dag h
Rickyp, here are a few choices I have before me:
1. The accusations I've outlined here are coincidence.
2. The accusations I've outlined here are right wing conspiracy claims to discredit her.
3. The accusations I've outlined here are true.
I think the choice you should go with, which isn't on offer, is to evaluate the actual evidence for each claim, and then decide...
For instance Ben Ghazi ...
13 hearings, 12 Republican lead and what? Nothing of substance... Isn't that solid evidence that there's nothing there and that the reference you make to it is essentially baseless....
And the nonsense still goes on...
as Fate demonstrates.... the startling revelation (actually was known for many months) that one foreign source said that the attacks on Ben Ghazi had nothing to do with the film...
So what. There were hundreds of sources, and a great deal of confusion so that saying something like this ...
“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” Clinton said in a White House-approved statement on the night of the onslaught. “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.
could be plausibly true.. Some did seek to justify.... Just not the Egyptian Prime Minister...
The so-called outrage over Ben Ghazi has resulted in nothing more than picking at the earliest public statements rather than anything substantial. Millions of dollars and congressional time to discover that a couple of public pronouncements made only hours after a chaotic event, weren't precise? You would have thought the administration did something as misleading and dangerous as blaming Iraq for sending 9/11 bombers...
dag
I almost forgot her deal with Deutsche Bank
her speaking engagement fees?
It would be a big deal if it wasn't the sort of thing every bloody politician in Washington does when they are not in office. As soon as every politician gets out they go to work speaking and pontificating for money. (Fox News is every conservative politicians landing spot between potential attempts at office.)
She's just real good at getting the bucks. Striking a blow for women in the pay scale race!
The other thing is , write a book.... In some cases get PACs to pay for thousands of copies of the books in order to make some money from PACs when normally they can't. (Palin, Carson, Clinton).
There is nothing illegal or, based on common practice, particularly unscrupulous about getting paid for speaking when not in office. George Bush does it. Ben Bernake does it. Allan Greenspan. Jeb Bush. I attended a speech Ron Reagan gave for $150,000 only 2 months out of office.
So do you hold Hillary to a different standard than Romney, or the Bushes? Or Reagan?
I agree with you that Bernie is a lot cleaner than most politicians in the US. But the real reason
he doesn't get paid for speeches is that since 1991 it has been illegal for members of Congress or the Executive Branch to get paid for speaking. He is only following the law .
(BTW, Bernie's rating for truth telling on the campaign trail is the same as Hillary's according to Polifact. How do you explain that if Hillary is as scurrilous as you claim she is...?)