She's winning and that's all that matters.

That's why they won't discuss issues, because they really don't care. Cut SS, frack the life out of Oklahoma, TPP all our jobs to Viet Nam, run pipelines anywhere and everywhere, they don't care.

If Hillary had been living under a rock in Vermont for the past few decades, she would be pure enough. Otherwise, it's always going to be a game of 6 degrees of separation for the far left and the far right!

HRC fan base

Indeed...the RW have tried all that..now here you are....why do you have a bigger fanbase than they have....

The casual, everyday way the Clinton State Department traded influence, cash and favors.

How many is this? They really are too numerous to count.

is probably someone wanting a headline. What's with the 'provides favor', while I'm at it?

Hypothetically...

Because it doesn't look good this far.

to know the risks.

and how donations to the foundation tied in with things she did as SoS.

We unskilled and resource-starved peons already managed to find a handful of things that don't look good. Someone with real money behind them is bound to find many, many more.

I'm curious as to what the report will say. Although I won't hold my breath.

They don't need a final report for it to be an albatross on Clinton's campaign. And it's not like Obama's DoJ would prosecute.

Just a long, long, long stream of Donation -> State Dept favor. Over and over again. Works much better than even the most scathing final report.

Not good at all.

The Clintons have been a favorite target for Republicans for decades. It's a massively reliable way to get "the base" all fired up. Yet Clinton is hardly ever mentioned in their primary race, despite all the people desperate for attention.

If they started showing their cards now, we wouldn't nominate her.

She will be a guaranteed win for them in the GE, since she will be so easy to beat.

I'm surprised more aren't seeing what's really happening.

She's mentioned/attacked all the time by the clown car. Watch any GOP debate.

"Yet Clinton is hardly ever mentioned in their primary race"

You'll note I didn't say "never".

Consider how often the Republicans have said "Muslim" or "immigrant", compared to how often the Republicans have said "Clinton". Are you going to try and claim that those are roughly equal?

hard´ly ev´er (härd´lŷ ĕv´ẽr)
adv. 1. Seldom; rarely; almost never.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/11/politics/republican-debate-hillary-clinton-attacks/
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-gop-debate-215769
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/how-many-times-did-republicans-mention-hillary-180904320.html
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/11/us/politics/Chris-Christie-GOP-Debate-Undercard.html?referer=

I would hardly call 40 times in one debate "almost never". But that's just me.

They spend zero time talking outside debates. Time in those debates utterly dwarfs any other speaking done by any candidate.

Attacking Hillary 40 times during record breaking viewership debates is almost never. Thank you for correcting me. I guess you were right when you said "Why do you think no Republican candidate is attacking Clinton?

If they wouldn't go after Bush Cheney they sure won't go after one of their own, professional courtesy and all.

Looks great.

But hey, to some she can do no wrong. It just feels so good to back a winner, doesn't it?

Have never cared for either one of them.

.


Perhaps, some Republican leaning mining companies wanted to keep control of the market?


Also, mineral exploration is becoming more vital to national security, as many of the rare elements are found in the Middle East, and the former Soviet Bloc countries.


.

Creates a UN-like entity to manage mineral rights, requires "technology transfer" to poor countries.

Here's what CATO hates about it: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/sink-law-sea-treaty

.


Seeded words of negativism to skew the independent systhesis of readers, the scare of the PLO...


Boy, they really suck!


.

like Mountain Top Removal......
No. we still do that.
Ummmm.
Restrictions on Drilling!!!!
Nope. The Obama Administration has been Full Speed Ahead, Drill, Baby, Drill!!! and has opened areas for exploration that were once closed due to environmental sensitivity, East Coast, and West Coast.

Ummmm


Somebody help me out here.
What policy changes have there been to the Mineral Extraction Corporations that actually help and protect THE WORKING CLASS or the American citizen.

And then what?

Have you read the article?

I fail to see what the problem is. In the article it also states:

"Federal ethics guidelines warn government employees to "not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual," but there are no specific provisions prohibiting officials from considering requests prompted by relatives."

And same for the rotfl's, as well!

In the event she wins the nomination. It may be easy for you to turn a blind eye now, but what are you going to do when the Repubs will go after her and bring up all those facts? Still ignore it?

You better brace yourself then

shes still standing.....

She will be toast if she wins the nomination, considering all her lies, weathervaning, scandals, and everything else in between!

We need Bernie. He is the only candidate who has a chance at beating the GOP.

Like the "Socialist" would cakewalk his way in against them!

