What's so uniquely bad about Hillary Clinton?

[Travis]

Secondly, here's her quote from a recent speech:

We’ll invest in the next frontier of military engagement, protecting U.S. interests in outer space and cyberspace. You’ve seen reports. Russia’s hacked into a lot of things. China’s hacked into a lot of things. Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we’ve got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us.

As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses. And we’re going to invest in protecting our governmental networks and our national infrastructure. I want us to lead the world in setting the rules of cyberspace.

I find this absolutely crazy. To say that we will escalate to use of military force due to cyberattacks!? When we consider this with the false Benghazi narrative, we're leading ourselves into another Iraq War.

I don't find this crazy at all.  In fact, I think cyberattacks are one area where many politicians have an incredible blind spot.  This isn't just hacking into online bank accounts (though it could be) - the US government has information shared and funneled through the same private networks that we access every day.  All future battles will involve trying to disrupt the enemy's ability to communicate and defend. Terrorists could cause very real distruction and loss of life by disrupting some of the systems we depend on daily.

Consider the first gulf war.  Iraq had sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses throughout the country and knew all about the coalition military buildup yet we completely routed them with a brief air compaign and 100 hour ground offensive.  The underlying reason why we lost so few aircraft and had essentially no resistance on the ground was because we were able to completely dismantle numerous cyber 'nodes' critical for their defense.  They had the hardware to wage an effective defense, but as soon as the US-led forces attacked the Iraqi command literally lost the ability to communicate with their own forces, detect our troop movements or mount an effective defense.

With cyberwarfare, everything we can do they can do right back to us.
Now consider that everything from our air-traffic control grid to hydroelectric dams to our financial system to the 9-1-1 network is a potential target in cyber-warfare.

Hey, thanks for that. That's an interesting point concerning the Gulf War I didn't know about. Nothing you said I disagree with.

I suppose I'm thrown off by the context surrounding Mrs. Clinton's remarks. It comes off as 'well, since the Russians hacked into the DNC and read some emails, I might take military action.' I would probably agree with her and anyone else who would talk about serious consequences of cyberattacks such as the ones you brought up. We can't really come to a conclusion of what she meant besides reading her statement, and it seems to me that she is too willing to go to war.

I agree that the US is too quick to use military force to solve its problems, and that both major candidates want to increase our military boot-print.  In truth, this is the area where I am most critical of HRC, and I would go apesh*! if we launched an bombing offensive over hacked emails. IMO that would be even worse than the "preemptive strike" BS that W. used as partial justification against Iraq in the 2nd gulf war.

But what happens if a stuxnet-like attack by a foreign power causes a hydrodam to breach destroying a few towns, killing a few thousand people and disrupting our electric grid? My understanding is that we'd treat that the same as if the offending nation had deliberately dropped a bomb from one of their bombers on the dam... which is to say, yet more war.
Of course with cyberwarfare it's a bit harder to decisively say this country is behind the attack.

Or even saying it is a country, and not a group of hackers.

Attribution is one of the reasons cyber retaliation is such a touchy subject.  Misdirection or outright masking the source of an attack is so easy that saying "I'm going to answer a hack with an airstrike" is really irresponsible.  It's also difficult to disclose why you know so and so did it without exposing your own methods therefore showing the adversary what their own vulnerabilities are.

[cliffhanger]

In other news, the Hillary Clinton campaign is explaining to people how a meme represents white supremacy. Man, this is such an entertaining election.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

[Wallygator]

What's bad?  in a word, corruption.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM

[davisgang90]

The unclass executive summary of the larger classified report on Snowden's treason is a quick read.  Debunks Snowden's claims that he tried to run this up his chain and the idea that contractors can't report unlawful behavior.

He's still a traitor.

http://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hpsci_snowden_review_-_unclass_summary_-_final.pdf

[Northwestie]

I think we need to cast a critical eye on some of this - but the source of this report - the House committee, has some issues.

That said Snowden and Greenwald have been grandstanding on much of this:  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/8/9/1229963/-Report-Indicates-Snowden-Greenwald-Lied-About-Key-Claims

[arebelspy]

I think we need to cast a critical eye on some of this - but the source of this report - the House committee, has some issues.

That said Snowden and Greenwald have been grandstanding on much of this:  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/8/9/1229963/-Report-Indicates-Snowden-Greenwald-Lied-About-Key-Claims

Pretty much everything put out in mid-to late-2013 right after the leaks was spin by NSA, and can't be trusted.

