you guys go looking for a third one?�� Mr. Gates recalled. Colonel Qaddafi, he said, �was not a threat to us anywhere. He was a threat to his own people, and that was about it.�

Some senior intelligence officials had deep misgivings about what would happen if Colonel Qaddafi lost control. In recent years, the Libyan dictator had begun aiding the United States in its fight against Al Qaeda in North Africa.

�He was a thug in a dangerous neighborhood,� said Michael T. Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general who headed the Defense Intelligence Agency at the time. �But he was keeping order.�

Then there was Secretary Clinton. Early in Mr. Obama�s presidency, she had worked hard to win the trust of the man who had bested her in a tough primary campaign in 2008, and she sometimes showed anxiety about being cut out of his inner circle. (In one 2009 email, she fretted to aides: �I heard on the radio that there is a Cabinet mtg this am. Is there? Can I go?�)

Mrs. Clinton had cultivated a close relationship with Mr. Gates. Both tended to be more hawkish than the president. They had raised concerns about how rapidly he wanted to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. More recently, they had argued that Mr. Obama should not be too hasty in dropping support for Hosni Mubarak, the embattled Egyptian leader, whom Mrs. Clinton had known since her years as the first lady.

But they had lost out to the younger aides � �the backbenchers,� Mr. Gates called them, who he said argued that in the moral clash of the Arab Spring, �Mr. President, you�ve got to be on the right side of history.�

In Libya, Mrs. Clinton had a new opportunity to support the historic change that had just swept out the leaders of its neighbors Egypt and Tunisia. And Libya seemed a tantalizingly easy case � with just six million people, no sectarian divide and plenty of oil.

quote:

Two of Mrs. Clinton�s top Libya advisers said in interviews that they had harbored misgivings about the intervention precisely because of fears that the coalition would not be able to stop short of regime change, with no ability to manage the aftermath.

One was Mr. Gordon, the assistant secretary. The other was Jeremy Shapiro, who handled Libya on Mrs. Clinton�s policy planning staff.

Mr. Shapiro said he had expressed his concerns to Mrs. Clinton�s top policy aide, Mr. Sullivan. �Once you get into a fight where we basically say, �We have to stop a madman from killing tens of thousands of people in his own country,� how do you stop?� Mr. Shapiro said.

�Ultimately the logic becomes, Jesus, the Qaddafi regime is a real threat to civilians,� he added. �It required nothing to escalate to that. It would have required an amazing force of will not to.�

Here's an example (same article) of Clinton's clear eyed assesment of the situation on the ground:

quote:

When Mr. Jibril and his Libyan entourage showed up in Rome in May to meet with Mrs. Clinton, they expected a 10-minute check-in. Instead, they talked for nearly an hour.

The opposition leaders had already given her a white paper setting out a spectacular future: Political parties would compete in open elections, a free news media would hold leaders accountable and women�s rights would be respected.

In retrospect, Mr. Jibril acknowledged in an interview, it was a �utopian ideal� quite detached from Libyan reality. But Mrs. Clinton had been enthusiastic, according to those in attendance, and now she wanted to talk in greater depth about how to turn the vision into reality.

quote:

Now Mrs. Clinton took what one top adviser called �the activist side� of the debate over whether to counter Qatar by arming more secular fighters.

�If you didn�t,� Mr. Ross recalled her arguing, �whatever happened, your options would shrink, your influence would shrink, therefore your ability to affect anything there would also shrink.�

But other senior officials were wary. NATO�s supreme allied commander, Adm. James G. Stavridis, had told Congress of �flickers� of Al Qaeda within the opposition. Mr. Donilon, Mr. Obama�s national security adviser, argued that the administration could not ensure that weapons intended for �the so-called good guys,� as one State Department official put it, did not fall into the hands of Islamist extremists.

In fact, there was reason to worry. Mr. Jibril himself described in an interview how a French shipment of missiles and machine guns had gone awry. At a June meeting, President Sarkozy had agreed to �ask our Arab friends� to supply the Transitional National Council with the weapons, Mr. Jibril said. But, he said, the acting defense minister diverted them to a militia led by Abdel Hakim Belhaj, a militant Islamist who had once been held in a secret prison by the C.I.A.

