Republican early this election cycle. Smell a Rat.

... while Hillary was SOS without disclosure explicitly against the agreement they had with the Obama Admin.

That is not an outrageous accusation. It's factual.

Whether or not there was quid pro quo or other wrongdoing isn't clear at this point. What isn't debatable, however, is the appearance of wrongdoing ... and thus begins again the continuing saga of the Bill and Hillary show.

I'll vote for her, assuming she's the Dem nominee, but I'm tired already.

I had hoped that with time and age, they might have learned that life is easier if you live with integrity. Think of the time saved not having to manufacture excuses.

You would think that as Bill Clinton is a well respected former President, credited for the good work he is doing and HRC essentially being handed the nomination on a silver platter after being given the job of Secretary of State -- at a point where President Obama NOT being George Bush meant a HUGE opportunity to be seen as part of the team improving the US's reputation.

Given all that, WHY do self defeating things like not follow the spirit and words of the agreement with Obama -- which incidentally would have PROTECTED her from exactly these types of charges and why - even if she was caught by changing standards on the rules of email did she not work in her last year, to transfer all the work emails to the State Department -- maybe even in some more useful form than 55000 printed pages of emails?

NO ONE has been given more by the Democratic party than HRC - this is essentially the second time where the powers that be tried hard to make her President. ( Imagine if the party put the say effort into electing Gore or Kerry -- rather than deeming them both boring.)

link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

What a life.

Husband, wife.

One speaks for 1/2 $M a pop and the other grants the OK to Chevron Fracking in Bulgaria and deals with Iranian interests, outsourcers and job-robbers.

What could be wrong about that?

Tata, you say? You mean???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016121016#post1

but how did Sec Clinton gain power over energy development in Bulgaria? Did she become Prime Minister of Bulgaria when I wasn't looking?

A US Secretary of State wields an awful lot of power.

It wouldn't be unusual to present an opportunity for US aid that depended upon their government making "certain decisions".

The GDP of Bulgaria has less than 1/30 of our GDP, and gets significant aid from us and other countries.

More importantly, it's smack in the middle of a fossil fuel "hot spot" and it's in Chevron's (and arguably US) interests to get a fossil fuel foothold in place, not so much for the citizens there but for the same reasons we installed the Shah of Iran.

It's all about the energy. I think global games like this are corrupt.

they both have data.

if HC wasn't a woman. As COO of Facebook Sheryl Sandberg has said recently, "The more powerful and successful a woman becomes, the less she's liked".

I think like racism, sexism is deep rooted in our collective psyche, whether we are aware of it or not. HC is by far the most well known female public figure. No other women comes even remotely close. With that, comes extra scrutiny beyond anything a man would be subject to.

It's really shameful I have to say. When Mitt Romney flat out refused to release his old taxes was there this extreme scrutiny about trustworthiness? No, of course not. His male, white privilege precluded him from being labeled as not trustworthy.

The NYT has been reduced to flat our lying now. There never was an outright ban on foreign donations as the piece states. They are literally making things up now!

]