NSA claimed stuff, Snowden claimed opposite, he was almost always vindicated by later leaks proving him right, and them liars (e.g. the running up the chain thing, which he said he did, they said he didn't, then leaks showed he did.)

------------------------------
Edited to add:

Barton Gellman, three-time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, was recently asked his opinion on the Congressional report.  He replied "I think I may have to write something up. The HPSCI report on Snowden is aggressively dishonest."

Why on earth, after SO MANY lies, would you trust the NSA/government on this topic?

James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, in March 2013:

Senator Wyden then asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded "No, sir." Wyden asked "It does not?" and Clapper said "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."

3 months later Snowden's revelations come out.  How do you trust people like that when they blatantly lie, under oath?

When we have now independent journalists (three time Pulitzer prize winner, in this case) saying the newly released report is "aggressively dishonest"--why on earth would you trust it, over someone like him, with his track record and credibility?

[Shane]

If Edward Snowden is a "traitor," then I think we need more traitors working for the government.

Everything Ed Snowden claimed about what was going on at NSA was later proven to be true. Government officials' claims that NSA wasn't collecting data on Americans' communications inside the U.S. were later proven to be a bunch of lies.

That no criminal charges have been pursued against government officials who flat out lied to Congress, under oath, about NSA's unconstitutional activities is the real crime that has been committed against the American people.

Edward Snowden is a true American hero, and we should all be grateful to him for the sacrifices he's made for us.

[protostache]

I think much of this negativity toward Hillary stems from the fact that there's literally been a smear campaign running against her and Bill for twenty five years. If you keep hearing the same things over and over they start to take on an air of emotional truth, even if there's no There there. "Most heavily investigated candidate" doesn't mean anything when she's been exonerated in every single one of those investigations. But of course there must be something going on, otherwise why would they keep investigating?

Interesting fact: the Supreme Court decision stemming from the Citizens United case that has allowed so much money into politics stems from a feature length hit piece against Hillary Clinton full of unsubstantiated insinuations. Arguably the most transformational decision in politics in the last five decades stems from pure unbridled hatred of a powerful independent woman.

[Letj]

I think much of this negativity toward Hillary stems from the fact that there's literally been a smear campaign running against her and Bill for twenty five years. If you keep hearing the same things over and over they start to take on an air of emotional truth, even if there's no There there. "Most heavily investigated candidate" doesn't mean anything when she's been exonerated in every single one of those investigations. But of course there must be something going on, otherwise why would they keep investigating?

Interesting fact: the Supreme Court decision stemming from the Citizens United case that has allowed so much money into politics stems from a feature length hit piece against Hillary Clinton full of unsubstantiated insinuations. Arguably the most transformational decision in politics in the last five decades stems from pure unbridled hatred of a powerful independent woman.

+1000

[deadlymonkey]

If Edward Snowden is a "traitor," then I think we need more traitors working for the government.

Everything Ed Snowden claimed about what was going on at NSA was later proven to be true. Government officials' claims that NSA wasn't collecting data on Americans' communications inside the U.S. were later proven to be a bunch of lies.

That no criminal charges have been pursued against government officials who flat out lied to Congress, under oath, about NSA's unconstitutional activities is the real crime that has been committed against the American people.

Edward Snowden is a true American hero, and we should all be grateful to him for the sacrifices he's made for us.

I have argued against this in other threads but I will repeat the high points here. 

Yes, Snowden did report on some things that affected privacy in the US, and probably could be considered a whistleblower if that is all he reported, HOWEVER he also,

divulged information of foreign cyber infrastructure that was being targeted by the US
Released information on how CIA vets informants in Afghanistan
Released information on dissidents inside Iran working with the USA
Divulged how the US was tracking terrorists abroad using cell phones
Many other programs that had ZERO to do with US privacy interests.

as a result of those leaks, people working for the US abroad and military in Iraq and Afghanistan have been injured and killed.

He was fired from the CIA for abusing his power and when working at NSA abused his credentials to cheat on advancement tests trying to get a better job (he failed miserably when trying for real).

He is staying in Russia and has given who knows how much to his Russian handlers for the privilege. 


Snowden may have a gripe with some programs, but all of his actions indicate someone who moved into positions with the sole intent of releasing information for self promotion.  I don't think he was working for another government, he is just full of himself and dumped everything he could find.

Just because his disclosure resulted in some progress on US privacy concerns, it does not in any way cover the long term damage he has done with everything else.

