Is the media being unfair in its coverage of the Clinton Global Initiaitive

[emperus]

Disclaimer, I have a couple of friends who work/worked at CGI offices in various countries.

That being said, this coverage of CGI seems to forget that Bill Clinton was one of the most famous Presidents of our generation. And with that has tremendous clout around the world. Also, CGI is Bill Clinton's baby, why is it so associated with Hilary Clinton. I find something sexist about that (along the lines of blaming her for Bill Clinton's affairs). Lastly, I was trying to compare this coverage with the coverage of Clarence Thomas's wife Virginia who is now a registered lobbyist.

Now, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, has recast herself yet again, this time as the head of a firm, Liberty Consulting, which boasts on its website using her “experience and connections” to help clients “with “governmental affairs efforts” and political donation strategies.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/justice-thomass-wife-now-lobbyist-048812#ixzz4I3lWyHEu

Again, not a fan of Hilary, but this coverage does seem unfair.

 

[theeedude]

It's been unfair against Hillary across the board, IMO. Pretty shameful.
Foundation especially, if global health efforts are impacted, people are actually going to die unnecessarily. But pro-lifers don't care.

 

[theeedude]

Also, Republicans are big fans of Citizens United, which states:

“This Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.”

 

[PokerGuy]

Also, CGI is Bill Clinton's baby, why is it so associated with Hilary Clinton.

Because she's been heavily involved in it, she's been trading money for influence in government through it, and she's the crooked one running for president right now. Of course the focus is going to be on her. Duh.

I find something sexist about that (along the lines of blaming her for Bill Clinton's affairs).

Oh, but of course. Call her out for being the corrupt crook she is, and it must be "sexist!". Also, nobody blames her for his affairs, but she is certainly to blame for how she subsequently smeared and tried to silence those women who accused him of molestation, rape and harassment. That's all part of her track record, so her current lies about being on the side of women etc ring very hollow. Hypocrite scumbag.

Again, not a fan of Hilary, but this coverage does seem unfair.

Agreed, much too favorable.

 

[Thump553]

What really burns me is that the media has done next to no investigation of the allegations that Trump owes major amounts to a Chinese government controlled bank or to the allegations that he owes similar amounts to Russian oligarchs. And the undue influence already seems to be there-never in my lifetime have I seen any presidential candidate so supportive of Russia's imperialistic interests, especially a GOP one.

OTOH CGI is a charity -its not like the foreigners are paying money directly to Hillary like they are to Trump.

I guess it boils down to emails and CGI contributions both make nice, easy to understand sound bites.

 

[PokerGuy]

What really burns me is that the media has done next to no investigation of the allegations that Trump owes major amounts to a Chinese government controlled bank or to the allegations that he owes similar amounts to Russian oligarchs.

There's no evidence to support those allegations, and even if there were, there's nothing illegal about it regardless.

OTOH CGI is a charity -its not like the foreigners are paying money directly to Hillary like they are to Trump.

Uh, actually, the emails and other information make it clear the clintons (especially hildebeast) have been using the foundation to get money from donors in return for government influence and favors. Yeah, obviously the media should ignore actual corruption and pay for play activities and focus their attention on unsubstantiated allegations of (perfectly legal) debts owed.

 

[Jaskalas]

Also, CGI is Bill Clinton's baby, why is it so associated with Hilary Clinton.

• Maybe because her staff at the state department were directly tied to it?
• And foundation donors became subjects of conversation and "special" access during her time at state.

There appears to be a seamless crossover.

 

[Genx87]

Yes poor Hillary, what a victim.

 

[theeedude]

Usual Clinton "scandal" from judicial watch, lots of sound bites, no substance.
Some people got to meet Hillary. She was free to meet with anyone she chose to meet with. Meeting with someone is not quid pro quo.

 

[PokerGuy]

Usual Clinton "scandal" from judicial watch, lots of sound bites, no substance.
Some people got to meet Hillary. She was free to meet with anyone she chose to meet with. Meeting with someone is not quid pro quo.

"Hey, I'd like to talk to the Sec of State about this issue". "nope, she's busy". "Well, how about if I 'donate' a substantial amount to the clinton slush fund?". "Sure thing, I'll set up the meeting so you can discuss it with her". That, in a nutshell, is pay to play. More than likely it's also direct corruption where favors are done for donors etc, but at a very minimum it amounts to pay to play, there's no getting around that.

 

[Jaskalas]

We'd have to show what, exactly, her state department did for them.
Unless you think arranging a meeting is enough?

 

[ivwshane]

OP, this is simply the result of Republican propaganda. We have thirty years of Republicans throwing out conspiracies to topple their opponents, their biggest adversary being the Clinton's. And with those thirty years of propaganda we have had zero charges.

The Clinton's are either the most brilliant of criminals or Republicans are the most incompetent bunch of politicians ever to not be able to find and charge the Clinton's with corruption. Or its simply propaganda, used to incite a frenzy among their idiot, gullible base.

So the media reports it because that's what will get the ratings. The fact checking usually gets left out because facts that turn a story into a non story don't generate ratings.

 

[theeedude]

"Hey, I'd like to talk to the Sec of State about this issue". "nope, she's busy". "Well, how about if I 'donate' a substantial amount to the clinton slush fund?". "Sure thing, I'll set up the meeting so you can discuss it with her". That, in a nutshell, is pay to play. More than likely it's also direct corruption where favors are done for donors etc, but at a very minimum it amounts to pay to play, there's no getting around that.

That's not pay for play. SCOTUS said so in Citizens United. No corruption or appearance of corruption results from independent contributions, and giving access in return is not quid pro quo.

 

[PokerGuy]

That's not pay for play. SCOTUS said so in Citizens United. No corruption or appearance of corruption results from independent contributions, and giving access in return is not quid pro quo.

Independent contributions require that the candidate not have any control over the money. Obviously both clintons had some degree of control over the what the clinton global initiative was doing. So yes, it is exactly pay to play. You want to have the politician meet with you to discuss something? All you need to do is "donate" to their slush fund. Yep, sounds legit

 

[theeedude]

Independent contributions require that the candidate not have any control over the money. Obviously both clintons had some degree of control over the what the clinton global initiative was doing. So yes, it is exactly pay to play. You want to have the politician meet with you to discuss something? All you need to do is "donate" to their slush fund. Yep, sounds legit

Read the Citizens United decision. Giving access is not quid pro quo corruption.

The fact that speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt.

Hillary can meet with whoever she wants for whatever reason she decides to meet with them.

 

[theeedude]

But don't worry, Hillary will appoint justices who will overturn Citizens United root and branch. And then we will apply your standard.

 

[Jhhnn]

We'd have to show what, exactly, her state department did for them.
Unless you think arranging a meeting is enough?

With the crown prince of Bahrain who sure as Hell doesn't need to contribute to the Clinton Foundation to get an audience. I'm sure she met with a helluva lot more people who never contributed than those who did.