Not the same can be said about Hillary. How is she going to find her way out of the myriad of scandals and flip flops and everything else which plagues her past? She won't be able to.

It is a fact, whether you like it or hate it.

60 days to the first election.....he better start talking really really fast!

You better brace yourself if she wins the nomination. She stands no chance in winning the GE with her baggage.

It's a sad reality.

unsuccessfully!

But of course you are counting on them....not surprised!

Where did I ever say that?

You're making stuff up as you go.

THIS IS IT!!! THIS IS IT!!!!
OH GOD PLEEEEASE LET THIS BE IT!!!!

Just another brick in the wall between her and the WH, in case she gets nominated. It is sad, really.

typical.

Either the smiley or the deflection sarcasm
Like that will make things less bad for their candidate.

Stop those PRESSES!!!

There are other ways of communication besides meeting face to face in this day and age.

Meetings are recorded by a photographer. But, as I said, there was none.

Why would there be? It's not like Clinton had memorized the specific details of seabed mining and worked down in the weeds on that stuff--that's why she had STAFF.

And there are no emails, either. They've already gone through those looking for shit, to no avail.

This is a nothing there story from an aggregator website. If you look at the substance of the request, that's entirely obvious. "Hey, give me a name so I don't have to spend weeks phoning and emailing to find out who the 'right' person is to talk to about this very specific, narrow issue" is NOT a smoking gun.

From the article:

seas could just send an e-mail to Hillary asking her to tell him who he should contact in the State Department, and Hillary would forward the request to the appropriate desk in the State Department?

No. An ordinary citizen would get nowhere with such a request unless he knew someone like the Secretary of State's son-in-law.

This is the kind of thing that the in-crowd in D.C. finds normal, routine and what's more, acceptable and that makes the rest of us out her, us nobodies, just furious.

It's not whether something was done that was wrong. It's whether it was a display of favoritism, of that in-crowd special treatment. Whether any money was made or not, this kind of story is what disillusions Americans about our government. It's symptomatic of the oligarchy's sense of entitlement.

It has to stop.

All requests for attention from people within the State Department should go through prescribed channels as they do in the courts. That goes for all agencies in the executive branch.

This is not supposed to be a government for the Secretary of State's family and friends. It's supposed to be a government for all of us!!!

If I had a relative or friend with a connection in (INSERT NAME OF GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY), and I had a business that needed the input of (INSERT NAME OF GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY) in order to get that business operational (to the presumed benefit of the nation's interests as well as the business owner's), you can be damn sure I would ask said relative or friend if they would be so kind as to use their connection to find me the EXACT person I needed to be talking to in (INSERT NAME OF GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY) rather than diddle around talking to the wrong people and being shoved off from desk to desk, which often happens at large governmental agencies.

If you seriously think getting the right email address to "the right desk" and person is a YUUUUUUUGE benefit, you have priorities issues. No one is "taking a meeting" with Hill (who does not WORK there anymore, FWIW), all she was doing is shoving off a request on a subordinate for him to shove off on someone else, who would email this guy and tell him who his subject matter expert is.

I've done this DOZENS of times in my area of work, and I'm not even famous, didn't take any kickbacks, or gain any personal benefit. It's what people in government do. You either have a friend who works in an agency, or you, yourself, work in an agency. Someone has business with the agency. They need to know who to talk to. You ask your friend or relative for help. If you are the friend or relative, you provide the information, if you know off the top of your head (and it's entirely likely you would not in a cabinet agency the size of STATE) or you tell your underling to find out which is the right office/person and tell them to close the loop for you.

Why do you think that the SECSTATE shouldn't help a citizen with a request, just because it came through a relation? Should she get all huffy and say "Screw you, you ordinary citizen! GET IN LINE! I can dispense of this matter by forwarding it to an underling, but I won't, because it's more important to put the screws to you and make you suffer and WAIT than respond to this request for help?"

STATE is a customer-service agency, you know. They SERVE the citizens of the USA and the foreign visitors who require visas to visit our shores. They are the first Cabinet Agency, the most senior one, and they have their irons in many fires--from Treaty Implementation requirements, to trade deals, to other little "arrangements" we make with other countries. It is a very large portfolio.

But hey, if you want to make something of this--PLEASE. DO. High horse time!

Spend every waking day fussing and fuming that HRC's son in law asked which desk his pal should speak to when coordinating issues that are of interest to his business and the State Department.

Go on, go for it!

Let us know how you make out...!

No special conduits. Equal access. No relatives acting as conduits.

