General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs there a plan B if HRC slips
While not saying this will bring Hillary down it is "one more thing"
"WASHINGTON (AP) The newly released financial files on Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton's growing fortune omit a company with no apparent employees or assets that the former president has legally used to provide consulting and other services,...."
http://news.yahoo.com/bill-clinton-company-shows-complexity-family-finances-180745584--election.html
How many more shoes will drop before real damage is done? We should not take for granted that HRC will be our best nominee, having a good plan B would be a good idea. Thoughts on our best backup plan.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)The media never tires of this.
awake
(3,226 posts)Just calling everything a right wing hit does not answer my question what is our backup plan if one of the "hits" on Hillary sinks her
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)And yes, the hit pieces on Bill Clinton ALL come from RW sources. That's what they do. They have all received their orders from Rove, Limbaugh and the rest of the ilk.
awake
(3,226 posts)Are you suggesting that Rove or Limbaugh keep Hillary from disclosing the "JWC LLC" on her disclosure report. I am not saying that she "Broke any laws" just that by not disclosing everything she left herself open to attack, I am sure this will not be the last attack but lets hope that there are no more self inflicted mistakes.
"WJC, LLC was set up in Delaware in 2008 and again in 2013 and in New York in 2009, according to documents obtained by The AP. The company did not appear among holdings in the Clintons' financial disclosure released last week or in previous Hillary Clinton disclosure reports between 2008 and 2013, when she resigned as secretary of state."
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Because I am so sure that most voters care so much about Bill Clinton's holdings or charities. This story has already been pretty much debunked, even on Morning Scumbag. But, you keep trying.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And that's that!
If it's a hit piece on a Clinton, it's a rightwing source!!!
That is all!!!
snooper2
(30,151 posts)If you had read it...
It's okay-
MARTIN O'MALLEY
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)To refer to them as 'plan B' is pretty dismissive. Also, anyone who already supports HRC is just going to say this is nothing more than 'Benghazi smear talk' - ie, that they'll say there's no 'there' there.
awake
(3,226 posts)I just wanted the people who assume that Hillary's win is a "done deal" to look at who else is available and consider who they could support if one of the "Hits on Hillary" sink her.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)An LLC that uses Bills initials, WJC.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Here's a stat to ponder... Bill Clinton received 54% of the two party vote in 1996 in spite of the fact that exit polls suggested 54% of voters didn't find him "honest and trustworthy."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-america/newsdesk/why-hillary-clinton-doesn-t-need-americans-to-trust-her-20150506
That suggests to me voters will overlook a lot if they think you are competent.
awake
(3,226 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Who do you believe is our plan B?
awake
(3,226 posts)I think there is more than one person who can win the Whitehorse, I am not backing anyone yet, I would like to hear the thoughts of others as to who would be our best shot to not only keep the Whitehorse but to retake the congress as well.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)54% said he wasn't trustworthy.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)-DemocratSinceBirth
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Last edited Wed May 27, 2015, 03:32 PM - Edit history (2)
The quote you cite is not in the article you linked to. It was not a 2-party contest. The only 54% mentioned was the percentage of voters that said he wasn't trustworthy.
"On the day Bill Clinton was reelected by more than eight million votes in 1996, a solid 54 percent majority of voters said in exit polling that they did not consider him honest and trustworthy."
1) http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1996 49.23%
2) http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1992 43.01%
Bill Clinton never broke 50% in 1992 or 1996.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Right, because he ran in three candidate races where in one instance the third party candidate received a greater percentage of the vote than any candidate since the "hero of San Juan Hill" and in the other instance the same candidate won a larger percentage of the vote than any third party candidate since George Wallace.
" Bill Clinton received 54% of the two party vote in 1996..."
-DemocratSinceBirth
-John Adams
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Clinton 49
Dole 41
Perot 8
awake
(3,226 posts)We will never know if he would have won in a 2 person race
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)...
Charts: "What Perot's Voters Said" That if Ross perot had not been on the ballot today, they would have voted for?... Clinton 38 Bush 38 Other 6 Would not have voted 14
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/05/us/1992-elections-disappointment-analysis-eccentric-but-no-joke-perot-s-strong.html
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)... I will do it for him.
While Clinton only got 49.23% of the total vote, he got 54.73% of the "two party" vote.
47,400,125 = Votges for Clinton/Gore
39,188,755 = Votes for Dole/Kemp
86,598,880 = 47,400,125 + 39,188,755 = Total votes cast for only the two major party candidates
96,275,640 = Total votes cast for all candidates
54.73% = 47,400,125 / 86,598,880
49.23% = 47,400,125 / 96,275,640
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Last edited Wed May 27, 2015, 06:26 PM - Edit history (2)
The article never mentioned a 2-party vote, but did say 54% of voters on exit polling said Bill Clinton wasn't trustworthy.