Mrs. Clinton understood the hazards, but also weighed the costs of not acting, aides said. They described her as comfortable with feeling her way through a problem without being certain of the outcome.

President Obama ultimately took her side, according to the administration officials who described the debate. After he signed a secret document called a presidential finding, approving a covert operation, a list of approved weaponry was drawn up. The shipments arranged by the United States and other Western countries generally arrived through the port of Benghazi and airports in eastern Libya, a Libyan rebel commander said.

�Humvees, counterbattery radar, TOW missiles was the highest end we talked about,� one State Department official recalled. �We were definitely giving them lethal assistance. We�d crossed that line.�

Prompted in part by the decision to arm the rebels, the State Department recognized the Transitional National Council as the �legitimate governing authority for Libya.� Mrs. Clinton announced the decision on July 15 in Istanbul.

�That very day, our troops had started to get inside Brega,� Mr. Shammam recalled. �We told that to Mrs. Clinton, and she said � I remember her smiling � �Good! This is the only language that Qaddafi is understanding.��

Jesus, let's just quote that one line again for emphasis. This is clearly a woman who learned the lessons of Iraq!

quote:

Mrs. Clinton understood the hazards, but also weighed the costs of not acting, aides said. They described her as comfortable with feeling her way through a problem without being certain of the outcome.

She was comfortable feeling her way through the annihilation of a country and the arming of a bunch of rebel groups nobody really understood. Now should I also post multiple news stories about how poo poo Libya has become or how much more destabilized the region is or how the war in Libya fed directly into an influx of weapons in Mali, leading directly into another bloody conflict in which Islamists almost seized control of the country and the French ended up sending a military force to retake control of the area? How much are you going to dispute that the outcome of the Libya adventure was a disaster, both from the self stated goals of the US government to preserve its interests and from the standpoint of basic human decency and humanitarianism?

# ? Mar 5, 2016 18:57

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Helsing posted:

I find it remarkable that you're so willing to disregard -- indeed you don't even mention it here -- the pattern of companies with important business before the state department who made significant donations to the Clinton fund. You're suggesting that when the Saudi government gave at least $10 million to the Clinton fund they did this for philanthropic reasons? Or that the majority of the corporations and super wealthy individuals who have business overseen by the state department were giving money to the Clinton fund around that same time out of a commitment to philanthropy and without any expectation of greater access or influence?

Yes. I'm not sure you know much about the Clinton Fund. They do a ton of public health poo poo in the Middle East, and the Saudis giving money to them isn't weird. The Clintons also don't benefit at all from the fund, so this conspiracy story is kind of legless.

quote:

And this is just the really egregious stuff. The fact is that what you said is also true: political corruption isn't always a 1:1 pay-for-play situation. But that really doesn't make the Clintons look any better, it just reinforces the extent to which powerful corporate players have spent years cultivating deep relationships with the Clintons that will help ensure that the Clintons -- in addition to a fair amount of old school money-for-influence style shenanagins -- are also just primed to view these corporate titans very favourably after years or even decades of close relations and big cash payouts.

Then why did she favor and vote for stronger financial regulations? And what does this have to do with her emails?

quote:

You're slinging all these insults but without posing those "false dichotomies" (and your answer suggests it wasn't that false after all) getting any kind of actual statement of how you think about Clinton or her role in various positions is like pulling teeth.

It's really not. It's just that I'm not giving answers along the lines that you want, nor accepting most of your premises. And yes, it was a false dichotomy. It's also funny that you call me out for 'slinging insults' when there's people here calling me a oval office, a moron, etc. What was the insult I slung at you? Do you mean calling your argument fatuous, or saying your argument was silly?

I don't think the topic of this thread is 'Clinton's foreign policy' or 'demand people who support Clinton react to various stories', is it? So why are you talking about it here?

# ? Mar 5, 2016 19:03

Horseshoe theory: Mar 7, 2005

Obdicut posted:

Yes. I'm not sure you know much about ~~the Clinton Fund~~ 1MDB. They do a ton of ~~public health~~ poo poo in the Middle East, and the Saudis giving money to them isn't weird. ~~The Clintons~~ Najib Razak also don't benefit at all from the fund, so this conspiracy story is kind of legless.