[Northwestie]

James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, in March 2013:

Senator Wyden then asked Clapper, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded "No, sir." Wyden asked "It does not?" and Clapper said "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."

3 months later Snowden's revelations come out.  How do you trust people like that when they blatantly lie, under oath?

I'm on the fence about Snowden - if he was sharp, why did he just not take the necessary documents and not all the other documents that had nothing to do with the surveillance program?  And the defense that everything the government is saying about him is false seems a pretty weak.  Given the nature of the affair I'll grant that the feds are in a defensive position - but there are a number of independent sources that note the harm of some of the released information that was not related to the main event.  Pointing this out, however, leads to all kinds of accusations.

And the Snowden notes that Clapper's testimony was what pushed him to download all the data - but that happened 8 months after he had already done so.  He's neither saint nor sinner - he did some good and did some harm.  Should he be pardoned??  I don't think I know enough about what was taken and its deposition.  Greenwald - yea, he did a good job reporting but has always been a grandstander.  Poitras has always been a class act.

[oldtoyota]

I think much of this negativity toward Hillary stems from the fact that there's literally been a smear campaign running against her and Bill for twenty five years. If you keep hearing the same things over and over they start to take on an air of emotional truth, even if there's no There there. "Most heavily investigated candidate" doesn't mean anything when she's been exonerated in every single one of those investigations. But of course there must be something going on, otherwise why would they keep investigating?

Interesting fact: the Supreme Court decision stemming from the Citizens United case that has allowed so much money into politics stems from a feature length hit piece against Hillary Clinton full of unsubstantiated insinuations. Arguably the most transformational decision in politics in the last five decades stems from pure unbridled hatred of a powerful independent woman.

+1000

+2000

Even Colin Powell and Condi Rice agree the Benghazi-email situation is a feckless hatchet job.

[Northwestie]

I think much of this negativity toward Hillary stems from the fact that there's literally been a smear campaign running against her and Bill for twenty five years. If you keep hearing the same things over and over they start to take on an air of emotional truth, even if there's no There there. "Most heavily investigated candidate" doesn't mean anything when she's been exonerated in every single one of those investigations. But of course there must be something going on, otherwise why would they keep investigating?

Interesting fact: the Supreme Court decision stemming from the Citizens United case that has allowed so much money into politics stems from a feature length hit piece against Hillary Clinton full of unsubstantiated insinuations. Arguably the most transformational decision in politics in the last five decades stems from pure unbridled hatred of a powerful independent woman.

+1000

+2000

Even Colin Powell and Condi Rice agree the Benghazi-email situation is a feckless hatchet job.

I know politics is, well, politics, but the general time and expense spent on this kind of crap is jut out of hand.  The flamers in the GOP are already saying that they will set up several investigative committees if Hillary is elected.  Jeez Louise - like there is not real work that needs attention?

[Shane]

I have argued against this in other threads but I will repeat the high points here. 

Yes, Snowden did report on some things that affected privacy in the US, and probably could be considered a whistleblower if that is all he reported, HOWEVER he also,

divulged information of foreign cyber infrastructure that was being targeted by the US
Released information on how CIA vets informants in Afghanistan
Released information on dissidents inside Iran working with the USA
Divulged how the US was tracking terrorists abroad using cell phones
Many other programs that had ZERO to do with US privacy interests.

as a result of those leaks, people working for the US abroad and military in Iraq and Afghanistan have been injured and killed.

What proof do you have of claim in bold above?

Have you watched Citizen Four?

Ed Snowden only released information to two carefully selected journalists, Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. If you watch the film, you'll see that he was super anal about protecting the data himself, and he taught the journalists how to keep the data safe.

Edward Snowden didn't dump anything onto the internet or just release the files indiscriminately to the public. In the film, he specifically tells Glenn and Laura on camera that there is sensitive information in some of the files and that he didn't think it should all be released. Edward Snowden told Glenn and Laura that he was trusting their and the Guardian's judgement as journalists about what should and should not be released to the public. Also, in the film there's a scene where, after the British government has demanded that the Guardian turn over the data they'd received from Snowden, journalists are seen in the basement of the newspaper destroying the actual hard drives they'd received from Snowden by drilling holes in them.

I'm skeptical that there is any proof that any information Ed Snowden released to Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras has caused anything worse than embarrassment for the U.S. government.

He is staying in Russia and has given who knows how much to his Russian handlers for the privilege.

lol. What proof do you have of any of this?

Snowden may have a gripe with some programs, but all of his actions indicate someone who moved into positions with the sole intent of releasing information for self promotion.  I don't think he was working for another government, he is just full of himself and dumped everything he could find.