The computation of a "2-party vote" is kinda silly when it wasn't a 2-party election. Clinton never broke 50% in either multiparty election; the facts don't fit the theory. Methinks it's a magic trick to restate reality to sound better. LOL.
awake
(3,226 posts)By this logic one could say Bill won 100% of the vote if it had been one party race
karynnj
(59,475 posts)I get your definition of Bill Clinton winning 54 percent of the sum of the votes for the Republican and the Democrat. However, why then compare it with 54% of the total population that did not find him honest -- as if the two percents were from the same population?
Given that the economy was doing well and we were at peace and the Republicans chose a person who had been the hatchet man of the party for years and was quite unlikable, it may well explain why he did not win in a landslide.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)I may not be as smart as some of the denizens of this august board are or think they are but I can interpret numbers.
I don't need to be condescended to by anyone.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)- as my comment said. It also said that it was then strange to compare two percentages when they were off two different populations. I would ask if you were the one trying to be clever by creating an unusual measure - the % the Democrat got - not of the total vote but of the vote that voted for one of the 2 major parties.
For good measure, add to the description I wrote of the 1996 election and the natural advantages Clinton had, that he is considered to be a political genius. Yet, all this added to less 50%.
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)He is a good man.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)FSogol
(45,363 posts)This is for you, DU.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)I see your candidate is getting in the race on Saturday, good luck to him... I also see the Nat'ls are doing good in the standings.
FSogol
(45,363 posts)(but I do recognize it is important for fund raising reasons.)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)I hope he does well. I might support Hillary but would love to see O'Malley do well in the polls because I think even if he does not win, his run now may very well be a good start fora later run. If Hillary wins, I would also love to see him as a contender for VP. He has an awesome record on the environment.
awake
(3,226 posts)So far we have yet to see the real bullshit that the right-wingers will throw at Hillary or any candidate we choose.
I am not saying that Hillary should or should not be our candidate but her campaign has not gone as smoothly as I would have thought it would have up till now. I feel we need to view to situation honestly and be aware that the Clintons have inflicted on them selfs a number of missteps which are coming back to hound them.
It's all rehash of much ado about nothing. We've been here before. It didn't stick then it won't stick now.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)I don't believe most persuadable voters care nearly, nearly, nearly...nearly as much about the Clinton's finances as they do about their own. My belief will be tested soon.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)No shoes have dropped. Starting with a false narrative will lead the rest of your thoughts to be false. Right wingers heads are exploding. It is a beautiful thing.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)Is only an issue when republicans do it.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)no amount of evidence pointing to one of the largest pay-for-play political operations in history can bring her down! Kneel and pay tribute (or you go on The List).
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)I really don't understand the loyalty she gets here.
She's possibly the most damaged candidate in the history of modern politics, and the Repugs haven't even warmed up the first attack ad.
FSogol
(45,363 posts)You can't say that about any of the 20 GOP people running. If a front runner falters or drops out, we have other great candidates. We will see how the primaries play out. Zero need for a plan B.
I thought there were only two so far.
FSogol
(45,363 posts)hired a finance manager, and a campaign manager (Bill Hyers, who ran De Blasio's campaigns).
Bernie Sanders officially announced yesterday and you may have heard that HRC is running too.
Why do I support O'Malley?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12813
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12814
I will read up on him.
awake
(3,226 posts)Joe Biden May still run he has said he won't
So if any of them go down we have a great bench to go to unlike the clowns on the right
one_voice
(20,043 posts)drm604
(16,230 posts)I read the article and it seems to be a lot of hand-waving about nothing. The Clinton's finances are complex? Okay. So? It doesn't say that they're trying to hide income, it just tries to imply that there must be something shady but never says exactly what. Which is what the right has been doing to the Clinton's for years.
awake
(3,226 posts)If this was the only thing that she did no problem but with her using a home email server, which she then wiped clean giving paper copies of emails to the state department instead of electronic copies which are simpler to search, messing up reports about the Clinton foundation... her desire to keep everything private has created an impression that she has something to hide which has left her open to attack. I wish she would be more straight forward and less secretive it would service her and our party better.
drm604
(16,230 posts)This was a legal company with no assets. What was there to disclose?
This is just people looking for something, anything, to criticize her for.
If this is what they come up with then it shows that they're having difficulty finding any legitimate complaints. Their strategy is reduced to finding anything that can be somehow framed as problematic. Then, when they amass a number of such things, any attempt to dismiss any one of them is countered by "sure, it's small, but there's so many of them!"
It doesn't matter how many there are. If each one is innocent and unfairly characterized then the whole mass of them are. Adding zeros gives you zero regardless of how many there are.
awake
(3,226 posts)"The company did not appear among holdings in the Clintons' financial disclosure released last week or in previous Hillary Clinton disclosure reports between 2008 and 2013, when she resigned as secretary of state."....