Sounds legit.

# ? Mar 5, 2016 19:06

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

ThirdPartyView posted:

Sounds legit.

1MDB isn't anything like The Clinton Foundation, at all. It's a state-owned company.

# ? Mar 5, 2016 19:14

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Obdicut posted:

Yes. I'm not sure you know much about the Clinton Fund. They do a ton of public health poo poo in the Middle East, and the Saudis giving money to them isn't weird. The Clintons also don't benefit at all from the fund, so this conspiracy story is kind of legless.

The idea that a wealthy power broking couple with ongoing political aspirations don't benefit from the control of a massive multi-million dollar organization that puts them into regular and direct liaison with other power brokers and foreign governments is just so staggeringly naive that I can't help but question your intellectual honesty here. This is a staggering level of blindness to how the super rich maintain influence and build ties with each other. Obviously this is speculative but I really question what your takeaway would be if we attributed the exact same behaviours to, say, Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld.

Also it's interesting how selective your replies are. No response to the millions in speaking fees they receive from arms manufacturers, Goldman Sachs, etc. No reaction to Meredith McGehee's criticisms. In fact you're acting as though its just nakedly ridiculous that anyone could be even slightly suspicious of this behaviour, even though there are examples of people from across the political spectrum raising red flags.

quote:

Then why did she favor and vote for stronger financial regulations?

Good God man are you honestly this naive? There's a long and well established literature in political science regarding how senators and congressman in the US government will trade votes or take strategic stances to secure their future political aspirations. Anyway, an actual review of Clinton's record shows that for the most part she simply kept to the sidelines of financial related issues following her husbands key role in deregulating financial practices in the 1990s. However, she did support from very heinous legislation supported by the Banks such as changing bankruptcy laws to favour lenders.

Her record in the senate is pretty telling. She half heartedly supporting a few bills that never made it out of committee, in particular right in 2007 when she was warming up for her first presidential bid, but overall her record is mostly one of seemingly calculated avoidance, with a couple notable instances where she was pretty unambiguously on the wrong side of the issue:

quote:

WASHINGTON � The financial services executive reached out to Senator Hillary Clinton�s office to discuss legislation that would affect banks. It seemed natural to make the connection: The executive represented some of the largest New York financial institutions.

The call was quickly returned, excellent service provided to a professional watching out for the interests of the country�s biggest banks. But it wasn�t Clinton�s office on the line. An aide to New York�s other senator, Charles Schumer, called back.

Yielding to Schumer on financial legislation was part of a pattern in the Senate when Hillary Clinton served there: She took a mostly hands-off approach to Wall Street regulation. With banks enjoying a new era of deregulation that her husband helped create, a neutralized Clinton represented a win for the financial services industry and its perpetual effort to free itself from Washington�s hand.

The Boston Globe reviewed eight years of lobbying disclosure forms for the four financial services firms that donated the most money to Hillary Clinton while she was in the Senate. The review examined which banking and finance bills those banks cared the most about, and whether she took a position on them.

The junior senator from New York rarely signed on to bills related to the financial services industry � whether the banks supported or opposed the measures. Of the 189 Senate bills that their lobbyists identified as significant banking or finance legislation, she cosponsored only 25.

Of those, most of the ones she put her name on were also backed by Schumer � a member of the Senate Banking Committee who has never been known as an anti-Wall Street crusader.

�She was not a champion of the financial sector, nor was she an antagonist,� said one financial services executive who lobbied her while she was in the Senate. �The financial sector viewed her as neutral. Not helpful, but also not harmful.�

Clinton served in the Senate from 2001 to 2009, and the tail end of her career coincided with the nation�s biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression. Her state is home to many of the same large institutions that fueled the crisis and ultimately became the recipients of a $700 billion cash infusion designed to keep the banks solvent. Clinton voted for that measure.

Her detachment in the years before the crisis was striking, considering Wall Street looms as an enormous industry in New York � and financial services employees were her biggest source of political money.