Just because his disclosure resulted in some progress on US privacy concerns, it does not in any way cover the long term damage he has done with everything else.

The truth is, though, Ed Snowden didn't "dump" anything. He released securely encrypted files on a hard drive to two trusted journalists who were instructed in detail on how to keep the information they were given safe.

Just because his disclosure resulted in some progress on US privacy concerns, it does not in any way cover the long term damage he has done with everything else.

I agree that the facts released by Edward Snowden have caused "long term damage" to the U.S.

The truth embarrassed our government officials, and that's why they're so hellbent on maintaining the fiction that Snowden is a traitor and a spy.

[Captain FIRE]

I know politics is, well, politics, but the general time and expense spent on this kind of crap is jut out of hand.  The flamers in the GOP are already saying that they will set up several investigative committees if Hillary is elected.  Jeez Louise - like there is not real work that needs attention?

Like confirming a Supreme Court nominee?

Total nominees: 151
Prior longest wait: 125 days
No people previously waiting over 100 days: 3

Current time: 188 days (over 6 months)

[deadlymonkey]

I have argued against this in other threads but I will repeat the high points here. 

Yes, Snowden did report on some things that affected privacy in the US, and probably could be considered a whistleblower if that is all he reported, HOWEVER he also,

divulged information of foreign cyber infrastructure that was being targeted by the US
Released information on how CIA vets informants in Afghanistan
Released information on dissidents inside Iran working with the USA
Divulged how the US was tracking terrorists abroad using cell phones
Many other programs that had ZERO to do with US privacy interests.

as a result of those leaks, people working for the US abroad and military in Iraq and Afghanistan have been injured and killed.

What proof do you have of claim in bold above?

Have you watched Citizen Four?

Ed Snowden only released information to two carefully selected journalists, Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. If you watch the film, you'll see that he was super anal about protecting the data himself, and he taught the journalists how to keep the data safe.

Edward Snowden didn't dump anything onto the internet or just release the files indiscriminately to the public. In the film, he specifically tells Glenn and Laura on camera that there is sensitive information in some of the files and that he didn't think it should all be released. Edward Snowden told Glenn and Laura that he was trusting their and the Guardian's judgement as journalists about what should and should not be released to the public. Also, in the film there's a scene where, after the British government has demanded that the Guardian turn over the data they'd received from Snowden, journalists are seen in the basement of the newspaper destroying the actual hard drives they'd received from Snowden by drilling holes in them.

I'm skeptical that there is any proof that any information Ed Snowden released to Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras has caused anything worse than embarrassment for the U.S. government.

He is staying in Russia and has given who knows how much to his Russian handlers for the privilege.

lol. What proof do you have of any of this?

Snowden may have a gripe with some programs, but all of his actions indicate someone who moved into positions with the sole intent of releasing information for self promotion.  I don't think he was working for another government, he is just full of himself and dumped everything he could find.

Just because his disclosure resulted in some progress on US privacy concerns, it does not in any way cover the long term damage he has done with everything else.

The truth is, though, Ed Snowden didn't "dump" anything. He released securely encrypted files on a hard drive to two trusted journalists who were instructed in detail on how to keep the information they were given safe.

Just because his disclosure resulted in some progress on US privacy concerns, it does not in any way cover the long term damage he has done with everything else.

I agree that the facts released by Edward Snowden have caused "long term damage" to the U.S.

The truth embarrassed our government officials, and that's why they're so hellbent on maintaining the fiction that Snowden is a traitor and a spy.

Your entire argument boils down to Snowden didn't release anything, he gave it to journalists and they released it, so he is ok.  By that logic:

I can build a bomb for someone and share no responsibility when they use it.
Drug dealers have no responsibility for giving drugs to kids because the kids took it

Pretty much there is no penalty for being an accomplice.....I just gave them the gun your honor, they shot it.....
You can't commit a crime and then abdicate responsibility for it by passing it off to someone else.

You are skeptical that it caused anything worse than embarrassment.  If you tell the foreign adversaries exactly how you are spying on them, those tactics will no longer work.  For example, if we are tracking insurgents by cell phones, and snowden releases evidence that is how we do it......guess what...they stop using cell phones and are alive another day to plant a roadside bomb or blow up a marketplace somewhere.

He could easily have released 10 documents related to the US program he supposedly had an issue with.  He didn't, he downloaded as much as he could on every topic he could and dumped it all.  This wasn't an attempt at whistleblowing, it was an attempt at self aggrandizement and martyrdom.