"Pass-through, or shell, companies became an issue in the 2012 presidential campaign when Republican candidate Mitt Romney disclosed a private equity entity worth $1.9 million despite failing to report the company on his previous federal disclosure. Romney aides said the company previously held no assets but then received the $1.9 million "true up" payment a catch-up payment to make up for private equity fees from defunct investment advisory businesses that had not been previously paid."
I never said anything was illegal but when Hillary decided not to disclose the LLC she needlessly opened herself up to questioning like was done with Mitt Romney in 2012. I hope that she does not hold back anything else even if there are no "legal" requirement to disclose, in my mind better to not even appear to have something to hide.
CountAllVotes
(20,854 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)CountAllVotes
(20,854 posts)spanone
(135,637 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)And from the first, the RW has been brainless, dickless, hopeless, and toothless with it's accusations against Hillary.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Simple.
Easy peasy.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)As shown in this thread, no amount of exposure of her shady history or status as the quintessential insider will diminish her in the eyes of her fans. She is also the choice of wall street and their Big Media subsidiary. She won't do anything to upset the current (im)balance of power, and will have a republican congress to use as cover for enacting a turd way agenda.
No plan b needed
OMG!
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The company has no listed financial assets and no employees, the Associated Press reported, and Hillary Clinton's campaign was not legally required to report its existence in campaign finance reports. Its purpose, according to the AP story, was to channel payments for consulting work to the former president.
In some cases, consultants and lawyersincluding former presidential candidates John Edwards and Newt Gingrichhave used pass-through entities to avoid payroll taxes. They do that by classifying their earnings as profit distributions instead of wages. It's not clear if Bill Clinton used that strategy or a similar one through his LLC, but the former president's press secretary said Tuesday that there was nothing unusual about the company.
"President Clinton set up a commonly used mechanism to manage his personal business affairs," Angel Urena, said in an e-mailed statement. "All of the income has been reported and is accounted for. Anyone trying to paint this as anything more than that is playing politics."
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-26/what-we-know-about-wjc-llc-bill-clinton-s-consulting-company
WJC, LLC was also cited by Band in a June 2011 memo sent to State Department ethics officials asking for clearance to allow Bill Clinton to advise Band's international consulting company, Teneo Strategy LLC. Band's request said Teneo would use "consulting services provided by President Clinton through WJC, LLC." State Department officials approved the three-year contract between the two companies.
None of the proposals detailed how much Bill Clinton would be paid.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEM_2016_CLINTON_COMPANY?SITE=OKTUL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
No worries. Romney did it, too.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)An LLC is by definition a company whose profits and losses pass directly through to its owners ("Members" and, as such, are declared on the Member's personal income tax return. The major advantages of an LLC are 1) no double taxation, such as would occur if the business were a corporation and 2) extremely limited liability for the Members, just like a corporation.
obnoxiousdrunk
(2,906 posts)slips and falls ?
Response to obnoxiousdrunk (Reply #54)
NYC_SKP This message was self-deleted by its author.
obnoxiousdrunk
(2,906 posts)happen to her or people wishing it to happen to her.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)nt
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)There will be many more gotcha incidents before 2016. None if them amount to a hill of horse shit!
Bengazi anyone!
awake
(3,226 posts)There is plenty of false bullshit that will be flung by the right wing no need to create questions of your truthfulness by failing to disclose your finances or action you have taken even if no "laws were broken"
If anyone here thinks that any of our candidates will have a cakewalk to the White House WAKE UP it will be a hard slog against a well financed wall of lies thrown at whom ever we chose, so lets get it right and not assume that none of the mistakes will mater.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)a lot of anti Hillary horse shit. It won't make one dent in her campaign or popularity.
awake
(3,226 posts)I have not said that I do not want Hillary or any other candidate, I am asking Hillary to step up her game and stop with the self inflicted wounds by "forgetting" to disclose information. I want people not to be "True believers" and assume that no one will care about her lack of disclosing information. I feel that with all of the money and support Hillary has a masted we would have seen a stronger campaign by now, but what I get here "do not question her" shut up and get back in line otherwise I must be some part of a right wing conspiracy.
donf
(87 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)be any need for a plan B.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Treat with willful ignore-ence perhaps?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Plan A is one's preferred candidate. Plan B is one's second-in-preference candidate. Plan C is one's third-in-preference candidate.
Simplistic thoughts, I know. But sometimes, we have to wrap our brains around the obvious and simple concepts to avoid looking insincere, disingenuous and somewhat half-educated when we post-- unless of course, that was our goal the entire time...
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)is my plan A. Nothing else matters. Bernie has no skeletons in his closet, that you can bet on otherwise they'd already surfaced by now.
Bernie will win by the biggest landslide in American History.