Gary Gensler, a Goldman Sachs banker turned Wall Street reformer who serves as the chief financial officer for Clinton�s campaign, argued that Clinton took positions that bankers didn�t like in the Senate.

He pointed to her vote against the George W. Bush tax cuts on the �ultra-wealthy� � and said she �fought� to end a tax benefit for hedge fund managers. (Clinton talked about closing the so-called carried interest loophole but didn�t sign on to a measure in the Senate that would have shut the hedge fund loophole.)

Gensler added that in her current presidential race, she�s offered a �bold agenda� to reform Wall Street that �takes on the size and power of the biggest banks, enhances accountability for Wall Street executives, and cracks down on the shadow banking sector that contributed to the financial crisis in the first place.�

Aides to Clinton point out that when Clinton was in the Senate, she never served on the Banking Committee, where much of the day-to-day work of overseeing Wall Street took place. Instead, the office focused her legislative efforts in areas that matched her committees.

�Our approach wasn�t, �The banks say something, so we should freak out,� � said Neera Tanden, who served as Clinton�s legislative director in the Senate � who said she never once met with a banking lobbyist while working in Clinton�s Senate office. �I worked for her off and on for 15 years. She had suspicions about regulation and concerns across a range of issues.�

But as Clinton tries to fend off a populist challenge from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential nomination contest, her relationship with the financial services industry has become a key contrast in the campaign. Sanders has launched ads arguing that Clinton refused to stand up to Wall Street while he has been railing against big banks and big corporations for most of his career.

�I have demonstrated the ability to have the backbone to take on Wall Street in ways that Secretary Clinton never, ever has,� Sanders said during the last Democratic debate in December.

Aides to Clinton argue that there were few reform efforts percolating during the first few years that she was in the Senate and that only a handful of people understood the abuses on Wall Street.

She�s claimed repeatedly that on the eve of the financial meltdown in December 2007 she went to Wall Street and told bankers to �cut it out� � a reference to a speech she made at the Nasdaq stock exchange where she asked bankers for voluntary concessions. By then, the crisis was already barreling down on the American economy.

But for years she�d done little to make banks tremble.

�I had no contact with her,� said Samuel Baptista, who was alobbyist for Morgan Stanley while Clinton was in the Senate. �I don�t think she was ever engaging on those issues. She just didn�t have a lot of interest.�

Instead, he � along with every other lobbyist interviewed for this story � trained their focus on Schumer, who sat on the Senate Banking Committee that oversaw many of the bills Wall Street cared about most.

Former Treasury Department officials recalled a similar dynamic. Inquiries from Schumer�s office were frequent, but the officials were hard pressed to recall any issues Clinton cared deeply about.

During Hillary Clinton�s first six years in office, the banks reaped the rewards of two massive pieces of legislation her husband signed into law as president, before she was elected in 2000: One was 1999�spartial repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which had the effect of blowing up the wall between commercial and investment banking.

Another, the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, ensured a deregulated market for derivatives, the sophisticated financial instruments designed to mitigate risk but instead contributed to the financial crisis.

�What Wall Street wanted then was for everyone to look the other way,� said former Representative Brad Miller, a Democrat who sat on the House Financial Services Committee and struggled to get attention from his colleagues as he pushed legislation to halt predatory mortgage lending. �And to a large extent, we did.�

Financial institutions and their employees were Clinton�s biggest donors when she was in the Senate from 2001 to 2008. The top four banks were Citi, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Morgan Stanley. Over her career, the campaign committees for those four banks and their employees deposited $3 million in Clinton�s various campaign accounts, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Those four banks � the ones that gave her the most campaign money � also spent $126 million lobbying Congress over the eight years Clinton served.

One of Clinton�s earliest votes in her Senate career provoked the ire of Elizabeth Warren, who was then a Harvard law professor.

Clinton voted with the big banks on a massive overhaul to the country�s bankruptcy laws, picking the financial services industry over consumers.

Warren had met with Clinton about similar legislation in 1998. At the time, both women opposed the bill and Clinton pushed for her husband to veto the legislation.