No Freundlwirtschaft as the Austrians would say.

http://www.dict.cc/german-english/Freunderlwirtschaft.html

Freundlwirtschaft is just not quite cheating, just short of cheating. It's cronyism. It's in-crowd business.

It's disgusting to those of us not in the in-crowd.

Especially in a big country like the US.

Especially for those of us way over here in California. We don't have neighbors who know somebody who works in the State Department.

It's a disgusting business if you aren't in it.

But like I said, you just keep getting all enraged about this if that's what you need. Go on, now. Keep at it.

Stir that pot! See where it takes you!

Enjoy!! I'll bet you can fire up a real torches/pitchfork movement about this DIRE and MOMENTOUS forwarding of an email if you work real hard at it--and maybe talk to Trey Gowdy or one of his buddies.

Keep using dramatic language like "disgusting" because someone forwarded an email and said "Close this loop and get this guy a name and a phone number, please." Yeah, that's the ticket!

Ohhhh, the CHEATING!! Because knowledge of who to call is .... POWER! Or something.



When you own a business that does business with State, I'll bet you'll get to know someone in that agency soon enough. Until you do, though, why are you crying that someone else wants that information?

you'll get to know someone in that agency soon enough. Until you do, though, why are you crying that someone else wants that information?"

If that is true then why did these businessmen contact Hillary's son-in-law and ask him to ask for the information about the person to contact.

Couldn't they have gone through the normal route -- called the State Department themselves and simply asked for the name?

Why did they go through Hillary's son-in-law?

If it is so easy to get the information, why did they go through the son-in-law.

And yes, I have called government agencies myself and gotten information. I did not go through someone's son-in-law. That would never occur to me. I would not be trying to intimidate the person working in the office with the idea that I had an in with their boss. And I would expect the boss to discourage her son-in-law from using this method to get information for his friends.

Hillary is particularly vulnerable to criticism with regard to how careful she is in granting favors to wealthy and powerful people because she gets so many donations from them.

This is what Bernie's campaign is about: the problem that the oligarchs, the very wealthy and powerful in our country use the government for their own benefit, the government that is supposed to be for us all.

Freundlwirtschaft! That's what it is. And it is corrupt.

Feel the Bern!

You keep feeling that burn (there's surely a cream for that) or what have you...it's obvious you just want to crab on about this, and I've said all I'm gonna say to you about it. You can re-read my posts if you'd like. If this is so "awful" for HRC, why can't you just be all happy and joyful about her ostensible misery, and not try to continue to pick and carp about it? You sound like you're trying (overly hard, too) to convince yourself!!

Absolutely no conflicts of interest with using the office of SoS as a business conduit involving friends and family?

Okie dokie

Since all of our tax dollars pay the salaries and facilities of the Office of the Secretary of State, I find this highly offensive behavior.

Plain and simple: If you know someone who knows a cabinet official, I have no problem with you, personally, asking that person to ask their relative which person you should contact in order to make sure that you follow the rules and regulations of your business.

I have no problem with the cabinet official taking your pal's email and giving it to a subordinate and telling them to close the loop, in order that this tax-paying, US citizen, you, using your "friend's" good offices, can contact the proper official and do the business that you need to do. That's not a "favor" -- that's customer service.

Okie dokie? Not sure what "benefit" you think this person got--cabinet agencies are supposed to be responsive to the public. Telling someone which desk to do business with is not a "favor." It's what anyone in a public service agency would do. "Your tax dollars at work" means that if a government agency is asked a basic question that they can answer, they ACT on it. "Who do I call?" is not a "favor." It's part of the damn job.

The way you talk, if someone asked SECSTATE Clinton "Where's the bathroom?" you'd call it a "special favor" if she told them.

smh.

I'll bet there's all sorts of similar letters and email in Representative Sanders' and Senator Sanders' constituent services files. "How do I get X done?" "Who do I call to resolve Y?" "I'm having a problem with Z--how can I fix it?" Are these "personal favors" too? Every legislator and cabinet official (never mind the POTUS and VPOTUS) in Washington gets dozens if not hundreds of these requests daily. And guess what? They are expected to respond to EACH and EVERY one of them. Yep--your tax dollars at work!!

What I find "highly offensive" is people who don't understand the function and purpose of government offices, or who gleefully or cluelessly carry right wing water, or both. They're SUPPOSED to respond to requests for assistance, no matter who asks. Particularly requests that involve something simple, like "Which office do I contact?"

It's not a "favor" to do this. It's their JOB.