[Glenstache]

Time for a Snowden thread?

[Northwestie]

Time for a Snowden thread?

Second the motion

[protostache]

Integrity.

This quality is extremely important to me, and I expect it in anyone I associate with.

There are countless others in politics with low integrity.  The antics of this candidate run so completely opposite to this value that I believe she uniquely qualifies as the presidential candidate with the lowest integrity I've seen in my lifetime.

This is of course my own opinion - I offer no specific evidence or comparisons.  She's had a long career in public service with clear examples of her character.  I'm tired of those defending her by comparing her to others who are also bad, or using the lesser of two evils argument.

I would be interested in specific examples of events that indicate her low integrity, if you're willing to provide. My impression is that she does everything with the highest levels of integrity she can while still doing the job, but I could very well be wrong.

[Glenstache]

Integrity.

This quality is extremely important to me, and I expect it in anyone I associate with.

There are countless others in politics with low integrity.  The antics of this candidate run so completely opposite to this value that I believe she uniquely qualifies as the presidential candidate with the lowest integrity I've seen in my lifetime.

This is of course my own opinion - I offer no specific evidence or comparisons.  She's had a long career in public service with clear examples of her character.  I'm tired of those defending her by comparing her to others who are also bad, or using the lesser of two evils argument.

I would be interested in specific examples of events that indicate her low integrity, if you're willing to provide. My impression is that she does everything with the highest levels of integrity she can while still doing the job, but I could very well be wrong.

It's unlikely we will ever agree protostache, but I'll give a couple of examples. 

1.  Accepting hundreds of thousands in speaking fees from wall street banks while planning to run for president.  All while claiming she was not planning to run for president, I believe.

2.  Stating that she and Bill were "dead broke" leaving the white house after Bill's second term, despite making over $400,000 in wages and Hillary being given an $8M advance for her memoir.  It's possible her definition of broke is different than ours.  There was also some misunderstanding between the Clintons and the White House about what property the Clintons were allowed to remove when they left.  I believe some items were taken that later had to be returned.

3.  The Bosnia sniper story:  “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”  –Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008.  It turns out Hillary made this up or has a faulty memory of the trip.

These are just a few examples of low integrity that stick in my memory.  All of these were totally unnecessary.

Even if we take those at face value, they are minor compared to Trump's complicated history with the truth  and well-documented history of running roughshod over his contractors (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html). Just last week his attempted rewriting of birtherism history was pretty galling (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/politics/donald-trump-birther-obama.html).

[Glenstache]

And on Trump, there's also this in relation to how these things have been discussed for Clinton (vis a vie, this thread topic)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/09/05/trumps-history-of-corruption-is-mind-boggling-so-why-is-clinton-supposedly-the-corrupt-one/?utm_term=.d614a8fc8de1

[protostache]

Thank you for the examples, bender. I guess none of these scream "lacks integrity" to me, but I can see why you might be irked.

1.  Accepting hundreds of thousands in speaking fees from wall street banks while planning to run for president.  All while claiming she was not planning to run for president, I believe.

Her speaking fees were not out of line from anyone else of her calibre and experience. It's not like she's talking some crazy conspiracy with these banks. She speaking as a former world leader and feminist bastion. If you worked somewhere that brought in speakers of her stature (maybe further to the right?) to woo high end clients and reward employees, would you go? Would you care how much they were being paid? I know I wouldn't. I would jump at the chance to see anyone of her stature, no matter their politics. They must all have fascinating stories.

Speaking fees are a way to gate access for someone with an incredibly busy schedule. It's just like pricing for any other limited resource: the more in demand one is, the more one can charge.

2.  Stating that she and Bill were "dead broke" leaving the white house after Bill's second term, despite making over $400,000 in wages and Hillary being given an $8M advance for her memoir.  It's possible her definition of broke is different than ours.  There was also some misunderstanding between the Clintons and the White House about what property the Clintons were allowed to remove when they left.  I believe some items were taken that later had to be returned.

They were $10 million in debt to lawyers from defending Bill against wave after wave of conservative legal attacks. It's not like the Federal government paid for Bill's defense lawyers during the impeachment trial.

3.  The Bosnia sniper story:  “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”  –Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008.  It turns out Hillary made this up or has a faulty memory of the trip.

This I have no idea about. People misremember things all the time, though, especially events that probably were conflated in her mind 12 years after the fact. In any case, this seems like a pretty low hill to stand on.