Warren, in her 2003 book, documented Clinton�s evolution on the issue in biting detail � down to the catty comments Clinton�s aides made about one female lawmaker�s wardrobe. �As First Lady, Mrs. Clinton has been persuaded that the bill was bad for families,� Warren wrote in �The Two Income Trap.�

�As New York�s newest senator, however, it seems that Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position.�

When asked about the 2001 vote at a campaign stop in New Hampshire, Clinton said she supported it because her colleagues in the Senate included protections she�d suggested for women seeking alimony.

�I negotiated those changes and then the people who had been handling the bill said, �Well, if we take your changes, you have to support it,� � Clinton said. �That�s the way the Senate works.�

There were other fights. During Clinton�s Senate years, her colleagues were trying for reform proposals that banks spent millions of dollars trying to stall.

One senator tried desperately to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac � but it didn�t go anywhere. Another pushed to give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission more authority.

Clinton signed on to none of these bills, the record shows.

Reformers don�t give Sanders a perfect score on Wall Street either. His big blemish: Sanders voted for deregulating derivatives when he supported the Commodities Futures Modernization Act as a member of the House of Representatives.

Clinton�s pattern on banking bills changed in 2007 as she launched a presidential campaign amid the start of a financial meltdown. That year she showed more independence from Schumer, backing four banking bills that he�d avoided.

Now her name was appearing next to Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders. She also introduced her own bill aimed at reining in Wall Street excesses. It aimed to cap executive pay � though only if a firm had to restate earnings because of financial irregularities. None of her colleagues signed on to it, and it never left the Senate Finance Committee.

On the stump as a presidential candidate in 2007 and 2008, Clinton ramped up the rhetoric. She blamed the Bush administration for the growing crisis, accusing them of being �asleep at the switch� in a December 2007 speech at the NASDAQ stock exchange.

The address outlined concessions she wanted from the financial services industry and included a rare public threat: �If we cannot reach a voluntary agreement, I will consider legislation to address the problem,� she told the bankers.

Her experience picking fights with bankers was thin, but there was one exception to her laissez-faire posture toward financial services institutions.

It came early in her tenure, in December 2001 when she, along with Republican Senator Wayne Allard, introduced a bill that favored real estate brokers over bankers.

It would have reinstated some of the limits that her husband had cleared away when he partially repealed the Glass-Steagall Act: Banks would be prevented from entering the real estate business under the terms of the bill.

Clinton went to the Senate floor and, in a wonky and short speech, invoked the Glass-Steagall repeal and promised the bill would provide �safeguards� for �the protection of consumers and existing businesses.�

Citi, Morgan Stanley, and J.P. Morgan Chase all opposed the measure � lobbying against it every year it was introduced. Despite their muscle, the legislation passed in the House.

But it stalled in the Senate while Clinton was in the chamber. And Allard, who now works for the Washington-based The Livingston Group, had no memory of Clinton�s role. In an interview, he said: �I don�t recall ever talking to her specifically about it.�

quote:

And what does this have to do with her emails?

Remember when I explained to you before that the e-mail scandal acts as a partisan smoke screen, corralling confused liberals and Democrats into assuming that any criticism of Clinton's tenure at the state department must be baseless Republican scaremongering?

quote:

It's really not. It's just that I'm not giving answers along the lines that you want, nor accepting most of your premises. And yes, it was a false dichotomy. It's also funny that you call me out for 'slinging insults' when there's people here calling me a oval office, a moron, etc. What was the insult I slung at you? Do you mean calling your argument fatuous, or saying your argument was silly?

I don't think the topic of this thread is 'Clinton's foreign policy' or 'demand people who support Clinton react to various stories', is it? So why are you talking about it here?

Because we're talking about whether a fake scandal is being used to cover up a real scandal, and obviously her role in foreign policy as Secretary of State is relevant to a discussion of whether her behaviour as secretary of state meets the criteria for a "scandal", which I'm arguing it does thanks, in particular, to the Libya disaster.

# ? Mar 5, 2016 19:23

Horseshoe theory: Mar 7, 2005

Obdicut posted:

1MDB isn't anything like The Clinton Foundation, at all. It's a state-owned company.