JDPriestly hit the bulls eye.

"I think government should be equal-access to all. No favorites.

No special conduits. Equal access. No relatives acting as conduits."---JDPriestly


AS long as we tolerate politicians granting special favors to their family and friends, we have a corrupt democracy (or a 3rd World Oligarchy). .... equal access, equal protections FOR EVERYBODY is the AMERICAN way.

DURec for JDPRiestly's excellent rebuttal.

Your earnest contribution is noted.

if you're not looking for any "benefit" other than the name of someone where you can find out what rules and regulations apply to your business. Government agencies are customer service oriented. It's not a state secret to tell someone which person is responsible for a portfolio, and only a flopsweat-desperate campaign to try and diss someone would pretend there's something nefarious happening here.

That's all the guy wanted--the right name of the right person who worked a specific issue in a large governmental agency.

Trying to make this more than it was is childish and desperate. And, sadly, common.

According to your post, you seem to prefer:

Government of the Well Connected,
by the Well Connected,
FOR the Well Connected.

That puts us on different sides of the line.
I'm on the side with JD and everyone else who believes in Democracy.

my attitudes towards democracy (pssst--I favor it). But you get your dudgeon on, now! You "seem to" enjoy doing that kind of thing!

instead of answer questions about posts that YOU posted.

Here, I'll help you out in case you had a Senior Moment and forgot what the topic was.

If you sent an email to John Kerry asking the same question, he'd forward it to a subordinate and ask them to close the loop in the very same fashion Clinton did.

You're the one swinging and missing here. Get over yourself. "The democracy thing is not that difficult." If you ask a question of a cabinet official, they'll refer your question to the right agency or individual for a response. It's how we handle government records.

smh.

where you came imperceptibly short of outright endorsing Pay to Play.

What you call "Pay to play" is what I call referring a request to a SUBORDINATE for action.

"Put this guy in touch with the right desk" is not "pay to play" and if you think it is, it's happening across this land millions of times every day.

Would you have preferred she deleted the e-mail and done nothing with it? What SHOULD she have done with that thing? Come on, pipe up! Speak--and BE SPECIFIC!! Should she have sat down, and written a sternly worded lecture about how her son-in-law shouldn't have used a connection to cut through a phone book listing that goes on for hundreds of pages? What sort of finger-wagging would make you happy, hmmm?


Keep struggling. You're in quicksand and you don't even see it. It's obvious you haven't a clue as to basic administration and you are fighting mightily to find a little "there" there. Woof, woof--that dog ain't hunting. Except maybe on the pages of the Daily Caller or the Weekly Standard....

The last thing you would want to do is meet with them.
Plausible deni-ability is essential to the game of scratch my back.

It would be common sense, I would say.

I hope this has legs. Let's follow up on this shall we.

For saying exactly what I was thinking!

The HillaryHawks have swooped down to the republicans method of fear and war mongering--it's so pathetic.

Bernie's press secretary tried to tell the gaggle what they were allowed to ask the candidate.

The question to Sanders was NOT about ISIS.

It was about why his press secretary told the press to NOT ask about ISIS.

His amateur hour staff created this problem, and bigfooted his press availability all on their own.

It's probably a two day story at best, but every media outlet has covered it, pretty much. All the TV networks, and most of the bigger papers.

eom

Too many people will stay home if she is the nominee in 2016. I will not blame the ignorant masses for allowing Trump to be our next President...I will blame the Democratic rank and file for selecting Hillary as the nominee.

with international negotiations.

This is about searching for minerals in international waters -- that means, waters not owned by any particular country. So before investing, any company would want to make sure it was within legal limits.


From the article:

I think the polls are getting to them. They are grasping at straws and tilting at windmills.

The cool thing is that in about 3 months this will all blow over.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

in the State Department?

Why didn't they just use the same channels that you or I would use?

Why was Hillary's son-in-law involved at all?

If this is normal procedure, why was Hillary's son-in-law the channel?

Hillary's son-in-law should have told those requesting his intervention and assistance to do the job for themselves.

Clearly she's not in it for the average American.

I always thought they were there to keep us safe.

FAIL !!!

Crony capitalism!

Stick it to the man!

Power to the people!

Hell, no, we won't go! We won't fight for Texaco!

says it all.

I'm voting Sanders in the primary and Democrat in the general. Hillary is biased toward big business. She's still 100 times more preferable to any Republican in the race. I'm voting D next November.

(P.S. this isn't a breaking story. It's been out for a while.)