[Tom Bri]

Thank you for the examples, bender. I guess none of these scream "lacks integrity" to me, but I can see why you might be irked.

1.  Accepting hundreds of thousands in speaking fees from wall street banks while planning to run for president.  All while claiming she was not planning to run for president, I believe.

Her speaking fees were not out of line from anyone else of her calibre and experience. It's not like she's talking some crazy conspiracy with these banks. She speaking as a former world leader and feminist bastion. If you worked somewhere that brought in speakers of her stature (maybe further to the right?) to woo high end clients and reward employees, would you go? Would you care how much they were being paid? I know I wouldn't. I would jump at the chance to see anyone of her stature, no matter their politics. They must all have fascinating stories.

Speaking fees are a way to gate access for someone with an incredibly busy schedule. It's just like pricing for any other limited resource: the more in demand one is, the more one can charge.

2.  Stating that she and Bill were "dead broke" leaving the white house after Bill's second term, despite making over $400,000 in wages and Hillary being given an $8M advance for her memoir.  It's possible her definition of broke is different than ours.  There was also some misunderstanding between the Clintons and the White House about what property the Clintons were allowed to remove when they left.  I believe some items were taken that later had to be returned.

They were $10 million in debt to lawyers from defending Bill against wave after wave of conservative legal attacks. It's not like the Federal government paid for Bill's defense lawyers during the impeachment trial.

3.  The Bosnia sniper story:  “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”  –Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008.  It turns out Hillary made this up or has a faulty memory of the trip.

This I have no idea about. People misremember things all the time, though, especially events that probably were conflated in her mind 12 years after the fact. In any case, this seems like a pretty low hill to stand on.

Big speaking fees are normal for ex-presidents:
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-03-04/magazine/tm-2327_1_nancy-reagan-foundation

The Dems had a fit over RR taking 2 mil from the Japanese. Oh, that was so evil of him! I guess the new Dems have changed their minds about how bad that stuff is?

For me the question isn't how big the fee is. I'm more interested in who is paying the fee. Also, Nancy wasn't planning a presidential run, so there was no hint of a quid pro quo, as there must be with Hill/Bill.

[Lis]

I'm sure I'll get shit for this (IT'S NOT REAL JOURNALISM IT'S TOTALLY BIASED), but John Oliver did a really fantastic piece on Sunday regarding Clinton's scandals, specifically focusing on the emails and the Foundation (I believe he's done a separate piece on Benghazi already). His main stories are usually on Youtube, I recommend checking it out.

I'll ruin the punchline for those who don't want to watch it.

Spoiler: show

Scandals in politics are like raisins in cookies: they just shouldn't be there because they're gross. Hillary Clinton is like a cookie with a decent amount of raisins... more than some, less than others. But Trump is a literal shower of raisins without the cookie part.

[nereo]

I'm sure I'll get shit for this (IT'S NOT REAL JOURNALISM IT'S TOTALLY BIASED), but John Oliver did a really fantastic piece on Sunday regarding Clinton's scandals, specifically focusing on the emails and the Foundation (I believe he's done a separate piece on Benghazi already). His main stories are usually on Youtube, I recommend checking it out.

I'll ruin the punchline for those who don't want to watch it. Scandals in politics are like raisins in cookies:

Spoiler: show

they just shouldn't be there because they're gross. Hillary Clinton is like a cookie with a decent amount of raisins... more than some, less than others. But Trump is a literal shower of raisins without the cookie part.

Common... at least use the spoiler function!

[Lis]

Common... at least use the spoiler function!

My b... I forget that that's a thing here. Edited my post :/

[MasterStache]

I'm sure I'll get shit for this (IT'S NOT REAL JOURNALISM IT'S TOTALLY BIASED), but John Oliver did a really fantastic piece on Sunday regarding Clinton's scandals, specifically focusing on the emails and the Foundation (I believe he's done a separate piece on Benghazi already). His main stories are usually on Youtube, I recommend checking it out.

I'll ruin the punchline for those who don't want to watch it.

Spoiler: show

Scandals in politics are like raisins in cookies: they just shouldn't be there because they're gross. Hillary Clinton is like a cookie with a decent amount of raisins... more than some, less than others. But Trump is a literal shower of raisins without the cookie part.

I like John Oliver. He's great at mixing hilarious satire with relevancy. I enjoyed his piece on Hillary's "scandals." 

[jrhampt]

I also enjoyed John Oliver's segment.  Now we can add the Cuba scandal to Trump''s list, too