Not sure why it matters whether it's a state investment vehicle, 501(c)(3) or another vehicle to act as a slush fund...?

# ? Mar 5, 2016 19:25

Brannock: Feb 9, 2006; by exmarx; Fallen Rib

Obdicut posted:

Yes. I'm not sure you know much about the Clinton Fund. They do a ton of public health poo poo in the Middle East, and the Saudis giving money to them isn't weird. The Clintons also don't benefit at all from the fund, so this conspiracy story is kind of legless.

Then why did she favor and vote for stronger financial regulations? And what does this have to do with her emails?

It's really not. It's just that I'm not giving answers along the lines that you want, nor accepting most of your premises. And yes, it was a false dichotomy. It's also funny that you call me out for 'slinging insults' when there's people here calling me a oval office, a moron, etc. What was the insult I slung at you? Do you mean calling your argument fatuous, or saying your argument was silly?

I don't think the topic of this thread is 'Clinton's foreign policy' or 'demand people who support Clinton react to various stories', is it? So why are you talking about it here?

You made a polite request to me to do so, so I declare this post incredibly poo poo, Obdicut. Once again you twist, dodge, worm, evade, and feign ignorance when someone corners you. Carrying water for the Clintons to this extent, glossing over the mass slaughter and destabilization of an entire region, is one of the most vile and pathetic things I've ever seen from a self-described liberal.

It is almost beyond me to describe how perfectly this post is a microcosm of your history. Your tactics are transparent, and you would recognize it if you had two neurons to rub together or even an ounce of self-awareness. Go ahead, Obdicut! I'm sure you have it in you. You're in a real sticky spot. Maybe you can cite vague "site rules" (on loving Something Awful no less) again, or you could whine about topicality, or even obfuscate the conversation with bullshit questions. No one expects anyone to respond to every last point brought up, so it's perfectly fine, you can complain about niggling details and ignore the enormous contradictions and stark evidence staring you in the face.

Or you could engage and write a genuine, sincere, honest answer for once in your life.

Give it a go.

# ? Mar 5, 2016 19:42

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Helsing posted:

The idea that a wealthy power broking couple with ongoing political aspirations don't benefit from the control of a massive multi-million dollar organization that puts them into regular and direct liaison with other power brokers and foreign governments is just so staggeringly naive that I can't help but question your intellectual honesty here.

Well it helps that they don't control the Clinton Foundation.

quote:

Also it's interesting how selective your replies are. No response to the millions in speaking fees they receive from arms manufacturers, Goldman Sachs, etc. No reaction to Meredith McGehee's criticisms. In fact you're acting as though its just nakedly ridiculous that anyone could be even slightly suspicious of this behaviour, even though there are examples of people from across the political spectrum raising red flags.

It's interesting you think this thread is about random poo poo about the Clintons, rather than her use of email--to which the Clinton Foundation is just barely, barely connected. The rest isn't . Can you explain why you want to talk about all that in this thread, about the email thing?

quote:

However, she did support from very heinous legislation supported by the Banks such as changing bankruptcy laws to favour lenders.

Yes, that was a lovely vote, which she acknowledged as lovely. She opposed the bill when it came up again in 2005.

quote:

Her record in the senate is pretty telling. She half heartedly supporting a few bills that never made it out of committee, in particular right in 2007 when she was warming up for her first presidential bid, but overall her record is mostly one of seemingly calculated avoidance, with a couple notable instances where she was pretty unambiguously on the wrong side of the issue:

[/quote]

The support in 2007 wasn't half-hearted, though. It was full-throated, the bill was good, and the timing of it was a financial crisis, as well as a presidential campaign. Her voting record in the senate is consistently in favor of banking regulations with a few exceptions--the bankruptcy bill, which she has acknowledge as bad, being one of them.

Again, this has gently caress-all to do with emails.

quote:

Remember when I explained to you before that the e-mail scandal acts as a partisan smoke screen, corralling confused liberals and Democrats into assuming that any criticism of Clinton's tenure at the state department must be baseless Republican scaremongering?

You have a weird habit of mixing up your assertions for facts: you explained your theory about that. It doesn't make much sense since a smokescreen is something intentionally deployed, I think what you mean is that people know that Clinton comes under constant bullshit attack from the right wing (like conspiracy stories about the Clinton Foundation) and so people tend to be wary of believing criticism of her because it so often has its roots in right-wing bullshit. That's not a 'smokescreen', that's a natural reaction to the torrent of smears put out against her. It definitely does make it harder to get people to listen to a case about her mishandling Syria, but calling it a smokescreen implies she started it, which is silly.

quote:

Because we're talking about whether a fake scandal is being used to cover up a real scandal, and obviously her role in foreign policy as Secretary of State is relevant to a discussion of whether her behaviour as secretary of state meets the criteria for a "scandal", which I'm arguing it does thanks, in particular, to the Libya disaster.

see, again here you imply she somehow is involved in this fake scandal, that there's intentionality here, and that's such a weird idea. There is always a biased, lovely attack on clinton, even if this email thing wasn't going on, most people would be leery of accusations against her because so many of them have been GOP fever-dreams.

This discussion isn't about her behavior as secretary of state, though, it's about the use of email and the investigation into it.

If you've got any more to say on that, have at it, but if you just want to talk about her as secretary of state either the main primary threads or a thread about her as secretary of state seems like a better place. I'm not going to continue that with you here.

ThirdPartyView posted:

Not sure why it matters whether it's a state investment vehicle, 501(c)(3) or another vehicle to act as a slush fund...?

Because it doesn't act as a slush-fund, it has a big, credible board, 501(c)(3)s make public filings. The comparison only exists if you already accept the conspiracy theory.

# ? Mar 5, 2016 19:49

Lastgirl: Sep 7, 1997; Good Morning!
Sunday Morning!

sure OP

"Hey Hillary don't move classified information off the secure government server"

"Ok."

*moves classified information off secure government server*

"What the gently caress Hillary"

"What? I didn't do anything."

"Okay, We believe you but we need to look at how this was leaked."

# ? Mar 5, 2016 19:54

Horseshoe theory: Mar 7, 2005

Obdicut posted:

Because it doesn't act as a slush-fund, it has a big, credible board, 501(c)(3)s make public filings.

This reads like the start of every tax/accounting fraud scandal, FYI.

# ? Mar 5, 2016 20:00

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Obdicut posted:

Well it helps that they don't control the Clinton Foundation.

It's interesting you think this thread is about random poo poo about the Clintons, rather than her use of email--to which the Clinton Foundation is just barely, barely connected. The rest isn't . Can you explain why you want to talk about all that in this thread, about the email thing?

Yes, that was a lovely vote, which she acknowledged as lovely. She opposed the bill when it came up again in 2005.

The support in 2007 wasn't half-hearted, though. It was full-throated, the bill was good, and the timing of it was a financial crisis, as well as a presidential campaign. Her voting record in the senate is consistently in favor of banking regulations with a few exceptions--the bankruptcy bill, which she has acknowledge as bad, being one of them.

Again, this has gently caress-all to do with emails.

You have a weird habit of mixing up your assertions for facts: you explained your theory about that. It doesn't make much sense since a smokescreen is something intentionally deployed, I think what you mean is that people know that Clinton comes under constant bullshit attack from the right wing (like conspiracy stories about the Clinton Foundation) and so people tend to be wary of believing criticism of her because it so often has its roots in right-wing bullshit. That's not a 'smokescreen', that's a natural reaction to the torrent of smears put out against her. It definitely does make it harder to get people to listen to a case about her mishandling Syria, but calling it a smokescreen implies she started it, which is silly.

see, again here you imply she somehow is involved in this fake scandal, that there's intentionality here, and that's such a weird idea. There is always a biased, lovely attack on clinton, even if this email thing wasn't going on, most people would be leery of accusations against her because so many of them have been GOP fever-dreams.

This discussion isn't about her behavior as secretary of state, though, it's about the use of email and the investigation into it.

If you've got any more to say on that, have at it, but if you just want to talk about her as secretary of state either the main primary threads or a thread about her as secretary of state seems like a better place. I'm not going to continue that with you here.

Because it doesn't act as a slush-fund, it has a big, credible board, 501(c)(3)s make public filings. The comparison only exists if you already accept the conspiracy theory.

Are you actually enthusiastic about Hilary at all? You're answering in this bizarre and almost litigious fashion as though this is some kind of formal debate and you're hoping the moderator will intervene on your side to protect you from answering awkward questions. I kind of assumed that you'd have actual answers instead of these elaborate dodges.

I feel like if I pressed one of the Bernouts or Trump supporters on their candidates views they'd probably be a lot quicker to actually defend what their candidates have said and done, rather than trying to insist the entire conversation somehow isn't germane.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 17:11

7c Nickel: Apr 27, 2008

I'm excited.

One reason is that I think this country is even more sexist than it is racist. (note it is still pretty drat racist)

If you thought having a black man as president broke some brains, just wait til Hillary wins.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 20:57

Toadvine: Mar 16, 2009; Please disregard my advice w/r/t history.

7c Nickel posted:

I'm excited.

One reason is that I think this country is even more sexist than it is racist. (note it is still pretty drat racist)

If you thought having a black man as president broke some brains, just wait til Hillary wins.

Bullshit. Donald Trump isn't firing up his supporters with promises to pay women less or send them back to the kitchen. Female Lives Matter isn't a controversial statement. Sexism is certainly an ingrained problem but the class struggle has been misconstrued as a race issue, not a gender issue.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 21:31

stephenfry: Nov 3, 2009; I AM AN IDIOT.
I AM AN IDIOT.
I AM AN IDIOT.
I AM AN IDIOT.
I AM AN IDIOT.
I AM AN IDIOT.
I AM AN IDIOT.
I AM AN IDIOT.

7c Nickel posted:

I'm excited.

One reason is that I think this country is even more sexist than it is racist. (note it is still pretty drat racist)

If you thought having a black man as president broke some brains, just wait til Hillary wins.

google julia gillard

I mean even if what you say is true (it isn't quite, racism can take on far more bizarre and perverse forms than sexism) it gets old fast. And good trolling isn't necessarily good governance.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 22:12

ate shit on live tv: Feb 15, 2004; by Azathoth

7c Nickel posted:

I'm excited.

One reason is that I think this country is even more sexist than it is racist. (note it is still pretty drat racist)

If you thought having a black man as president broke some brains, just wait til Hillary wins.

Are you an MRA? No one gives a poo poo Hillary is a women except her most fervent supporters, like obdicut etc. Oh and also if you use generic insults like "Bitch", apparently because of hillary you can't say that anymore.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 22:21

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

There are no women in America excited for the prospect of a female president.

The word bitch does not have a gendered connotation.

Things bernouts actually believe.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 22:29

Obdicut: May 15, 2012; "What election?"

Helsing posted:

Are you actually enthusiastic about Hilary at all? You're answering in this bizarre and almost litigious fashion as though this is some kind of formal debate and you're hoping the moderator will intervene on your side to protect you from answering awkward questions. I kind of assumed that you'd have actual answers instead of these elaborate dodges.

I feel like if I pressed one of the Bernouts or Trump supporters on their candidates views they'd probably be a lot quicker to actually defend what their candidates have said and done, rather than trying to insist the entire conversation somehow isn't germane.

If you want to PM me or something feel free, but this is not the thread for 'random questions about Hillary". It's about her email server. But feel free to PM.

And no, I'm not enthusiastic about Clinton. I think people who are 'enthusiastic' about political figures are silly, mostly.

Also, when someone asks your arguments make sense and be based in reality, that's not insisting on 'formal debate'.

# ? Mar 6, 2016 22:38

ate shit on live tv: Feb 15, 2004; by Azathoth

JeffersonClay posted:

There are no women in America excited for the prospect of a female president.

The word bitch does not have a gendered connotation.

Things bernouts actually believe.

You are a lil' bitch, how about that?

The first isn't as many as you'd like, because not everyone is a internet leftist. People support Hillary for reasons other then her gender!

ate shit on live tv has issued a correction as of 23:12 on Mar 6, 2016

# ? Mar 6, 2016 23:09